Issue 148 Future of Pharmacy August 22, 2013

With how technology is progressing, the pharmaceutical industry is changing. Most particularly, how medicine is made and where it is sold will change. Let's get started.

Doctors, the pharmacist?: With the advent of 3D printers, along with other devices, doctors may try to cut out the middle man in their patient’s life. Some doctors will start producing medicine in their offices and selling it there. 3D printers can print pills customized toward individual patients on demand. Same with liquid medications, they can be produced on demand if the appropriate chemicals are available. This will mean that doctors will be getting raw materials for making pills and liquid solutions to their offices so they can make the medications as needed. What is interesting is that this will reduce or eliminate the need for many forms of prescription drug insurance as the medical portion of the insurance that covers doctors will also cover the cost of the drugs being bought (if made in the office). What is also good about this is that those drugs will be cheaper as they no longer have to factor in the cost of manufacturing the drug itself, just the cost of the chemicals, shipping cost, and the cost of the power used to make the medication.

The Pharmacist: The role of a pharmacist will generally not change. Only hospitals and doctors who have a licenses to make their own medicines (and if they can afford the cost of the equipment) will make custom medication in house. As such, the pharmacist (especially retail pharmacists) will have the 3D printers, and solution mixtures to make custom medications. They will inevitably sell custom drugs along side traditional prescriptions made by pharmaceutical companies. Even then the pharmacist may just have to input data into a computer, to make and dispense medications. They then have to simply know drug interactions so as to avoid any negative effects that a patient may suffer.

Heck, they may even do this through a video phone, but that remains to be seen.

Pharmacy staff: As some one who works as a technician in a pharmacy, I know I will be replaced by a robot. That robot will act in the same way as an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). All you do is put some form of identification in the machine to find your medication (or the medication of the person your picking up for) and then pay for it. Insurance will be scanned with bar codes or radio frequency identification chips (RFID chips) to bill the insurance companies. From there it will tell you your co-payment. As to whether the insurance will cover your medication or not is another matter. From there you pay and take your medicine home.

More freedom: Currently (or at least in NY) pharmacy staff cannot give a person an equivalent drug to a patient if they are out of stock, or the insurance does not cover the medication. The patient needs to get a new prescription to get the other drug. Thus, future pharmacies will be able to dispense such medications if they are the exact formula or in the same class of medication. More so if the insurance will cover the other medication more and the patient is not allergic to it. In fact, insurance data bases, doctor’s medical files and patient drug files may become linked so that everyone at every level of the health care system can see what is going on with the patient. So we at the pharmacy will finally be able to answer the question as to if a certain drug is covered by their insurance. Not to mention pharmacists will be able to ensure that there will be no negative drug reactions as they currently cannot see if you the patient filled at a different pharmacy or not, and what medications you are getting at that other pharmacy.

Home made: Some medicines may be allowed to be produced at home. 3D printers and similar devices may become as ubiquitous as the cell phone. As such, those devices may be allowed to be used to make medications at home. This means more people can self medicate themselves more. There may even be a function that allows you to scan your prescription and input the chemicals into the hopper to make your medications right there and then. It is more convenient, but certain regulatory hurdles will still have to be overcome (not to mention those who will use the technology for illegal purposes).

Conclusion: Most of this is hypothetical. How medicine evolves is really up in the air. Regulations may prevent the spread of the technology. Fear of a computer glitch causing the medicine being made turning into a poison may be too strong and thus shut down the idea completely for a period of time. Also, many businesses prefer to have people working for them at registers and filling prescriptions because of that human element. As such, people will be removed from the positions of insurance billing, and selling the medication if the costs of paying an individual, and other burdens become overwhelming. No one knows what the future really holds, and the field of medicine is slow to adopt changes in practices out of fear of other portions being outmoded. It remains to be seen how our medical field evolves, but when it does it will usually be for the better.

Issue 147 The Tricorder August 21, 2013

If you have ever watched Star Trek then you will know of the tricorder. For those who do not know, the tricorder is a futuristic device meant to take readings on various phenomena. So it could be used to scan for people and other life forms in an area, radioactive material, various minerals and elements along with energy signatures. But the most important version was the medical tricorder. And you know what? The medical tricorder may just become reality.

Behind the scenes: The "X Prize" program has set up another one of their contests to make the tricorder real. "X Prize" is a foundation where a person or business puts up money as a prize for creating a successful invention. In this case a tricorder. The contest rules dictate that the "tricorder" must be able to perform 3 medical functions. With the contest open toward everyone, ideas were a plenty. In fact the successes at the contest have led to interesting innovations.

Results: Some of the tricorder designs were not tricorders in looks of Star Trek, but smart phones with additional functions. One version had an attachment that allowed it to perform a sonogram. Another was able to monitor for a person's vital signs like their heart beat. There was even one that could monitor a person’s blood sugar for diabetes patients (it had a mechanism that allowed the test strips to be inserted). This got many people thinking about how the smart phone can be a true to life tricorder. Other types spawned from the ideas of the "X Prize" teams were an App that acted in the same way as Web MD allowing you to help diagnose your own medical issues. Currently in Africa, a smart phone equipped with a blood sample reader can test for malaria and a few other diseases like dengue fever. Smart phones are becoming a common tool for people to help themselves diagnose themselves or doctors to have access to cheap alternatives to medical equipment. The perfect example of this is the sonogram function which costs $300 as opposed to the one thousand plus dollar pieces of equipment already in service. Also in the works is a smart phone that not only monitors vitals, but has a test tube you spit in. This tube has test strips to test for certain chemicals which only show up when you are sick. So the device will also be able to test for a multitude of deceases at the same time. The result may be a true tricorder.

What to expect: The technology is actually in its infancy. As computers get smarter and are able to store more memory along with processing power they will be able to do more. It will not be surprising to find a doctor taking out his smart phone to help diagnose his/her patients. On top of that, the doctor will be able to send prescriptions based on the diagnosis (which may be aided by, or even done by the smart phone itself). Already doctors are using digitized records with ipads and tablet PCs to save on cost and also to email prescriptions, but with a "tricorder" it may become a whole lot easier to do. For instance doctors do not always know of what new drugs are on the market. But with the "tricorder" they will have access to all the information on all the drugs that will help heal their patient. In fact, they will be able to see which drugs and treatments will be covered by their patients insurance and at what cost. However, patients may take on a greater role in treating themselves for minor things like small colds and fevers. This will disturb some doctors, but that has become the goal for some of the innovators behind real life tricorders. These people want individuals to save time and money by being able to treat themselves when and where they can. Mean while doctors are hesitant about being replaced by a computer. Yes the tricorder will be capable of doing much more with far little cost, but development and approval by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are slow. So our neighbors in Africa and other nations with not so strict regulations will get to use this technology first.

Conclusion: Tricorders, or tricked out smart phones, are going to be the future of medicine. The goal of creating the ultimate medical muti-tool as seen on Star Trek is just too tempting to pass up given all its advantages. So the real question is how long it will be before your doctor is using one. As a matter of fact, it is a question of how long until you can buy one for your self.

Issue 146 What is a Theocracy? August 20, 2013

 
Well a theocracy is a government that is "blessed" by God. Its rules and conduct are shaped by the religion in which it emerges from. So countries like Iran have Islam (their version) acting as the basis for their right to rule and how the people should act. By what are the qualities of a theocracy?

First Quality: It must have a religion. Without a religion it would not be a theocracy. For within the faith are the rules upon which people are to act. So the religious rules of the faith are then enforced by the government. So if the faith says a persons hand must be chopped off for stealing, then it is chopped off. If you convert to a different faith, but the rules in the theocracy say you can't then you will suffer the penalty. Basically all religious law becomes legal law.

Second Quality: For situations in which the faith says nothing, such as a circumstance not mentioned in the holy books, religious leaders or the head of the religious faith are turned to. So let us say the faith says nothing on how to deal with the punishment of a group of religious adherents who differ slightly from the faith in terms of worship. The religious leaders will then have to decide based on the already established rules if such conduct is allowed, followed by an appropriate punishment. Although, the conduct may itself be ignored.

Final Quality: Typically, a theocracy is a type of dictatorship. The faith and its rulers control people’s lives with an iron fist. Toleration of certain behavior is approved only in the interest of maintaining stability as they slowly remove elements they do not approve of. Basically, those who control the faith control the populace and thus use faith to bend them to their will.

Who rules: There is two methods of government upon which theocracy's are run. They can be run like Iran's government. In Iran they have a religious council that maintains the integrity of the faith and advises how the government should act. The government portion is a false democracy with elected leaders manipulated into power through the religious councils influence. However the government portion will seek greater power.  As such, the government and the religious institution will fight for power and control.

However, the alternative is that the head of State: the president, king, or equivalent is the head of the faith. A good example is the old kings and queens of England who were head of the Protestant Church. Usually, this gave legitimacy to the government as being run by a person directly endorsed by God. Also, these rulers typically could do whatever they wanted in the name of God with all those who disagreed forced to comply or face harsh consequences.

Conclusion: A theocracy is by far not a perfect government. In fact, the morality of faith is ignored by those in charge. The faith is not at fault for the conduct of the rulers, but the perversion of the faith is caused by those rulers. In the United States, the Federal government is not allowed to establish a religion or make rules/ perform actions favorable to one faith or another. This is enshrined in the 1st Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Our founding fathers saw how faith was used as a tool of tyranny over in Europe and decided enough was enough. They would not allow the Judeo-Christian values be tainted by the corruption of government power. As such, no theocracy is safe from corruption and self destruction, in the same way no government is safe from collapsing under its own weight.

Issue 145 A Postal Bank? August 19, 2013

I had previously mentioned in a previous issue (issue 132) about some countries converting their old postal services into banks designed for low income individuals. I personally think it is a fantastic idea that could help many poor individuals have access to a financial institution which they can store and save their money while saving one of the oldest governmental functions the United States government is constitutionally allowed to do. But how would it work?

Step 1: The current postal services would have to be amended. Basically, they would have to allow private companies to be able to deliver regular mail. In the U.S., letters, and magazine/advertisements are restricted to the United States Postal Service. To reduce post offices traditional work load and to make room for its new function, letting private carriers deliver any and all type of mail will go along way to making room. This would also allow businesses to have a cheaper alternative to the post office for delivering their ads and magazines. Traditional letters are slowly disappearing in the digital age especially as you can send an entire presentation digitally rather than through snail mail (this is also part of the reason the post office is failing). However, the traditional mail carrying functions will not disappear as there are still certain parts of the United States that private carriers may not go due to cost. As such the post office will be the letter carrier of last resort.

Step 2: Training in the basic functions of banking will be required. So the ladies and gentleman of the post office will also need the same basic training as a bank teller.

Step 3: A certain amount of infrastructure will be needed to alter the current post offices to handle the money such as safes, Automated teller machines (ATM) (which will reduce the number of actual tellers needed) and a bank card to access the account (which could be a State issued driver license or a non-drivers ID). Advantageously, the post office will also be able to gather old money and exchange it for newly printed currency rather than rely on private banks.

Step 4: The basic account structure will need to be created. As this system is geared toward people with low incomes who may not be able to maintain even a minimal deposit, minimal deposits and interest rates that charge people for taking out their money and even keeping it there would be prohibited. Of course a basic checking and savings account will be provided. As most low income individuals are on welfare, it becomes a lot easier to monitor when and where they buy so as to aid in preventing fraud (maybe make it a requirement to have an account in a postal bank if on welfare?). From here a modest interest rate that rewards individuals for saving their money or keeping a certain minimum in their checking account would be needed (I suggest a generous rate anywhere between 1 and 5 percent). In this system however, loans will be largely forbidden. Loans further indebt the poor and as such, either no loans or small one year loans that can be easily paid back with an individuals given income stream will be allowed under this system. I favor no loans as the temptation for the Post Office under this idea to make money off these low income earners is far too tempting.

Step 5: Alternate revenue streams need to be acquired to allow the post office to make the money needed to provide those generous interest rates mentioned in step 4. We already have the traditional role of the post office generating money, but other forms will be required. Therefore license renewals for Federal and State registered businesses and occupations can be done through the post office. Here the Federal and State governments would get their money for license renewals, with a portion going to the post office. In this idea people who are trained in navigating the complex license acquisition and renewal process will act in the same way a traditional bank agent does loans. Passports will also still be able to be acquired through the post office and any licenses or identification will also be able to be acquired through the Post Office bank (at a small fee, or kick back from the Federal or State governments). This would generate a good portion of revenue while saving money in the Federal and State levels of government as their traditional jobs in specialized institutions will be taken over by the Postal Bank. It is even possible to make it act as a small office for tax exceptions and some forms of welfare if needed.

Step 6: To ensure costs do not go too high, money can be saved where possible by hiring private companies or contracting with freelance agents who are paid per client to serve in certain portions and roles in the post office service. Namely lawyers to serve as license navigators who get paid when they help a client successfully get a license or a permit. Basically, it removes the need to provide retirement or health benefits if they are merely allowed to use the Post Office bank by paying a fee. Basically, saving money is key toward the success of this bank plan.

Step 7, the final step: This postal bank cannot be allowed to compete with private banks. If people hear how high the interests rates are (to keep your money in), and how it does not cost anything to use the bank, people will switch in droves to this Post Office bank. Therefore, if your account exceeds a certain amount of money there will be two options, you either leave the bank, or are now going to be charged fees for using the bank. This post office bank is for the poor and impoverished so that they may generate savings, not for the rich. As such, if your income exceeds 150% of the poverty level (currently around $20,000 in the U.S.), you will be charged an interest rate of around .5% to provide incentive for you to get out. In addition, the interest rate for keeping your money in your checking account will stop, and the savings account rate will be reduced to .05%. Likewise, every time you take money out of your checking for cash, spend it at a store or transfer money from your savings to your checking you will be charged .5%. Thus 5 cents of every dollar you spend will be taken out. Also, it is advisable that the higher amount of money in the account, the larger the penalties will grow. All this is to prevent private banks from loosing all their accounts which may in turn bankrupt them and put good banks out of business.

Conclusion: My one concern on this entire idea is that it may cause banks such as credit unions and even some large established banks to go out of business. Those institutions however, serve a purpose to make loans, and provide financial services that Federal and State governments are incapable of doing. If these private banks go out of business, those resources become scarcer and thus more expensive pricing more people out of the market and thus making more people poor. That cannot be allowed, and as such non-negotiable rules/penalties for depositors who achieve over a certain amount of money must be put in place if they are to keep their money in the Postal Bank and those penalties must hurt. With that thought in mind it is advisable that the penalties be actually determined by the private banks that have everything to lose (rather than my flimsy penalties suggested in step 7). Incentives are essential, and the best one is pain for keeping that money in. I am a libertarian, I want business, no matter how small to have a chance to thrive and grow, and as such financial institutions must be protected no matter what forms they come in. Yes, we can help the poor save, but at some point they may become dependant on that help. That cannot be allowed, for when that happens we no longer have poor people, but freeloaders.

Issue 144 National 401K August 16, 2013

What would happen if we created a national 401K? Would it help people to have a better financial safety net? Let us review the cost and benefits.

Benifits1: What is good about a national 401K is that it is an investment. Basically it is taking money and investing in businesses on the stock market. This allows for a high rate of return when it comes to investments (especially risky ones if done early on). A 401K type retirement system is already in place in Galveston Texas where they on average have a larger payout greater than if they would have been in the traditional Social Security system. Of course theirs is managed in such a way that they will almost never lose money on the market due to the use of safe investments like mutual funds and bonds. Of course riskier investments can be done early on before a certain age to maximize your financial investment in the short run. Then it would be converted at a certain age, such as 10 years before retirement, to avoid losing all the money. Here it is insured that you will get lots of money.

Benifits2: A second benefit is that by investing in the stock market through this approach you actually help businesses grow. Basically you now have an entire population investing in the market which in turn increases the amount of capitol a business has access to. As such the business grows and in turn raises the value of the stock, thus raising the amount of money an investor makes. As everyone would now be invested in the market that means everyone gets more money when the business expands and does well. It becomes a cyclical relationship. The more you invest, the better able a business can expand and thus make you more money.

Benifits3: Another great benefit is that your money is in an actual account and as such the government cannot take away your money like with the Social Security system in the United States. By the way, the money in the Social Security system does not actually belong to you, which is why they can do that (see Supreme Court case: Flemming versus Nester for details). Also, it does not take much to run this system as it would use the tax code to put a portion of your taxes into the 401K account and would be group managed with everyone else’s investments to insure finical security through a singe body of "experts." A very simple system indeed.

Costs 1: The investment can still fail. Even though the money to be invested will be divided up among a large group of investments, a market crash can still cause a lot of problems. Thankfully, such crashes usually occur twice in a person’s life time and if you are switched to a safe investment within the age window prior to retirement then you are less likely to be hurt, and also well in a position to recover. We as investors will also have to deal with poor performing businesses and bad management of a business, but with diverse investments, financial loses can be easily mitigated. Such financial collapses and bad CEO's can be hard to deal with and some money will be lost, but through stock diversification and changing over to safer investments as you get older help to reduce much of the risk involved our retirement money will be very safe.

Costs 2: We have one big issue however. It will be the government managing the system. As such it will be a compulsory system which you probably cannot opt out of. In addition, the experts needed to run the system may not be very good. Let us face it, politicians suck at picking people to run different aspects of government. Poor management can be mitigated by having strict standards for experience when finding people to run the system, but they are bound to make a mistake at some point, or face political pressure to invest in certain businesses that may riskier than what even private investors will not touch. As such it will need to be insulated from politics and that means full autonomy. Therefore the only possible true negative is that the government would make it a compulsory system to save. But if you are willing to live with that, then it should be a fairly safe system.

Conclusion: This idea is not entirely out of the realm of libertarian thought. But I am against it unless it is used to replace the current Social Security system along with those groups of people who are exempt like the rail road workers who have their own unique system. Government workers would also be forced to use this system as their sole retirement system as offered by the government so as to insure that their own self interest keeps our money safe both in the stock market and in business in general. They will not want anything to threaten their chances of a major payout at retirement. This may be the only viable replacement to any Social Security type programs as discussed repeatedly throughout multiple presidential elections in the U.S. So the question is do we switch to a system that costs almost nothing to run, with some risk for a high return, and run by government while the money belongs to us, or do we stick to the status quo? Your choice.

Issue 143 Moral Capitolism August 15, 2013

I have read Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments or at least a condensed version. It was designed to be the first book in a series of four with the Wealth of Nations being the remaining three. Basically it analyzed human behavior and conduct in such a way that it acted as a manual for how laissez-faire capitalism is supposed to function in a moral society, or at least one that is supposed to follow certain morals. I will now summarize those morals as best I can as it is the blue print for a moral and just society under capitalism.

True Self Interest: This true form of self interest is that of wanting to be admired and loved. Usually it is the path of least resistance and thus is generally immoral. A modern example would be the people on the show of the Jersey Shore who get drunk and sleep around for the entertainment of others. Another would be the likes of Paris Hilton and her ilk who get famous for sex videos. Those are the easy ways to become rich, but are ultimately soulless. True fortune comes from hard work and determination. True blood sweat and tears are shed in the creation of riches, and as such goes unnoticed and usually is never paid attention to. The true self interest to get rich is to benefit oneself without harming others. Instead your work is the basis for others to build upon and succeed such as inventions like the car and the factory system by Henry Ford and the light bulb and telephone by Thomas Alva Edison. Each invention was built upon to lead others to success. Variations of the car, telephone and more were used and improved upon. But few remember those humble origins or the inventors themselves save we choose to remember. Everyone benefits in a true self interested society where getting rich off of your own hard work leads to others building upon it and getting rich as well. As such, the poor in modern day America have an equivalent wealth to the kings and queens of the middle ages. That is what it means to have a true capitalistic society, where the poor do not starve and everyone is risen up through each new invention and improvement.

What not to do: Rules to follow in this system are simple. Do not do anything that would make you despised by your self, your family, your friends and society. Basically, be aware at all times you are being watched and that what you do reflects those who raised you, who you hang out with and the community you come from. You do not embarrass them ever. Sure you can challenge the social norms like Elvis Presley did with his rock'n roll, and even change how society does things despite resistance such as the internet. The goal is to benefit society through your work, not using people as stepping stones. As such fraud or any form of lying is abhorrent. It leads to people despising one another and even theft. If fraud is the norm, then honest business becomes impossible and everyone suffers the cost whether that is through the price of goods, or even the inability for business to even be productive. Next is theft. Unfair deals and out right bullying are an absolute negative. Again it harms business, productivity, and the people who would have benefited from your labor. How would it make you feel to be pushed out of the market place by a competitor, not because your product is inferior, but because your product was superior and you were crushed by a more powerful opponent with an inferior product? This is what happens in bad deals, especially when government supports one business over another. It destroys businesses, and puts people on the unemployment line. If there was no such bullying, then small business could grow with the sole reason for failing or extinction being that they had a poor business model, or they could not adapt. That is a true and fair system where you are free to fail or choose to be bought out. By following the moral rules of not wanting to be looked down upon by those you care about and society as a whole it becomes much harder to fall to the human condition known as greed. Basically factor into your business model how people will think of you when you and your business do something. There is a reason why businesses avoid firing workers unless it is absolutely necessary, and even then, they may very well try to hire those workers back if possible.

Conclusion: There is much more to Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. It discusses anger and revenge. How people want to punish those who wrong them, but are unsatisfied if they are punished for a different wrong. It discusses how society values justice, generosity and other aspects of admiration in contrast to those that society despises like fraud, falsehood and violence. It looks to understand the overall human condition to such a point that society can govern itself so long as morality is kept intact. Something that is arguably missing for people today. We think of what the consequences are before and after we act with a bias toward our own behavior, but never forget your moral code. If you do that, then capitalism will rarely turn back toward greed and envy, the human conditions that plague every society no matter what form it comes in.

Maybe if we taught morality in schools, those that we all share, our society may better than it is now.  Perhaps if people stopped to think how their actions would not just impact themselves, but how it would impact those around them they may be less likely to commit a foolish act.  Maybe it is wishful thinking, but surly it is better than allowing the status quo of selfishness and foolishness to continue.  Better than corruption being supported by a government that has helped to ruin fair play and equality in the market place.  And perhaps better than the false capitalism we have now.

Issue 142 The Payroll tax is bad August 14, 2013

For those who do not know, the Pay roll tax is actually two separate income taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Tax (FICA) for both Social Security and Medicare. Together they act as a flat tax to support the United State's Social Security and Medicare welfare programs. However, the tax itself harms the poor. It also hams businesses as well. So what can be done?

It Harms the poor: The payroll tax harms the poor in a couple of ways. For one it is an additional tax on their earnings. This means that on top of being taxed through the usual income tax, you are also taxed on your earnings again for Social Security and Medicare. As a result the poor are taxed more without any hope of reaching the yearly limit and thus having more of their income taken from them on a yearly bases. In contrast, the richest members of the United States pay off this yearly tax and thus have a chance to get a kind of tax break for the rest of the year. For those who don't know, the American Payroll tax has a cap so that after you are taxed up to a certain amount of money; you then will stop being taxed for the remainder of that year. Basically the poor are being kept in there place through a tax that is supposed to help them later in life for when they retire. Again there is a problem, the money that the poor get when they finally reach retirement age is minimal as they are taxed so many times that very little is contributed to the system (your welfare benefit at retirement is determined by how much of the tax you pay throughout your life time). Statistically speaking this hurts the Black and Hispanic members of the United States the most as they are usually the lowest income earners.

Harms Business/Poor together: What’s worse is that the payroll tax makes employers biased against the unskilled poor. An employer provides a matching amount of money toward a persons Medicare and Social Security taxation. So the employer will pay the same rate to the system on behalf of their employee. Thus, the problem. An employer is not going to dish out that money unless the person is very good or is highly skilled. The result is the employer skipping over many people who may be good workers for the most skilled ones or holding off on hiring all together. Therefore many of these poorer people lose the chance to acquire skills on the job due to this bias. Basically, if you are not worth the cost of training and later employment, then you are not worth hiring.

Businesses on their own are harmed because they have to comply with the paper work to pay this additional tax. It takes time and money which could have been reinvested into the business or even a new worker. Any expense causes businesses to make hard decisions so as to meet their bottom line. If a business does not get the necessary amount of profit they usually shut down making more unemployment. Because of these costs an employer may loose a chance to hire a new worker who may help his business grow and expand. Basically, when a business hires some one, they profit and the worker benefits through getting pay and acquiring new skills. Overall, employer, employee and the poor who may have gotten a job are harmed.

The fix: It is rather easy to fix this problem. You simply have to do away with the payroll tax in its current form. Instead use the current income tax code to provide the money necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare. To do this, a certain portion of your normal income tax would be marked off to go toward those programs. You do not have to change the current rate, but maybe eliminate certain deductions so as to ensure enough goes into the system. Basically you remove all current income taxes save the main one and have it so that a portion of that tax money goes toward Social Security and Medicare. No more double or triple taxation. Employers would not have to contribute the matching rate under this plan as all individuals would continue to pay in regardless of income. Basically there will be no more yearly caps on contributions, but at the same time everyone gets a tax cut. It would still probably need to be coupled with a means testing type system to insure only those who need it get the welfare benefits, but that is a small price to pay for a safety net.

Conclusion: Yes we harm the poor more through our tax code and keep them there because of it. Or at least it contributes to the problem. By eliminating this tax and using the existing code with this one minor addition it ultimately gives the poor more money in their pockets in the short term. As such they can afford a higher standard of living and maybe even not have to go on welfare. Due to this, those on the cusp of poverty may never fall into poverty and will have more money to invest in a better job and thus get a higher income which in turn creates a better safety net as higher pay equals a larger amount going into the system. Basically you encourage people to move up in income as it becomes in their best interest to earn more pay and thus have a better welfare benefit when they retire. No more double taxation, less poverty, and a simpler system that allows people to keep more of their income. Defiantly better than the status quo in my opinion.