Shouldn't Classism be as Morally Abhorrent as Racism?

[Aunt Spiker]

I have been watching the news lately regarding the debate between conservatives and liberals with respect to extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Liberals are saying that the cuts do not need to be extended for the “rich”.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about the “rich” for the last couple of years and none of it has been good. Classism (making the “rich” the target of animosity in this case) seems to be a favorite pastime of the Left is recent times which brings to my mind an interesting question…

…isn’t classism as morally abhorrent as racism or sexism?

And if it is shouldn't there be a cry of moral indignation from the public against it?

So you're saying that we should discourage liking or disliking people *because of their income (or inheritance)*

Why?

People *can help* their "class" - by choosing a different job, relocating, or simply by living a simpler life (just because someone *makes* a lot of money doesn't mean they have to *live fancily*)

People don't just dislike people because they *make a lot of money* - people dislike those who are well off but still complain about how much money they have to spend (or don't have to spend) and show it - flash it around.

But, regardless of public-attitudes about money, wealth, etc - there will always be people who barely make it and those who have no problems making it. Elite, aristocratic, nobility, military, businessmen, bankers, lawyers, clergy.

all of these groups always do well and have always been resented.

We're not like Middle Ages Europe, though - it's not always possible but it is socially acceptable and often encourage to traverse the classes -

 

[samsmart]

Unless I've missed something (and I may have) you've stated that the "rich" recieved a greater benefit but not how their benefit was greater than that of the middle or lower classes.

So what am I missing?

1) The elderly use their Social Security dollars to pay for products of businesses that the wealthy invest in. So what's the number of money they pay into SS as compared to the profit they get on products purchased from companies they own stock in?

2) Medicare and Medicaid provide medical services to the poor, who are employees in the business the wealthy own stock in. So the money the wealthy pay into Medicare and Medicaid should be compared to the money the companies they invest in spend on training and retention of employees.

Children are future employees at businesses the wealthiest own stock in, and therefore maintaining their well-being is an investment on the future wellness of the businesses they own a share in.

3) The wealthiest own stocks in companies that own physical assets in the U.S. and overseas. A strong military to protect trade routes and areas of commerce helps protect the goods that they trade on a global level. Without the protection of the military, the goods of the companies they own shares in are more likely to get hit by pirates and other criminal organizations.

4) Calculate that 6% the wealthiest pays into to reduce the national debt and compare it to the percentage of the national debt that is used to pay companies the wealthiest own stocks in.

5) The wealthiest own stocks in companies who hire employees who rely on federal services, such as transportation services. So compare the costs between what they pay in and how much their employees spend on utilizing government services.

Veterans is the above and point #3.

6) Without national transportation infrastructure, the employees of businesses the wealthiest own stock in will have a more difficult time getting to and from work. Also, companies the wealthiest own stock in profit off of the commerce of the shipping of goods via national transportation infrastructure.

7) Children, teenagers, and adults being educated are future employees to the businesses the wealthiest own stock in. By contributing to the education of their employees, the wealthiest contribute to the well-being of their business investments.

8) International spending is done to help stabilize other nations, which generally engages in trade and commerce with businesses that the wealthiest have invested in.

I haven't said anything bad or insulting about the wealthiest. I'm just stating ways in which they receive a greater benefit from government programs. Will the fire department get to their houses faster because they pay far more to fund it? No. But by paying more money to fund the fire department, they get respond better to a greater number of people who work for businesses they invest in, and the better those employees do the better the businesses do, which means the better their investments do. Which means they receive a greater indirect benefit.

And you are missing something - proper use of quotes. Please use quotes properly so others may refer back to the post you are quoting.

 

[The Baron]

“Hardly exorbitant. Sin taxes are taxes to offset the negative financial impact they have in terms of healthcare.” – Hoplite

It doesn’t matter whether you (or I, for that matter) think these taxes are “exorbitant”. They are, however, punitive which was the issue at hand.

So, yes, taxes can be punitive.

“The wealthy gains a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of its operation.” – Hoplite

So how do “rich” people gain more by paying more?

“This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy.” – Hoplite

How is it slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy?

“Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins?” – Hoplite

Whether politicians shop at “bargain bins” is not at issue. Why politicians choose to scapegoat the “rich” and insist that they must pay more as a percentage of their income is the issue.

“Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.” – Hoplite

An obvious statement. Those who can afford more have the ability to get more. This is fundamental economics and has nothing to do with why a bias against the “rich” is so prevalent today in our political circles and popular culture.

 

[The Baron]

“I can't see why it should be.

1. Class isn't biologically inherent, so I don't see why it should be a protected status.
2. As a matter of practicality and for the good of the nation, we have to get the money for government from somewhere.
3. Many people often ignore society's contribution to success and tend to only focus on what the individual did. It takes both.” – megaprogman


1. Like racism or sexism, classism is a bias. Being Muslim is not “biologically inherent” yet there many hold a bias against them.

Also, no one is arguing for protected status.

2. Since when has “practicality” ever been an argument for bias? It wasn’t “practical” for plantation owners to give up their labor force simply because freeing the slaves was the humane thing to do. But we didn’t allow the “bias” against blacks to exist in spite of the fact that it wasn’t practical for plantations owners.

3. History is filled with individuals being successful and lifting up society (Henry Ford). Funny, but I can’t think of a single time when a society became successful and then lifted up an individual.

 

[The Baron]

“So you're saying that we should discourage liking or disliking people *because of their income (or inheritance)*” – Aunt Spiker

I don’t think it matters if you like or dislike “rich” people. But I am saying that having a bias or active prejudice against any group of individuals is wrong and that classism, regardless of it’s form, is as morally abhorrent as racism, sexism, etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hardly exorbitant. Sin taxes are taxes to offset the negative financial impact they have in terms of healthcare.


The wealthy gains a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of its operation. This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy. Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins? Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.

Our social mentality about the rich is also quite generous; despite some leanings in the opposite direction, the majority of our society tends to think highly of someone with money and those with less money will often go to great lengths to emulate the super wealthy. Our popular culture and entertainment glamorizes the lifestyle of obscene wealth and there are ways for even the poor to "try on" the high life if only for a while.

socialists, welfare socialists, income redistributionists, and class warfare operatives spend so much time putting up facades to hide what truly motivates them.

you are not entitled to the wealth of others and they owe you nothing merely due to you existing within the same geopolitical boundaries as they do

 

[TurtleDude]

I gain nothing additional by paying several hundred K a year in income taxes.

 

[rathi]

Then reduce taxes for everyone. History shows repeatedly that a reduction in taxes increases tax revenue. Works every time it’s tried.

NO IT DOESN'T. In 2003, the Federal receipts dropped to 1.78 trillion from 1.86 trillion in 2002 after the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was passed. There is a certain high tax rate where you can increase revenues by lowering the rate, but we are NOT at that level.

 

[obvious Child]

NO IT DOESN'T. In 2003, the Federal receipts dropped to 1.78 trillion from 1.86 trillion in 2002 after the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was passed. There is a certain high tax rate where you can increase revenues by lowering the rate, but we are NOT at that level.

Rathi, why do you bother? Anyonewho says "History shows repeatedly that a reduction in taxes increases tax revenue" has never bothered to study history much less economics or statistics and is likely to be just regurgitating pundit vomit and thus likely not to be interested in actual facts much less honest debate. It's a waste of time to talk to those who are purely here to soapbox.

 

[Hoplite]

socialists, welfare socialists, income redistributionists, and class warfare operatives spend so much time putting up facades to hide what truly motivates them.

you are not entitled to the wealth of others and they owe you nothing merely due to you existing within the same geopolitical boundaries as they do

And the world is not as simple as you are so desperately trying to make it.

It doesn’t matter whether you (or I, for that matter) think these taxes are “exorbitant”. They are, however, punitive which was the issue at hand.

They are not punitive. They off-set the cost the public will have to bear from the consumption of these things.

Anyone espousing personal responsibility SHOULD be totally on board with these taxes because they essentially say "This is going to cost other people money and you need to be responsible and help defer some of that cost"

So how do “rich” people gain more by paying more?

This has already been explained.

How is it slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy?

Legal proceedings are determined generally by quality of representation that one can afford. If you're very rich, you can usually settle out of court (a nice way of saying "buy people off").

Whether politicians shop at “bargain bins” is not at issue.

The point is politics is NOT a game for poor people. Only the rich get to take that particular field.

So the wealthy get better treatment by the legal system, almost exclusive access to politics, and better healthcare. Seems like good reasons to ask them to pay a little extra.

 

[imagep]

What argument would you make that the wealthy get more benefit from government services? That's absurd. Who's getting the lion's share of these government services?

20% of our budget goes to Social Security with an average benefit of about $1100 per recipient.
21% of our budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid and Children's health insurance programs.
14% of our budget goes to "Safety Net Programs" other than the two above.
20% of our budget goes to Defense and Security
06% goes toward our national debt
07% goes to benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans
03% to transportation infrastructure
03% to education
01% to international spending
04% to 'other'

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Fifty-five cents out of every dollar a wealthy American pays in taxes goes directly into the pockets of less affluent Americans. How much more should they have to give away?

On the local level, wealthy Americans more than pay their share for their 100 x 200 lot with a house on it by paying five or six times the property taxes I do for my same-sized lot because they have chosen to build a McMansion on it. People should thank their lucky STARS for the amount of tax dollars wealthy people pump into our system. Without them, people would be starving/dying in the streets.

I totally agree that we should stop giving away that 55%.

However, as far as the arguement that the wealthy should have to pay more because they benefit more, it is absolutely true.

In a free market environment, products and services are priced based upon the benefits and percieved value, not based upon the cost. So if I spend 8 hours making signs, maybe a net a couple of hundred bucks. If a lawyer spends an 8 hr day in court, he may make a grand. The lawer makes 5 times what I make, yet the actual cost is exactly the same - 8 hours of labor. Thats the way it should be, some products and services simply have a higher value/price, even if the cost is exactly the same, because the end consumer benefits more from those goods and services.

It is our society, largely created by our government that creates the enviroment that allows some individuals to become rich. The rich benefit more from our society than the middle class do. That is indisputable. The evidence is clear, and is prove by the fact that they are rich. So I have no issues with the rich paying a larger share of our tax needs.

I do however have an issue with people getting benefits from our government that they do not deserve and do not earn - regardless of who is paying for it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I totally agree that we should stop giving away that 55%.

However, as far as the arguement that the wealthy should have to pay more because they benefit more, it is absolutely true.

In a free market environment, products and services are priced based upon the benefits and percieved value, not based upon the cost. So if I spend 8 hours making signs, maybe a net a couple of hundred bucks. If a lawyer spends an 8 hr day in court, he may make a grand. The lawer makes 5 times what I make, yet the actual cost is exactly the same - 8 hours of labor. Thats the way it should be, some products and services simply have a higher value/price, even if the cost is exactly the same, because the end consumer benefits more from those goods and services.

It is our society, largely created by our government that creates the enviroment that allows some individuals to become rich. The rich benefit more from our society than the middle class do. That is indisputable. The evidence is clear, and is prove by the fact that they are rich. So I have no issues with the rich paying a larger share of our tax needs.

I do however have an issue with people getting benefits from our government that they do not deserve and do not earn - regardless of who is paying for it.

And so surely the middle class benefit more from society than the lower class does, right?
And thus you should, naturally, pay more taxes than they do.

 

[imagep]

I gain nothing additional by paying several hundred K a year in income taxes.

It all works out in the end. If you did not pay so much in taxes, your employees and venders would have to pay more, and you would have to pay larger salaries and higher prices inorder for those people to maintain their standard of living realitive to yours.

Either you payup in taxes, or you payup somehow else. All works out in the long run.

 

[imagep]

And so surely the middle class benefit more from society than the lower class does, right?
And thus you should, naturally, pay more taxes than they do.

Sure. Thats the beauty of the progressive tax system.

But if I had my way, our gov would be so small that no one would have to pay any taxes during life. Although I find our progressive income tax system preferable to a regressive tax system, I really don't think that any of us should have to pay taxes on money that we work hard for and earn. Who the heck came up with the idea that we should punish people for working anyhow? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we tax people who do not contribute to our society by being productive? How come not a "sloth" or leisure tax? Maybe we should make everyone pay $10 per hour for every hour shy of 2,000 hours a year that they do not work?

 

[FederalRepublic]

NO IT DOESN'T. In 2003, the Federal receipts dropped to 1.78 trillion from 1.86 trillion in 2002 after the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was passed. There is a certain high tax rate where you can increase revenues by lowering the rate, but we are NOT at that level.

I agree with your post, to a certain extent. I think we would probably disagree on that level of taxation though. It's different for different people, but personally, if I have to pay much more than 1/3 of my income in federal income taxes, I will seriously consider cutting back my working hours. I don't work as hard as I do to pay for other people's crap. That's particulary true if I can get free health care, food stamps, and then go do some jobs that pay cash on the side.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Individuals not in favor of extending tax cuts for high earning individuals as indicated by the OP

The broadly painted "Liberals" of the OP

Isn't that what spreading the wealth around is all about--favoring one segment of society at the expense of others? Or am I missing your point altogether?

 

[Hoplite]

Isn't that what spreading the wealth around is all about--favoring one segment of society at the expense of others? Or am I missing your point altogether?

I disagree. Trying to create more equal economic conditions is trying to get everybody to a point where they can be competitive.

What's interesting is wealth redistribution has only become an issue with people when someone proposes to change the direction. Wealth has been under intense redistribution for the last century, but the direction is usually up and no one really seems to care. ONE person proposes we turn some of that sideways and everyone loses their ****.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I disagree. Trying to create more equal economic conditions is trying to get everybody to a point where they can be competitive.

What's interesting is wealth redistribution has only become an issue with people when someone proposes to change the direction. Wealth has been under intense redistribution for the last century, but the direction is usually up and no one really seems to care. ONE person proposes we turn some of that sideways and everyone loses their ****.

It becomes an issue when one person (or group) proposes to make himself the arbiter. I didn't support it when Bush signed TARP and don't support it when Obama signed the "stimulus".

 

[Mach]

. However, as far as the argument that the wealthy should have to pay more because they benefit more, it is absolutely true.

While I have argued the same before, I’ll argue against it now.

In a free market environment, products and services are priced based upon the benefits and perceived value, not based upon the cost.

In general, cost is always a factor in buy/sell price analysis in good business practice.

So if I spend 8 hours making signs, maybe a net a couple of hundred bucks. If a lawyer spends an 8 hr day in court, he may make a grand. The lawyer makes 5 times what I make, yet the actual cost is exactly the same - 8 hours of labor.

Incorrect. There is nothing in your example that necessitates cost being even remotely the same. You ignore the liability, education, investment, risk, etc., the attorney has taken on, the negotiation of the price, etc. It’s just blatantly bad reasoning that leads you to a bad conclusion (and an unethical one).

It is our society, largely created by our government

The U.S. was primarily created by the U.S. government what? Wasn’t it people fleeing tyrannical rule in their lives, establishing colonies, banding together only long enough to repel invasion, etc., that created it? We do rely on it for some things, but to suggest our government is in there creating our society is absurd. WE CREATED THE GOVERNMENT to assist in some things that are far more efficient to handle via centralized authority, that in this case must still be checked/balanced. But this is tangent IMO.

that creates the environment that allows some individuals to become rich. The rich benefit more from our society than the middle class do. That is indisputable. The evidence is clear, and is prove by the fact that they are rich. So I have no issues with the rich paying a larger share of our tax needs.

That’s absurd. People make themselves rich by in large, selling to others who choose voluntarily to engage in the transaction. Trying to suggest the government set in motion some stream of events that just randomly resulted in Gates being rich, and someone else being not nearly as rich, is terrible. There are some things we CHOOSE to use the government for, to set trade, help with national security, etc., but that’s paid for by in large by the wealthy anyway.

Look at how much people in this thread are claiming people want to emulate the rich. Why? Because they wants it. I hit a personal milestone (I started poor so it wasn’t very high) in my personal finances this month. And you know the overriding thing that consumed my thoughts when I realized this? It wasn’t champagne and celebration as I thought it might have been 10 years ago. It was instead: “was it worth it, considering the sacrifices made, the toll on my body, the cost of many of those youthful years, etc.”. I don’t know. It was a rational choice, a tradeoff, with clear opportunity costs. And it’s up to me if that was worth it. I don’t need you coming in here and saying you DECLARE that I benefited from trashing MY life just to make a buck. I GET TO DECIDE THAT!!!! Wealth and Income are primarily a TRADE OFF. Someone sacrificed, to get it. You can’t go willy-nilly and say that those who didn’t sacrifice aren’t benefiting….THEY DIDN”T SACRIFICE!!!##**#*!#@

You cannot say that I NET BENEFITED in my life just because it bumped me to a higher tax bracket, while you happily, blissfully, ignore all that went into making that buck. If all that had value in this short, scary existence was money, you might have a point..but it’s not, so you don’t. I hope you now understand that someone working a cash register for 8 hours most likely doesn’t even approach the level of sacrifice that the 8 hour from an attorney paid, and that the “net benefit” is always determined by them, NOT BY YOU.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Sure. Thats the beauty of the progressive tax system.

But if I had my way, our gov would be so small that no one would have to pay any taxes during life. Although I find our progressive income tax system preferable to a regressive tax system, I really don't think that any of us should have to pay taxes on money that we work hard for and earn. Who the heck came up with the idea that we should punish people for working anyhow? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we tax people who do not contribute to our society by being productive? How come not a "sloth" or leisure tax? Maybe we should make everyone pay $10 per hour for every hour shy of 2,000 hours a year that they do not work?

I'll be honest and say I don't want our government to be miniscule.
A little less - sure . . pull back in many areas, indeed.

But small - almost non existance.

I know all to well what happens to the people of countries who have (or have had) invisible governments and it sure as hell aint pretty. I don't want to live like that and many other Americans don't either - they just don't really think of it in that sense.

If my house is on fire- I want it to be put out.
If I'm suddenly poor and homeless I still want to live without starving or dying of exposure to the elements.
If some unfortunate crap happens to my family I want to be able to seek out help.
I want my food to be safe to eat.
I want to be able to drive down the highway a

 

[The Baron]

“They are not punitive. They off-set the cost the public will have to bear from the consumption of these things.” – Hoplite

But they are punitive. Such is the nature of sin taxes.

“Anyone espousing personal responsibility SHOULD be totally on board with these taxes because they essentially say ‘This is going to cost other people money and you need to be responsible and help defer some of that cost’” – Hoplite

Personal responsibility would dictate that people engaging in these legal activities would necessarily bare the cost associated with these activities and that does not require government involvement.

“This has already been explained.” – Hoplite

Actually, no, you haven’t. You have not explained how the “rich” gain more by paying more in taxes.

“Legal proceedings are determined generally by quality of representation that one can afford. If you're very rich, you can usually settle out of court (a nice way of saying "buy people off").” – Hoplite

But this is still nothing more than simple economics. There is nothing built into the law that favors the “rich”.

“So the wealthy get better treatment by the legal system, almost exclusive access to politics, and better healthcare. Seems like good reasons to ask them to pay a little extra.“ – Hoplite

The “rich” pay more money for better lawyers and have better access to the courts. The “rich” pay more money for doctors and get better health care. And the last time I checked the “rich” don’t get to vote any more often than poor folks.

The “rich” have what they have because they have paid for it, period. So why ask them to pay even more in taxes when they don’t reap any more benefit for their investment than anyone else?

 

[samsmart]

And the last time I checked the “rich” don’t get to vote any more often than poor folks.

That may be the case. However, compare the success rates of political candidates who have no or little money to those political candidates who receive campaign contributions from those who are wealthy.

Also, compare access to politicians for those who donate small amounts of money to those who donate great amounts of money.

 

[Hoplite]

It becomes an issue when one person (or group) proposes to make himself the arbiter.

Do you disagree that there needs to be an arbiter, regardless of who it is?

But they are punitive. Such is the nature of sin taxes.

Insisting something that is un-true does not ACTUALLY alter the fabric of reality.

Personal responsibility would dictate that people engaging in these legal activities would necessarily bare the cost associated with these activities and that does not require government involvement.

Involving yourself with these activities will cost other people money down the road. So you're expecting other people to cover YOUR fun.

Actually, no, you haven’t. You have not explained how the “rich” gain more by paying more in taxes.

I posted several paragraphs on the subject. Wheather or not you read them is an entirely different matter.

But this is still nothing more than simple economics. There is nothing built into the law that favors the “rich”. The “rich” pay more money for better lawyers and have better access to the courts. The “rich” pay more money for doctors and get better health care.

Having more money means you have more access.

And the last time I checked the “rich” don’t get to vote any more often than poor folks.

They can afford to effect the outcomes of elections. Advertising, staffing, this all takes money to run a campaign and by funneling money into specific campaigns, you can promote an agenda with money.

The “rich” have what they have because they have paid for it, period. So why ask them to pay even more in taxes when they don’t reap any more benefit for their investment than anyone else?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just ignoring what I'm saying?

 

[Mach]

I posted several paragraphs on the subject. Wheather or not you read them is an entirely different matter.
?

Let’s see (working for the Baron here)

The wealthy gains a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of its operation. This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy. Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins? Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.

Our social mentality about the rich is also quite generous; despite some leanings in the opposite direction, the majority of our society tends to think highly of someone with money and those with less money will often go to great lengths to emulate the super wealthy. Our popular culture and entertainment glamorizes the lifestyle of obscene wealth and there are ways for even the poor to "try on" the high life if only for a while.

No, you didn’t explain anything about how the rich benefit far more, as a result of them paying the lions share of federal taxes.

1. We treat the rich better socially – absurd and irrelevant. This has *nothing* to do with how much the wealthy pay in taxes.
2. Legal system favors the rich – Again this has *nothing* to do with taxes. The rich pay for their attorneys privately, and the rich are NOT complaining that they have to pay to get the best possible legal advice and representation
3. Political system game for the wealthy – One again, nothing to do with taxes. And oddly only 1 in 4 of the self-funded candidates this election cycle won. Good investment?
4. Health care – the opposite. The wealthy pay an arm and a leg for their health care, THEN they also pay huge amounts in taxes for other health care. They benefit obviously less here.

You’re all over the place Hoplite, but still don’t manage to even hit the mark once.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

It should be, but somehow the American bourgeois have convinced their serfs that it's their fault that they're poor.

"Just work harder and stop complaining, prole, you have no one to blame but yourself!"

It's like a multi-level marketing scheme or something.