US caste system

In My Humble Opinion
1

Spawned from another thread to avoid major hijack

I like this idea on the surface, kinda a US caste system with 4 proposed levels. So as an academic excercise I have attempted to create one.

You could meet criteria in different ways.

1 point per line item

HS diploma or GED
HS diploma or GED GPA>3.0
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Masters Degree
Doctorate degree
No criminal record ever (felony/misdemeanor, infractions ok)
No criminal record last 5 years (past age 18 so minimum age 23)
No Criminal record last 10 years
1 term of service in the milliary (say 4 years)
additional 4 year terms in millitary
1,000 hours of volunteer work
3,000 hours of volunteer work
5,000 hours of volunteer work
No public assistance claims ever for you or direct child (welfare/food stamps/unemployment/incarcerated secondary to conviction)
No public assistance claims last 5 years
No public assistance claims last 10 years
Never filed for bankruptcy
In compliance with child support orders if applicable. (no points unless you have an actual order)
Currently married (without predjudice for SSM)
Have a child
Donates 2% of last years income to charity (prefereably not just a church)
Endorsement of a 4 (they may issue 1)

I am totally open to additions/modifications to the list and benefits of each level. I am shooting to reward those who tend to benefit society the most and or provide stabilizing influences IMO.

0-3 points: you are a barnacle on the ass of society, shut up and do what you are told.

Basic Level 1 citizens: 4 points (no problem, graduate and keep out of trouble)
All your common stuff turns on here:
get married
Vote
own firearms
own real property
commercial drivers licences
sign contracts
most of the common stuff we enjoy.

Level 2 citizens: 11 points (all of the above plus)
May run for or hold up to county level political office
May employ others
Votes carry additional weight (say 10 level 1 votes)
50% reduction in jail sentences/penalties if convicted of a crime.

Level 3 citizen: 15 points (All of the above plus)
May run for or hold state/federal office
10% reduction in income taxes
70% reduction in jail sentences/penalties if convicted of a crime
Votes carry additional weight (say 200 level 1 votes)
Automatic issue of things like concealed carry permits
Preferential treatment when applying for government employment or bidding on government contracts.
20% discount on fees related to government services (like vehicle registration, business licences, building permits, whatever)

Level 4 citizen: 20 points (all of the above plus)
Votes carry additional weight (say 1000 level 1 votes)
15% reduction in income taxes
90% reduction in jail sentences/penalties if convicted of a crime
30% discount on fees related to government services (like vehicle registration, business licences, building permits, whatever)

The idea behind the reduced criminal penalties is that higher level citizens are probably less prone to such things anyway, and any conviction will most likely also force a reduction in citizenship level that may not ever be realistically regained. I also tried to base it on non-financial criteria. So being rich does not get you far. Plenty of movie star types would have a hard time making a 2. Loss of a level that allowed you to hold political office would result in you being immediately stripped of that office, period.

There are biases for older folks as you cannot get 5 and 10 year points unless you are at least 5 and 10 years over 18. Of course we probably dont want people running for office until they have managed to play nice in society for a few years anyway. I would be open to an additional 20 year point on several things as well

I ran myself and I am at 13 points on this system, a level 2. With a little work, I could make a Level 3, I’m age 41.

I also tried to build it where it is possible to get to be a 3 for pretty much anyone who plays nice in the world.

epic fuckups will probably have a hard time ever seeing 2.

Level 4’s should be rare, like 1-2% of the population rare. 3’s maybe 20%, 2’s 40%, 1’s 20%, the other 17%, 0’s, mostly kids under 18.

I’m sure there are things I have missed, or a glaring bias I created without realizing it.

Help me design the perfect new society. :cool:

2

I think there should be two castes. The regular one, where everybody has all their rights, and the Untouchables, who have no rights because they think there should be a caste system.

3

n/m

4

I’m just thinking that if you would otherwise fall in the 0-3 points category, you shouldn’t get extra points for having a child. Instead, if you’re in this category, you should be subjected to a reversible form of sterilization, similar to what someone suggested in thisthread, and then you should be allowed to reproduce only if you get your act together and get to level 1.

5

Well, as a 1 on your system (Have a HS diploma/HS GPA over 3/Bachelors/Masters/no criminal record ever/past 5 years/past 10 years/no bankruptcy), which makes me an 8 (I apparently was a 2 until 3 years ago, when I lost my job and got unemployment), I don’t particularly like the idea that I’m barred from political office or employing others, especially given that I could have done that until 3 years ago. I don’t think the fact that I was laid off due to poor business conditions makes me a bad citizen or a bad person, but maybe it does, I don’t know.

6

How very … Republican. I particularly like the part that ties economics to political power. Fuck the poor and their noise; if anyone had to go on the dole it’s their own damn fault and their voice in society should be proportionately curtailed.

I’m also awfully glad the system will be maintained–no riff-raff will be eligible to hold office (and if they do qualify under the crumbs thrown to them, eligible only for low-level positions). I don’t mind ceding my choice of who to vote for; the benefits far outweigh the cost of representative democracy.

The shifting tax burdens away from the advantaged is a clever ploy, well done! Oh, and the reduction in criminal penalties nicely codifies the current context where the better off you are the better treatment you get. Bravo!

ETA: I say that as an 18-pointer. I’d do well, but I find the system beyond repugnant.

7

In 1871 the French reactionaries simply shot anyone with callused hands. In 1975 the Khmer Rouge shot anyone wearing eyeglasses.

Let’s keep it simple, people.

8

The “endorsement of a 4” creates cronyism.

“Donates 2% of income (preferably not just a church” has no way to “prefer” the recipient not be a church. Many evangelical churches want their members to tithe 10% of their income, did you know that?

You need to rethink the “in compliance with child support orders” point. Is it one that everybody automatically gets but loses if they end up not paying child support, or is it one that only people who are in a position to pay child support can ever get?

Points for being married and having children are just asinine. Many of the best and brightest never do these things, and doing these things ought to be a happy coincidence rather than a reflection of your moral fiber.

9

So, we’re resolved that any caste system will be designed to reward people the designer likes?

10

How does the point allocation work? If I have a Masters degree, do I get points for having a high school diploma and a bachelors, since I do have these degrees? What about Associates? I technically don’t have one, but have gone well past that level of education.

What about criminal record? I have none, so do I get points for none as well as for none in last x years? Ditto for public assistance etc.

Not that I think this is a good system for reality, I just like clarity in rules :slight_smile:

11

I’m not sure where to start, so I’ll just say I like how this system penalizes people who have the misfortune to get sick. 60% of bankruptcies (and no doubt plenty of public assistance) come from medical bills. I guess your idea will do a great job from keeping those assholes with cancer from ruining America.

12

This is a whoosh, right?

13

[Samir]
Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
[/Samir]

14

First reply to the OP and we have a winner!

15

So when a high ranking person commits a crime, and the other 4s endorse him, does he go scott free? If convicted, doesnt he lose status, and thus the gain of the discounted prison sentence?

If this high ranking person is a non-convicted drug addict engaging in unethical (not illegal) business practices to support his habit and lays off people causing them unemployment is he still such a great citizen?

Codifying such a system is to say the least ill advised, and at best scary. Even just on paper it seems to let the privileged few rise pretty easily, and to cause the less privileged to have less. It actively works against the premise that you can work your way up the system.

16

<Bill Cosby>Riiiight…</Bill Cosby>

17

I gotta say. I do like the concept that the people who play by the rules get some perks over those who don’t. I think it would encourage people to do the right thing. I don’t like the concept of bribing the population to behave

18

I thought that too, then I realized that just because someone has a Masters doesn’t mean they could do a CAT scan or walk into a machine shop and get a job as a welder.

(FTR, I’m not defending the OP, just saying that I thought the same thing as Dewey and then answered my own question that just because you have a Masters doesn’t mean you have all the knowledge that someone with an Associates has).

19

The hell you didn’t – I’m calling you on this one buddy. Let’s look at the money-based criteria you mentioned:

Holy crap – you’re going to ding people for collecting unemployment? Someone gets laid off, a factory closes, whatever and you ding a citizenship point from them because through no fault of their own they lost a job? Or should they just not collect the unemployment that, by the way, part of the taxes in their paycheck have been paying for? Wouldn’t that risk greater financial problems?

You’re going to ding someone a citizenship point because as a kid they might have been on food stamps or something? Or don’t you realize welfare kids grow up to be adults? (In the case of my spouse, grew up to get a master’s degree, start a business, employ others, etc – but you’re going to hold the fact he came form a poor childhood against him forever?)

So… if someone is collecting foodstamps today, because they were laid off through no fault of their own and are responsibly trying to keep their family fed, you’re going to ding them not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES for it?

And you have the GALL to claim you’re not basing this on financial criteria? No, you’re not rewarding the wealthy but you sure as hell are penalizing the poor. Seriously, you are removing as many point for being on foodstamps as for being a convicted felon sitting in a jail cell! Are you seriously saying that being on foodstamps is equally as bad as being a murderer? Because that’s what you’re little system does.

The bankruptcy issue is a bit questionable – some industry giants have been bankrupt and gone on to great things, like Henry Ford. I’d be a lot more comfortable if you took a point away for a second bankruptcy, and a third.

Not to mention some of what you give points for excludes the disabled, potentially relegating them to second-class (or third) citizenship. These would be points such as:

This is on top of the fact that something like 60% of bankruptcies are a result of medical bills, which the disabled are more likely to run up, and the disabled are more likely to be on assistance because they are UNABLE to work. So… Mrs. H down the street who developed lung disease to the point she’s now on a transplant list would get dinged for

  1. Medical bills she can’t pay, leading to bankruptcy.
  2. Currently on Public Aid
  3. Received unemployment for 18 months after losing her job due to deteriorating health
  4. On public aid within 5 years
  5. On public aid within 10 years
  6. Unable to serve in the military (duh!)
    That’s 6 points deducted for something she has no control over whatsoever? Is that in any way fair or reasonable? In theory she could do some volunteer work to “earn” a few points but she is on oxygen 24/7 and very weak. She can’t do that, because she is disabled.

Since Mrs. H made it to high school graduation she gets a point for that. She has two children – is that one point or two? Let’s be generous and say two. No criminal record ever that I know of – three more points. We’re up to 6 total. She’s not currently married (husband deceased). Six citizenship points, at most – that’s level one. A few years ago she would have been level three – but she dropped TWO levels because she got sick. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Does that make any sense at all?

If she hadn’t had those two kids she’s be at four rock bottom level one and just one shy of being a “carbuncle” on society. Seriously? Because she got sick? We’re not talking about a criminal here, we’re talking about someone with really bad luck to get that sick.

Why are you giving people in incentive to marry? Do you think that might result in marriages of convenience that are in no way stablizing?

Why are you giving points her for having a child - but deducting an extra point if your child receives public aid? You DO realize that middle class people with children sometimes become poor, that not all currently poor people were born that way? So our Mrs. H got a boost two years ago from having kids, but now that she’s on aid she would be penalized for those same kids you rewarded her for a couple years ago? WTF?

I don’t understand what this means.

So… if Mrs. H had employed someone two years ago, before she got sick, then lost points because of the fallout from her illness she would no longer be able to employ anyone? Meaning her employee(s) might now be docked a point or three for collecting unemployment and maybe being on foodstamps for a bit until they got a new job? Because their employer got sick? Did you stop and consider these knock on effect?

Not to mention you’ve just barred her from employing someone to cut her grass, help with her housework, and so forth – nice going. Here we’ve got a woman (and yes, Mrs. H is a real person – last summer she did, in fact, hire me to cut her lawn for basically the cost of the gas to do so, so the city wouldn’t give her a $500 ticket for uncut grass) who is disabled, who has to sit down and rest, gasping for breath, after walking across her house and you won’t let her hire someone for even a pittance to cut her lawn, or help with keeping the house up?

Like I said, did you stop and consider the unintended consequences of this?

Not to mention the insanity that if Mrs. H did commit a crime today as opposed to 2 years ago today she’d get twice the penalty for it. It’s her health that went down the crapper, not her morals.

Frankly, I find the notion that some citizens get preferential treatment under the law absolutely repugnant. The law should treat all equally.

Like… Bernie Madoff, for instance? No, your “higher level” citizens are more likely to commit white collar crime, whereas the lower level ones are more likely to commit non-white collar ones, thereby penalizing the less educated and poor for being less educated and poor. If someone is 18 and thus has not completed education past high school and gets a felony DUI why should he be penalized more than the same person 4 or 8 years down the line when they have a higher degree? Isn’t it the same crime? Isn’t the damage to society the same?

As will a severe illness or accident, potentially losing a home to fire/hurricane/other natural disaster can also you kick you down a level. Should those who get cancer or suffer a tornado be treated as criminals are?

But being poor, even temporally, sure will knock you down.

Yeah, dude – you’re system is biased against the poor, the disabled, and unlucky.

20

nvm looks like I didn’t understand it either.