When you think about it, there is a huge part of the US infrastructure which is geared to protect wealth. And the wealthy use a disproportionate amount of the resources. Now, there's always the "trickle-down" nonsense, some of which is true. It's in my interest as the wealthy for a healthy America, but we're talking about the super-rich paying more for using more.

When the US military is protecting America from invasion, how much of my property is being protected and how much of Bill Gates? Conservatives would try to use an equivalency here - one person is being protected as much as one other person. We're talking property.

Ambassadors and embassys are set up to promote trade, banking and the interests of the large and wealthy. They want nothing to do with the average citizen or tourist. Lots of costs.

The US Navy protects the sea lanes for Exxon, etc. I find having oil nice, but it's their wealth which is the main motivator.

People making the minimum wage and living in slums aren't having much of their stuff protected. They could survive anywhere, as opposed to the dilettantes who populate the upper reaches of society.

Until very recently the laws were designed to protect wealth, not people. I guy could botch a robbery of a bank and get nothing except 10 years in the slam. Same guy could mug a person, get away with $150 and a watch and get 3 years.

And yet how many of the richest corporations and people pay taxes at all? Halliburton, that incredible plunderer of the US Treasury, moved it's headquarters to Dubai. Etc.

Arf