How poverty affects intellegence

Ive never inherited anything either.

All for one and one for one!

You got yours, screw everybody else?

Putting aside how best to address poverty let's discuss the theory proposed in the banner bobsal has provided.

It appears clear that the originator(s) of the theory (Is it Mullainathan?) has, without listing them, made either subjective qualitative judgments of the tasks and thoughts ("poverty-related concerns) that occupy "the poor," or has, quite remarkably, come up with some objective quantitative way of doing so.

Without knowing what they are though, and the metrics used by the theorist to measure their impact on cognitative capacity, how can we even begin to determine if their impact is greater than "income earning and maintenance related concerns?"

Whatever one thinks of any given President of the US, I think we can agree that anyone serving in this position carries a pretty heavy burden of concerns. This theory should the hold that unless "poverty-related concerns" are significantly greater than "running the country related concerns," the president should have little bandwidth left over to do such things as read a book, play golf or appear on the View. Does it also hold that presidents lose IQ points during their time in office (that's a theory a lot of us would accept on mere anecdotal evidence alone.), or are more prone to mental developing mental illness than the average Joe?

What is the IQ Facts chart (minus the self-serving blurbs) supposed to be telling us? Is the fact that 1% of the population has an IQ higher than 136 supposed to correlate in some way with the fact that 1% of American hold 40% of the wealth in the country? If so how?

Wealth produces high IQs or high IQs produce wealth?

This is ideologically driven hogwash. I'm sure there are some meaningful conclusions to draw for these statistics (assuming they are all accurate and why should we?), but this banner doesn't provide any.

Believe me, inherited money can definately be sweat money.

Ok, seriously trying to understand....you're saying that you don't pay taxes on interest you make?
Funny, I remember putting a number down on my 1040 were it asks for interest.

Is there such a thing as non-taxable income? Of course. That's a different story.

From your (and others) point of view Roth IRAs should be abolished. I mean, here you are getting all these interest and dividends, and you never have to pay a cent on it. Unheard of!

Oh goody.... Let's eliminate the government and see how much that person would have made in the stock market.

They have a duty to contribute to the society that allowed them to make that much money. Without that society and its rules they wouldn't have made a dime.

Your argument makes no sense Baldimo. Adam Smith put your argument to rest over 200 years ago.

In any event, as usual, people talk like ALL these people are getting away with not paying estate taxes.

Just checked on the numbers, and less than 2 of 1000 people who die leave an estate large enough to be taxed in any way.

Even if Baldimo and I did think that way (and I don't), what business is that of yours?

You don't think people who are wealthy enough to have to pay estate taxes don't leave sizeable sums to worthy charities, schools, good works for the public?

Yeah, screw everyone, except for those homeless shelters, food banks etc that get 20% of my estate.
I want control of who benefits from my assests, and the constitution can kiss my ass.

Well then maybe you shouldn't benefit from the Constitution.

You only have wealth because society gives you the benefit of owning it. We have a social compact that says you get to own things. Without that you would only own things if you were the strongest individual. You are free to remove yourself from society but then society is free to remove any protections provided to you. Short sightedness seems to be common amongst those that say "I got mine and you can't have it."

I don't understand people who inherit money and complain about taxes.

A dozen years after my dad died I inherited close to $100,000 from a project he'd started 30 years before he died and all of us had really forgotten about.

I paid about $40,000 in taxes on it.

A couple of members of my family pissed and moaned about the taxes.

I just rolled my eyes at them.

None of us did a damn thing to earn that money.

Another straw man argument.

Who is arguing that the government cannot or should not impose taxes on the citizenry? Who is arguing that there is no duty upon a member of share in the costs of keeping society together?

The difference between you and Baldimo and Chai (among others) is that you believe in far less restraint on the government's power to tax than they do. To suggest that either of them is arguing against the existence of government or even it's legitimate power to impose taxes is absurd.

American society only "allows" people to obtain wealth in the sense that it provides a framework in which the process can occur. It does not "allow" in the sense that it grants permission, which can at anytime be taken away. This latter use is much more in keeping with your way of thinking about society, and more specifically, government.

It is possible, you know, for reasonable people to disagree on the scope of the government's function, how much money it requires to carry out that function, and what are the fair and legitimate means for it to obtain that money. The rules which create an environment where people are "allowed" to prosper apply to the government as well as the governed. In this nation, at least, we have a constitutions that gives permission to the government to govern and that permission is not without limitations.

By your argument too, everyone who benefits from society should be required to contribute to it maintenance, so do you believe that everyone should be taxed, in a manner in which they actually pay something, on whatever income they have?

And before you go there, it is also possible for reasonable people to disagree on the extent to which society is responsible for people who cannot take care of themselves and how to define who these people are. Because someone doesn't share your notion of the extent to which the government should redistribute wealth doesn't mean they are heartless Social Darwinists, as much as calling them such things help you to feel morally superior.

Most of the people who I hear complain about the Death Tax are the people who have accumulated wealth, not those who stand to benefit from it. And not everyone who benefits from an estate pisses and moans about the tax simply because they are getting less than might otherwise. Some people just don't like to see so much of their parents' hard earned wealth taken by the government so it can be wasted.

The members of your family who complained may have done so purely out of self-interest and I'm sure there are plenty of similar people out there in the world, but you seem to think that it is axiomatic that the government will use that money more wisely and to better purpose than these people. Self-interest is not a vice. Perhaps you know that your relatives would have spent the money on things you believe are frivolous. Aside from the fact that you could be wrong or your definition of frivolous is subjective, why would you think the government would use the money only for something you believe to be noble and important.

I don't believe they'd spend all of it on something noble or important. I know they waste a lot of money. Other than voting I don't get any control over how my taxes are spent.

I like living in the United States so I pay my share.

I just tell myself that I'm paying my brother. Then when I see him I tell him he owes me big time. He usually pays up.

You pay a significantly smaller tax on interest from investments(whether you bought them or John D. Rockefeller bought them) than you do on wages. And that is wrong. We should also means test for SSI. Like I tell my very wealthy parents, SSI wasn't meant to subsidize their 200 days a year at sea. And they retired at 50.

You say sometimes inheritances are earned. Not very many are. I think you're referring to kids who take care of difficult parents to gain an inheritance. If anything that makes my point. But other questions need be asked first. Like is it fair other taxpayers who actually work for a living covering the shortfall caused by guaranteeing someone else's inheritance?

We want roads, bridge, the largest military (larger than the NEXT ELEVEN nations added together), good schools, but we don't want to pay for them. I think the cutoff needs to be at 1,000, 000 and it needs a significant tax. Hawkeye's looking for 60% I say 40%.

Breathtaking.

Well said.

Why are the people who moan about the condition of roads the ones most likely to bitch about taxes?

I've know many individuals who've grown up in what the author may call poverty ( in the USA). Their " band widths" seemed to be working dam good, when I knew them. They went to night school, and by golly, these folks also went to day school and they graduated and went out to work/go to college/go to graduate school. go to medical school and even law school.

They bought homes, in many "high-end" areas of the US, paid their bills, served in the military, put their kids through college and by gosh, even had medical and dental insurance.

I remember telling my dentist, about my late uncle who came home from an American war and wanted to go to dental school ( a "high-end" Illinois school). But, didn't have all the cash for his tuition. So...what did he do?
Since nothing was wrong about his "BAND WIDTH", he got a night job at the Mars candy bar company in the Chicago area and used the money to pay his tuition/home/food bills.

In the day time, my uncle went to dental school. He made it through dental school in 4 years, BAND WIDTH intact and started and maintained a successful dental practice, for many years, in Chicago.

My dentist told me, that no one could accomplish such a goal today. I don't believe my dentist. Do you?

You are correct. Many wealthy do leave part or all of their estate to charity. They get a dollar for dollar estate tax deduction for doing so. Therefore, the Tax Code provides an incentive to contribute to charity, which in turn reduces their estate tax bill. By giving to charity, it reduces the burden on govt to provide for the "underprivileged". Hence the tax break.

The Tax code also provides you with the ability to control your assets from the grave. It is called a Dynasty Trust. Your assets can be held in these trusts for, in some States, over 100 years. Your heirs get the use of the assets but never own them. Therefore, these assets escape Estate Tax at their death.

So the Tax Code (constitution) is very generous.

If you follow the History of the Estate Tax, since 1797, it rears its head after every war. All the way through WW2, before it became a "permanent". Fixture in the Tax Code.

Thomas Jefferson suggest that those who benefit most from the free society have an obligation to pay for it''s defense. Anyone disagree with that?

Not sure if 1M is too small but 10M per couple is way too high. I felt when the exemption was at 4M per couple, that was about right. 40% seems like the right rate on the excess. Yet, that is splitting hairs I suppose.

Amazing how the millionaires in the Democratic and Republican Parties came up with the 10M per couple Number.