Socialist nonsense considering that the wealth is mostly paper stock but they pay their millions of employees in hard cash.
Upward Mobility Has Not Declined, Study Says "...For all the continuity over recent decades, the authors emphasized that parents appeared to cast a longer shadow over their children's lives, in some ways, than before. As inequality has risen, pushing the rungs on the income ladder further apart than they once were, the average economic penalty of being born poor has grown over time. ''It matters more who your parents are today than it did in the past,'' Mr. Chetty said." http://www.cnbc.com/id/101357415
Seems logical.... the probability of "climbing the ladder" is directly/inversely related to the income tax rate.
As people that know me know, I coach and train kids to play competitive chess. One thing that pains me is that many kids parents cannot afford chess lessons. I try with all my might to make it affordable by running groups, where the cost is shared by more than one student. It is not perfect, but this solution is better than nothing. When I tutor kids we meet at StarBucks, or to a Panera Bread, Corner Bakery, or to a Barnes and Noble, etc (unless running groups, I try to stay out of the home because there are many distractions there.) At these places, I see kids being tutored in Mathematics, ACTs, Chemistry etc. In the meantime, parents of kids that need the help but that cannot afford these tutors, their kids fall further behind in their intellectual development. Naturally, the mentors flock to the rich areas where we can get payed for the intense demand of our services. If I have a choice to train a kid for $40/Hr or $120/Hr, I am forced by economics to tutor the kid whose parents want to compete for me harder through money. Well, guess what? Wrong answer.
"Working for the few Political capture and economic inequality" http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/working-for-the-few-economic-inequality
lack of chess tutoring is not going to stop a kid who wants it badly enough. the rich kids are just getting more rounded. the kids who will be great chess players will find a way to get it done with or without tutoring. Great players will make sure they learn. in most public school systems there are plenty of opportunities for poor kids. the issue is not the opportunity... the issue is family. to many kids grow up in an almost fatherless community. Govt programs have been destroying families and communities since the 60s.
I am not trying to be offensive, but you don't know what you are saying. Stop them from what? You can't stop a child from playing chess anymore than you can stop a child from playing football. What I am talking about is access to help, training, things that can take your natural talent and put it on an exponential learning curve. See above. You don't understand the issue. A chess set costs $15, well within the means of even the poorest of the poor. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Maximizing your talent is. Any kid that I train will pulvirize even the most talented kid without training. Extrapolate this to opportunities in general. In fact, the situation is dire at most schools, at least in Chicago. For example: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...th-loop-tif-rahm-emanuel/Content?oid=10855117 Instead of Chess: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...es-school-chess-programs/Content?oid=10923815 Yeah I have heard this argument too, David Brooks being its biggest champion: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/opinion/brooks-the-inequality-problem.html?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0 I am not disagreeing with this hypotheses (more like fact) but it is nowhere near the whole story. ACCESS TO MONEY EQUALIZES OPPORTUNITY
Chicago is the epitome of what decades of liberal ideas and leadership can do to a once economically thriving city. It's now a broke, violent, black shithole where white people are fleeing from en masse.
I'm not as generous as Scataphagos with the ignore function so will keep on reading D08 but indeed inheritance tax like all(most ?) of other taxes applied to individuals is theft of personal property. One should be free to dispose of his belongings after his death as he wish, and if not for their offspring many wealthy people would lose appetite to work and make money,which is often in productive ways to society. I don'teven want to go into what options would spring to my mind of what they might do instead. On a side note, i'm quite happy with the idea to give my kids all or most of my wealth upon passing away, but government dictating people who they are allowed to give or not to give is another abusive power several governments entitled themselves. Not sure this applies to americans though, those seem pretty free to write their will the way they like.
I was saying its no so bad for the poor if they want to be great at something... because it is out of their ranks that most of the top athletes come and I doubt chess is any different. I would bet the requisite drive and desire are not frequently seen in the kids who can afford chess tutors. I would bet the champions got most of their valuable tutoring for free. Every former pro athlete and every coach who would know who I have asked states that coaching are talent are fine... but it is desire that makes the top competitor. I have heard only one variation and that was from the father of an NBA athlete, two olympic athletes and the grandfather of a current pro tennis player. I asked him what it takes to be good enough to make to the top ranks... he said you have to figure out what the kids are really good at and then hope they really really love it. I doubt chess is any different. Coaching can help a kid improve but desire and talent is what it takes. My theis is that if a kid has desire and talent... he will get the coaching for free. In my thesis it is not the lack of access to tutors coachs or teahers.... it the lack of solid family that is killing the community. I blame liberal policies for that. Historically prior to LBJ's great society blacks has solid families and communities. --- The only time I read brooks and when his writing is posted here. I It was the austrian school of econ guys who predicted what would happen in the communities.