Are You in the Top 1% ?

Good for whom? Wealth is subjective. The value of that wealth is determined by society as a whole, not just by the folks at the top. As the number of people unable to participate in the value system grows the value system itself must shift.

A dollar isn't a dollar because the U.S. Government says it is. It's a dollar because it took you x number of minutes to earn and it buys you a pack of gum. As the inequity increases at some point 20 percent of the people grow large enough to reject the value measurement system for a new one and all the value the wealthy thought they had disappears.

 

Additionally, they don't have enough money to gain a politician's interest.

and a correction,$500K is only 10 times $50K

 

We live in the west, not the third world. We all have access to free education. We make of it what we will. We all have the option to live beyond our means, or not. Even the welfare recipient can save money, if they're motivated enough.

 

Yes, it will just take you longer to get there, since you start later. Once you're in your early 20's, it's on you.

But the most important part of your post (my bold) is the key. THAT is every parent's choice.

 

Your choices are only limited by your commitment to having them. It will take longer, as said, but the end result is the same.

 

What? No. Of course 'working like a dog' isn't the key to financial security .. if it was there'd be no working poor. Financial security is a combination of education (available to even the poorest American, take it or leave it) and commitment to financial security. It's not spending, it's living well within your means, it's saving, it's going without, it's determination, it's fierce determination to succeed.

 

Pareto distribution predicts that when you go beyond the 20/80 point, it will balance out. We don't have to do anything about it. Without raising taxes, the rich head for the hills because they don't want to live in a poor neighborhood. Either that, or the poor start leaving because they can't afford to live there, thus balancing it out from the bottom up. By raising taxes, you end up with the same thing because the rich don't want to be taxed out of their wealth.

It doesn't matter whether it is blamed on envy or the rich or hillbillies. It happens regardless of who are what is blamed.

So we are left with looking at the left's proposed solution which is to give more power to the government via enhanced taxation on the rich. This funnels the money from the 20% to the government, and then the government is composed of people in that 20%.

Is that what you want?

 

I have seen completely uneducated brown skinned people come from 'dirt poverty' in third world countries, to the west as penniless refugees, and in one generation shoot past the educated middle classes. That is how you make the most of the great advantages of the west.

There is no arguing against that. If such people can turn their fortunes around, anyone can.

 

I'm sure you would need such a thing in order to survive. I suspect that the way to ensure that you end up with $250,000 is to give you a million.

 

Money represents the transfer of value. That's important to note. The value the money was traded for has to go somewhere. Where does it go? Certainly not only to the top.

 

That's utter crap. Plenty of people are affected by inheritance taxes, as a result of owning a home outright combined with a lifetime of saving and investing - and they don't have to be in the 1% to be subject.

Your envy consumes you.

 

The board is level .. for 99% of us.

 

The wealth disparity is directly related to the FED, cheep credit and the financialization of the economy, where massive gains are being made by paper shufflers who produce nothing, while the lifeblood has been sucked from the general economy.

Taxes have nothing to do with it and only serve to squash the marginally successful upper middle class, while leaving the extremely wealthy, extremely wealthy.

 

definitely a better way of saying exactly what I wanted to say. Thanks for that.

 

If all public schools (in a given state) receive the same amount of funding, and run to the same curriculum, then it's the quality of the student body that determines overall school performance. I suspect the problem with your 'bad' schools is the parents in those areas, not the teachers.

 

Yes, they do - if their parent/s are determined to take advantage of the free education available to all Americans. All it takes is 100% parental commitment and dedication, and it can be done anywhere, by anyone, of any colour, any background, and any financial or marital status.

 

It's our fault they don't

 

LOL okedoke. Someone has read a little too much Ayn Rand.

 

But they often aren't given the same amount money from the state. Would you support a change to our education system where it's one giant pool; either by state or federally (I have yet to research on that) and then evenly distributed to every district?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/

 

Most countries in this world have free education for all children; and many of them have better outcomes than us. What are they doing differently? How should we adjust to maintain competitiveness?

 

I live in a country where public schools are all funded at the same rate, nationally. Slight variations on how funding is used within the different states, but no zone or area is given more than another. Our school 'quality' differences are due to the social problems of an area. In other words, the crappy people breeding the kids at 'bad' schools.

In an aside, some of our highest ranked (academically) public high schools are in the worst areas. The reason for this apparent anomally? Because they're open to students from anywhere in the country, and places are highly sought after (exam entry only .. very tough exams). Few local kids attend such schools, with 90% of the student body being from other areas. So you can see from this that the quality of a school has nothing to do with the the teachers or the funding, and everything to do with the people of the given area.

 

What they're doing is parenting differently. None of it is an accident.

You should adjust by taking your (general you) kids' education seriously.

 

The national endowment you speak of accounts for about 8% of any given school's budget. The rest is divided almost equally between State and Local. That means poorer areas with less tax money spend less per student; and it shows.

Did you read that first paragraph of the article I posted?

 

If you could back that up with any data to support that claim; I would read it.

 

It's whose fault if who don't what?