I believe this is due to the
over taxation of the middle class and the undertaxing of the 1% elite rich,

who are trying to make the US. a third world country..

GET BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE He and his people are rich, elitist terrorist

What would an acceptable taxation be for these so-called 'elite rich'? 40%? 50%? More? I'm sick and tired of people claiming that over-taxing the successful is the panacea to all our problems. Yes, we do overtax the middle class -- as we do for ALL classes. Rich people use their money to hire poor people to do the jobs they don't want to. You would have the government take that money from the rich and just give it to the poor for what -- staying home?

Government spending needs to be reduced DRASTICALLY to levels that can be sustained by consumption taxes of 15% or less. Let people keep more of their own money and let them take care of themselves. I know people will say that a consumption tax of that amount is not enough to sustain government in its current form, but that's the point. People need to get jobs (more than one is fine, people have done it for years) and quit holding out their hands.

The government is responsible for protecting me from you, you from me, and us from everybody else. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. You are your own responsibility.

Did the study account for earning potential/mobility as it relates to intelligence? It stands to reason that the bottom rung of earners are the bottom rung of the smarts-scale as well (Paris Hilton and her cohorts notwithstanding). If you put 2 poor stupid people together and they have kids, why would you assume they would be able to create a smart kid with the potential to move up?

I also have to take exception to any study that compares us to france and says france is right where we are wrong on matters of employment/economics/class. This a country that rioted -- RIOTED -- at the mere notion of merit base employment until the politicians caved.

America is a nightmare.

Mike;

You need to take a class on social inequality.

The poor aren't poor because they are stupid.

The poor aren't poor because they're lazy.

The solution isn't as simple as telling people to get off their asses and work harder.

And, besides, the original post talked about income *mobility*; the ability of people to move between income levels (preferably up), not about how overtaxed we are, and how lazy poor people are.

I think if you talk to most reasonable people about the issue, they'd be in favor of "equality of opportunity," rather than "equality of results."

What this post (and other research suggests) is that there's the concept of "equality of opportunity" is taking a beating.

> You need to take a class on social inequality.

I'd rather shoot myself in the face.

> The poor aren't poor because they are stupid.

Many are. Even for those that aren't, it's not the government's responsibility to pay for their misfortune and/or poor upbringing.

> The poor aren't poor because they're lazy.

Many are.

> The solution isn't as simple as telling people to get off their asses and work harder.

Maybe not, but let's try that for a bit and see who's left, shall we?

> And, besides, the original post talked about income *mobility*; the ability of people to move between income levels (preferably up), not about how overtaxed we are,and how lazy poor people are.

Your're right, the tax bit was a direct response to the comment before mine. The lazy/stupid bit was ad-lib.

> I think if you talk to most reasonable people about the issue, they'd be in favor of "equality of opportunity," rather than "equality of results."

> What this post (and other research suggests) is that there's the concept of "equality of opportunity" is taking a beating.

Unless you are advocating complete, equal redistribution of wealth and access to the finest educational institutions, "equality of opportunity" is a myth. It will never happen, it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be 'opportunity', it would just be daily life. If everyone was rich, noone would be.

> Unless you are advocating complete, equal redistribution of
> wealth and access to the finest educational institutions, "equality
> of opportunity" is a myth. It will never happen, it can't. If it did,
> it wouldn't be 'opportunity', it would just be daily life.

You've confused "equality of results" with "equality of opportunity." The suggestion is not that every poor kid gets to go to Harvard - the suggestion is that every poor kid who wants to, and has the aptitude and drive, can go to college.

> If everyone was rich, noone would be

Wow. That's elitist. Scared some brown person might move next door to you?

Peace. Out. I'm done. You can go stew in your self-righteous libertarian bile.

Mike,
I am one of those that came from the bottom (one of those families who relied upon charity for Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas presents) and improved my position. I worked hard to do so, but frankly, it was opportunity that meant everything, and today I run a boutique investment bank specializing in technology M&A.
The truth is I, and many of my friends in high-income tax brackets pay a lower rate of tax on gross income than we did when we were at the bottom of the middle class rung. I can afford to pay a higher percentage of my income for programs that provide Americans with critical things like education, healthcare, and opportunity. More importantly, I am willing to do so, and so should you be willing to do, if your biases and predisposition towards a prejudice aimed at those less fortunate than yourself did not get in the way. Your name is not John Galt, and Ayn Rand wrote novels.

Dear Mike,
If everybody was rich everyone would be rich....it all depends on how you measure wealth. Is it walking over whoever is in your way to get the most and then once you your on top you make sure those people stay at the bottom, or is a wealthy country a country whose inhabitants all have enough food, clean water, shelter, and a piece of mind? Those of us with money seem to think that some how we deserve this over those who don't have it. We seem to think that we hard for what we have and those who don't have as much as us simply don't work to get. Those of us with little money, those of us deemed the " working class" know that we work the hardest for our government, give the most to our government, and send our children off to fight your wars. All we ask for in return is for our government to give us what we deserve and help us out a little bit.
Equality of opportunity isn't impossible and it isn't a myth. All it would take is people like you taking a social inequality class or shooting yourselfs in the head.

Wow. Lots of angst. Let me address your fallacious personal attacks.

I was not raised wealthy. I was one of six kids from a single mother living entirely off the government. Welfare, subsidized housing, free school lunch, the works. I worked hard in school, joined the army (I'll have no one fight my wars for me, thank you), and used the money to put myself through school (no government loans, no money from the parents), getting a degree in computer engineering along the way. During school, I got married and had 2 kids of my own -- you know, those things that are supposed to make it *so hard* to achieve success. Whatever. I'm now pulling in over 80K a year. You know what my mom is doing? Nothing. That's right. Nothing. Seems government handouts weren't an incentive to find a job. Imagine that. I work until April or May to pay for layabouts like her and others that whine about some perceived lack of "equality of opportunity".

Brown people *do* live next to me, and we get along just fine.

One of the reasons there are so many kids who want to go to college but can't is that there are too many kids who shouldn't go to college but do. Every person I worked for in the mall while putting myself through college had a degree in History, Philosophy, Women's Studies, or Sociology. Every single one. I'm not exaggerating even a little here. They all still work at the mall. You don't need a degree to do nearly any job at the mall. Some do, most don't. Too many people take up scholarships and loan funds and do absolutely nothing to justify it. Get them to start their careers 4 years earlier and maybe some of these others would get a chance.

Quit whining. Get a job. Get 2 jobs. If your current situation doesn't allow you to go to college, take classes online. Move up step by step. Some people achieve the american dream. Some don't. Life is not fair and is not guaranteed to be so. In the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, "Anyone who says differently is selling something".

Without the welfare, subsidized housing, and free school lunches, programs provided by taxation, where might you and your siblings be, not to mention your mother? Might those programs not operate even better if, once driven individuals like yourself used them to get some kind of start, their tax rates were lower than the rates for those who had "made it"?

That "if everyone was rich, no one would be" quote just gives me shivers. Why is it taken for granted that anyone *has to* be any richer? How does it make the world any better for only part of the populace to live comfortably and only a very few to live luxuriously? And relating to my first paragraph, why is it so shocking that those who have more than they need to live comfortably should be asked to give more to those who do not have that much?

I can understand wanting to punish the lazy--there's a sort of ethic to that, however harsh. But if, as you assert, many poor people are poor because they're stupid, and stupid because they're the children of two stupid people, where is the morality in punishing them for being stupid? And if you finally achieve a system that forces people to survive by hard work, how do you sort out those who fail because they are still just too lazy from those who are stupid? Or do you just kill them all and let God sort it out?

Without those programs I believe that I would be right where I am today. They did not help me escape. On the contrary, they provide an excuse for 3 of my 5 siblings to continue the family tradition and suckle at the teet of the government. If they did not exist, I would have had a shittier childhood, but my adulthood would be as it is now. No question.

You're right. No one 'has to' be richer. I just enjoy it -- plain and simple. How does it make the world any better for all people to live in or near poverty?

You asked why it's shocking to ask wealthy people to pay more. It's not shocking any more than it is asking. You would *force* me to pay more simply because you think it's the right thing to do. I don't think it's the right thing to do. For that reason alone it's as valid for me to ask to pay less.

Your assertion that not giving handouts is a punishment is wholly flawed. It's only a punishment if the thing being taken away belonged to the person from which you take it. If you take my house or my car for bad behavior, that's a punishment. If you refuse to give me money as a reward for laziness/stupidity, that's just tough. I reject that argument completely.

I'm not convinced that if you'd starved, or had to work instead of going to high school, much less college, or not qualified for the army, even hard work would have sufficed. I'm really not. And that's the thing: I think there are some situations where hard work is simply, sadly, not enough.

I'm also really not convinced that increased taxation of the top 1% of all earners equals anything close to "all people living in or near poverty," not by a long shot. A 50% tax on the top 1% of earners (a bracket, despite your success, you're still nowhere near) would make far less difference to the lives of those earners than even much smaller taxes make in your salary and especially of those at or under the poverty level, and make a far greater difference in far more lives than lower taxes on more people, if you follow me.

I believe quite strongly that not helping those around us *is* punishing them. Doing nothing for those in need is the same as doing something negative. On this, I'm afraid, as were Vizzini and Westley, we are at an impasse. I'll just have to hope mercy is a better antidote for iocane powder than "toughness."

What if we get back to the original post and some of your objections there?

You bring up France. Yes, they had riots to hold on to the possibility of lifelong employment. And yet, there's great economic mobility there than in the hard-working, dog-eat-dog U.S.

You also *only* brought up France, the only country in the CAP list Juliana cited of more-mobile nations that has had riots over employment in the last year. Places with tax rates that are higher to varying degrees, but also much lower rates of poverty, and, again, higher economic mobility.

What does that tell us? It tells me that maybe competition and self-reliance aren't the only factors in economic mobility, that there are other things that contribute, perhaps quite strongly. Heck, there are lots of variables, but could it even be that the higher taxes in those countries are somehow *producing* greater economic mobility? It's scary, I know, but we might just have to contemplate it.

So far the American Dream of the rich white politicians in our government is over riding the American Dream of the rest of us... As long as we grasp onto vague, un-definable terns to define standard of living the target is forever a moving one. We need to clearly define what we demand as US citizens.

Maybe Mike needs to get an illness, be unable to work, lose his job as a result, and then lose his insurance. Painful way to gain compassion, but hey, it happens to nicer people all the time!

Did Mike give up on us as hopeless bleeding hearts? I'm almost sad.

the poor are poor because the rich vote to keep it that way, and have the connections to do so.
Have you ever attended a city council meeting? the dirty stuff happens at the last of the meeting , when "nobody important" is there to hear and object to what goes on, and what it voted for. The dirty people fight for their projects to be voted on last. Related: the rich don't go to bed crying because their kids are hungry, they vote to keep "welfare" expenses down, while still reaping the benefits of gerrymandering "low-income" school districts.
In my little city, a city council member is married to the Prez. of the PTA, and the wife got busted stealing PTA money and funneling it through her husband's business. Neither one has even been fired, much less prosecuted (several hundred thousand dollars) He's still on the league city council!!
In Texas, they fight every year to have as many apartment complexes as possible in their school district because "apartment people" are "low-income", therefore, they pay less in property taxes, and the schools get a bigger piece of the state and federal pie. But they aren't willing to spend it unless you--the parent--owns a home that pays school taxes directly to their district, and sometimes not even then.
(I doubt this is only in texas.)
Especially if your child has ANY special need. Even though they are legally bound to do so. If you catch them breaking state law, they pull out federal law, and vice versa. They will lie to you bald faced and deny it--I got to a point that I wouldn't even go to the school without a tape recorder in my purse, and all I wanted was for my son to be tested for dyslexia.(Which state and federal law says they have to do, and they have someone on payroll who does only that)
Since late sep't., the state of texas has been kicking kids off the FEDERALLY FUNDED breakfast and lunch program, while accepting FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS to feed them. I should know, I have 2 kids, I'm feeding 5. As per the dep't. of agriculture--who funds the program--the funding was raised. the schools say the funding was cut. The schools also got new laptops and 32 inch screen TV's for each classroom the same week.
But they still gerrymander the districts to get all of the "low-income" people in that district. MY kids have never been able to walk to school--even when a school was literally across the street. They had to be bussed 45 minutes away.
Even if they qualify for "advanced" classes, they are required to buy books over the summer at a ridiculously inflated price. Don't belive me? I will be more than happy to give proof.
hsyx@warpedpotatoes.net The "American Dream" isn't denied just to the recent immigrants, it's denied to 90% of all Americans.
I'm a single mom, I have 2 honor roll students, I feed 2more honor roll students, and a B student, they are all "my kids". I see a serious fight to get them in college, even with loans, (Pitiful) grants, scholarships, etc. If our president was serious about education, he wouldn't have slashed pell grant funding, and try to lower math and science requirements for graduation, nationwide. We'll be outsourcing jobs @ NASA within 10 years, because most Americans won't have the education to be able to work there. I live 20 minutes away from NASA. MY kids are smart, but They're in the top 10 % because our education system sucks.
It's about the money the school gets, not the education they give.

If memory serves, the US used to be based on the idea that hard work, prudent savings, and education were all that one needed to become upwardly mobile. Nationally we used to pride ourselves on being the only country in which upward mobility, and indeed even the presidency, were available to any and all of us.

I favor the capitalist economic model and believe hardwork and/or smart work should entitle one to more toys in this life. However, a corrolary of this philosophy is that it is not right to allow the rewards sytem to operate without some humane regulation. No person should have two Rolls Royces until everyone willing to work has one bicycle, so to speak. You can tweak the measurements , but the tax system needs to be designed to burden the fortunate wealthy ones more than others. The disparity in the distribution of wealth in the USA is increasing and this administration is making matters worse by lowering capital gains and estate taxes which favor the rich even more....all the while lying that the cuts favor the middle class.
You cannot effectively debate ethics with an unethical person. If someone doesn't appreciate the correctness of sharing his toys or good fortune with those less fortunate, intelligent, hardworking, (or white or male) no amount of reasoning will make them see the light. Mike's rather wierd comments about his family perhaps give some insight to his extremely fervent objection to sharing toys.

However interesting Mike's point is about laziness and stupidity being factors in lack of opportunity, I have to strongly object to every argument he has made. In fact, I object to the entire argument (both sides). What America's mess comes down to is that we as human beings, have lost sight of what is really important in life. Capitolism is killing us. Why do we live our lives in the pursuit of money? We don't own anything, it owns us. Life is not about statistics, getting to the "top" as we would like to put being financially way too comfortable, it should be everything that we experience in the midst of this drama. What mike overlooks is that people are living and spending completely unnessesarily, while gaining nothing of any true value, while others work too long of hours, go to school and have children all at the same time, and have no chance to make strong relationships with their families and people important to them. Children grow up thinking this is the only thing to life, and completely miss all the good things in life- often having huge intimacy problems. While Mike so stingily decides that people who are poor don't deserve to be rich, what he is missing is the fact that parents sacrifice some time (that yes, they could spend working two jobs) to bond with their children and raise them right (ex: stay at home mothers), and at the same time loosing opportunities for their children to start exploring their passions. The problem with the arguement is this: Give up family to make money. What I would like to suggest is that we have the opportunity to do both. Raise children properly and be able to give them guitar lessons? Now that is just absurd!! Why should kids be handed out free money because their parents are "too lazy or stupid" to provide them with opportunities to be what they want when they grow up??
Mike you are an asshole. What this world needs is more love and open-mindedness, not hatred and judgement.

The argument the rich make is that it's their money and they should keep it all, but anyone not half asleep can see that the most common way one gets rich in America is by exploiting those beneath him. Layoffs lead to huge bonuses for the guys at the top. Price-gouging leads to windfall profits and golden parachute pension payouts. When the rich paid their fair share, when corporations paid taxes instead of pretending to be offshore, when a person worked his 40 hours and could own a home, there was less of an astounding gap between rich and poor and it was a more moral society.

Now greed rules in America and the meanspiritedness as shown by this Mike person is sad and demoralizing. CEO’s now makes approximately 500 times what the worker makes and it is hard to believe he simply works 500 times harder and therefore deserves it. In Japan they are content to make 11 times the worker and those executives don’t seem to be starving. Why does one greedy man deserve 6 homes when thousands of veterans sleep in the streets?

Mike wants to be like that CEO and stomp on the little guy to show what a manly man he is, but chances are he won't get out of the middle class where he is stuck and he just might slip on down with those rest of us formerly middle class who are educated, smart, hard-working but just not ruthless enough to climb our way to the top on others' backs.

Mike's only problem is his mother had one too many children; no doubt he dispenses his brand of misery everywhere he goes.

Christi, I totally agree that the end of capitalism is a long-term goal we should have in sight, but it's not going to happen in our lifetime; there are just too many assumptions that have been around for far too long--for example, as you say, the idea that money is in and of itself desireable, the assumption that having way more than you need is praiseworthy, and so on.

In the mean time, we need to fight the little battles that will help to gradually set the stage for utopia, and help us to figure out exactly what it looks like. Helping to create true economic equality, I think, is the first step to helping people see how unnecessary economics can be.

One thing we shouldn't do (a mistake I myself made) is get hung up returning Mike's vitriol. He's a chance for us to practice using logical and emotional arguments to being breaking down the idea that it's important for people to get rich.

Little by little, my friends, we shall overcome.

Well, Mike... been there, done that, seen far too much to understand your point of view. Bear with the details...it will all make sense. You see, I grew up in a family where we learned to work hard, and struggled to get by. I am intelligent (No, not just my opinion.... Measurable). I put started college, but a major life trauma made it impossible to continue...ended up doing the kids and family thing. And when I found the strength to escape abuse, I became a single mom. With nothing. On assistance. I got a job, and went back to school, and am now a teacher.

Aahhh, you might say...My point exactly. Hard work equals upward mobility. Except that I still struggle to pay od education loans (I notice your schooling was several kids ago. Costs can't compare to now. Used to be you could work the summer and pay for the school year. No more.) And in those years, taxes, car repairs (still an old beater), medical bills sometimes went on credit. - Not my preference, but necessities are necessities. So, I struggle, even having been far from lazy and stupid.

Meanwhile, I enter my classroom each day. I know my
families well. I know that they work two jobs just to survive...and yes, it's been
done for a long time, but I also know what it does to the children who never see their
parents, growing up without full benefit of parental support and guidance, because life is just survival. THese same people with the two jobs still must hit the food banks before the end of the month. You may be thinking that they waste their money on other things, but I have been to their houses, with 2 chairs, straight-backed, as living room furniture, 3 children sharing a bed, empty cupboards, worn-out cars..or none.

And you ask me to believe this is right? This is just? That people should spend this life working every waking hour to struggle by, wondering if there will be enough money for rent and food? I have heard children say, "Next week is Spring Break. You know what that means."

"Yep. No breakfast. No lunch." No breakfast or lunch. Only dinner. WIth intelligent, hardworking parents who were not born rich and white. There is no justice in that.

There is no working up from that, with hunger too strong to think, not to mention nutritional deficits that impede learning.

There is no working up from that when little minds arae consumed with wondering if there will be a roof over their heads tonight.

THere is no working up from that when one's whole being is consumed with the thought that mom is terribly sick, and there is no money, and no insurance, and no doctor.

Mike, you worked your way up, and so assume that everyone else can do the same. I am so glad that you found your way out of poverty, but you have only lived your life, and cannot know what challenges others face. Keep your beliefs about taxation, but do not confuse judging others... "poor,lazy"... as support for your position.

Good comments Christi, dcoyote, Forestlady. Nothing compares to living. I read a lot (example the above) and can recomend Welfare Brat. I think there is a lot of 'revealing books' about a person's past since the award for McCourt's book Angela's Ashes. But there is a difference in 'tell-all' book while you are starting out (getting out of college) and waiting until you retire like Frank McCourt did. Writing a tell-all book early smacks of money grubbiness at any cost because lots of people in the book are still living and shouldn't have to face the author's interpretation.

There is a major shake-up in how America is going to interpret the American dream from now on. I think the government abetted by the capitalist economy is leaning strongly in undoing the 'fairness' doctrine in taxation. If you care to look you will find that the taxation sources of the federal government have done an almost 180 degree turn from being business/individual sources to being individual/business sources.

There has been much government discemination as to how the social security program will keep young workers poor. Consider that the media in our country functions to carry out government aims you will see how much these government sponsored 'media releases' had done determine the prevailing view of how taxation only serves the undeserving, resulting in opinions like Mike's.

I do volunteering since I was made homeless in 1997 when my husband died. He died worked to death. His death benefitted no one and harmed the grandchildren we would have been educational and social mentors for. I could tell you from experience that green and jelousy are alive and well in small towns. My blog: www.homelessforfive.blogspot.com

I believe that should we make it past this era of greed without a world war (last night on NOW, Bronchcchio had a speaker from the Nation who said among other things, that America's pension funds have now moved into oil---highly volitile oil. Didn't they learn anything from the stock market crash of the mid 90's in which pension funds took a huge hit?) we will have a description which justifies the dismantling of social support systems. Probably a term like "the Great Fairness Decade" or some such drivel.

He who controls the media controls the world. Something Marx said isn't it?