quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In a searing critique of the myth of today's 'self-made millioniarebillionaire', The Guardian's George Monbiot concludes:
Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival. Romnesia permits the ultra-rich both to deny the role of other people in the creation of their own wealth and to deny help to those less fortunate than themselves. A century ago, entrepreneurs sought to pass themselves off as parasites: they adopted the style and manner of the titled, rentier class. Today the parasites claim to be entrepreneurs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/mitt-romney-self-creation-myth
Monbiot labels this myth-making 'Romnesia'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm not too sure that the stats you presented on mobility among the 1% can be interpreted the way you have chosen. My feeling is that they are far more likely to reflect changes in asset values (eg shareholdings, property values, etc) than demonstrate that hard work is rewarded.

quote:

So unless there is far more detail supplied, I am inclined to discount those statistics as meaningless. And anyway, how could anyone possibly do work to the value to a billion or two in any given year? That's surely a joke. No one deserves that level of remuneration or reward for their work.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
No surprise that you are still clinging to the myth of the 'self-made billioniare, a position necessitated by your ideology. If I was you, I wouldn't expect our billionaires to show any gratitude for your diligent defence of their interests.
You seem unable to grasp the fact that no one, no matter what job they do, earns their billions. No job is worth that much.
The obscenity of a microscopic number of individuals measuring their worth in the billions while billions of ordinary people across the planet have nothing doesn't seem to register on your radar. More ideologically-induced blindness.
I see no reason why the children of the poor get penalised for their parents' poverty. I would prefer a world where, inasmuch as it's possible, every child gets an equal shot at life.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Children of the poor are penalized because of their parents' poverty? How do you over come that? Do you confiscate every child to some government internment camp...er day care? That is the only way each and every child will be equal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Children of the poor are penalized because of their parents' poverty? How do you over come that? Do you confiscate every child to some government internment camp...er day care? That is the only way each and every child will be equal.

Why do you jump to such patently ridiculous conclusions? It is absolute nonsense to jump from what I actually wrote - "a world where, inasmuch as it's possible, every child gets an equal shot at life" to imprisoning children in some horrifying government internment camp. There is simply no connection except, possibly, via some extremely paranoid delusions.
As you seem unable to envisage how social policy might be used to achieve a more egalitarian outcome, here's one idea that is illustrative of the kind of proposals I have in mind:
* Access to higher education should be on the basis of individual merit, not determined by the parents'/students' ability to pay.
I hope that is not too difficult, radical or socialist for you to imagine or consider seriously.

quote:

Probably one of the greatest determining factors in academic success is parental involvement and parental motivation. About 70-90% of children who get As or Bs in schools report they are encouraged by parents to do well in school. This alone may help children understand that school is important. Such parents may also be around to help with homework, occasionally volunteer at school, and they attend any conferences or meetings with teachers. In contrast, children who earn Cs or lower, at least in one study, report at about 49% that parents do not encourage them. Schools also regularly report that better performance and academic success is more likely when parents are actively involved in their child’s education.

Socio-economic indicators for academic success in children tend to exclude the children — about 19% in the US — who live in poverty. Middle class and upper class children tend by in large to get better grades, while children from poorer families, especially the poorest, are more likely to repeat grades. Traumatic events, abusive parenting, the impact of violence, and being parented by a single parent frequently correlates to lower grades. In the last instance, what seems to most determine academic success is the degree to which a single parent has time to share with children, since the single parent in most cases must work at least full time to support his or her family. It is clearly the case that many single parents do very well with this, and are able to balance the needs of work and family and be extraordinary parents.

Quality childcare and early childhood education, especially of a caliber that helps children develop socially, mentally, and emotionally, tends to be a positive factor in academic success. Conversely, childcare in crowded institutions that are the only choices for parents on a budget may not give children the skills they need to do well in school. Programs for children like early intervention pre-schools and Head Start do tend to make a difference.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In a searing critique of the myth of today's 'self-made millioniarebillionaire', The Guardian's George Monbiot concludes:
Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival. Romnesia permits the ultra-rich both to deny the role of other people in the creation of their own wealth and to deny help to those less fortunate than themselves. A century ago, entrepreneurs sought to pass themselves off as parasites: they adopted the style and manner of the titled, rentier class. Today the parasites claim to be entrepreneurs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/mitt-romney-self-creation-myth
Monbiot labels this myth-making 'Romnesia'.

Slanted and jaded is how that piece should be described.

Sure, this person or that person may have inherited their wealth, but where did that wealth come from? Did Teresa Heinz Kerry inherit or earn her wealth? She inherited it. Did she do any productive work of her own to generate any income for herself outside of the inheritance? I'm willing to bet she did. This is a property rights issue, too. Wages earned are personal property, and we should have the right to do with that property as we see fit. If that means passing it down to our scions, then, so be it. It doesn't matter if our scions have acted conducted or behaved in a manner worthy of that inheritance. It only matters that the owner of that inheritance deems them worthy.

Want to see something interesting?

Check out the turnover in the Top 1% (from 1994 - 2008). In the US, lowest turnover rate from previous year was in 1995, at 22.7%. The greatest turnover was in 2000 at 28.3%. In Canada, the range was 27.7% to 31.3% (2008 data was not included). In Norway, it was 28.8% to 56.1% (incredibly high in 2006, and the only time the turnover rate exceeded 39%). In Australia, the range was 35.5% to 38.7%, but data was only given for 2001 to 2008.

So, around 1 in 4 people that make up the 1% aren't there the following year.

I'm going through this report, and will have some information available by the end of the week. I have seen charts of data culled from the report, but would rather take from the report itself.

Bottom line criticism of intent of the OP's article is that ignoring that someone did some productive action at some point to earn that wealth is not going to be an incentive for people to work hard now to provide their lineage a better life later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A few posts ago, on this very page (post #6), you were arguing that those who succeeded should be allowed to enjoy their billions ..... that individual merit be rewarded. Isn't this one of the catch cries of the Right?

And now, once I suggest that principle be applied democratically, and the poor people of individual merit be allowed to access to higher education .. that their individual merit be rewarded, you suddenly find problems with the principle.

One rule for the rich and one rule for the poor ..... now you can't get any more right wing than that, can you? It's what the Right is all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In a searing critique of the myth of today's 'self-made millioniarebillionaire', The Guardian's George Monbiot concludes:
Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival. Romnesia permits the ultra-rich both to deny the role of other people in the creation of their own wealth and to deny help to those less fortunate than themselves. A century ago, entrepreneurs sought to pass themselves off as parasites: they adopted the style and manner of the titled, rentier class. Today the parasites claim to be entrepreneurs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/mitt-romney-self-creation-myth
Monbiot labels this myth-making 'Romnesia'.

Slanted and jaded is how that piece should be described.
Sure, this person or that person may have inherited their wealth, but where did that wealth come from? Did Teresa Heinz Kerry inherit or earn her wealth? She inherited it. Did she do any productive work of her own to generate any income for herself outside of the inheritance? I'm willing to bet she did. This is a property rights issue, too. Wages earned are personal property, and we should have the right to do with that property as we see fit. If that means passing it down to our scions, then, so be it. It doesn't matter if our scions have acted conducted or behaved in a manner worthy of that inheritance. It only matters that the owner of that inheritance deems them worthy.
Want to see something interesting?
Check out the turnover in the Top 1% (from 1994 - 2008). In the US, lowest turnover rate from previous year was in 1995, at 22.7%. The greatest turnover was in 2000 at 28.3%. In Canada, the range was 27.7% to 31.3% (2008 data was not included). In Norway, it was 28.8% to 56.1% (incredibly high in 2006, and the only time the turnover rate exceeded 39%). In Australia, the range was 35.5% to 38.7%, but data was only given for 2001 to 2008.
So, around 1 in 4 people that make up the 1% aren't there the following year.
I'm going through this report, and will have some information available by the end of the week. I have seen charts of data culled from the report, but would rather take from the report itself.
Bottom line criticism of intent of the OP's article is that ignoring that someone did some productive action at some point to earn that wealth is not going to be an incentive for people to work hard now to provide their lineage a better life later.

This can't be a serious argument. Let's look at the big picture. If one drops out of the top 1% or even the top 5%...so the fuck what. Not only are they still among the richest and most favored people in the world but still retain all of the advantages that got them to the top 1% in the first place.
"Oh Lord why don't ya make me a top 2%er ?" "My friends are all 1%ers and I must make aaamends."
They maintain every single advantage that wealth delivers to them including the immoral advantage of being rich enough to simply buy and sell for a living, taking almost no risks,

quote:

providing no additional employment and more likely to reduce GDP and employment and unlike the great unwashed...keep 85% of the millions in income while the capitalist peasants only 65% of their very good salaries.
As for the Heinz fortune, not even on point as their wealth was created a long time ago and almost the entire family inherited. Furthermore, you and a few other here refer to a single history...i.e., anecdotal stories of her or him and fails to address national economic policies that effect untold millions...not just the family or two.

quote:

The very thought, idea or false premise of so-called incentives, one would think that incentives would accrue to the ones who need it most, not those who have taken advantage.
The very idea that say I would need the incentive to make $2 billion after I've made $1 billion and that must be provided by a tax code that calls my income gains, is not only a psychological disorder of some description, let's call it what it what is GREED...and we...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)