<p>Busdriver11, you never complained about people not having skin in the game?</p>
<p>“Incorrect. The number one path to poverty is being born into poverty. Period. Doesn’t matter so much if you’re born to a single parent or to a married couple. If you’re born poor, chances are pretty good you’ll remain poor most or all of your life. There’s far less social mobility in this country, upward or downward, than our collective mythologies would have us believe. Relatively few non-poor people “fall into” poverty–even by becoming single parents. Most single parents are already poor and remain so. But then most poor people who do not become single parents also remain poor. It’s true that among adults, poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, but it’s far less clear what’s the cause and what’s the effect, especially since our welfare policies effectively discourage the formation of two-parent households among those receiving assistance, and because incarceration rates among low-income black males are shockingly high. What is clear is that poverty rates are far higher for children (22% of U.S. children are poor) than for adults (15%). Those children didn’t “become poor” by “becoming single parents,” they became poor by being born into poverty, through no fault of their own. Most of them will remain poor their entire lives, and many will beget additional generations of children born into poverty, in many cases as single parents. But there’s little evidence that single parenthood made the adults poor; in most cases, poor is where they were starting from before they ever became single parents.”</p>
<p>Disagree. Or maybe it all comes down to the same thing, and we’re merely arguing what comes first. No, I doubt that many people from wealthy families, even if they become single parents at young ages fall into poverty, as their family will help take care of them. But then again, I’d like to know the statistics, and don’t you think that people who grew up impoverished end up being single parents at young ages far more than wealthy ones? And maybe THAT is what keeps them in poverty, not being born into it. There’s nothing that forces you to have children at a young age just because you are poor, and people ought to understand that is what will keep them poor, forever.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about children becoming poor, obviously a child in a poor family is poor until they are able to support themselves. But if they graduate high school, stay out of prison, go to college or get a skill, and DON"T HAVE BABIES until they are older, married, and can support themselves…it is very likely that they will not stay poor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Low income working people do pay federal payroll tax, which is an income tax applied only to labor income, with no deductions or exemptions, although it is not normally included when one says “federal income tax”. Of course, most of them would like to earn the higher level of income for which they would have to pay federal income tax. But the payroll tax (and other taxes at the state and local level) mean that they do have “skin in the game”.</p>
<p>You may have a point with the retired elderly on Social Security and Medicare (receiving what are supposed to be the proceeds of the payroll taxes) whose voting interests are to raise the payroll taxes that others pay to maintain and increase their own benefits. But they are not the majority of the people paying no “federal income tax”. Nor are the students, unemployed, and people with disabilities, most of whom would prefer to join the workforce at some time in the near future anyway.</p>
<p>“Not exactly. I work for a company with 300k + employees. I work on the board of a religious non-profit for which I earn a big fat zero!”</p>
<p>Oops. For some reason I also thought you had your own small business. Must have been someone else.</p>
<p>Busdriver, I imagine Bclintonk is referring to something like this: <a href=“Pew economic mobility study paints glass 'half full, half empty' picture”>Pew economic mobility study paints glass 'half full, half empty' picture;
<p>Though when I look at those charts what I see is that there is income mobility, look how many people born into the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile (8%) but obviously there is some correlation there. Some correlation should obviously be expected (in no sensible society ever would you see straight 20% across the board), but this looks like what one should expect and what is reasonable. That is, if you believe both that intelligence is genetic and intelligence has an impact on earnings. </p>
<p>“Busdriver11, you never complained about people not having skin in the game?”</p>
<p>I don’t recall that as being a phrase that I would use. That line always annoys me, but I don’t want you to have to search through my 6,627 posts to prove me wrong. Perhaps I have not said what I have precisely meant, or perhaps my views have changed over the years. But for now, I think pretty much everybody has “skin in the game”. Ugh. I shudder to even say that line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s something Goldenpooch said that people seem to be attributing to you…? </p>
<p>" It’s something Goldenpooch said that people seem to be attributing to you…? "</p>
<p>Perhaps. Or it could have been something from years ago, or sometimes people just put you in a category of… you think A, therefore you must think B,C, or D. Or maybe I said something to that effect a long time ago. Who knows!</p>
<p>The chart that Vladenshlutte linked shows that bclintock is wrong. If you are born poor, chances are that you will move up. 59% of adult children of poor parents moved up in income over their parents wealth (or lack thereof).</p>
<p>Busdriver11, I am glad you dont feel that way. Sorry that I misrepresented what you wrote.</p>
<p>Returning to the original topic (if anyone is interested), I think the wag-the-dog problem, where you have a hedge fund/sports program with a university attached, deserves serious consideration. To know whether that is destructive, you have to ask whether the interests of the tail and of the dog are aligned. That’s going to depend on the particular dog and the particular tail. </p>
<p>“To know whether that is destructive, you have to ask whether the interests of the tail and of the dog are aligned. That’s going to depend on the particular dog and the particular tail.”</p>
<p>Okay, I really like that line. Might even have it tattooed on my body so I remember it. Either that, or dstark actually saying he’s sorry he misrepresented what I wrote. I’ll probably never hear that again. The day is complete!</p>
<p>The article was rather poorly written. Attaching words like “morally wrong” to places where more precise words would have been more effective end up turning a lot of people off from the central, and probably valid point, that the author wanted to but failed to make. </p>
<p>Harvard can only take on so many students and do only so much research, so unless it does something to expand the services it provides to society, a large portion of its endowment is effectively dead weight loss. </p>
<p>Busdriver11, tomorrow a tax proposal will be described that cuts rates and deductions…</p>
<p>It wont fly but it will be interesting to see what deductions are eliminated to achieve lower rates.</p>
<p><a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story/gop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgop%2520tax%2520plan%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCoQqQIwAQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FPolitics%252FwireStory%252Fgop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055%26ei%3DPS0NU4utBsigogTanoL4BQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHMc0xXX_pFtBqY1Bt2qXjcE8r9Xw%26sig2%3DtOUkGZvIX8ESwEZpwy8vWQ%26bvm%3Dbv.61725948%2Cd.cGU”>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story/gop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgop%2520tax%2520plan%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCoQqQIwAQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FPolitics%252FwireStory%252Fgop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055%26ei%3DPS0NU4utBsigogTanoL4BQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHMc0xXX_pFtBqY1Bt2qXjcE8r9Xw%26sig2%3DtOUkGZvIX8ESwEZpwy8vWQ%26bvm%3Dbv.61725948%2Cd.cGU</a></p>
<p>what if the donation is in bitcoin? (I understand that dstark may have hedged them.)</p>
<p>I didn’t read all the comments, so forgive me if I am repeating someone else’s thoughts.</p>
<p>I believe the donor should be allowed to put his money wherever he wants. Having said that, I am cynical enough to believe he has children coming up who might need an edge to be admitted to his alma mater.</p>
<p>If I were that kind of rich I would do more to help my community…but that’s just me. That is enough money to make a significant difference to hundreds (or more) of Chicago schoolkids in terms of academic supports, mentoring, etc.</p>
<p>Re: <a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story/gop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgop%2520tax%2520plan%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCoQqQIwAQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FPolitics%252FwireStory%252Fgop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055%26ei%3DPS0NU4utBsigogTanoL4BQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHMc0xXX_pFtBqY1Bt2qXjcE8r9Xw%26sig2%3DtOUkGZvIX8ESwEZpwy8vWQ%26bvm%3Dbv.61725948%2Cd.cGU”>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/t/story/gop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgop%2520tax%2520plan%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCoQqQIwAQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FPolitics%252FwireStory%252Fgop-tax-plan-lowers-rates-imposes-surtax-rich-22660055%26ei%3DPS0NU4utBsigogTanoL4BQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHMc0xXX_pFtBqY1Bt2qXjcE8r9Xw%26sig2%3DtOUkGZvIX8ESwEZpwy8vWQ%26bvm%3Dbv.61725948%2Cd.cGU</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like the 35% (25% + 10%) rate above $450,000 is for marketing purposes, since the super-rich have many more opportunities to have their income be in non-labor categories (capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, royalties, “carried interest”, etc.) that would avoid that higher rate.</p>
<p>Eliminating the differences in taxes between different categories of income would eliminate even more complexity in the tax laws. However, much of the remaining complexity will be in the definition of “taxable income”, for which there can still be political shenanigans in carving out special interest exemptions.</p>
<p>I would have to see the exact details, but it sounds a bit like a crock. Are they desiring to get rid of some major tax breaks for the middle/upper class, but leaving in the multitudes that only benefit the truly wealthy or those with legions of tax attorneys? Leaving earned income to be taxed at the higher rate, but not unearned income is just kissing rear end to the donors, so…</p>
<p>Sounds like it won’t pass anyways, as some see this as an opportunity to up the revenue. No doubt mostly at the expense of the upper middle and middle class. Perhaps too judgmental without more details, but that’s what it appears to be.</p>
<p>That might be right.</p>
<p>My guess is the poor get screwed too.</p>
<p>We will see tomorrow.</p>