Equality of opportunity..?

[Bay Area]

Which might prove to be a huge mistake. As a result of doing well, he might have access to knowledge that wouldn't be readily available to the less successful (for example he be exposed to financial strategies that you wouldn't otherwise hear about). Of course, he might not know anything about anything except basketball but my opinion is that very rarely do "dumb" athletes make it to the top of their profession.

Ignoring the advice of successful people because of your opinion on their industry is a habit more people should break. At the minimum, all you might learn about is hard work but even that has value.

Very true. Who would have thought Magic Johnson knew anything about business? The man is a few million shy of a billion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How did the government prevent me from inheriting $10 million?

In fact, who actually prevented me from receiving said inheritance?

I'm trying to think of what I could have written that would give you the impression that I think the gov't prevented you from inheriting any amount of money.

No he doesn't. He simply needs to acquire valuable skills.

Yes he does. Given equal skills, he's at a big disadvantage, and he's at a further disadvantage acquiring those skills in the first place.

A large list of illegal immigrants can demonstrate to you how easy this can be accomplished with some committment. I know more than a few of them.

Right, and Allen Iverson won an NBA MVP award, but that doesn't mean that 5'11" 165lb men are not at a huge disadvantage in basketball. That was for Capt. Davis, who gets offended at the idea that anyone might think that slavery was bad.

f u too. ahole.

I'm sorry, but it was an idiotic interpretation. Don't take it personally, just think before you post. Did you even read the story?

Here's more of that story:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/05/vonnegut_lawyers_could/

 

[Captain Davis]

That was for Capt. Davis, who gets offended at the idea that anyone might think that slavery was bad.

The fuck is this?

I'm offended? How? I simply don't know what his slavery comment had to do with today's society. He even admitted that his panties were in a twist.

But in traditional liberal fashion, make it a racial issue to detract from the real issue.

You are losing it Jack.

 

[James Keith]

Yes he does. Given equal skills, he's at a big disadvantage, and he's at a further disadvantage acquiring those skills in the first place.

Right, and Allen Iverson won an NBA MVP award, but that doesn't mean that 5'11" 165lb men are not at a huge disadvantage in basketball. That was for Capt. Davis, who gets offended at the idea that anyone might think that slavery was bad.

No he doesn't. And you have not made a counter argument here, you just claim my evidence is not proof. It is however still evidence.

But your little argument was based on a single individual while mine described an entire social group. An even better example is other immigrant and minority groups such as the vietnamese. All people need to do is embrace the culture and play by the rules to succeed.

I'm sorry, but it was an idiotic interpretation.

First of all even the author himself (a socialist by the way, who coincidentally seems to make an argument that aligns perfectly with your own view) cannot dictate how his metaphor gets used. And I noted that even within your own little socialist worldview you are still advocating handicaps, even if they differ from the specific type of handicaps advocated in the story.

Don't take it personally, just think before you post. Did you even read the story?

Here's more of that story:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/05/vonnegut_lawyers_could/

Don't take insults from an ahole personally? Good advice generally, but quite irrelevant to the question of whether you should f yourself. Which in my opinion is something you should indeed proceed to.

And your story is about capping wealth taxes, peabrain.

Progressive income taxes are not wealth taxes. They are income taxes. And they do handicap the more successful. So just like you want to smugly quote the author about whether the short story is relevant to the argument here, I can note your little news article is not relevant to the argument here either.

 

[kpt018]

Which might prove to be a huge mistake. As a result of doing well, he might have access to knowledge that wouldn't be readily available to the less successful (for example he be exposed to financial strategies that you wouldn't otherwise hear about). Of course, he might not know anything about anything except basketball but my opinion is that very rarely do "dumb" athletes make it to the top of their profession.

Ignoring the advice of successful people because of your opinion on their industry is a habit more people should break. At the minimum, all you might learn about is hard work but even that has value.

I'm sure Lebron is willing to disclose his successful investment strategies (most of which I would never be able to act on anyway). Even if he did, I'd be extremely skeptical.

And I was half kidding anyway and just wanted to provide an example that success in one area doesn't mean you are knowledgeable in something completely unrelated. Of course the whole thing started with his lame insult. There are definitely stupid people who make a lot of money. Money doesn't make you smart.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The fuck is this?

I'm offended? How? I simply don't know what his slavery comment had to do with today's society. He even admitted that his panties were in a twist.

But in traditional liberal fashion, make it a racial issue to detract from the real issue.

You are losing it Jack.

You specifically said that you thought he chose to illustrate his (very obvious) point the way he did was because he thought it would piss you off.

No he doesn't. And you have not made a counter argument here, you just claim my evidence is not proof. It is however still evidence.

It's not even evidence. No one is arguing that the handicaps that the poor have are insurmountable by anyone; just that they do have handicaps placed on them. Before I can address your point, you'll have to spell it out. Are you saying that the quality of schools that the rich and poor go to are equal, or that superior schooling is irrelevant to later success? Does nutrition and exposure to toxins have no impact on the development of humans or are the poor and rich equal in that regard? Do you think that all things equal, a poor HS student and a rich one have an equal chance of going to an elite university or do you think that that doesn't matter? Do you think that who you know has no impact on your chances of getting a good job or that poor and rich people have equal connections? Your position seems so outlandishly stupid that I have trouble believing that you're even sincere, but if you want me to address it, you'll have to make it more clear.

But your little argument was based on a single individual while mine described an entire social group. An even better example is other immigrant and minority groups such as the vietnamese. All people need to do is embrace the culture and play by the rules to succeed.

That's just how I phrased it. There have been many short or medium-sized basketball players to make it to and in the NBA. Nevertheless, anyone who isn't a complete moron can tell that being short or medium-sized is a massive disadvantage in basketball. Not noticing that people born into poor families have a more difficult time achieving financial success in America than people born into rich families is like not noticing that NBA players tend to be tall.

First of all even the author himself (a socialist by the way, who coincidentally seems to make an argument that aligns perfectly with your own view)

It's not a coincidence. I tend to think that the author of the story knows what he was trying to say, and I believe that in this case, it's pretty obvious.

cannot dictate how his metaphor gets used. And I noted that even within your own little socialist worldview you are still advocating handicaps, even if they differ from the specific type of handicaps advocated in the story.

What handicaps am I advocating? I'm advocating the removal of handicaps.

Don't take insults from an ahole personally?

Don't get so mad just because I pointed out that your reading was really dumb. Just try not to be so dumb. You guys might take longer than normal to understand things that come quickly to normal people, but you're still capable of getting there eventually if you put in the effort.

And your story is about capping wealth taxes, peabrain.

Progressive income taxes are not wealth taxes. They are income taxes. And they do handicap the more successful. So just like you want to smugly quote the author about whether the short story is relevant to the argument here, I can note your little news article is not relevant to the argument here either.

My story? I'm just giving you the context for the quote and a fuller discussion of the issue.

 

[DiegoDiegerson]

Social mobility has stayed the same since the 1960s, as the country has gotten progressively more right wing. Make of that what you will.

When exactly in the 60s? There was after all the whole "Great Society" attempt at building a welfare state.

More generally I just think that the systems of public services and so on in the US show a very bad trend: that everything from help for people down on their luck to public health care has been treated in an ad hoc fashion.

It's not much better in Canada, but at least we have public health care. I think that a lack of public health care is a major problem for social mobility, because it means that people who either can't afford health care, or don't have jobs that provide health care, are in a very precarious position: an accident or an illness can absolutely ruin them financially.

 

[panamaican]

I'm trying to think of what I could have written that would give you the impression that I think the gov't prevented you from inheriting any amount of money.

My comment had 2 parts. If not government then who is responsible for my lack of inheritance?

 

[panamaican]

I'm sure Lebron is willing to disclose his successful investment strategies (most of which I would never be able to act on anyway). Even if he did, I'd be extremely skeptical.

And I was half kidding anyway and just wanted to provide an example that success in one area doesn't mean you are knowledgeable in something completely unrelated. Of course the whole thing started with his lame insult. There are definitely stupid people who make a lot of money. Money doesn't make you smart.

My first point was that success in one area doesn't mean you lack valuable knowledge in other areas.

My second point was based on your choosing an example that's kind of based on the old maxim about athletes being more brawn than brain. My point was simply that you should never skip out on the knowledge a successful person has acquired - even if you think they are "stupid" (not that you called him stupid).

Sure, some stupid people make a lot of money. That doesn't mean they can't teach you something.

I edited out everything but the LBJ portion of the comment to highlight those points.

 

[James Keith]

It's not even evidence.

It is by definition evidence.

As for the other chatter, you seem to be having a really hard time reading my repeated statements about punitive taxation and progressive taxation generally handicapping the more talented and hard-working. Which of these words is too large for you?

And the rich are a tiny minority of society who are not even particularly relevant to the discussion. That obsession is your socialist roots showing. I am not being raped by the commie tax system in california today because I was born rich. Our tax system in this country is only minimally based on wealth as opposed to income.

Don't get so mad just because I pointed out that your reading was really dumb. Just try not to be so dumb. You guys might take longer than normal to understand things that come quickly to normal people, but you're still capable of getting there eventually if you put in the effort.

My story? I'm just giving you the context for the quote and a fuller discussion of the issue.

The best explanation for why you put so much effort into making empty posts dodging arguments is because in between you get to dispense these insults. They are the most consistent thing about you. Don't look now but that means you are just a troll. You run out of things to say when you reach the limits of shit other people said that you like, and from there it's just a game of dodgeball for you. Try facing the argument sometime you coward. No one actually gives a shit about some sci fi author's personal views and it's boring for everyone involved when you create thousands of words of prose trying to argue about it. Personally I do think it's amusing that one of the most famous stories from a socialist actually can be used as a great attack on that author's own political views. And even then I can agree with the guy that forced equality of school funding is a pretty big stretch of the story.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Oh yes. The reason so many Americans living hardscrabble, indebted, hand to mouth, pay check to paycheck existences is a tragedy is because some of those people are our potentially "best and brightest". If we could just filter these whiz kids out and allow them to take their rightful place at the top of the economic food chain then everything would be fine. The system would be fair and the tragedy averted. (Because all these other folks, I mean, come on, they're some kind of dimwits who obviously deserve to be shit-eating poor.)

This is what American "progressivism" has become in the 21st century.

Good post. Everyone can't be above average.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My comment had 2 parts. If not government then who is responsible for my lack of inheritance?

You? I have no idea where you're going.

It is by definition evidence.

It's not evidence against anything that anyone is actually saying.

As for the other chatter, you seem to be having a really hard time reading my repeated statements about punitive taxation and progressive taxation generally handicapping the more talented and hard-working. Which of these words is too large for you?

So you're just going to duck everything. OK. Don't blame you, I guess...

And the rich are a tiny minority of society who are not even particularly relevant to the discussion. That obsession is your socialist roots showing. I am not being raped by the commie tax system in california today because I was born rich. Our tax system in this country is only minimally based on wealth as opposed to income.

"Commie"? WTF? I think you're getting senile, friend.

 

[Captain Davis]

@ Jack

I never said I was offended by anything. I stated that the slavery question was brought up because he thought it would get me rustled. That argument isn't even applicable in this conversation.

Leave it to libs to bring up race when they have nothing else.

So, your answer to inequality is to dole out cash to the poor? How long should they receive this money? How is this going to motivate them to get out of their situation? Should their behavior be scrutinized while they are living off tax payers?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

It is by definition evidence.

As for the other chatter, you seem to be having a really hard time reading my repeated statements about punitive taxation and progressive taxation generally handicapping the more talented and hard-working. Which of these words is too large for you?

Taxes limit people's self-determination a little bit, sure. The question is, does progressive taxation place an unacceptable limitation on people's autonomy? I don't think so. A rich person who is taxed in a country like ours still has enough resources and liberties to control the most important aspects of his life... Progressive taxation isn't seriously impairing anyone's capacity for self-determination...

 

[panamaican]

You? I have no idea where you're going.

Sure you do. But I'll spell it out anyway.

Equality of opportunity. You said that conservatives are against equality of opportunity because of reasons such as the inheritance tax. But the inheritance tax is not why I have an inheritance and you don't.

Inheritance is not something people receive for being born. Inheritance is simply what one person leaves to another. It does not have to be a child, it can be a spouse. It can be the child of the wealthy person's care taker. It can be anyone. More importantly, people can choose to disinherit their children. It's simply not guaranteed that being born to a rich person guarantees an inheritance (A poor person marries the child of a rich person and both benefit from the inheritance)

By taxing inheritance, you're reducing the amount that is passed on, not balancing some birth scale. The impact is on the results of someone's life work, not on the person who is receiving something they never had a right to in the first place.

That's about equality of outcomes (no one can leave too much money to someone else), not equality of opportunity (being born rich guarantees an inheritance that being born poor can never receive).

So back to my question - who is responsible for my lack of inheritance?

 

[James Keith]

So you're just going to duck everything. OK. Don't blame you, I guess...

Hmm maybe my words are actually too small?

As for the other chatter, you seem to be having a really hard time reading my repeated statements about punitive taxation and progressive taxation generally handicapping the more talented and hard-working. Which of these words is too large for you?

^^^ that's an argument, pinhead. Hilarious of you of all people to accuse me of ducking an argument. Case in point:

"Commie"? WTF? I think you're getting senile, friend.

And we're dodging the argument by quibbling about semantics again...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure you do. But I'll spell it out anyway.

You're trying to shift the discussion somehow, but you're not basing your responses on anything I've actually said.

Equality of opportunity. You said that conservatives are against equality of opportunity because of reasons such as the inheritance tax. But the inheritance tax is not why I have an inheritance and you don't.

Your "but" doesn't make any sense. I'm talking about *opposition* to inheritance taxes being one (of many) examples of how the right does not favor equality of opportunity, which is hardly surprising, given that opposition to equality is the defining feature of the right.

By taxing inheritance, you're reducing the amount that is passed on, not balancing some birth scale. The impact is on the results of someone's life work, not on the person who is receiving something they never had a right to in the first place.

Right. Given the fact that someone is receiving something they had no right to that is very useful to them, they are getting an advantage, and people who don't get it are at a comparative disadvantage. Thus, they are not having an equal opportunity. Thus, the lower inheritance taxes are, the more unequal people's opportunity is. You got it! Give yourself a pat on the back.

Hmm maybe my words are actually too small?

^^^ that's an argument, pinhead. Hilarious of you of all people to accuse me of ducking an argument. Case in point:

And we're dodging the argument by quibbling about semantics again...

"Quibbling about semantics." LOL! The thing is, when you go to such an extreme with your trolling, while completely ducking all the substance of the post you're responding to, you're just signaling that you're a waste of time, and maybe that you're having trouble remembering what year it is.

 

[panamaican]

You're trying to shift the discussion somehow, but you're not basing your responses on anything I've actually said.

I'm not trying to shift the discussion. You made the discussion one about conservatives, opposition to equality of opportunity, and inheritance. I'm addressing that aspect of your post.

Your "but" doesn't make any sense. I'm talking about *opposition* to inheritance taxes being one (of many) examples of how the right does not favor equality of opportunity, which is hardly surprising, given that opposition to equality is the defining feature of the right.

Opposition to inheritance taxes has nothing to do with equality of opportunity. That is because inheritance has nothing to do with equality of opportunity.

Right. Given the fact that someone is receiving something they had no right to that is very useful to them, they are getting an advantage, and people who don't get it are at a comparative disadvantage. Thus, they are not having an equal opportunity. Thus, the lower inheritance taxes are, the more unequal people's opportunity is. You got it! Give yourself a pat on the back.

They all have an equal opportunity to meet a wealthy person and strike up a relationship that results in an inheritance.

More importantly, there is nothing that requires a wealthy person to leave an inheritance at all. So, neither the poor person and the child of the rich person are entitled to an inheritance. Both must earn it.

You're confusing equality of outcomes with equality of opportunity. The amount of inheritance that someone receives is based on how much wealth the deceased chose to leave them. That amount is an outcome of the deceased's life choices.

If you want to focus on equality of opportunity then you should be focused on kids born to rich parents vs. poor parents and the advantages passed along while the parents are still alive. By the time the parents are dead it doesn't matter if they leave an inheritance or not. The advantages of wealth have already transferred in the forms of private schools, expensive debt free college educations, valuable relationships in the job market, presumably better mating choices, more knowledge about wealth acquisition, etc. That's where the equality of opportunity takes the nose dive, not at the inheritance.

Talk to any child who grew up rich, inheritance is not where their advantages arose.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Really? I thought those who are for equality of opportunity are focused on the removal of obstacles that have arisen from the free market?

I don't know if I'd say the free market specifically, but society in general in many cases. It's a very difficult question, because you don't want someone to have essentially no chance to make it in life because they're the child of a crack addicted prostitute, but you also don't want Harrison Bergeron. Clearly society has made the judgement that some leveling of the playing field is justified (public schools are essentially a way of taking resources from one group, i.e. taxpayers and distributing it across a broader group, in this case children in general), but we struggle with things like universal pre-K, public funding of universities, etc. It's not a simple issue, though personally I think we should probably do more to invest in young people in general and spend less money maintaining the elderly and military.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you want to focus on equality of opportunity then you should be focused on kids born to rich parents vs. poor parents and the advantages passed along while the parents are still alive. By the time the parents are dead it doesn't matter if they leave an inheritance or not. The advantages of wealth have already transferred in the forms of private schools, expensive debt free college educations, valuable relationships in the job market, presumably better mating choices, more knowledge about wealth acquisition, etc. That's where the equality of opportunity takes the nose dive, not at the inheritance.

Talk to any child who grew up rich, inheritance is not where their advantages arose.

Yes, there are many examples, but inheritance is one.

And experiences vary. Personally, my parents were lower-middle-class, but my maternal grandparents were very wealthy (and, yes, my parents deliberately chose to not take the easy path and do something they believed was socially useful). I had a very uncomfortable meeting with my grandpa before he passed, where he explained his whole plan. I'm 35 so whatever, but I have cousins who are minors in the same boat who have the same amount going to them, and my nana is in her 80s. My cousins won't be set for life, but they'll be able to buy a nice house, a nice car, and to finish college with no debt, which will tremendous wind at their backs.

As for my grandparents, they didn't give their kids money, but they pay for their schooling--all the way from good private schools to terminal degrees--and made equity investments in their kids' businesses--two of which turned out to be great investments. They also let them live in some really nice properties for way below-market rent. That's basically my plan for my own daughter, minus the essentially subsidized rent.