SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the better-than-growing-up-to-be-a-sink dept.
Scientists at Kings College London performed a longitudinal study to test the 'Pareto principle' and found that adults who were greater users of public services were most likely to have had a low score on the intelligence and impulsivity test administered at age three.
"About 20 per cent of population is using the lion's share of a wide array of public services," said Prof Terrie Moffitt, of King's College and Duke University in North Carolina. "The same people use most of the NHS, the criminal courts, insurance claims, for disabling injury, pharmaceutical prescriptions and special welfare benefits.
"If we stopped there it might be fair to think these are lazy bums who are freeloading off the taxpayer and exploiting the public purse.
"But we also went further back into their childhood and found that 20 per cent begin their lives with mild problems with brain function and brain health when they were very small children.
"Looking at health examinations really changed the whole picture. It gives you a feeling of compassion for these people as opposed to a feeling of blame.
"Being able to predict which children will struggle is an opportunity to intervene in their lives very early to attempt to change their trajectories, for everyone's benefit and could bring big returns on investment for government."
Full Paper: Childhood forecasting of a small segment of the population with large economic burden DOI: 10.1038/s41562-016-0005
(Score: 3, Informative) by lgw on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:41PM
they're funded by the same folks that use them.
Only in the sense that they're funded by the American taxpayers, and used by Americans (many of whom still pay taxes).
Our budget problems are entirely from not taxing the wealthy, absurd amounts of military spending
Did you want to start taxing wealth, or did you mean taxing people with high income. The highest 1% of income already accounts for 1/3rd of income tax revenue.
"Absurd" is subjective, but 15% of the budget doesn't sound absurd to me for military spending. Compare to the 52% we spend on Social Security and Medicare, plus 8% on various forms of welfare and 7% on federal pensions.
Not worth debating definitions of "entitlement", but 2/3ds of the budget is "mailing checks to people". After defense and interest on the debt, that leaves only 11% for what the government should focus on: building roads, keeping order, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:54PM
Social security is paid for by the taxpayers, using that as some sort of welfare example is just disingenuous at best. Wealth should be figured into taxation, unless somehow an income tax can bring the wealth disparity back in check. When the tax brackets on the rich were way higher we magically didn't have these problems, even after a major depression and then war.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lgw on Friday December 16 2016, @12:09AM
Social security isn't paid for by the people receiving it. It's a transfer of income from the young to the old, so on average from the less wealthy to more wealthy. I think there are better ways to help people retire, but regardless we should be honest about the current system.
Taxing wealth leads very quickly to capital flight and the destruction of the economy.
Note that "when the tax brackets on the rich were way higher", the rich paid a smaller share of taxes, as loopholes abounded.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 16 2016, @04:36PM
"When the tax brackets on the rich were way higher we magically didn't have these problems"
Yes, we did have those problems. Some of those problems were just swept under the rug - that is, without huge government agencies to keep tabs on everything, hungry children weren't seen. Some of those problems were addressed by charity, then, but less so now. The poor just weren't seen or heard from. Pride prevented many from even asking for help, or reporting their true situation. Starvation was never common in the US, but malnutrition was, most notably in Appalachia.
Society has changed since those days. Today, few if any are to prideful to accept a government check. Hell, the richest sumbitches in the nation have their hands out, why not me? An ever growing government, coupled with activist groups, pry into everyone's lives, to ensure there are no starving children. The poor are easy to find, if you bother to look for them. 100 and more years ago, almost no one looked for them.