>>20836004>you're only using the federalYes because you said income tax was 18% >>+<< the rest.
>poor people receive a disproportionate amount compared to what they actually give Not if you look at it percentage wise.
>best higher education institutions The richest ones. Havard is a merely 75k/year all in all. That's almost what I make in a year lole. The worth of your degree almost entirely depends on what university you graduated from. How does that even make sense. Even though I could learn almost every thing I would have learned in the University for free at home, I would never be able to apply for the same positions. And then there's the obvious problem of nobody failing, because obviously nobody would pay hundreds of thousands for a uni known for failing people.
>wealth is one of the many factors that determine successI agree but it's laughable that you degrade it to the same importance as merely being gifted. I can assure you that there's almost no people that grow up rich and end up as an unsuccessful, poor person.
Why can't you accept giving up a fraction of your wealth for others to at least have a shot at a successful career and life?
>meritocracy is about who is best qualified to fulfill some position given their pre-existing conditions, not based on "if's"I quote
"Meritocracy is a social system, organization, or society where individuals' success and advancement are based on their talents, abilities, and effort rather than on factors such as class, wealth, family background, or social connections."
Of course this is an ideal that will never be real. Life isn't fair and we will never be able to artificially make it. But the thing is it's not only in a poor individuals best interest, but also the economies best interest. If you can extract your populations full potential, you will have a strong foundation to compete in the "international division of labor" you where talking about.