That's inaccurate, and completely out of line.

How so?

Let's take the example of a young person who becomes a Physician.

They not only work long hours, heal the sick, take on pro bono cases, but they are then pushed into a very high tax bracket. And probably carry very high student loans. All that hard work and debt and worry for what? They even put off having kids until their late 30s. When they marry, they marry another doctor or similarly skilled high wage earner. Now they both get hit by the marriage penalty. Again, a stable family carrying an even higher load. Then, on top of that, they are demagogued as not paying their fair share.

What is fair about that?

Its not. And its not out of line.

This is what awaits those with high ability who strive and follow the rules.

Add in how they were probably ostracized in school, or worse, for being smart. How they were ignored by public schools or worse.

So why strive? Why give a flip or even try if you are smart and ambitious? A smart kid will figure this contradiction out pretty quick.

I think this is a major source of the angst a lot of GT kids feel. Society as a whole sends a very mixed message on whether it is good or not to be smart and ambitious.

The statement is inaccurate, or at the very least overgeneralized. My personal experience = husband with a PhD in high energy physics, highest tax bracket (through hard work, not inheritance), and an effective tax rate in the teens.

The current tax laws are not set up as some kind of punishment for high IQ, but they do punish hard work by taxing income earned for labor at a higher rate than the tax rate on investments. Argue about double taxation all you like, but the result is that as income gets over about 500K per year, the tax rate tends to begin to drop, and it continues to drop and drop and drop. The tax system is set up in such a way that those at the very low and very high end of the spectrum have very low rates of taxation, while the masses in the middle bear the bulk of the financial weight. And as someone who has been in just about every tax bracket during this lifetime, it disturbs me how effective those at the very high end of the financial spectrum have been at turning the anger of many in the middle class against those who have very little. Personally I believe that (very justified IMO) anger should really be aimed at those with the finances to control the puppet strings.

However, Austin, you are correct that physicians, who tend to earn less than 500K unless they're in cosmetic surgery, do get horribly screwed for all their hard work. Hopefully getting rich wasn't their main goal when choosing that career.

Hard work does not necessarily equal money, poor does not necessarily equal lazy, and genius IQ does not necessarily mean high tax rate.

If I thought high energy physics Ph.D. could obtain "highest tax bracket", I would have probably pursued that rather than a legal career. But we all make financial assumptions when strategically planning our career arcs.

In fact, that would probably be much easier for me than law, being that it was actually an area where I had actual talent.

In fact, given what I know now, I would basically never have made any of the major life choices I made. But that's life. You only tend to know how to make choices, or what those choices really mean, when it's too late.

Physicians are relatively secure due to the structure of their guild.

I'm naive but I really think personal happiness comes from pursuing the things you love, both personally and professionally. If you want to be a high energy PhD in physics, go for it! I love being a physician, so the long hours and all of that didn't bother me.
I do think that if you are ambitious and have some talent, as most gifted kids probably do, the sky is the limit!

There is a perennial overproduction of PhDs compared to the number of jobs available for researchers and academics. In your early 20s you may be guided primarily by intellectual curiosity, but when you are older and need to support a family, a string of 2-year post-doc positions or being paid $1000 to teach a course as an adjunct stinks. I suggest that only the very best college graduates -- people who were stars in their department as undergrads -- should try to get a PhD.

In my opinion the general thinking is that a gifted child will do alright in the world no matter what (I don't personally think that's true and I think a lot of people are also suddenly realizing it may not be true either), whereas a child with special education requirements may stand a good chance of not ever becoming an independent person without that extra assistance in childhood.

Yes it breaks my heart that my daughter isn't offered the chance to develop her abilities more in school time because she's meeting all the benchmarks they need her to, but I know that the people of this country aren't willing to pay more taxes for it to happen. I mean a good amount of people don't think we should even be able to get healthcare if we aren't multi-millionaires.

If there is only going to be a certain amount of money to spend, it should go to those who need it more. My daughter will be fine if they never give her a single day of differentiation. My autistic brother who did receive special education would not have been.

On PhDs, personally I think you should have to have a certain number of years working in the field of study before you can study for one. The perspective that life experience can bring is invaluable in my opinion.

I think simply being a gifted child isn't enough- they need to have a good work ethic to harnass that vast potential. I don't think they will do alright no matter what- but I can see why so much of our school's resources go for the kids who are below grade level and not above grade level.
That is true about PhDs. There was an interesting thread here a few months ago about having a PhD in Chemistry- apparently that used to be a great job but now that has been largely outsourced to China/India/etc. and there is alot of job insecurity there.
I do think talking to gifted children about the reality of the work world is important.

I think in my early 20's, I was primarily guided by "how much money do I need to become economically and politically relevant later in life?"