I went to Carthage and I'm glad there are people doing this kind of thing to get people thinking and talking about it. That certainly wasn't the case while I was there. I don't care what people end up thinking as long as they draw a comparison to the larger taxation issue.
Please, please, PLEASE do one of these using the teachers/professors tenure and salary. I'd love to see them tie themselves in knots trying to explain why they shouldn't have to give up their tenure and salary for the good of all teachers.
I would argue that its a good comparison. The true path to prosperity comes from raising everyone up to the new heights, not from holding people back that jump too far ahead or taking the products of their efforts. Leveling the playing field and redistribution, are two completely different things. If you want to help poor people, make it easier for them to start a business. That is leveling the playing field. Redistribution is just tipping it to the other side.
I would say this is a fair analogy. The point I took away wasn't that there was a corollary relationship between taxation and GPA in redistribution, though from a philosophical point there is a strong one, it was more to show how willing people are to vote away what other people have. Its more of an example of how quickly the "majority" can trample the rights of the "minority".
Sure the A+'s might drop a bit (but they also won't be cheating so much) but the boost to the F's, C's, and D's will raise moral, they'll actually be able and inspired to learn, they'll have more interaction with their teachers and they'll be able to look forward to a brighter future. Is that really such a bad thing?
This is priceless!!! Sounds like the economic policy some of our leaders would prefer.. Although only select few people would be allowed to go to college in this economic system.
Last I recall, there is no limited pool of GPA points that can be given out. Each student earns their own GPA, and there is no limit to how many students can get a perfect 4.0. In fact, ideally all of them would - there is no restriction to how many students can earn As on their exams/classes. Unlike in real life, there is a limited supply of currency. Only a very limited amount of people can be ultra rich. Once those spots are taken, the rest of us have to make due.
Your argument only works if one accepts your premise that those who do not produce and contribute actually do help those who do produce and contribute. The overwheliming majority of "lesser" individuals who actually do contribute to the success of the "lucky" (as you no doubt think of them) are rewarded for their efforts. This is video is a near perfect analogy.
The analogy only works if all students arrived on campus with the same resources and opportunities, and the 4.0 students then profited from the learning efforts/energies of the lesser students.
How do you raise everyone up to the "new heights"? How do you give each and every person the same opportunities regardless of where they were born, their ethnicity, native language, economical and social status, gender and abilities? It's Utopian talking. And in colleges, we see scholarships and the same tests for every student. It's still a bad comparison. It's not "keeping everyone leveled" but giving everyone a chance to level up.
Excellent video! Kudos to the students who came up with this "petition" idea. It's heart-warming to see young adults who get the injustice of progressive" tax schemes that liberals (and socialists/communists) keep proposing as fair. Fair taxation is achieved when all citizens pay the same percentage of their earnings. Including those at the poverty level. All Americans should be fully participating in the running of our government. It is not only our right, but our responsibility to do so.
Just like the example in the documentary "I Want Your Money," where grades are distributed amongst a class, those who worked for their A's will no longer work harder when they know their grade will be shared out; those who got lower grades to begin with will work less knowing their grades may improve without effort. All grades go down, incentive to work disappears, and moral disintegrates. Change "grades" to "income" and the same thing happens. When there are no more rich, who pays?
In the US today there are barriers to entry for almost every market. From Licensing, fees, zoning law, taxes, labor laws, poorly defined property rights, perverse incentives to do nothing at all, and so on. It makes it very difficult for someone with capitol to start a business, let alone someone with none. I advocate removing those barriers. Give everyone an equal chance to better their lives. Guatemala is a different story though.
Exactly. People forget that. They also forget that it is the top percentage of the population that make the tax laws and the loopholes so that they pay very little taxes. The burden of the tax debt does not fall on the "rich" but the middle classes. CEO's of companies pay themselves $1 salary while cutting themselves huge options/shares so they get taxed nothing.
Yes, there IS a limit to how many people can be considered "rich". Money is only worth as much as we can trick ourselves into thinking. Possessions, property and material goods, generally keep the same inherent value to us over time, fluctuating periodically depending on different circumstances. But the value of money changes much more frequently. Currency is essentially infinite, we can print as much as we want. Products and property aren't. Think of post WW1 Germany and present day Zimbabwe.
If you listen what Romney is saying, and has been saying, he wants to get rid of the "loopholes" that enabled him to pay such low taxes. Also, taking advantage of what the Tax Code or Law is, isn't breaking the law. These people just have people that know how to use the Code to their advantage. If you don't like that, don't blame the person because what they are doing is LEGAL!! Blame the Tax Code. Like Romney and Ryan are saying, we need to change it and get rid of "loopholes".
News flash, people. Slacker students ARE getting a piece of the pie. Standards are being lowered so that more students can pass. The gifted students are forced to slow down, listening to the endless excuses and "my teacher hates me" complaints from the entitled, average and below-average students. Is it making our schools better?
For starters you dont give them anything, nor do you take it away. You allow them to pursue their interests unmolested. Wealth is not finite, it can be created at will and added to the whole. Its difficult for many statists to come to terms with because it requires them to do nothing. I hope one day we allow our producers to make the necessities of life so abundant and cheap, that the only poverty that exists is voluntary. But that requires the state to do nothing. Wishful thinking though.
Money is a finite as the value we give our resource yes resources are finite but to an extent it isn't( because value is something we determine) not in at least the GPA sense. Every person on campus can get a 4.0 possible but not every person can a make a billion dollars and your right that in the states every one can make money if they have a job but the issue isn't making money but how much one is making.!!!!
Correction: as evidenced by this video it's the philosophy of stealing from the hard working to give to the lazy, unless you are the one being stolen from and in that case "F that".
"How do you raise everyone up to the "new heights"?" Honestly; I don't know, but if I did, it would be a powerful argument in favor of a dictatorship. The only way to find out, is through the voluntary interaction of players in a market seeking to better their lives. Arguably, even poorest people in America live better today than they did 200 years ago. The Entertainment they enjoy, was only available to aristocracy a few hundred years ago and food is more affordable now than ever in history.
If this were a really valid parallel, the situation would be that the top 10% of students have straight A+'s and the rest of the students have F's, with a few D's, C's and B's. Also, the A+'s did work hard Freshman year, but now they really just pay lower classmen to do the work for them and they're sleeping with the teachers.
I would say that is an assumption, albeit a popular one.The only system where wealthy people become wealthier parasitically is in cronyism. In a market economy wealth is most efficiently accumulated by providing for the wants and desires of the masses (see Henry Ford). Saying that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer also assumes that wealth is finite. In a market economy the poor are every bit as free to create something new and sell it, essentially creating wealth out of nothing.
I tried arguing this same point, but most people will blatantly agree and defend something that they don't understand just because they agree with it. It's sad.
Please tell me how this is not at all applicable as a perfect analogy to our country? Anyone who didn't sign that petition, but then agrees with taxing the rich more should perfectly be able to be called a hypocrite based on this example. Its extremely analogous.
good point but there is a problem people who are in these higher tax brackets don't audited as much.Many of them use loop holes to not pay. Also the people in those higher tax brackets don't get the majority of their money through " income" they make it off profits and assets like you said thats why we should tax them higher. Also according to your article during economic downturns income brackets moved to 67 % unlike the 35 % right now so read that article again understand it and then reply.
There are 2 "south sides" of Chicago dude. Well up intil it was destroyed, Cabrini Green was hailed as a model of urban planning. If you received any amount of housing aid, you were forced to move there.
I am sorry that you feel the need to believe I am severely intellectually deficient due to my agreement with the striking similarities between grades and money. At least grades are universally valued in a way that money should be, but is very sadly not. Being a college student myself, I realize that although technically an infinite number of "points" are available to all students who are attempting to work towards them, points are, with rare exception, given to those who do not work for them.
Im not saying use the buffet rule. Im saying we need higher tax brackets during hard economic times. We should decrease spending especially on defense. Also I think that all politicians work for the corporations to some degree. They dont care bout us democrat or republican. The wealthy should responsible for their own mistakes that put us in this dump. So all im asking is to cut subsidies for corporations tax them heavily and regulate them and the rich that control them.
First of all, it is "You're." Secondly, I am not against people inheriting wealth. I never stated that I was. I am against argumentative fallacies. These two things presented in the video, GPA's and wealth, are not comparable. Thus it is an argumentative fallacy to try and compare them.
In the 50's, they didn't have cell phones either...shall we roll back to the "good ole days" as you seem to recall? Don't quote conditions from the past unless you're prepared to quote the number of people on entitlements from the past (thousands of percent lower than today) or the deficit (significantly smaller than today). The bottom line is when presented with a parallel choice akin to what successful people are asked to do, these kids literally freaked out. The point was made.
I wouldn't know. I'm not a liberal. However, as you are afraid of facts and truth being biased I think we should use the academic community's work for any further debate.
The F's, D's, and C's work really hard but the teacher's don't really bother to read their papers, they just give them all the same grade more or less. They're demoralized; they feel cheated. Obviously an institution with that kind of system isn't exactly going to be a Harvard or a Stanford. And who's going to want to go there with a system like that? But imagine if they did even out the grading and gave equal attention (not just grades) to all students...
We cannot relate this video to taxation because. First, the rich and their corporations gets taxed less than the middle and the lower classes ( unfair) . Second, the GPA system is finite the most you can get is an 4.0 and every person in the campus has the ability to receive it unlike wealth which comes about through luck or inheritance. Becoming successul does have a lot to do with where you start and how much help you get on the way and how much you work you put in your self.
No, it really isn't... You are comparing wealth, which isn't 100% depenedent upon how hard someone has to work; to GPA's which are dependent upon how hard you work. People can be born into wealth, you can't be born into a good GPA. You're comparing redistrubution of GPA's, which vannot be logically redistributed; to wealth, which can be moved, transferred etc. If you want evidence look at basic property law for heritable/movable goods.
IMO, it's not a valid point. People studying at "x" college have the same opportunities to get good grades. These grades depend on few variables, like effort, time and understading. However, people do NOT have the same opportunities to have a highly paid job, let alone a high amount of wealth. Also, wealthy people earn a LOT more than the average you need to live a decent life. Can you die of low grades? No. Can you die of poverty? Yes. It's a really bad comparison.
I don't understand. If you don't give nor take anything, I assume you mean an extreme free-market economy. If "the state does nothing" we would find ourselves suddenly in an extremely unequal setting (assuming actual conditions). Wealthy people would get wealthier while the poor, poorer. IMO, the state has a role to play, and they are obligated to provide the basic services that are needed for the game to be fair. Leave it all for the private sector, and we'll have even more unequal societies.
GPA is earned as a result of hard work (or cheating). Wealth is extremely difficult to earn if you are born into a bad situation and if you don't cheat the system. So, not a very realistic comparison, but keep trying!
Nice try! As for redistribution of wealth, change the tax code to make sure everyone is paying his/her fair share!! Mitt Romeny is a good example of that and that's why he doesn't want to show his tax records. When a Wall Street "Hedge Fund" managers make "22 billion" dollars in one year and only pays 15% in taxes, we've got a problem. Teaching is a job and the teacher pays 35% in income tax. What loopholes are there in the tax code for them?
The guy with the 2.3.......? .......? "like two more percent and I wouldn't be in [college]." Percent? Really? IDIOT! Yes ladies and gentleman this man will be getting water for Table 5 for the rest of his days.
News Flash, I know this sounds crazy, I know your used to things that are turned upsidedown, and backwards, but try to wake up. The private sector is not there to give you a job! If their needs to be job done, the owners will weigh if it's worth paying for the extra costs to hire someone, you know all the extra taxes and fees and regulations. If it's close, the extra taxes and fees and regulations will kill the deal and the workers that are there will get some extra hours. That's just so unfair
Nice parody, and I might sign the petition if it were also true that the top 10% collected 80% of the GPA points while only doing 10% of the work. Since that's not the case in universities, I fail to see how this is analogous to our federal tax structure.
No the principle is not the same. Everyone starts at the same level in terms of GPA. People do not start at the same level in terms of wealth. In the real world, low income families have a much harder time accumulating wealth because they cannot even afford basic necessities let alone education for their children.
There is not unlimited money. Logistically, everyone can receive high-grade points, and conceptually, there is a real connect between hard-work, and high-grades. If you study, you can get every answer right on the test. Compare to society's finances Limited funds and a system designed to keep money concentrated at the top. Not everyone can be a millionaire, and there is no connection between hard-work and high income. To think this video is analogous requires severe intellectual deficiency.
This analogy is inherently flawed. Everyone starts off at an equal level in terms of GPA, unlike wealth. In order for GPA to be comparable to wealth, students would have to be RANDOMLY assigned a GPA before they take any classes at all. You could start off with a 0.2 GPA or a 4.0 GPA - it's completely random. Now think about how long it would take to raise your GPA to 4.0 if you started off at 0.2 - this is how wealth works.
But, it is a combination of many factors one of them being hard work. When you tax the rich their fair share and restrict them from lobbying away each person's right in their government. I think the government evens the odds for the people who work as hard but who are less fortunate. i.e. small businesses and entrepreneurs. afraid to invest.
I'd advise you to read Drumstx2010's post on the issue regarding the validity of the analogy. It's extremely poignant regarding regulatory capture of the grading system in comparison to the financial system. And if you're in college, you should know better--you're there to learn to think critically, and if you fail to see the glaring flaws with this analogy, you're failing the purpose of your education. The analogy looks pretty at face value--dig deeper.
No they wouldn't be inclined to learn anymore, that is a fallacy. Raising the F's, C's, and D's would give them an disincentive to study and learn less. They are getting something for nothing and don't appreciate the value of what they have like someone working hard getting A's. Its offensive to say more cheaters are getting A's than the lower graded students. I am at university myself and I work hard to get a good grade. My friends don't and they are always getting worse grades than me.
Western socialism rewards failure at the expense of the working class. I am a Libertarian. And the side effect of putting underqualified ppl into jobs they can't handle is a risk and burden to us all. Our government was designed as a republic, democracy is a stepping stone to anarchy if the masses desire a welfare state, which drains the resources of the productive to support the less productive or entirely unproductive, members of society.
bro your against inheriting wealth? as milton said the ability to pass your wealth to your children is one of the largest motivators to amass wealth. please, before you try to convince someone else to adopt your little kid fantasy of utopia watch this on youtube watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4
By "America", do you mean the "United States"? Because I live in Guatemala, and poor people here have the worst time ever than they did 200 years ago (Hell! they're worse than they were a few decades ago!). Perhaps, people in the US don't notice it, but in America, there are thousands without a single chance of fighting for a decent life. Not to mention, wealth distribution is so uneven that many live with less than a dollar a day. That's not fair. At all. And dictatorships are not the answer.
In a fair society, like ours, redistribution is immoral. But how about those societies where people are cheated off of their lives even before they are born? Take Bolivia around the 1940s: three families controlled the main export of tin. One family's income was larger than the entire country's budget, and the son's allowance exceeded the government's budget for education. Isn't that also immoral? Morality is relative. Communism is lame; but redistribution, in certain areas, is not.
