Apply Tax Laws to GPA?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy[/quote]

Care to explain how it is a false analogy?[/quote]

Well, are these people with high GPAs having other students study/write papers/take tests for them? Do they generate their GPA through owning pencils and books?

I dont agree with any kind of forced “redistribution of wealth”, but for the love of shit, stop acting like the sweet innocent rich people are the helpless victims of taxation when their wealth comes from the work others do. [/quote]

I’m sorry, I take exception to this. Underlying this whole notion that you have, and have expressed in several threads now, is the idea that ANYBODY could do the rich persons job. In other words, that they possess no rare work qualities that are not also present in others, the “workers”.

This absolutely false. And in turn it makes your argument the weaker. The people at the head of businesses, in the vast majority of cases have skills and requirements that the workers and low level management are simply unable to match. Therefore measuring the “rich owners” merit regarding their income vs. the “workers” deserving more of the rich persons money is flawed.

You seem to think that the only serious value is that of a worker who makes a tangible product. This ignores the fact that the US economy has becoming increasingly service oriented over the last 50 years. It also ignores the fact that there are a multitude of skills–or services–that a C- level executive or owner brings to the table and can provide that are necessary for the successful operation of a business–and thus ensuring the workers’ job security-- that a worker is incompetent to perform based on lack of skill, lack of experience, lack of education, or lack of all three.

There is no “rich getting their money from the work other people do” among active executives. The high level executives do work–it is just as valuable, in fact more valuable because their skills are RARER, as the “workers” physical labor, or day-to-day work. It is more valuable because you can replace a line worker with relative ease, but you cannot replace the skills it takes to successfully run and direct the national operations of a company just as easily.

Just because their work is of a different kind than a line workers does NOT mean it is less productive, less necessary, or less deserving than a low level worker. They possess skills that are rarer, and therefore often more valuable.

Sent from my phone, forgive the typos.

22

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Consider how much the CEO makes. Now consider how much he or she would pay someone to do the exact same job they do. The difference? Thats what I have a problem with. Thats the money they get for owning the company, on top
of the money they get for running the company.
[/quote]

Then you are wrong. A CEO DOESN’T own a public company. Ownership of a public company happens through stocks, and is therefore open to the public. A CEO runs the operations of the company, along with the CFO and others. They do not own it. Therefore they are paid for running the company, not owning it. Therefore you should have no problem with their current compensations as you said.

23

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m sorry, I take exception to this. Underlying this whole notion that you have, and have expressed in several threads now, is the idea that ANYBODY could do the rich persons job. In other words, that they possess no rare work qualities that are not also present in others, the “workers”.[/quote]

I never said anybody could do it. I never said they possess no rare work qualities. I said that without the “workers” they would make no money at all - which is absolutely true.

24

This is what I’ve argued:

Workers should be paid more. Because:

  1. Workers are underpaid/underinsured. Many full time jobs do not pay a living wage.
  2. Because workers are underpaid, they have to rely on assistance from the government (or chose to get government assistance rather than a full time job)
  3. Being in the majority, they will vote for anyone who will get them more assistance
  4. The government will then tax the rich to provide assistance to the poor.
  5. This would not be necessary if workers were not underpaid.

Yes, I think many things about it are unethical, but aside from that, its just a bad system. As wealth continues to flow upward, more people will be looking for government assistance.

Is it really that crazy to say that a society where the majority make better than a living wage is better than one where most dont?

25

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy[/quote]

Care to explain how it is a false analogy?[/quote]

Well, are these people with high GPAs having other students study/write papers/take tests for them? Do they generate their GPA through owning pencils and books?

I dont agree with any kind of forced “redistribution of wealth”, but for the love of shit, stop acting like the sweet innocent rich people are the helpless victims of taxation when their wealth comes from the work others do. [/quote]

Well done. This was my point above: add just a slight amount of realistic complexity to the analogy and it fucking crumbles.

So, the top earners are getting their grades by lending pencils and pens to their classmates, who then do the actual work. Let us add that the average CEO (top earners) makes 430 times the average pay of the workers upon whom he relies. So, our hypothetical top GPA student will have a 4.0 while his classmates, without whom he would have no GPA at all, are each apportioned a .0093 average despite the fact that most of the actual homework was done exclusively by them.[/quote]

This is dumb. Without the CEO’s the workers wouldn’t have jobs either. And yes, there is a lot of collaboration in getting a GPA.

You guys don’t even know what work is. CEO’s generally work harder than anyone else in the company. and they are payed what they are worth to the company. A good CEO can be worth 1000 employees.

If it’s so easy, why aren’t you are rich CEO?
[/quote]

  1. Try to find the word ‘easy’ in my post. You won’t, because I didn’t use it. I don’t think it’s easy to be a CEO. As for me not knowing what work is…fuck yourself. You have no idea who I am.

[/quote]
Never claimed to know who you are. You did however differentiate between workers, and the CEO. The insinuation being that CEOs are not in fact workers.

Tutors, working together on projects, many frats have “word” or some type of filings that help tremendously. Additionally many students work harder than others and receive lower grades whether due to the previous mentioned advantages or the birthright of intelligence handing them a better grade.

You could even go as far as to say that the higher GPA earners do so on the backs of the lower GPAs. Overachievers wreck the bell curve for the less talented student. Literally, their GPA goes down because certain people overachieve.

[quote]

  1. If you want to talk about taxation in the United States of America, talk about taxation in the United States of America. Don’t draw a pathetically simplistic analogy just because Manichean illusions don’t hurt your head as much as real life problems.[/quote]

You lost me on this one. Are you claiming analogy has no place in an argument? Yes, any analogy is imperfect, if it were perfect, it wouldn’t be an analogy. But this was actually a pretty good one.

26

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
… the average CEO (top earners) makes 430 times the average pay of the workers upon whom he relies.[/quote]

…they are payed what they are worth to the company. A good CEO can be worth 1000 employees.
[/quote]

If I remember correctly; during the period of greatest prosperity the ratio was about 50 times.
[/quote]

Are you claiming causation?

But the bigger part is, why the hell does the relative pay of anyone matter? “but mommy, Timmy’s mom down the street gives him 5 more dollars than me a week than you give me”.

Who cares, he isn’t stealing anyone’s money, and this relative BS is something a child would argue about.

27

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy[/quote]

Care to explain how it is a false analogy?[/quote]

Well, are these people with high GPAs having other students study/write papers/take tests for them? Do they generate their GPA through owning pencils and books?

I dont agree with any kind of forced “redistribution of wealth”, but for the love of shit, stop acting like the sweet innocent rich people are the helpless victims of taxation when their wealth comes from the work others do. [/quote]

Well done. This was my point above: add just a slight amount of realistic complexity to the analogy and it fucking crumbles.

So, the top earners are getting their grades by lending pencils and pens to their classmates, who then do the actual work. Let us add that the average CEO (top earners) makes 430 times the average pay of the workers upon whom he relies. So, our hypothetical top GPA student will have a 4.0 while his classmates, without whom he would have no GPA at all, are each apportioned a .0093 average despite the fact that most of the actual homework was done exclusively by them.[/quote]

This is dumb. Without the CEO’s the workers wouldn’t have jobs either. And yes, there is a lot of collaboration in getting a GPA.

You guys don’t even know what work is. CEO’s generally work harder than anyone else in the company. and they are payed what they are worth to the company. A good CEO can be worth 1000 employees.

If it’s so easy, why aren’t you are rich CEO?
[/quote]

Saying things like “You guys don’t even know what work is.” disqualifies you from being worth of too much consideration.

I never said CEOs dont work or they shouldnt be paid well. My problem isn’t with people getting paid to do work, its people getting paid for owning things. Ownership doesnt do anything, it doesnt produce any goods or provide any services. And all profit derived from ownership has to come from someone else producing goods and/or providing services.

Consider how much the CEO makes. Now consider how much he or she would pay someone to do the exact same job they do. The difference? Thats what I have a problem with. Thats the money they get for owning the company, on top of the money they get for running the company.

[/quote]

When you logically separate, in your terminology, CEOs and workers, you do claim CEOs aren’t workers. It would be like me referring to CEOs as educated hard workers and low level employees as uneducated workers.

Money is equivalent to service. Giving someone money is giving them service.

It is also work in the sense of delaying gratification. “working” to get out of dept means delaying gratification. Living below your means is work. And it is incredibly difficult for most people. Not to mention that investing itself is work.

Not to mention generally investments improve the quality of life for all parties.

But again, if I want to make an agreement with someone else loaning them money, why should you care, much less have a say?

28

Bad analogy. The rich still benefit from paying taxes (military, police, etc.), even though they pay more. The “GPA Tax” has no benefit for the person being taxed.

29

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
This is what I’ve argued:

Workers should be paid more. Because:

  1. Workers are underpaid/underinsured. Many full time jobs do not pay a living wage.
  2. Because workers are underpaid, they have to rely on assistance from the government (or chose to get government assistance rather than a full time job)
  3. Being in the majority, they will vote for anyone who will get them more assistance
  4. The government will then tax the rich to provide assistance to the poor.
  5. This would not be necessary if workers were not underpaid.

Yes, I think many things about it are unethical, but aside from that, its just a bad system. As wealth continues to flow upward, more people will be looking for government assistance.

Is it really that crazy to say that a society where the majority make better than a living wage is better than one where most dont?[/quote]

I actually basically agree with everything except #2. Workers are underpaid because they get government assistance.

30

[quote]Tim33345 wrote:
Bad analogy. The rich still benefit from paying taxes (military, police, etc.), even though they pay more. The “GPA Tax” has no benefit for the person being taxed.[/quote]

You are wrong to lump in Police and Military with all the government handouts. The vast majority of taxes are spent in ways that do not benefit the individual paying.

And students do benefit from increase graduation rates in addition to the warm fuzzy feeling of making GPA distribution more “fair”.

Benefit is completely subjective.

31

John,

This is the best thing that you’ve ever posted on T Nation. And while no analogy is perfect this is dam close. A student works hard and brings in every resource possible to achieve a high grade. This might mean that they have benefits that other students do not. A smarter older brother, two parents that are professors and on and on. Not unlike a person who sets out to achieve wealth.

It is absolutely unfair to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than every one else. There should be a flat tax of say 20% with no write-offs. This would be fair to all. And it would also necessitate the shrinking of the bloated US government. It’s time that half the country stop pulling the other half along. If someone does not want to work he/she should not be granted a hand-out by the US government basically using the hard earned dollars of those who sacrificed their time and capital to succeed.

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:
John,

This is the best thing that you’ve ever posted on T Nation. And while no analogy is perfect this is dam close. A student works hard and brings in every resource possible to achieve a high grade. This might mean that they have benefits that other students do not. A smarter older brother, two parents that are professors and on and on. Not unlike a person who sets out to achieve wealth.

It is absolutely unfair to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than every one else. There should be a flat tax of say 20% with no write-offs. This would be fair to all. And it would also necessitate the shrinking of the bloated US government. It’s time that half the country stop pulling the other half along. If someone does not want to work he/she should not be granted a hand-out by the US government basically using the hard earned dollars of those who sacrificed their time and capital to succeed.

[/quote]

It would actually be even more appropriate if they wanted to give GPA points to people who didn’t go to school.

33

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
John,

This is the best thing that you’ve ever posted on T Nation. And while no analogy is perfect this is dam close. A student works hard and brings in every resource possible to achieve a high grade. This might mean that they have benefits that other students do not. A smarter older brother, two parents that are professors and on and on. Not unlike a person who sets out to achieve wealth.

It is absolutely unfair to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than every one else. There should be a flat tax of say 20% with no write-offs. This would be fair to all. And it would also necessitate the shrinking of the bloated US government. It’s time that half the country stop pulling the other half along. If someone does not want to work he/she should not be granted a hand-out by the US government basically using the hard earned dollars of those who sacrificed their time and capital to succeed.

[/quote]

It would actually be even more appropriate if they wanted to give GPA points to people who didn’t go to school.[/quote]

Good point, at least those with low GPA’s are in the system actually trying. I can’t say the same for almost half the country that pays ZERO taxes. They are riding on my sweat and labor and I resent it more each day!

34

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
This is what I’ve argued:

Workers should be paid more. Because:

  1. Workers are underpaid/underinsured. Many full time jobs do not pay a living wage.
  2. Because workers are underpaid, they have to rely on assistance from the government (or chose to get government assistance rather than a full time job)
  3. Being in the majority, they will vote for anyone who will get them more assistance
  4. The government will then tax the rich to provide assistance to the poor.
  5. This would not be necessary if workers were not underpaid.

Yes, I think many things about it are unethical, but aside from that, its just a bad system. As wealth continues to flow upward, more people will be looking for government assistance.

Is it really that crazy to say that a society where the majority make better than a living wage is better than one where most dont?[/quote]

I actually basically agree with everything except #2. Workers are underpaid because they get government assistance.[/quote]

How do you figure?

35

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

When you logically separate, in your terminology, CEOs and workers, you do claim CEOs aren’t workers. It would be like me referring to CEOs as educated hard workers and low level employees as uneducated workers.
[/quote]

Ok, how about “employers” and “employees”?

I dont think that’s quite accurate.

You’re hijacking the definiton of “work” to make it mean anything you want. No, not everything that is difficult or risky is work, in the context we’re discussing.

I disagree. Only offering jobs that pay less than a living wage and justifying it by saying “At least its a job” is bullshit.

[quote]

But again, if I want to make an agreement with someone else loaning them money, why should you care, much less have a say?[/quote]

I should care because if enough employers do what you want to do (pay workers as little was they can), people will eventually need to rely on the government for assistance.

Said it before, say it again: Because an individual can succeed in a particular system doesnt make the system good, expecially when that system necessitates that many fail. A good system is one where every individual can succeed.

But I get it - you’re greedy and dont care if everyone around you starves so you can have copious amounts of extra food. And you project that same greed on to me, and assume that my problem is that I dont get enough. My problem is that so many shitty jobs exist and that, even if I or you or another individual gets a better job, that just leaves someone else to fill the shitty job, live the shitty life, and put out their hand for government assistance. You dont care about other people, so long as you get ahead - I do.

[Hows that last paragraph for entertainment? :)]

36

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

When you logically separate, in your terminology, CEOs and workers, you do claim CEOs aren’t workers. It would be like me referring to CEOs as educated hard workers and low level employees as uneducated workers.
[/quote]

Ok, how about “employers” and “employees”?

[/quote]
You are aware that a CEO is an employee of the company that can be fired, right?

It most certainly is.

BS. But even in this instance it is impossible to have a negative impact. If it were in fact a negative (or even not a positive) the person simple would not work there.

[quote]

Wrong. If everyone makes less, the cost of living goes down.

Secondly, companies would go out of business if they don’t fairly compensate. Period.

Define fail or succeed. I’m wondering who this large majority that necessarily must “fail” are.

And your belief as to the goodness of a system doesn’t give you the right to force others to do things.

Yup, I want to kill children. I bet I donate more to charity than you do and most liberals.

37

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

And your belief as to the goodness of a system doesn’t give you the right to force others to do things.
[/quote]

Please provide the quote where I advocated forcing anyone to do anything.

38

Invalid metaphor on two fundamental reasons:

  1. GPA and income do not scale proportionately

Let’s say average GPA at a given institution is around 2.5 out of a highest possible 4.0. 2.5 divided by 4.0 is 62.5%, so the average is 62.5% of the maximum. Shifting the framework to that of income, 62.5% of even $1,000,000 (which is not even close to the income of the richest people in the world) is $625,000–clearly far and away above the average income in this country.

  1. Academic performance as measured by GPA is affected by income as it is

A metaphor that is directly affected by that which it attempts to represent is recursive and therefore invalid, much as one cannot define a word with the given word itself.

I am not a mainstream liberal, merely an intelligent person.

39

[quote]holyinstantrice wrote:

I am not a mainstream liberal, merely an intelligent person. [/quote]

Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. You obviously don’t understand the fact that no analogy is perfect. Rather than grasping the idea behind the analogy (which you obviously reject) you attack the analogy.

That was really smart of you.

LOL only on T nation…

40

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

And your belief as to the goodness of a system doesn’t give you the right to force others to do things.
[/quote]

Please provide the quote where I advocated forcing anyone to do anything.[/quote]

"Workers should be paid more. Because:

  1. Workers are underpaid/underinsured. Many full time jobs do not pay a living wage.
  2. Because workers are underpaid, they have to rely on assistance from the government (or chose to get government assistance rather than a full time job)
  3. Being in the majority, they will vote for anyone who will get them more assistance
  4. The government will then tax the rich to provide assistance to the poor.
  5. This would not be necessary if workers were not underpaid."

Unless you were saying that you should pay workers more…

Plus the multitude of other things you’ve posted on other threads.