Apply Tax Laws to GPA?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]holyinstantrice wrote:
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. [/quote]

So it’s a matter of scale? If there weren’t super super super rich people the current wages would be acceptable?

For about the 100% time on this thread, why does what one person makes in any way affect what is acceptable for another?

And it’s pretty obvious you have no idea what an analogy is.

And if you have aproblem with scalling (something that isn’t necessary) Change the situation to grade points instead of the average.

42

Analogies are a lot like ducks.

43

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Maybe the students can hire a lobbyist to get the dean to implement some sort of trickle down GPA scheme. If we allow the top 10% of the class to retain their GPA then the GPA of other students will improve because of it… Or if the redistribution is so unjust the top 10% of the class can do the unthinkable and leave the university robbing them of the fruits of their studying. [/quote]

This actually happens. I was a chemistry teacher for 12 years. You had to have 5-7 top kids in a class of 30 or the other 20+ would not learn as much.

44

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Analogies are a lot like ducks.[/quote]

Because they contribute little to human understanding and produce prodigious amounts of shit

45

[quote]florelius wrote:
politics come down to one thing: who`s side are you one, the rich owners or the poor workers.

I am one the side of the poor workers, and this bad analogy doesnt going to change my mind.

progressive tax = win.[/quote]

and by thinking this way you and everyone else will always be poor.

why are we choosing between people. Why not just let men be free, rather then binding them / holding them down with government regulation / interference.

I know thats a big leap for people not born here, but for those who have, damn… open your eyes

btw, this is the perfect analogy…

46

How about this for an analogy: Income tax is morally identical to theft. Except that’s not an analogy.

When did the government get the right to know how much income I have? Never.

The problem with taxing the rich more is that it has been demonstrated to NOT increase federal revenue as a percentage of GDP, and HAS been demonstrated to reduce economic growth. Higher taxes on the upper bracket equal less revenue. The only thing they accomplish is to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.

I’ve asked Democrat friends of mine if they would accept giving the rich all 25% more if the poor also got 10% more. There answer is always “no”. Its the way society works. There MUST be an investment “class” that has excess or the economy will not grow.

I do find one proposal intriging though because it would be neat to see how it puts pressure on politicians and voters. Everyone gets one vote, plus one extra vote for every $10,000 they pay in Federal Income tax. Just hypothetically, what kind of effects might that have?

Oh, I’d also like to bring this up. I have one family member who got through college and a masters and teaching certificate and became a public school teacher at age 23.

Another family member who went to college, medical school, residence, then an additional residence in a specialty, then 2 years of extra certifications.

They were approximately the same age. By the time the doctor paid off loans and started earning ANYTHING she was 38. The teacher had 15 years and had earned 750K in that time, plus public retirement benefits, plus that 750K had been earned over a course of many years gone by so it was effectively worth about 1.8 million (in interest saved, or investment value). The teacher was earning 62K a year, and could retire at age 53 with 75% of max income.

The Doctor made somewhere in the 200+ K range. How does that make up for 15 years of debt so that she must INSTANTLY pay at the 33% level?

47

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I’ve asked Democrat friends of mine if they would accept giving the rich all 25% more if the poor also got 10% more. There answer is always “no”. Its the way society works. There MUST be an investment “class” that has excess or the economy will not grow. [/quote]

There really is no end to the hate and envy directed toward the rich. I find this ironic as most people wouldn’t be employed if it were not for the investment class. But the liberals are so very stupid and mean spirited that they want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

By the way does anyone know exactly how long that the blue states would survive if there were no read states? Could it be measured in months, or days?

48

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Maybe the students can hire a lobbyist to get the dean to implement some sort of trickle down GPA scheme. If we allow the top 10% of the class to retain their GPA then the GPA of other students will improve because of it… Or if the redistribution is so unjust the top 10% of the class can do the unthinkable and leave the university robbing them of the fruits of their studying. [/quote]

This actually happens. I was a chemistry teacher for 12 years. You had to have 5-7 top kids in a class of 30 or the other 20+ would not learn as much. [/quote]

My experiences are different. I don’t think I’ve ever shared a class with five to seven peers I’d consider top students though.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Oh, I get it. You and everybody else who has accused me of that are just too dumb to understand the difference between “This should happen” and “Someone should be forced to do this”.

Gotcha.

“Employers should pay more” =/= “Employers should be forced to pay more”

See the lil slashy between the equals signs? That means not the same fucking thing. Genius.

50

Does anybody have stats on exactly what social programs tax money goes to?

51

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Does anybody have stats on exactly what social programs tax money goes to? [/quote]

Are you including things like grants to study whales, and provide condoms to South American countries? (those are some big condoms).

52

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Does anybody have stats on exactly what social programs tax money goes to? [/quote]

Are you including things like grants to study whales, and provide condoms to South American countries? (those are some big condoms).[/quote]

Even bigger whales.

53

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Does anybody have stats on exactly what social programs tax money goes to? [/quote]

54

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Oh, I get it. You and everybody else who has accused me of that are just too dumb to understand the difference between “This should happen” and “Someone should be forced to do this”.

Gotcha.

“Employers should pay more” =/= “Employers should be forced to pay more”

See the lil slashy between the equals signs? That means not the same fucking thing. Genius.[/quote]

So you don’t agree with the articles you posted to bolster your case? and you were just posting articles that didn’t support what you thought, gotcha.:

"http://washingtonpolicywatch.o…

“In Washington state, the living wage for a single adult is $15.28/hour. Yet 42% of job openings in Washington pay less than $15.28/hour Ã?¢?? and there are, on average, seven job seekers for every one job at that wage.”

"Single workers need almost twice the federal minimum wage to cover their basic expenses – just over $30,000 a year – according to the report by Wider Opportunities for Women.

Single parents, meanwhile, need almost $58,000 to meet the most basic needs of two children, and two-income households require roughly $68,000, the report found. Many new jobs being created will not pay wages that offer that level of economic security, and most workers without a four-year college degree will not have access to the jobs that do, according to the report’s authors.

“Too few American families are living in economically secure households, with most workers unable to stretch their incomes over basic expenses and savings,” Joan Kuriansky, executive director of WOW said in a statement. “The American Dream of working hard to support your family is being rewritten by the growth of low paying industries and rising expenses.”

http://keystoneresearch.org/...iving-wage-jobs

http://www.idahostatejournal.c…

“The 2010 Northwest Job Gap Report, Searching for Work that Pays, finds that 53 percent of job openings pay less than a living wage for a single adult. The numbers only get worse for working families: 88 percent pay less than the living wage for a family with two adults (one working) with two children.”

Maybe people wouldnt need government assistance if jobs paid enough for them to live on, yeah?"

55

Capped - You have to realize that complaints that jobs don’t pay enough imply that you think employers should be forced to pay more. I’m guessing you support minimum wage laws? If you do, then yes, you support forcing employers to pay more for employees.

If you don’t, then I’m wondering what your proposed solution is to get employers to pay more to their employees. Simply saying that employers could pay more in some ideal world doesn’t exactly reflect reality, isn’t practical, and, quite frankly, I’m not even sure what value such a statement has in a debate like this.

In essence, both the employer and employee have reached an agreement on what the employee’s time is worth. Sure, employers could decide to overpay their employees but this would do nothing but put the company at a competitive disadvantage and could possibly lead to the end of the company. It simply doesn’t make sense for employers to overpay their employees.

56

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Capped - You have to realize that complaints that jobs don’t pay enough imply that you think employers should be forced to pay more. I’m guessing you support minimum wage laws? If you do, then yes, you support forcing employers to pay more for employees.
[/quote]

Not really, whatmost people temd to overlook is that the minimum wage law is not a mandatory employment act.

It just leads to people not being employed at all, not being paid more.

57

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Capped - You have to realize that complaints that jobs don’t pay enough imply that you think employers should be forced to pay more. I’m guessing you support minimum wage laws? If you do, then yes, you support forcing employers to pay more for employees.
[/quote]

Not really, whatmost people temd to overlook is that the minimum wage law is not a mandatory employment act.

It just leads to people not being employed at all, not being paid more.

[/quote]

I agree to a point as real minimum wage is 0.

However, there are certain jobs which employers need that they pay minimum wage and must increase the pay scale when new minimum wages are passed. They may originally have 1000 employees at the old minimum wage and only 800 after which increases unemployment, but it also still forces employers to pay the employees more.

58

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

In essence, both the employer and employee have reached an agreement on what the employee’s time is worth.[/quote]

I doubt that many people trying to make an actual living on minimum wages would consider themselves directly complicit in the determination of the value of their work.

59

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

In essence, both the employer and employee have reached an agreement on what the employee’s time is worth.[/quote]

I doubt that many people trying to make an actual living on minimum wages would consider themselves directly complicit in the determination of the value of their work.[/quote]

If they feel their time is worth more they are more than capable of going out and finding a job that will pay them more. And if they have the knowledge, skills, work ethic, experience, etc. that employers are willing to pay for they shouldn’t have much of a problem, either.

60

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

In essence, both the employer and employee have reached an agreement on what the employee’s time is worth.[/quote]

I doubt that many people trying to make an actual living on minimum wages would consider themselves directly complicit in the determination of the value of their work.[/quote]

More so than someone has to determine the direction of the government and make sure the laws it creates are fair and just.