College Students Favoring Wealth Redistribution Asked to Pass Their GPA To Other Students

[sam9657]

Exactly. Comparing wealth to GPA is very, very wrong. It is not even comparable.

Please give your rational.....

Afterall this is RPFs.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh we do, it's called the Teachers Unions.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/aug/28/school-board-drops-grades-below-60-ar-1268448/

 

[libertybrewcity]

1. It is one way a GPA is nothing like wealth.
2. It is another way, a GPA is not like wealth.
3. It is yet a third way, a GPA is not like wealth.

In other words, apples and oranges.

you work for your wealth. you work for your grades. the government can take your wealth. the government can take your grades by lowering standards for other students thereby diluting your GPA. They may not be the same, but it the idea that counts. People need to understand that the government has no authority to take the fruits of labor. It is a concept that people can easily understand.

 

[UWDude]

you work for your wealth. you work for your grades. the government can take your wealth. the government can take your grades by lowering standards for other students thereby diluting your GPA. They may not be the same, but it the idea that counts. People need to understand that the government has no authority to take the fruits of labor. It is a concept that people can easily understand.

Not everybody works for their wealth. Some are born with it, some make money simply by having it.

 

[affa]

To be fair, grades are (in general) earned and a direct reflection of one's merit.

Wealth, on the other hand, can be: inherited, married into, nepotism, luck (lottery), etc... in addition to being straight up earned.

Yes, it's true a grade here or there can be the result of something other than merit, it's far more likely to be the case with wealth.

The analogy, while 'funny', isn't really an accurate representation in terms of reflecting the argument for some degree of wealth redistribution. If everyone was born with no money and no last name (ie, no family connections) we'd have a far more reasonable comparison.


I've said it before on these boards, and i'll say it again -- if you want any chance of convincing someone of something, you need to understand why they hold the views they do. simply assuming they are stupid, or ill-informed, isn't enough. the issue most people have with concentrated wealth is that wealth begets wealth - or, put another way, it takes money to make money. not only is it harder to make money if you start off poorer, you're also far more likely to have a substandard education and a generally more volatile environment growing up. Yes, the rare individual can break through any barriers, but to absolutely ignore the class difference in this country requires blinders. Wealth redistribution is a possible answer to this. Does it work? Well, obviously, there are significant problems with most wealth redistribution. But that doesn't address the fundamental problem people who support various forms of redistribution have.

I realize most here believe wealth redistribution is theft. It's a valid point. But understand that concentrated wealth is also a form of theft, just different. By claiming something, you are denying it to others. Fair enough, but then when one takes into consideration that some people are born into a world where everything is already claimed, it sure feels like they're being robbed from their perspective. Robbed of the ability to exist. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying, and likely in the wrong forum since I know the libertarian line on this topic... but truly, the first thing one must understand is that not all wealth is earned.

To use a slightly different analogy -- one i'm making up on the spot -- imagine a deserted island with two people. The only source of food is an apple tree. The short man can not reach any apples, and before he can climb the tree the tall man takes them all. Now, he earned those apples -- it was his labor that retrieved them. But given this is a limited resource, and a vital one (food), it can be argued that in denying the other man apples, he is stealing from the shorter man just as much as if the shorter man grabbed an apple out of the tall mans hands. Did the apples belong to all to begin with? Did the man who grabbed them because he was born with advantage truly 'earn' them? These are difficult questions. There's no clear answer. Some would say that man owns the apples, and they would be right. Others would argue that man has no right to lay claim to all the food on the island, and they too are right. And I suppose that's why people will never agree on this issue. The concept of property requires the denial of said property to others. And so the argument will go on forever, and ever.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Anything that is mine, or yours, that someone or some group steals to give to another or destroys is the issue.

How or why I got my thing, isn't even remotely the issue -assuming it wasn't gotten by theft.

The 'hows or whys' is a group think cop out fail.


Bunkloco

 

[muh_roads]

Not every rich person deserves to keep all of their money...

Bankers who got the bailout.
Military contractors.
Ethanol and all other types of subsidies.

They take from us so they can suck my ass. I would at least tax them for the entire amount of the government handout. Essentially nullifying their grants.

 

[Ronpauljones]

I remember this. It was done at the new college in my town. I was shocked to hear Glenn Beck say "Merced, CA"

 

[Bordillo]

Not every rich person deserves to keep all of their money...

Bankers who got the bailout.
Military contractors.
Ethanol and all other types of subsidies.

They take from us so they can suck my ass. I would at least tax them for the entire amount of the government handout. Essentially nullifying their grants.

banks that got bailed out, I agree

Military contractors, they shouldn't really have that many tax grants if we werent fighting so many wars. Since we are fighting so many wars Id rather support the military than not support it.

Ethanol and all other types of subsidies, subsidies can be useful in a several ways. For instance if we were to keep our current healthcare system, but subsidize the cost of medical care, the supply of hospitals would remain constant(more or less) while people that couldn't afford the medical care before now could get it without the hospital taking the monetary hit. Subsidies are good or bad based on the situation, to say that all subsidies are evil is pretty naieve

 

[Bordillo]

Not everybody works for their wealth. Some are born with it, some make money simply by having it.

not everybody is born smart. Some people have to study hard to get good grades, while others are born naturally gifted with intelligence. If its fair in your mind to redistribute a billionares childs inheritance than it would only be logical to take a genius person's grades and redistribute them to the kids that had lower grades.

 

[moostraks]

Well obviously when you start the class you already have a grade of 'D' since the other students in the past ran up bad grade debt which you are now responsible for.

So you have to make A's for the first third of the semester just to pull a C average in the class.

Before the grade distribution kicks in of course.

love it !!!

 

[affa]

not everybody is born smart. Some people have to study hard to get good grades, while others are born naturally gifted with intelligence. If its fair in your mind to redistribute a billionares childs inheritance than it would only be logical to take a genius person's grades and redistribute them to the kids that had lower grades.

as it's been pointed out, this simply isn't a good analogy. even accounting for differences in intelligence, grades are still fairly distributed among people based on merit. the smart kids that don't have to study much but just 'get it' have As. the hard workers that study hard have As. the smart slackers have Cs. the complete slackers have Ds.

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

 

[teacherone]

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

You either earn money or you steal it. Are you claiming we're surrounded by a "ton" of thieves?

 

[Bordillo]

as it's been pointed out, this simply isn't a good analogy. even accounting for differences in intelligence, grades are still fairly distributed among people based on merit. the smart kids that don't have to study much but just 'get it' have As. the hard workers that study hard have As. the smart slackers have Cs. the complete slackers have Ds.

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

what about someone that works really hard in school but get's C's. Wouldn't it be fair to take .25 gpa from all of the 4.0 students that were just brilliantly smart and give it to them.

 

[sam9657]

To be fair, grades are (in general) earned and a direct reflection of one's merit.

Wealth, on the other hand, can be: inherited, married into, nepotism, luck (lottery), etc... in addition to being straight up earned.

Yes, it's true a grade here or there can be the result of something other than merit, it's far more likely to be the case with wealth.

The analogy, while 'funny', isn't really an accurate representation in terms of reflecting the argument for some degree of wealth redistribution. If everyone was born with no money and no last name (ie, no family connections) we'd have a far more reasonable comparison.


I've said it before on these boards, and i'll say it again -- if you want any chance of convincing someone of something, you need to understand why they hold the views they do. simply assuming they are stupid, or ill-informed, isn't enough. the issue most people have with concentrated wealth is that wealth begets wealth - or, put another way, it takes money to make money. not only is it harder to make money if you start off poorer, you're also far more likely to have a substandard education and a generally more volatile environment growing up. Yes, the rare individual can break through any barriers, but to absolutely ignore the class difference in this country requires blinders. Wealth redistribution is a possible answer to this. Does it work? Well, obviously, there are significant problems with most wealth redistribution. But that doesn't address the fundamental problem people who support various forms of redistribution have.

I realize most here believe wealth redistribution is theft. It's a valid point. But understand that concentrated wealth is also a form of theft, just different. By claiming something, you are denying it to others. Fair enough, but then when one takes into consideration that some people are born into a world where everything is already claimed, it sure feels like they're being robbed from their perspective. Robbed of the ability to exist. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying, and likely in the wrong forum since I know the libertarian line on this topic... but truly, the first thing one must understand is that not all wealth is earned.

To use a slightly different analogy -- one i'm making up on the spot -- imagine a deserted island with two people. The only source of food is an apple tree. The short man can not reach any apples, and before he can climb the tree the tall man takes them all. Now, he earned those apples -- it was his labor that retrieved them. But given this is a limited resource, and a vital one (food), it can be argued that in denying the other man apples, he is stealing from the shorter man just as much as if the shorter man grabbed an apple out of the tall mans hands. Did the apples belong to all to begin with? Did the man who grabbed them because he was born with advantage truly 'earn' them? These are difficult questions. There's no clear answer. Some would say that man owns the apples, and they would be right. Others would argue that man has no right to lay claim to all the food on the island, and they too are right. And I suppose that's why people will never agree on this issue. The concept of property requires the denial of said property to others. And so the argument will go on forever, and ever.

There's nothing wrong with the tall man giving some of his apples to the short man, its called charity. Forced redistribution is when there is a third person, who comes in and takes a chunk of the tall man's apples and threatens to beat him up if he does not give some more of his apples to the short person.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Oliver also goes around campus asking whether students want to sign his petition to pay their share of the national debt – which amounts to nearly $47,000 per person.

This, too, brought mixed reaction, with one student saying the debt isn’t hers because she didn't contribute to it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/1...ion-are-asked-to-support-grade/#ixzz1WDsh3UO0

She probably voted for Obama so yes, she contributed to it

"If you vote and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up well you're responsible for what they have
done, you caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for what
these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with"

-George Carlin

http://www.noob.us/humor/george-carlin-voting/

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Tax credits=socialism

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ethanol and all other types of subsidies, subsidies can be useful in a several ways. For instance if we were to keep our current healthcare system, but subsidize the cost of medical care, the supply of hospitals would remain constant(more or less) while people that couldn't afford the medical care before now could get it without the hospital taking the monetary hit. Subsidies are good or bad based on the situation, to say that all subsidies are evil is pretty naieve

All subsidies are wealth redistribution. The government itself has no money, so they are taking from one and giving to another. How is that just?

I think maybe you are also not considering the fact that when the government subsidizes something, the cost of that something goes up.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Tax credits=socialism

How so? Tax credits are tax deductions, aren't they? If so, that is quite different than a subsidy. Tax credits reduce the amount of money that you have extracted from your bank account by the government. Subsides are government handouts of money they have already extracted from others' bank accounts.

 

[Bordillo]

All subsidies are wealth redistribution. The government itself has no money, so they are taking from one and giving to another. How is that just?

I think maybe you are also not considering the fact that when the government subsidizes something, the cost of that something goes up.

The cost does not go up when the government subsidizes, they subsidize it so that it doesn't go up. Also are you implying that you want a flat number for tax rate that everyone has to pay every year? Because any sort of percentage is redistributing wealth.