Liberal Students Won’t Redistribute GPA Scores

Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:57 pm » by **Rydher**

Too funny. Fucking hypocrites, just like every other person that believes in redistribution. You can take everyone else's stuff to give to others, just not mine! :vomit:

Do you really need a 4.0 GPA? Isn’t that GPA kind of—I don’t know—excessive? Wouldn’t life at your college be fairer and more just if you gave some of your unneeded grade points to another student—a less privileged student—who’s flunking Intro to Psych?

Hey, maybe that student came from a rough background. Maybe he didn’t have the same opportunities that you did. Why not help him out? We’re all compassionate here, are we not?

Via The Daily Caller:

The College Republicans at the University of California-Merced ask fellow students, who support raising taxes on the rich, if they would be willing to redistribute their GPAs. They don’t think it’s a good idea because they earned their grades.

Oh.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:20 pm » by **Travvysavvy**

"that's a different analogy"
what a crock. I can't believe these ingrates really believe what they're saying. They really make themselves seem more heavily taxed of brain function than ever. For them to believe that it's not a selfish argument is an oxymoron, and proves they want to take from everyone else but themselves. Yeah, you call that help, I call it arrogance.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:01 pm » by **Ademu**

This came across as incredibly slanted to me. Yes at a base level it appears to be a form of hypocrisy, but GPA is not honestly a fair comparison for vested monetary interests. The "tax the rich" argument gets distorted a lot, but the main issue is that people in higher income brackets should have to bear the same percentage of the burden in relation to their income as those people of lower income. Just because you are wealthy doesn't mean you should pay a lower percentage, all this will accomplish over time is widening the gap between those of extreme wealth and those of modest means.

A more fair argument would have been if they had asked those with larger meal plans if they would have been willing to share some of the burden with those who did not have the ability to afford the larger plans. GPA is supposed to be indicative of your mastery of the courses you took and in no way would have a positive effect on society if spread around as you would have people earning degrees without a proper mastery of the required course work, thus creating dangerous conditions (would you want a surgeon who got free GPA from other students to complete their degree operating on you?). This is essentially the exact opposite of what would happen if the wealth was spread around as it will allow many access to basic human needs that socio-economic conditions in this country have prevented them from having the opportunity to pursue.

For me this is just another attempt to further the "Us vs. Them" mentality that is crippling this country.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:15 pm » by **Rydher**

the main issue is that people in higher income brackets should have to bear the same percentage of the burden in relation to their income as those people of lower income.

I agree with you 100%

Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:26 pm » by **Ademu**

rydher wrote:
the main issue is that people in higher income brackets should have to bear the same percentage of the burden in relation to their income as those people of lower income.

I agree with you 100%

Rydher not sure which way you were trying to go with this chart, but I would like to point that's essentially fairy tale percentages presented there (don't forget about tax breaks and loop holes that allow individuals of higher incomes to avoid most of these taxes, your average man can't afford that sort of creative accounting). The government can float out the supposed higher tax percentages for the higher income brackets (and they do), but in practice they don't mean anything as it's very easy to pay a much lower percentage.

I don't want to seem like I'm bitching, so I'd like to quantify that I support a straight 10% tax for everyone after the initial $20,000 earned for individuals and $30,000 for those who file jointly with no deductions.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:44 pm » by **Rydher**

I waffle back and forth on the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. I haven't made a solid decision on which one I would support over the other.

That being said. It sounded as if you were suggesting that you supported raising the tax rate on the rich. I can see now that you don't. That was the point of the CBO chart. I'll have to disagree with you though about your suggestion that this isn't a fair comparison. I agree that a students GPA and how much someone makes are not the same. But it's the principle behind the subject is what is trying to be conveyed to these students.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:08 pm » by **Middleman**

What is the actual benefit of redistributing the GPA points to those who would receive them?

They're not any better educated afterward; they just look like they've scored better than they really did, which could end up being worse for them in the long term.

Nobody in their right mind would disagree that governments sometimes use tax money inefficiently, or for misguided, if not down right evil purposes, but even that money keeps people in jobs, and flows through to the economy.

That's the WASTED money, mind you.

The more usefully spent money buys health care, education, social security, and infrastructure so that business can operate.

"Redistributing" wealth has enormous, indisputable benefits
for society as a whole, including the ultra rich.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:13 pm » by **Rydher**

Hey Middleman. So glad you posted. :hiho:

"Redistributing" wealth has enormous, indisputable benefits for society as a whole...

I would be curious of what just one indisputable benefit redistributing wealth has to society as a whole.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:31 pm » by **Middleman**

Even if you don't buy the "civilizing people is cheaper than imprisoning a criminal underclass", presumably you're in favor of roads, bridges, health/food inspectors?

The minute you have a sliding tax scale, that is "redistribution". Note the quotation marks to denote that this word is mostly used in an intellectually dishonest manner by Conservatives with a brain, before we see it flow through to the talking points of the other 89%.

Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:59 pm » by **Rydher**

I'm not following you Middleman. Taking in taxes in itself isn't redistributive, in the context we are talking about it. It's what you do with the taxes and, no. I wouldn't put building infrastructure under the redistribution category. Perhaps before we continue this discussion you need to define wealth redistribution? Because I don't think we are on the same page.