Let us see how these collectivists respond.
Care to explain how it is a false analogy?
All analogies are imperfect. They can help us see things in a new light but they are hardly grounds for national legislation.
Students earn GPA. Workers earn income. Redistributing GPA is bad. Therefore redistributing income is bad. It seems perfect, doesn't it?
Consider this: Cancer grows inside the human body. Babies grow inside the human body. Killing cancer is good. Therefore...
The attributes that give an object its specific identity--e.g. the things that make a piece of wood a piece of wood and a grey hat a grey hat and one not the other--are too complex to be listed in most cases. Analogies pick just one or two of these attributes that two non-identical objects share and try link them with that one common attribute--for example, that both GPA and income are earned. The result is a picture that is in many cases too simplistic to be remotely grounded in reality.
This has a lot of similarities to the income tax. first You earn both Income and Grades. Grades for the most part equal money so in this itself if you support taking from the rich to give to the poor you must support taxing and redistribution GPA.
Second we look at fairness, If one uses the fairness argument for Income redistribution does the same situation not apply to GPA, does a single mother of two who has to work 40 hours while taking classes have the same oportunity as a person who comes from money and does not have to work?
Let us also remember that these are the two biggest arguments for income redistribution. Which is why it is used in the video.
Your cancer argument is apples and oranges for many different reasons. This video actually makes a great analogy.
right on right on right on
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.
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.
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?
It should also be noted that rich CEO's also usually had high GPA's
What are you talking about CEO's sit around all day on their yacht's.
Average CEO gets most of their pay through stock options, taxed under Capital gains.
Who gets taxed at the highest bracket, Doctor's,lawyers, and small businesses. It is this reason why raising top tax rates on the rich does nothing to those big bad CEO's that every liberal wants to tax.
So now that we got that out of the way, I would say the analogy fits quite well.
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.
The amount of collaboration necessary to earn a high GPA (which is in many cases absolutely none) is in no way analogous to the amount of collaboration necessary to become truly wealthy. GPA is a simple one-way street: you do the work, you get the grade. What about income? Well you do the work and you get the money. But you have been profiting from the security and stability provided by the US government; pay for it. You have been profiting off of well-kept roads and infrastructure; pay for it. You have been profiting off of an American population kept relatively healthy by services provided by the American government; pay for it. You have been profiting off of a government whose social safety net reduces rates of crime and ensures reasonable levels of quotidian stability; pay for it. You have been profiting off of a large, consumer-oriented middle class with enough affluence to buy discretionary goods only because of government-subsidized higher education; pay for it. Is it really as simple as the video painted it?
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.
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.
O.P.- someone that uses Ron Paul as their avatar should know better.
If I remember correctly; during the period of greatest prosperity the ratio was about 50 times.
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.
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.
"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 â?? 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."
"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?
I agree capped.
If people owned theire own job, less government would be necessary. less big bussiness = less big governmernt.