If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity." Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:   (thelookingspoon.com) divider line 631
    More: Amusing, GPA  
•       •       •

6167 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2011 at 8:03 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



631 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-18 01:05:40 PM
if GPA were edible and you were starving, you're goddamn right you can have some of mine.
 
2011-04-18 01:06:31 PM

Blairr: lennavan: From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.



Okay, Stalin.


The entire farking point is we can but SHOULD we? Did you ignore that on purpose or are you that stupid?
 
2011-04-18 01:07:25 PM

heinekenftw: lennavan: Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.

Would not work. It looks good on the outside, but spreading money like that leads to hyperinflation, which means that once everyone makes 50k at minimum, 50k means jack squat.


[citation needed]
 
2011-04-18 01:12:50 PM

PlatinumDragon: On the contrary, the government can defy economics as much as we can defy the laws of physics - we can't. An authority operating with a monopoly on force and control over media of exchange is mired in economics.


Uh, a monopoly is an example of how capitalism doesn't always follow economics. I'm glad you brought it up.

Government subsidies are examples of how government can defy economics. If I make a shiat product at a ridiculously high price, economics says my product and company will die out. Unless the government subsidizes me!

The government can absolutely alter economics. That's the whole idea of a tariff.
 
2011-04-18 01:14:01 PM

Thune: it's like you dont even read what you write.

I said read a book on economics.

YOU said, why, we dont have to use a free market economic solution.

I provide an example of how even in non-free market incidences the laws of economics still applies.


Fair enough - a monopoly defies the laws of economics. I provided a counter example. Now what?

Thune: The governemnt CANNOT defy economics.

Provide me one example of where the government defied economics.


Tariffs.
 
2011-04-18 01:15:23 PM
All Phil, all the time.
 
2011-04-18 01:15:34 PM

lennavan: Thune: it's like you dont even read what you write.

I said read a book on economics.

YOU said, why, we dont have to use a free market economic solution.

I provide an example of how even in non-free market incidences the laws of economics still applies.

Fair enough - a monopoly defies the laws of economics. I provided a counter example. Now what?

Thune: The governemnt CANNOT defy economics.

Provide me one example of where the government defied economics.

Tariffs.


The US postal service.
 
2011-04-18 01:17:27 PM

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?


Deserving of what?

Anything that money can buy, which is pretty much everything.


The moar money you have the moar you can buy.

If you obtained your money legally, you most likely deserve it.


So if I make $50 million, how much of that is because I'm a smart guy? And how much of it is because I live in a great country that allows my business to operate?
 
2011-04-18 01:26:25 PM

lennavan: Blairr: lennavan: From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.



Okay, Stalin.

The entire farking point is we can but SHOULD we? Did you ignore that on purpose or are you that stupid?


I really wanted to call someone a communist and post that picture.

The opportunity presented itself.

I have no idea what the conversation was about, but as you're a career Lefty, I assume your point was stupid and full of holes.

So I will say we shouldn't. Only because you said we should. I feel it's the best choice.
 
2011-04-18 01:29:27 PM

Blairr: I have no idea what the conversation was about, but as you're a career Lefty, I assume your point was stupid and full of holes.


Spoken like a true Conservative. You represent well.

Blairr: So I will say we shouldn't.


I agree.

Blairr: Only because you said we should.


No I didn't. Does that mean you say we should?
 
2011-04-18 01:29:44 PM

lennavan: heinekenftw: lennavan: Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.

Would not work. It looks good on the outside, but spreading money like that leads to hyperinflation, which means that once everyone makes 50k at minimum, 50k means jack squat.

[citation needed]


Okay, I'll cite the closest econ 101 textbook I can find then.

Money has value because it is scarce. A $20 is worth more than a $1 because the government prints fewer $20 bills, for example. If everyone is paid $50k at minimum, then the value of $50k plummets because money is no longer scarce.
 
2011-04-18 01:36:38 PM

heinekenftw: Okay, I'll cite the closest econ 101 textbook I can find then.


Fair enough, go ahead and cite it. PDF is fine.

[citation still needed]

heinekenftw:
Money has value because it is scarce.

Not in this country it isn't.

heinekenftw: If everyone is paid $50k at minimum, then the value of $50k plummets because money is no longer scarce.


Plummet? This is the exact word I want to see cited. Plummet. I agree the value of 50k will go down but I disagree with plummet. I chose 50K because I'd guess what 50K is worth now will be what around what 30K today is worth after redistribution is done.

Again, let's see your citation for plummet.
 
2011-04-18 01:37:55 PM

lennavan: Blairr: I have no idea what the conversation was about, but as you're a career Lefty, I assume your point was stupid and full of holes.

Spoken like a true Conservative. You represent well.

Blairr: So I will say we shouldn't.

I agree.

Blairr: Only because you said we should.

No I didn't. Does that mean you say we should?


Oh shiat.

Well in the spirit of my original intent, I reverse my position.

/Phew.
 
2011-04-18 01:39:41 PM

Blairr: Oh shiat.

Well in the spirit of my original intent, I reverse my position.

/Phew.


OKAY COMRADE

wtpotus.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-04-18 01:40:44 PM

lennavan: PlatinumDragon: On the contrary, the government can defy economics as much as we can defy the laws of physics - we can't. An authority operating with a monopoly on force and control over media of exchange is mired in economics.

Uh, a monopoly is an example of how capitalism doesn't always follow economics. I'm glad you brought it up.

Government subsidies are examples of how government can defy economics. If I make a shiat product at a ridiculously high price, economics says my product and company will die out. Unless the government subsidizes me!

The government can absolutely alter economics. That's the whole idea of a tariff.


The error you're making is the assumption that influences exerted by sovereign authorities are somehow external to, or otherwise separate from, resource flows and trade. The government can certainly alter economic conditions, but there will be varying effects, not all of them predictable or foreseen - similar to any entity with great influence, like extremely wealthy capitalists and corporations.

I think you're using "economics" to refer to market theory, while I'm using it in a broader sense of the resource distribution and exchange systems that presently operate to varying degrees of success. Governments may be curiously excluded from the former as an actor (I have trouble taking seriously a theory that writes off a variable except when a result is desired) but they are very much part of the latter through things like taxation, tariffs, spending decisions, services, etc.
 
2011-04-18 01:44:47 PM

Animatronik: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Interesting. Ive seen point #2 disputed by many liberal farkers. And university quotas are equivalent to redistribution of letter grades, since the outcome is the same. As far as #1 goes, private investment increases our wealth in ways that can be hard to measure. Its a more changeable quantity than ppl realize.

I think you cant go to one extreme or the other. Overly 'progressive' taxes trade bloated govt for private investment in technology. On the other hand, excess income should be taxed at a higher rate.


#2 is more of a "where you lived" for grades - if you live in the inner city, you don't get the same opportunities as those in the suburbs. But I know plenty of kids with dirt poor parents who live near a suburban school. So that is not quite as major (I think, the fark libs will probably disagree).

I don't believe the "quota is distribution of GPA" claim.

And I agree fully with your last paragraph. The only question is what is reasonable for taxes?

I may seem to be rich-hating, but it's only excessive wealth that is undeserved (the execs who got to keep their job and get massive bonuses after their companies received a bailout, for example)that I dislike. Especially when we use the existence of such bastards to call hard-working normal people lazy.
 
2011-04-18 01:46:42 PM

Blairr: NoisyPiper: There are plenty more hard workers on the factory floor than in the executive towers.

Define hard working!

I know some hard workin' ditch diggers but they can stay the fark away from balancing my company's budget.


That's true, but it is typically teams of accountants who report to the CFO which balances the company's budget, not the CFO himself.
 
2011-04-18 01:49:49 PM

PlatinumDragon: I think you're using "economics" to refer to market theory, while I'm using it in a broader sense of the resource distribution and exchange systems that presently operate to varying degrees of success.


That's true, I assumed mine was the more common usage of the word. There are equations describing where to set price to maximize profit by economics, however this can be absolutely influenced, dictated or changed by governments. A wage can be set that maximizes profits for a company but this wage can absolutely be influenced, dictated or changed by a government.

A government is not bound or restricted by economics or the market. Should a populace or a government choose, it could move strictly socialist and ignore economics altogether. That's the point, we can, but should we?

Which the original point has long been lost - you don't need to be an economics PhD to have a relevant opinion on how we proceed with our economy.

PlatinumDragon: =they are very much part of the latter through things like taxation, tariffs, spending decisions, services, etc.


Exactly.
 
2011-04-18 01:51:29 PM

Animatronik: NoisyPiper: Blairr: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.

Oh, I understand what was meant by it. But it is still a bad analogy.

Wealth is made in a cooperative system with other people. The desk worker cannot make their salary without the truck driver delivering goods to consumers, and sales clerks selling the goods to consumers. The executives can't make their money without the desk worker, the truck driver, or the sales clerk. They make their money thanks to a stable system, a well-maintained infrastructure and the work of others.

That's why third world countries are not where we are. They don't have that.

Education is not like that. The 2.0 student is not necessary for the 4.0 student to exist. The sales clerk making $8/hr is necessary for the executive making $1 million a year to exist. Tax dollars are reinvested into a system to ensure the executive can still make that sort of money; so they can have a healthy workforce, a reliable infrastructure, and national defense. GPA cannot.

How can you be above average if there is no average?

College grads compete for jobs based on GPA. Percentile within class may be a scarce commodity; only 10% get to be in the top 10%.


GPA isn't about averages. It's about what you achieve. It is not calibrated to an average. Grades themselves aren't even calibrated to averages. Everyone can get a 100%, just like they can all get a 0%. GPA is based on assessment, not on your performance compared to others.

College grads don't always compete for jobs based on GPA - they compete for grad school based on GPA. For most college grads, their grades don't determine their job, especially at the state schools.

You have somewhat of a point here, but class percentage does not hold much weight in many fields. That said, most college grads don't even get hired, even the high-performing ones. And if they do, it's likely not in the field they were trained in.

At least, for liberal arts degrees.
 
2011-04-18 01:57:22 PM

NoisyPiper: You have somewhat of a point here, but class percentage does not hold much weight in many fields. That said, most college grads don't even get hired, even the high-performing ones. And if they do, it's likely not in the field they were trained in.

At least, for liberal arts degrees.


You make a great point here which brings up another distinction between money and GPA.

A 4.0 science GPA is quite different than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.

Who hasn't wanted to beat a liberal arts major complaining about how long their multiple choice tests are?
 
2011-04-18 02:00:16 PM
this is the logical fallacy called the false equivalence.

This is a disingenuous argument meant to obfuscate truth.

Anyone who posits such an argument can freely be ignored as a non-participant in an adult discussion.
 
2011-04-18 02:01:01 PM

NoisyPiper: Animatronik: NoisyPiper: Blairr: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

Shocking. The analogy wasn't perfect.

But I suspect with minimal effort and imagination you can understand what was meant by it.

Oh, I understand what was meant by it. But it is still a bad analogy.

Wealth is made in a cooperative system with other people. The desk worker cannot make their salary without the truck driver delivering goods to consumers, and sales clerks selling the goods to consumers. The executives can't make their money without the desk worker, the truck driver, or the sales clerk. They make their money thanks to a stable system, a well-maintained infrastructure and the work of others.

That's why third world countries are not where we are. They don't have that.

Education is not like that. The 2.0 student is not necessary for the 4.0 student to exist. The sales clerk making $8/hr is necessary for the executive making $1 million a year to exist. Tax dollars are reinvested into a system to ensure the executive can still make that sort of money; so they can have a healthy workforce, a reliable infrastructure, and national defense. GPA cannot.

How can you be above average if there is no average?

College grads compete for jobs based on GPA. Percentile within class may be a scarce commodity; only 10% get to be in the top 10%.

GPA isn't about averages. It's about what you achieve. It is not calibrated to an average. Grades themselves aren't even calibrated to averages. Everyone can get a 100%, just like they can all get a 0%. GPA is based on assessment, not on your performance compared to others.

College grads don't always compete for jobs based on GPA - they compete for grad school based on GPA. For most college grads, their grades don't determine their job, especially at the state schools.

You have somewhat of a point here, but class percentage does not hold much weight in many fields. That said, most college grads don't even get hired, even the high-performing ones. And if they do, it's likely not in the field they were trained in.

At least, for liberal arts degrees.


I'd also like to point out that unlike money, you don't need a GPA to survive. The entire point of "income redistribution" (which is a misnomer, it is income distribution, just like free market, hands-off capitalism is) is so people can survive. The point is not to make people successful, it is to provide for them so they do not suffer unnecessarily.

It isn't about equal outcome, it is about the richest society in the history of the earth providing for all of its members. That doesn't mean everyone is a middle class family, it means everyone being provided healthcare, shelter, food and education. "Redistributing" GPA would be aimed at trying to make everyone have greater success, "redistributing" wealth would be aimed at trying to make everyone have the basic necessities of life in our society.

This is something the articler doesn't get.
 
2011-04-18 02:06:19 PM

PlatinumDragon: On the contrary, the government can defy economics as much as we can defy the laws of physics - we can't. An authority operating with a monopoly on force and control over media of exchange is mired in economics.


The effect of the government on economics is akin to the effect of gravity on the other fundamental forces: it can be acute at times (such as in the case of neutron stars or black holes), or it can be so slight as to be negligible (as in open space far from any massive objects, but the reality is that it is always there.

Economics is the study of how humans distribute resources among themselves, yes? Well, distribution of resources requires classification of those resources. Furthermore, those classifications must have rules associated with them. Neither of these principles require the existence of government. However, those rules must be enforced so as to legitimate them. Ultimately, this involves the use of physical force, if only to remove the actor that disrupts the agreed-upon structure.

You see, economics demands a government as soon as a society introduces the idea of something existing separately from the commons, also known as property. Government does not exist separately from economics: it is a creation of economics. The very thing that makes a government different from other decision-making bodies is that it creates and enforces property rights. This is true even in communist countries, where the state creates property rights in itself, and itself alone.
 
2011-04-18 02:06:56 PM

lennavan: NoisyPiper: You have somewhat of a point here, but class percentage does not hold much weight in many fields. That said, most college grads don't even get hired, even the high-performing ones. And if they do, it's likely not in the field they were trained in.

At least, for liberal arts degrees.

You make a great point here which brings up another distinction between money and GPA.

A 4.0 science GPA is quite different than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.

Who hasn't wanted to beat a liberal arts major complaining about how long their multiple choice tests are?


And a 4.0 arts/music GPA is quite a different thing than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.

I am social studies, political theory and anthropology. It requires a lot of reading, a lot of long papers and a lot of hard work. However, I have no delusion of being more useful in our society's functioning than the science or engineering major. And speaking as someone who tried my hand a physics, I respect those guys a lot. I don't have the skill set for that. My degree requires less work than someone in the sciences when you get right down to it. Mine is more subjective, their's is much more concrete.

I can get good grades through artful bull. They can't.

Not all GPAs are equal, and employers know it.
 
2011-04-18 02:11:02 PM

lennavan: A 4.0 science GPA is quite different than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.


No it's not. Both equally demonstrate a student's competence in completing the tasks a professor presents to them. You may think one set of tasks is more important or more difficult than the other, but that is more indicative of your own priorities than the set of tasks itself.
 
2011-04-18 02:18:24 PM

lennavan: lennavan: Thune: it's like you dont even read what you write.

I said read a book on economics.

YOU said, why, we dont have to use a free market economic solution.

I provide an example of how even in non-free market incidences the laws of economics still applies.

Fair enough - a monopoly defies the laws of economics. I provided a counter example. Now what?

Thune: The governemnt CANNOT defy economics.

Provide me one example of where the government defied economics.

Tariffs.

The US postal service.



Those are examples of the government getting involved in the free market.

They are not examples of the government defying economics.
 
2011-04-18 02:22:04 PM

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: When we threw out the idea of a nobility in the US, sadly, we threw out the idea of noblesse oblige with it.


I have nothing to add to this thread other than I pray for your continuing service as a savior.
 
2011-04-18 02:30:06 PM

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The real question is: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?


Deserving of what?

Anything that money can buy, which is pretty much everything.


The moar money you have the moar you can buy.

If you obtained your money legally, you most likely deserve it.


And apparently the rich are getting to keep more and more of it:

New data released by the IRS reveals that, over a period of 12 years, tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were effectively cut in half. In 1995, the richest 400 Americans paid, on average, 29.93% of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400 Americans paid just 16.63%.

thinkprogress.org

thinkprogress.org

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-18 02:35:35 PM

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: lennavan: A 4.0 science GPA is quite different than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.



No it's not. Both equally demonstrate a student's competence in completing the tasks a professor presents to them. You may think one set of tasks is more important or more difficult than the other, but that is more indicative of your own priorities than the set of tasks itself.




AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent sounds like a liberal arts major.
 
2011-04-18 02:36:43 PM

weezbo: I have nothing to add to this thread other than I pray for your continuing service as a savior.


It's a tough cross to bear.
 
2011-04-18 02:38:57 PM

NoisyPiper: It isn't about equal outcome, it is about the richest society in the history of the earth providing for all of its members. That doesn't mean everyone is a middle class family, it means everyone being provided healthcare, shelter, food and education.




^^^ This is what the Left actually believes ^^^
 
2011-04-18 02:40:39 PM

NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.


3. Grades don't really matter if you were born with wealth.

2004.georgewbush.org
 
2011-04-18 02:44:15 PM

Phil Herup: NoisyPiper: It isn't about equal outcome, it is about the richest society in the history of the earth providing for all of its members. That doesn't mean everyone is a middle class family, it means everyone being provided healthcare, shelter, food and education.



^^^ This is what the Left actually believes ^^^


Reading comprehension fail.

There will be middle class families. The society (in this view) ought to provide for each individual at the baseline level. If those individuals wish to be in the middle class, or the upper class, or what...they can. They just have to work for it.

Everyone provided with the basic necessities, for the sake of themselves and for society. We provide healthcare and education for those who can't afford it because it is beneficial to every other member in society, and encourages the economic and social growth of the nation. We provide food and housing because with those provided, crime will not occur as much as it does now.

To get beyond the basics, you have to work for it.

I also really don't consider myself on the left, so there's that.
 
2011-04-18 02:46:21 PM

sendtodave: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

3. Grades don't really matter if you were born with wealth.


This is true. See: my roommate. He's not gotten a GPA over 2.0 for the 3 semesters he's been here, he does not have the credit requirements to stay enrolled...yet he is still here.

His father is a big weapons manufacturing executive.
 
kab
2011-04-18 02:48:30 PM

Phil Herup: NoisyPiper: It isn't about equal outcome, it is about the richest society in the history of the earth providing for all of its members. That doesn't mean everyone is a middle class family, it means everyone being provided healthcare, shelter, food and education.



^^^ This is what the Left actually believes ^^^


"Poor people pay no taxes"
"175k per year is a lean income"

This is what Phil actually believes. Keep these in mind next time you're compelled to take him seriously.
 
2011-04-18 02:49:37 PM

NoisyPiper: Phil Herup: NoisyPiper: It isn't about equal outcome, it is about the richest society in the history of the earth providing for all of its members. That doesn't mean everyone is a middle class family, it means everyone being provided healthcare, shelter, food and education.



^^^ This is what the Left actually believes ^^^

Reading comprehension fail.

There will be middle class families. The society (in this view) ought to provide for each individual at the baseline level. If those individuals wish to be in the middle class, or the upper class, or what...they can. They just have to work for it.

Everyone provided with the basic necessities, for the sake of themselves and for society. We provide healthcare and education for those who can't afford it because it is beneficial to every other member in society, and encourages the economic and social growth of the nation. We provide food and housing because with those provided, crime will not occur as much as it does now.

To get beyond the basics, you have to work for it.

I also really don't consider myself on the left, so there's that.


Also: there is no reason why the most successful nation in the world's history should have a larger proportion of its population being under the poverty line than China. That's a black mark and an embarrassment. We can't be number 1 if we aren't number 1.
 
2011-04-18 02:53:26 PM

NoisyPiper: sendtodave: NoisyPiper: 1. Grades are not a scarce commodity. Wealth is.

2. Your grades are not mostly determined by who you were born to. Wealth is.

3. Grades don't really matter if you were born with wealth.

This is true. See: my roommate. He's not gotten a GPA over 2.0 for the 3 semesters he's been here, he does not have the credit requirements to stay enrolled...yet he is still here.

His father is a big weapons manufacturing executive.


usa-pictures.co.cc

Upper class values include higher education, the accumulation and maintenance of wealth, the maintenance of social networks and the power that accompanies such networks. Children of the upper class are typically schooled on how to manage this power and channel this privilege in different forms. It is in large part by accessing various edifices of information, associates, procedures and auspices that the upper class are able to maintain their wealth and pass it to future generations.
 
2011-04-18 02:55:40 PM

Cats_Lie: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?


Well, do you believe the poor are more deserving than the wealthy?
 
2011-04-18 02:59:45 PM

WhyteRaven74: Bocanegra: How's that whole "tax the rich" thing working out for Europe?

A bunch of the wealthiest Germans recently protested to have their taxes raised. This in Germany where unemployment is lower than in the US and social programs are vastly superior. As are the labor laws.

WRONG..
They protested to have the taxes raised on all rich people.
 
2011-04-18 03:23:37 PM

Anti_illuminati: JohnnyC: kyrg: Hang in there, We'll all be down to your level soon.

What do you mean by that, exactly?

I would actually pull in pretty good money if there were jobs in my field available in my area. Sadly, in the rock bottom economy of Michigan, there just aren't many, if any, 3D artist jobs around (that I'm aware of). There was one a couple months ago that I interviewed for... sadly, I didn't get the position. A guy I was up against had more on the job experience than I do. Oh well... maybe I'll get the next one that comes up (assuming one does).

Is moving an option? If not, why?


Yeah... it's an option. If I find a stable (non temporary) position somewhere. My wife would need to quit her job and we would move. I'm running into that recent graduate issue though. I decided to go to college and get a degree (which I got... with a 4.0gpa), but right now just about every job I find posted wants someone with a game/movie/show title under their belt already or they want an Art Director or Senior 3D Artist... Finding an "entry-level" position has proved to be somewhat difficult (even out of state). It's a bit demoralizing actually...
 
2011-04-18 03:37:24 PM

Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.



Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.


Phil Herup knows that the poor pay taxes, so he tries to limit all debate on taxes to income tax and nothing else.
 
2011-04-18 03:45:23 PM

kab: "Poor people pay no taxes"
"175k per year is a lean income"

This is what Phil actually believes. Keep these in mind next time you're compelled to take him seriously.



Actually I never said that poor people pay no taxes. That I have explained this to you before and you still say it makes you a liar.

Poor people do not pay income taxes. They do pay payroll taxes.

Just like everyone does.


Why do you feel the need to lie? Oh, I know... the left can't actually logically debate income taxes while being honest. If they were honest the debate would go like this.


Lefty Lib: "THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH IN TAXES!"

Normal Person: "Well actually they pay the lion's share and carry the water for a huge amount of folks who don't pull their weight."

Lefty Lib: "Well, now that you put it that way, I guess you were right all along. The Rich really do quite a bit for this country, including keep it afloat."
 
2011-04-18 03:47:40 PM

chasd00: Cats_Lie: Do you believe that people who are wealthy are simply more deserving than people who are poor?

Well, do you believe the poor are more deserving than the wealthy?


"Deserve," like "the poor," will mean different things to different people. Debates like this go nowhere, precisely because terms like these are not defined beforehand.

I think that, as a cost to society, poor people are more "deserving" of the pennies they may get from safety net programs to keep them alive than the rich are "deserving" of the billions they have gamed from the system or had given to them merely because of whom they are related to. A healthy, working, satisfied population is of much greater benefit to society than a few yachts and mansions. (Another charged claim with loosely-defined terms.)

The problem with these analogies are they assume that the country (and life in general) is a strict meritocracy. That individual effort is the sole determinant of success. That the richest are always those who have worked the hardest, and the highest GPAs go to the smartest. It's a rather silly thing to believe; reality is much more complicated.
 
2011-04-18 03:53:58 PM

erveek: Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.



Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.

Phil Herup knows that the poor pay taxes, so he tries to limit all debate on taxes to income tax and nothing else.



*NEWSFLASH* Nearly every discussion about taxes on FARK is about INCOME taxes. The discussions are about INCOME taxes.

Yet in every thread about income taxes, the FARK LibsTM try to deflect away from them.


I guess that you just can't read, 'cause it has been said a shiatload of times.
 
2011-04-18 04:16:34 PM

Phil Herup: erveek: Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.



Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.

Phil Herup knows that the poor pay taxes, so he tries to limit all debate on taxes to income tax and nothing else.


*NEWSFLASH* Nearly every discussion about taxes on FARK is about INCOME taxes. The discussions are about INCOME taxes.

Yet in every thread about income taxes, the FARK LibsTM try to deflect away from them.


I guess that you just can't read, 'cause it has been said a shiatload of times.


Phil Herup talks about deflection.
 
2011-04-18 04:21:10 PM
PlatinumDragon
$620 000 is still a nice chunk of change, more than a majority of hardworking people on Earth will ever have at one moment in over the course of their entire lifetimes.

FTFY

various Central and South American countries from the 1970s to about the mid-1990s, up to 2001, which I'm too lazy/busy with work to name en masse at the moment.


Thune
I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

Right- if you feel it is, then it is.
I hate Marx but Capital is pretty good. Its rejection by economists shows that economics as a study is more motivated by ideology than by science.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

alienation lol

also, Capital is more of a study of Capitalism than it is a proposal for a replacement.

Being wrong about everything is what happens when you don't read.
 
2011-04-18 04:42:20 PM

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: lennavan: A 4.0 science GPA is quite different than a 4.0 liberal arts GPA.

No it's not. Both equally demonstrate a student's competence in completing the tasks a professor presents to them. You may think one set of tasks is more important or more difficult than the other, but that is more indicative of your own priorities than the set of tasks itself.


I never once said more important. I said they are different. When you get to college, if you have to take both science and humanities courses, you too will understand.
 
2011-04-18 04:43:12 PM

Thune: Tariffs.

The US postal service.


Those are examples of the government getting involved in the free market.

They are not examples of the government defying economics.


Whatever you say.
 
2011-04-18 04:55:51 PM

sendtodave: Upper class values include higher education,


I'm pretty sure that higher education is primarily valued by the middle class (i.e. professional class).

the accumulation and maintenance of wealth, the maintenance of social networks and the power that accompanies such networks.

I think too, this is more of a middle class view on how the upper class operates. It's also a projection of middle class values onto the upper class.

Children of the upper class are typically schooled on how to manage this power and channel this privilege in different forms.

I don't really see this being the case. Children of the upper class are generally schooled in the legacy of the family that they are a part of, and how to behave in a way that upholds the family's name and reputation. In other words, they are taught the way a respectable person acts, and the things that a respectable person does.

Learning these shibboleths takes up the better portion of a child's education. Academic performance is stressed, but only so far that a good person is a learned person. Even then, other cultural norms may influence that - it wasn't long ago where there was a Gentleman's C. That wasn't out of laziness, but rather that it was thought uncouth to show up one's peers through academic overperformance, instead of building bonhomie with them.

It is in large part by accessing various edifices of information, associates, procedures and auspices that the upper class are able to maintain their wealth and pass it to future generations.

There are two reasons they maintain their wealth:

1. Those cultural shibboleths ensure access to substantial support networks.

2. The most important of those cultural shibboleths is that it's not one's own money, but the family's money, and that to spend it injudiciously or frivolously brought shame to the family's name. Thus, the upper class are conservative to a fault, but not out of a desire toward personal gain. Instead, it is the burden of knowing exactly how much is owed to so many people that restricts their actions.

Bill Gates is not of this class, as his values are primarily middle class, as indicated through the sorts of things he promotes through his charitable functions. His grandchildren possibly will be, provided that others want to associate with them simply through being in that family, and not because they hope to personally gain from it.

A good rule of thumb for determining whether someone is upper class is if you know the name, but are vague on who made the family's fortune in the first place.
 
2011-04-18 05:08:11 PM

lennavan: I never once said more important. I said they are different. When you get to college, if you have to take both science and humanities courses, you too will understand.


Considering I'm four years past that rodeo at this point...

I still say they're not. The number is just a number. The degree is what's important.

It matters not that you made a 3.95 as a chemistry major if you drop out two years in. That number is exactly as indicative and of as little worth as the 3.95 of an English literature major dropout. It's only once that degree is attached that the numbers have different impacts on prospective employers.

Of course, the reason for that is that most chemistry majors don't apply for graduate school to become English professors, and most English lit majors don't apply to work for Dow Chemical. The standards are different because the competition one's being judged against is different.

Inherently, though, both those numbers mean exactly the same thing: that the student was able to perform the tasks assigned by various professors to a high level of competence. It's only when those numbers are used to compare people that they have different significance, but that's just because the scales of comparison are different.
 
Displayed 50 of 631 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report