Grade redistribution in college

[Dimkaumd]

Kibbo where did u decide that the govt has that obligation? soviety is unequal...why would the government have an obligation to change that? If im fat and I have 10 sandwiches...doesnt mean that a hungry person has a right to take my sandwiches away

Ok that was a childish example...but no more childish than ur assertion that the govt has an obligation to reshuffle equality

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
Kibbo where did u decide that the govt has that obligation? soviety is unequal...why would the government have an obligation to change that? If im fat and I have 10 sandwiches...doesnt mean that a hungry person has a right to take my sandwiches away

Ok that was a childish example...but no more childish than ur assertion that the govt has an obligation to reshuffle equality

That's my point: that there is no moral absolute that values property rights over equity rights. That decision is arbitrary.

 

[Dimkaumd]

TODD u dont know what ur talking about...federal, state, and local taxes combined for the highest bracket is around 50% (slightly more) not 37%.....i dont know where u live but its certainly not in NJ....or prolly not in the USA for that matter

 

[Dimkaumd]

Kibbo...you have a right to property. meaning that if something is yours (u paid for it or inhereited it) I cannot come and simply take it from you. the government must protect your property in case someone wants to steal it. you do not have a right to a shelter...meaning that if you decide not to build one...no1 is responsible for that except for you. i have to go

 

[Kibbo]

I understand the law, I'm just saying that it is arbitrary. Why do you have those rights?

Edit: why are those rights better than other rights?

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Hey Dikaumd, try this one on.

The primary goal of government is to maintain the basic structure of society. We live in a society which has an unequal structure. Thus, those who benefit most from this unequal structure should pay more for it.

Wrong.

The primary goal of government is to secure people's rights. Right to PURSUE happines, right to life, right to PROPERTY.

It does NOT guarentee Happiness, or Property, it just ensures the protection of those things. SO, if you're rich, government is there to protect your monetary wealth, not to take it away and redistribute it to others.

We live in a rights-based society. This is not the only way to live. Can you prove to me that these rights are inalienable? No, you can't. Can you even prove to me that property rights are recognized as inalienable by most rights-determining bodies (courts, tribunals, etc.) No, you can't. Why are property rights an good-in-itself?

Edit: one could just as easily declare that every human has a right to access to healthcare, and that that right supercedes financial determinations. Or that every human has a right to the basics of living, like food or shelter, regardless of their actions. Why are property rights more important than those, in-and-of themselves?

Well let's see. Me being born gives me an inalienable right to life. No one grants that right to me, it exists by its very nature. I exist for my own ends, and every individual is like that. Whether my own ends are to give away all my money, or to hord all my money, my own ends are essentially my personal interests. Each person has personal interests, and those interests have to be secured to the point that your personal interests do not interfere with someone's elses personal interests. IE - I can swing my hand up to the point that my hand smacks you on the head, at that point my right to swing my hand infringes on your right(self interest) not to get hit.

Saying that different people have different morals and everything is arbitrary and can't be judged is childish at best and ignorant at worst.

Government's purpose (whether it achieves that purpose or not is a diff story) is to protect individual rights, so that the interests of one individual can't interfere with another's rights.

 

[oreagan]

In case's such as these, we can turn to our good friend, Mr. Constitution!

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There's your purposes of our government. That said, taxes for the highest bracket are, historically speaking, about average for America. Here is a chart (yes, I apologize for bringing factual data to these forums):
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:exOueinYIfsJ:www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php&hl=en

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Hey Dikaumd, try this one on.

The primary goal of government is to maintain the basic structure of society. We live in a society which has an unequal structure. Thus, those who benefit most from this unequal structure should pay more for it.

Wrong.

The primary goal of government is to secure people's rights. Right to PURSUE happines, right to life, right to PROPERTY.

It does NOT guarentee Happiness, or Property, it just ensures the protection of those things. SO, if you're rich, government is there to protect your monetary wealth, not to take it away and redistribute it to others.

We live in a rights-based society. This is not the only way to live. Can you prove to me that these rights are inalienable? No, you can't. Can you even prove to me that property rights are recognized as inalienable by most rights-determining bodies (courts, tribunals, etc.) No, you can't. Why are property rights an good-in-itself?

Edit: one could just as easily declare that every human has a right to access to healthcare, and that that right supercedes financial determinations. Or that every human has a right to the basics of living, like food or shelter, regardless of their actions. Why are property rights more important than those, in-and-of themselves?

Well let's see. Me being born gives me an inalienable right to life. No one grants that right to me, it exists by its very nature. I exist for my own ends, and every individual is like that. Whether my own ends are to give away all my money, or to hord all my money, my own ends are essentially my personal interests. Each person has personal interests, and those interests have to be secured to the point that your personal interests do not interfere with someone's elses personal interests. IE - I can swing my hand up to the point that my hand smacks you on the head, at that point my right to swing my hand infringes on your right(self interest) not to get hit.

Saying that different people have different morals and everything is arbitrary and can't be judged is childish at best and ignorant at worst.

Government's purpose (whether it achieves that purpose or not is a diff story) is to protect individual rights, so that the interests of one individual can't interfere with another's rights.

Good one. I wasn't trying to say that all rights are arbitrary. I can see how you could think I meant that. The ambiguity is my bad, due to the limitations of my skill as a writer. But what is a better way to protect your (and everyone else's) right to life? The enforcement of property rights? (whose original distribution was wholly arbitrary) Or the provision of basic neccessities?

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Hey Dikaumd, try this one on.

The primary goal of government is to maintain the basic structure of society. We live in a society which has an unequal structure. Thus, those who benefit most from this unequal structure should pay more for it.

Wrong.

The primary goal of government is to secure people's rights. Right to PURSUE happines, right to life, right to PROPERTY.

It does NOT guarentee Happiness, or Property, it just ensures the protection of those things. SO, if you're rich, government is there to protect your monetary wealth, not to take it away and redistribute it to others.

We live in a rights-based society. This is not the only way to live. Can you prove to me that these rights are inalienable? No, you can't. Can you even prove to me that property rights are recognized as inalienable by most rights-determining bodies (courts, tribunals, etc.) No, you can't. Why are property rights an good-in-itself?

Edit: one could just as easily declare that every human has a right to access to healthcare, and that that right supercedes financial determinations. Or that every human has a right to the basics of living, like food or shelter, regardless of their actions. Why are property rights more important than those, in-and-of themselves?

Well let's see. Me being born gives me an inalienable right to life. No one grants that right to me, it exists by its very nature. I exist for my own ends, and every individual is like that. Whether my own ends are to give away all my money, or to hord all my money, my own ends are essentially my personal interests. Each person has personal interests, and those interests have to be secured to the point that your personal interests do not interfere with someone's elses personal interests. IE - I can swing my hand up to the point that my hand smacks you on the head, at that point my right to swing my hand infringes on your right(self interest) not to get hit.

Saying that different people have different morals and everything is arbitrary and can't be judged is childish at best and ignorant at worst.

Government's purpose (whether it achieves that purpose or not is a diff story) is to protect individual rights, so that the interests of one individual can't interfere with another's rights.

Good one. I wasn't trying to say that all rights are arbitrary. I can see how you could think I meant that. The ambiguity is my bad, due to the limitations of my skill as a writer. But what is a better way to protect your (and everyone else's) right to life? The enforcement of property rights? (whose original distribution was wholly arbitrary) Or the provision of basic neccessities?

Well in order for government to function, as it is not a private enterprise, it goes without saying that total property would not be possible... ie, taxation is inevitable at some level to fund government. The question then comes down to how much government do we need, and consequently, how much funding.

Although I will need at least a 10 page paper to address the issue with concrete points, essentially the way the government works now is a double negative... it takes away a lot from its citizens and it doesn't give them anything in return. If most of the programs are privatized and government is cut down heavily removing most of its programs, people will have more money in their pockets and competition will provide much lower prices especially for things like medicines, social security benefits, and health insurance to name a few.

What personally urks me in how America presently functions is its perpetual increase in taxation and government intervention* in order to "improve" society. Society would be much better off if government stopped regulating the private sector, as the case is with social security, FDA, medicare, and countless other programs. Not to mention all of the "War on (fill in the blank)" programs that have never succeeded, instead they increase costs and while not solving the problems they're designed to cure. In fact, the Constitution specifically bars the Fed government from doing anything other than what the Constitution dictates, the rest is left to the states to handle on their own*2. Instead, the government has taken upon itself to conveniently disregard the constitution and start regulation.

*(short term tax breaks and government reforms don't count...overall government is heading towards growth not contraction)

*2(States handling issues on their own is a great way of ensuring 'checks & balances' against what our Fed gov. is doing. If a certain state gets too powerful or too controlling, people and/or businesses will be forced to move to a different state... eventually either the state will have to change its policies or it will collapse under its own oppressive rules. It's essentially capatilistic competition for government. This is what the drafters of the constituion intended, but our current government has disregarded that completely).

 

[illustri]

Love it no, live with it yes.

Because the fact is whatever your grade - taxed or welfared - the amount of money your household has is still as good an indicator of your future turnout.

A student with a undergrad gpa of 2.35 got to be president.

 

[Dimkaumd]

that is not accurate either. even if someone can get elected because of the vast political connections they have...doesnt mean that everyone with money is automatically set for life...and visa versa...weve had presidents who were quite literally lower middle class. Clinton came from a very modest family..and so did Truman. In either case the ends dont justify the means. your saying that we should just live with it...well i say I dont want to be a passifist and watch the government rape me. Look America is no doubt the greatest country in the world, but why not make it better. If you want strong growth and economic expansion then cut the taxes and CUT THE GOVT SPENDING PLEASE.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dimkaumd
that is not accurate either. even if someone can get elected because of the vast political connections they have...doesnt mean that everyone with money is automatically set for life...and visa versa...weve had presidents who were quite literally lower middle class. Clinton came from a very modest family..and so did Truman. In either case the ends dont justify the means. your saying that we should just live with it...well i say I dont want to be a passifist and watch the government rape me. Look America is no doubt the greatest country in the world, but why not make it better. If you want strong growth and economic expansion then cut the taxes and CUT THE GOVT SPENDING PLEASE.

There is no proof tht cutting taxes further would stimulate the economy. Like I said we allready have the second lowest taxes in the industrialized world. Our taxes are lower than they have been for along time. Countries with lower taxes are not growing faster than we are (i.e. only Japan). There are other countries woth lower taxes but I don't think it a good comparison to compare an indutrialized country with a developing one.

Get our financial house in order and only then start cutting taxes.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Being born doesn't give you an inalienable right to anything. There is no 'natural law' that says you can't be killed arbitrarily, for food, for sport, for infringing on the territory of a stronger animal, or for any of a million other reasons.

Western society is based on a value-judgement; property rights supercede equity rights. This isn't necessarily true across the board, but is a guiding principle of free societies with capitalist economies. There's nothing wrong with holding that value; but it isn't an absolute. Conquest, theft and trickery have all been considerd acceptable, and sometimes even laudable ways of increasing one's property throughout history. We still think his is true in the case of (for example) international wars; we engage in spying activities to steal information from our enemies. That we don't consider this to be wrong is proof-positive that 'property-rights' are a moral relative, not an absolute.

Every developed western nation also has at least some manner of social safety net; to at least a minimal degree, we all believe that the right to basic necessities should supercede the property rights of the rest of society. This also is not right or wrong in an absolute sense; if it were right or wrong in some demonstrably true manner, we wouldn't disagree about it so frequently!

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Some one has to pay for all those air craft carriers and wars the US is running now.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Just had a thought (brain hurting now)....

Pretty much a naked taxing would be someone that wins the lottery, right? The IRS is RIIIGHT there waiting for you to sign over millions of dollars back to them, correct?

So what % does the IRS take from lottery winners that take CASH OPTIONS?

Edit: Ripped from the POWERBALL FAQ's.....

INCOME TAX; WHICH STATE TAX APPLIES?

Is federal tax taken out of the check before you receive it? What percent would you actually receive after taxes? If $25 million were won, for example, what would be received in the annual check? Bruce & Sally B., via Internet.

Yes, federal tax is deducted from your lottery winnings before you receive your payment. You can think of lottery winnings just like other income - except you don't have to work for it. Powerball winners will receive their prize payment in one lump sum or in a number of periodic payments depending on their election. In either case, the lottery jurisdiction will withhold 27 percent of the payment for Federal income tax withholding. A Form W-2G, "Certain Gambling Winnings", will be sent to Powerball winners in January of the following year, reporting the total prize payment and the Federal income tax withholding amount. The total payment in Box 1 of Form W-2G should be reported on the "Other Income" line on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. (Note: As with all financial matters, we recommend that proper professional advice be sought before any action is taken.)


So 27% goes to Federal tax (we're talking millions of dollars here, the super-rich level).... the other % is from state taxes. That will vary upon the state you live in. Now this pretty much shows that getting 52%-55% in taxes just isn't realistic. On second thought, some state taxes are pretty nasty.

Again, remember now, there are no tax shelters for gambling winnings. So this is a raw, naked IRS withholding.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Just had a thought (brain hurting now)....

Pretty much a naked taxing would be someone that wins the lottery, right? The IRS is RIIIGHT there waiting for you to sign over millions of dollars back to them, correct?

So what % does the IRS take from lottery winners that take CASH OPTIONS?

Wouldn't that be a flow of money from the state government (since IIRC lotteries are conducted at and the proceeds flow to the state level) to the federal gov't?

 

[Darkhawk28]

I'm not sure where you're getting at, but I put an addendum to my post above....

 

[Xenon14]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Being born doesn't give you an inalienable right to anything. There is no 'natural law' that says you can't be killed arbitrarily, for food, for sport, for infringing on the territory of a stronger animal, or for any of a million other reasons.

Western society is based on a value-judgement; property rights supercede equity rights. This isn't necessarily true across the board, but is a guiding principle of free societies with capitalist economies. There's nothing wrong with holding that value; but it isn't an absolute. Conquest, theft and trickery have all been considerd acceptable, and sometimes even laudable ways of increasing one's property throughout history. We still think his is true in the case of (for example) international wars; we engage in spying activities to steal information from our enemies. That we don't consider this to be wrong is proof-positive that 'property-rights' are a moral relative, not an absolute.

Every developed western nation also has at least some manner of social safety net; to at least a minimal degree, we all believe that the right to basic necessities should supercede the property rights of the rest of society. This also is not right or wrong in an absolute sense; if it were right or wrong in some demonstrably true manner, we wouldn't disagree about it so frequently!

Unlike other rights, you cannot be 'granted' the right to life, you can only have it taken away.

As far as things like property rights, I agree, they are not 'inalienable' and vary amongst governments. The Native Americans, for instance, had a system where most if not all things in the society/community were shared, property rights were very limited, and consequently so was progress - since no 1 individual could advantage themselves over another, competition/progress was eliminated. It is also not surprising that, when the white man came, Native Americans were still using primitive weapons against rifles.

In regards to this thread, I may not have pointed this out explicitly, but it just so happens that the United States is probably the best nation at securing property rights (not to say they can't be secured further) and therefore, it is also one of the nations with the best economic growth and prosperity of life. The most distinguishing feature is that the constitution dictates that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... so if lots of property/money make you happy... you have the right to pursue it, NOT the right to have it granted to you unquestionably.... which begs the question at what point does government/tax support go beyond just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Being born doesn't give you an inalienable right to anything. There is no 'natural law' that says you can't be killed arbitrarily, for food, for sport, for infringing on the territory of a stronger animal, or for any of a million other reasons.

Western society is based on a value-judgement; property rights supercede equity rights. This isn't necessarily true across the board, but is a guiding principle of free societies with capitalist economies. There's nothing wrong with holding that value; but it isn't an absolute. Conquest, theft and trickery have all been considerd acceptable, and sometimes even laudable ways of increasing one's property throughout history. We still think his is true in the case of (for example) international wars; we engage in spying activities to steal information from our enemies. That we don't consider this to be wrong is proof-positive that 'property-rights' are a moral relative, not an absolute.

Every developed western nation also has at least some manner of social safety net; to at least a minimal degree, we all believe that the right to basic necessities should supercede the property rights of the rest of society. This also is not right or wrong in an absolute sense; if it were right or wrong in some demonstrably true manner, we wouldn't disagree about it so frequently!

Unlike other rights, you cannot be 'granted' the right to life, you can only have it taken away.

As far as things like property rights, I agree, they are not 'inalienable' and vary amongst governments. The Native Americans, for instance, had a system where most if not all things in the society/community were shared, property rights were very limited, and consequently so was progress - since no 1 individual could advantage themselves over another, competition/progress was eliminated. It is also not surprising that, when the white man came, Native Americans were still using primitive weapons against rifles.

In regards to this thread, I may not have pointed this out explicitly, but it just so happens that the United States is probably the best nation at securing property rights (not to say they can't be secured further) and therefore, it is also one of the nations with the best economic growth and prosperity of life. The most distinguishing feature is that the constitution dictates that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... so if lots of property/money make you happy... you have the right to pursue it, NOT the right to have it granted to you unquestionably.... which begs the question at what point does government/tax support go beyond just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Xenon14
Unlike other rights, you cannot be 'granted' the right to life, you can only have it taken away.

As far as things like property rights, I agree, they are not 'inalienable' and vary amongst governments. The Native Americans, for instance, had a system where most if not all things in the society/community were shared, property rights were very limited, and consequently so was progress - since no 1 individual could advantage themselves over another, competition/progress was eliminated. It is also not surprising that, when the white man came, Native Americans were still using primitive weapons against rifles.

In regards to this thread, I may not have pointed this out explicitly, but it just so happens that the United States is probably the best nation at securing property rights (not to say they can't be secured further) and therefore, it is also one of the nations with the best economic growth and prosperity of life. The most distinguishing feature is that the constitution dictates that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... so if lots of property/money make you happy... you have the right to pursue it, NOT the right to have it granted to you unquestionably.... which begs the question at what point does government/tax support go beyond just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

Being alive is not having the 'right' to live. And being killed is not having the 'right' to live taken away. I was pointing out that this is not a right at all, and that life can be arbitrarily ended for any reason, with no opportunity for recompense.

Actually there are a number of naitons which secure property rights more absolutely than the USA; many are marked by massive rich-poor gaps, rampant poverty, and a fundamental inability of the lower class to pursue life, liberty, or happiness. Therefore it is at best 'unclear' whether increased protection of property rights leads to a higher standard of living and better economic growth.

Arguing about why, exactly, the natives were less technologically advanced than Europeans is pretty hard to do; maybe it had something to do with thousands of years of practice in the science of warfare througout Europe, and before that in Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia... The situation in North America seemed to, for the most part, foster a human population in relative equilibrium with the environment, and not one constantly competing for resources. It's way beyond my trianing to speculate anthropologically why this might have been, and I want to make it clear I'm not calling one group of people better than the other ethically, or anything of the sort. I just think 'property rights' are a poor explanation for what happened.

 

[Thump553]

I'm presently paying for two children's college education with precious little governmental assistance (some minor government insured loans only). I also paid my own way through college and post grad education at instititions that had NO grade inflation then (heavy now).

Grade inflation is not politically based, it is a marketing technique colleges use to attract students. If you are choosing between two schools, otherwise comparable, and can expect to get C's at one and B's at the other, which would you go to?

BTW most of so-called liberals are firm believers in merit based systems-we want the other bogus criteria and standards thrown out (like what got Pres. Bush into Yale).

 

[Xenon14]

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

BTW most of so-called liberals are firm believers in merit based systems-we want the other bogus criteria and standards thrown out (like what got Pres. Bush into Yale).

While Bush may not fit into this category, accepting a few benefactors/celebrities is very positive thing for any university. NYU gets a lot of publicity due to the Olsen twins currently. What's wrong in accepting a couple underqualified students so 10000 kids can have a better education?

Legacy admission, otoh, is complete garbage.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Xenon14

Good point. Do you think we've gone betond the point of just securing the 'right to life and liberty and the pursuit for happiness'.

I feel that the government has taken more and given less. Essentially, if government is restructured in a such a way that Federal government is heavily decreased in size and most of the fedral programs are eliminated and/or privatized, and leaving the rest to the states to take care of, then not only will people have more money and better life styles, but those that are worse off (poor, needy, etc) will actually have a better system to increase their quality of life.

A reasonable arguement, but the apart about leaving the rest to the states is a cop out. So now the states become the bloated government.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

BTW most of so-called liberals are firm believers in merit based systems-we want the other bogus criteria and standards thrown out (like what got Pres. Bush into Yale).

While Bush may not fit into this category, accepting a few benefactors/celebrities is very positive thing for any university. NYU gets a lot of publicity due to the Olsen twins currently. What's wrong in accepting a couple underqualified students so 10000 kids can have a better education?

Legacy admission, otoh, is complete garbage.

Prestigous universities love to ask the question: what can you offer them? So by that standard celebrities are perfect. Its no differet really than accepting under qualified athletes to make the college sports team perform better and raise more funds.