• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Progressive Grading in School

Would you support Progressive Grading?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Look at the marginal value of income. A 100 dollars means more to a person that makes 30k vs. a person that makes 100k.

In the end the people that have more cheapen the value of money.

This is the basic, and most convincing argument for a progressive tax.
 
It generally is true, and I'm assuming you are arguing for a flat tax, which would overwhelming put burden on the middle and lower classes.

Any tax that is a flat percentage, would result in rich people paying the majority of taxes.
You can't say it is generally true, you just assume that such is true.
 
Any tax that is a flat percentage, would result in rich people paying the majority of taxes.
You can't say it is generally true, you just assume that such is true.

Look at Winston's post, no reason to type the same thing twice.
 
Look at Winston's post, no reason to type the same thing twice.

Which doesn't address, at all, why a flat tax is not do able.
Based on a percentage, rich people will still pay the vast majority of taxes.

Marginal utility would be a good argument, if it were a fixed amount of taxes per person, which it is not.
 
No because money can be spent, help the economy, help provide people with housing, food, clothing etc, make sure that people aren't living in favela like conditions, and provide people with the opportunity to improve their scenario.

grades can be spent the same way - attaining scholarships, getting access to higher education, providing people with the opportunity to improve their scenario.

I repeat grades are NOTHING if they do not represent the education one has received.

and dollars are nothing if they do not represent some form of production. but the grades that are being shuffled around here are the result of education. the education of those evil high-performing students, remember?
 
Last edited:
Which doesn't address, at all, why a flat tax is not do able.
Based on a percentage, rich people will still pay the vast majority of taxes.

Marginal utility would be a good argument, if it were a fixed amount of taxes per person, which it is not.

It is a fixed rate of taxes, and 15% of $30,000 is alot more to that person then 15% of 1,000,000 is. Simply due to the fact that the person making $30,000 is likely to spend all of their income on essential things such as housing, food, clothing, etc, and while the person making 1,00,000 is not. You can't hide from that fact.
 
Not really.

Both are measurements earned through work, yet one is acceptable to redistribute.

Trap thread, Harry. If you hadn't said it wasn't that would be one thing, but you were very clear that it wasn't one. You created a trap thread and then were deceptive about it. Not cool.

You want to play? OK. Yes. I thinik grades should absolutely be redistributed. Overall, one's grades have no impact on one's success. One's intelligence does. Therefore, if grades are redistributed, then EVERYONE has an opportunity to graduate and then, once in the workforce, excell or not on their own merits. Grade redistribution gives everyone an equal opportunity be given the chance to suceed or not based on what actually has an impact on their success. Intelligence, desire, and motivation.
 
To detractors, would it not allow for those on the lower end to graduate and gain access to higher paying jobs?

No, because universities and employers would not consider those grades legitimate. Just like a degree from Harvard is more impressive than a degree from Liberty University.

What we should do is move to a more online-centric education system, where students can work at their own pace and they don't progress until they've mastered the material. Then it wouldn't be a question of whether a student did A-quality work or C-quality work on an individual unit...it would be how long it took them to earn an A on that unit.
 
Trap thread, Harry. If you hadn't said it wasn't that would be one thing, but you were very clear that it wasn't one. You created a trap thread and then were deceptive about it. Not cool.

You want to play? OK. Yes. I thinik grades should absolutely be redistributed. Overall, one's grades have no impact on one's success. One's intelligence does. Therefore, if grades are redistributed, then EVERYONE has an opportunity to graduate and then, once in the workforce, excell or not on their own merits. Grade redistribution gives everyone an equal opportunity be given the chance to suceed or not based on what actually has an impact on their success. Intelligence, desire, and motivation.

It wasn't a trap thread as the intention was not to trap people.

It's about questioning inconsistencies in beliefs.
It's a way to challenge beliefs.
 
If you didn't notice, I was pretty implicit in my expression of what the thread was about.
It is a comparison.
I said I was playing devil's advocate and if you didn't read through the purposefully easy to see through question of Progressive Grading, then I'm sorry I can't help you.

If it were meant to be a trap, I would be interested in trapping people.
What I'm more interested in, is the inconsistency and to challenge what people believe.

A trap is meant to deceive, a trick, I had/have no intention.

Absolutely did. You tried to make a comparison that does not really compare, rather than creating a thread about what you actually wanted to discuss. But if you REALLY want to play this way, I'm MORE than game. you see my last post. Do something with it... and trust me... I am quite well prepared to defend it.
 
It wasn't a trap thread as the intention was not to trap people.

It's about questioning inconsistencies in beliefs.
It's a way to challenge beliefs.

Except it has nothing to do with inconsistencies in belief. It looks at two dissimilar things. Saying that two dissimilar things are dissimilar and should be treated as such is not some form of hypocrisy.
 
It wasn't a trap thread as the intention was not to trap people.

It's about questioning inconsistencies in beliefs.
It's a way to challenge beliefs.

Nope. If you want to challenge inconsistencies, you need to make the two scenaros analogous. These are not. Tell me, Harry, do you think that those who fought for the US during the American Revolution are analogous to those from Hamas who fight against Israel?
 
Absolutely did. You tried to make a comparison that does not really compare, rather than creating a thread about what you actually wanted to discuss. But if you REALLY want to play this way, I'm MORE than game. you see my last post. Do something with it... and trust me... I am quite well prepared to defend it.

They are not non comparable.

Both income and grades are based on effort, intelligence, conforming to the "leader" desires and timeliness of completion.

A trap is about trapping people, this was clearly designed to be blatant about "Progressiveness" of "things."
If it were designed to be a "trap" you and all the others, wouldn't have seen through it so easily.
I'm much more clever than that.

I wanted to see how people reacted and thought when they recognized that by "Progressive" I was also implicitly alluding to taxation.
I want to challenge what you think, not trap you.
 
Which doesn't address, at all, why a flat tax is not do able.
Based on a percentage, rich people will still pay the vast majority of taxes.

Marginal utility would be a good argument, if it were a fixed amount of taxes per person, which it is not.

What a progressive tax system does is not try to be fair(it's not), or try to equalize the tax burden(it does not). What it tries to do is ensure that taxes have the least effect on standard of living as possible, A person making 20k who pays 1k in taxes has their standard of living effected much more than a person making 100k and paying 10k. That is it's strength. You have not addressed this aspect of it, nor does your comparison to bricks and airplanes...err, taxes and grades.
 
Gotta tell you. For a while I've been reading these threads on taxes and I have been leaning towards a flat tax. Reading this thread has made me rethink that and realize that progressive taxation may make more sense.
 
Both income and grades are based on effort, intelligence, conforming to the "leader" desires and timeliness of completion.

Bricks and airplanes are both designed with function in mind. Both bricks and airplanes serve a purpose in society. Bricks and airplanes are compatible using your logic.
 
Except it has nothing to do with inconsistencies in belief. It looks at two dissimilar things. Saying that two dissimilar things are dissimilar and should be treated as such is not some form of hypocrisy.

I do not call it hypocrisy, I call it inconsistent.
The blog linked calls it hypocrisy but that does not conform to the definition.

Both are based on an input of work, intelligence, among other, very similar and correlative things.
 
I do not call it hypocrisy, I call it inconsistent.
The blog linked calls it hypocrisy but that does not conform to the definition.

Both are based on an input of work, intelligence, among other, very similar and correlative things.

It is not inconsistent to say that different things should be treated differently.
 
Bricks and airplanes are both designed with function in mind. Both bricks and airplanes serve a purpose in society. Bricks and airplanes are compatible using your logic.

My comparison is not based on incredibly loose connections but on incredibly similar connections.

By your standards, no one could ever compare anything.
 
They are not non comparable.

Both income and grades are based on effort, intelligence, conforming to the "leader" desires and timeliness of completion.

A trap is about trapping people, this was clearly designed to be blatant about "Progressiveness" of "things."
If it were designed to be a "trap" you and all the others, wouldn't have seen through it so easily.
I'm much more clever than that.

I wanted to see how people reacted and thought when they recognized that by "Progressive" I was also implicitly alluding to taxation.
I want to challenge what you think, not trap you.

You are using the word "progressive" in non-comparable ways. Income is not necessarily based on effort, either. Sometimes it's based on choice and situation. Income is not necessarily based on intelligence. Sometimes it is based on luck and situation. Grades do not necessarily have an impact on sucess. Your thread is so full of inconsistencies and inaccurate analogies, I could drive a truck through it. You wanted to make a point. You don't like progressive tax. OK. We get that. That's what you want to talk about, so go ahead. Don't play these kinds of games.
 
Gotta tell you. For a while I've been reading these threads on taxes and I have been leaning towards a flat tax. Reading this thread has made me rethink that and realize that progressive taxation may make more sense.

A flat tax system would have absolutely devastating ripple effects that would last for many years. A slow gradual changeover over a quite long time, or starting from scratch with one might work(though not well), but changing to one now would be a huge mistake.
 
My comparison is not based on incredibly loose connections but on incredibly similar connections.

By your standards, no one could ever compare anything.

No, by your comparison, a lotto winner is smart and worked hard.
 
You are using the word "progressive" in non-comparable ways. Income is not necessarily based on effort, either. Sometimes it's based on choice and situation. Income is not necessarily based on intelligence. Sometimes it is based on luck and situation. Grades do not necessarily have an impact on sucess. Your thread is so full of inconsistencies and inaccurate analogies, I could drive a truck through it. You wanted to make a point. You don't like progressive tax. OK. We get that. That's what you want to talk about, so go ahead. Don't play these kinds of games.

Taxing income and grades progressively is the same effect, yes it is comparable.
Take from the highest, to "boost" the lowest.

Grades are not necessarily based on effort, sometimes it's choice and situation (see. Cheating), sometimes it's based on luck and situation, (see. parental involvement in education and facility standards).
 
No, because universities and employers would not consider those grades legitimate. Just like a degree from Harvard is more impressive than a degree from Liberty University.

then we would have to make them. the solution to the failure of redistributionist policies is coercion.

What we should do is move to a more online-centric education system, where students can work at their own pace and they don't progress until they've mastered the material. Then it wouldn't be a question of whether a student did A-quality work or C-quality work on an individual unit...it would be how long it took them to earn an A on that unit.

so you want to reform education on the backs of the internet-deprived?


redress said:
Except it has nothing to do with inconsistencies in belief. It looks at two dissimilar things. Saying that two dissimilar things are dissimilar and should be treated as such is not some form of hypocrisy.

:( redress apparently supports a system that unfairly disadvantages poor urban minority children.


redress, why do you hate black people?
 
Back
Top Bottom