• 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%

  • No

    Votes: 21 100.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
megaprogman said:
Reasonable, interesting qualifier there. So basically, they didn't say something you agreed with?
Click to expand...

i'm applying the kind of logic that the law seeks "a reasonable person" type stuff. to preclude canards such as "fine, my metric is whether or not the topic is income oops grades aren't income therefore it's totally not the same". i want to see a real, rational explanation for why we should treat income and grades differently, when both are the product of the same complex swirl of individual and social factors?
 
It IS refreshing to see that no one wants this unfair practice in place in schools.

I'm for a flat tax rate as well. Everyone pays 12% (or whatever we decide is needed) of their income. No one gets to ride on anyone else's coattails. There should be no loopholes, no tax credits for "greening" your house, no hiding your income....nothing. Imagine how easy doing your taxes would be!
 
Mellie said:
It IS refreshing to see that no one wants this unfair practice in place in schools.

I'm for a flat tax rate as well. Everyone pays 12% (or whatever we decide is needed) of their income. No one gets to ride on anyone else's coattails. There should be no loopholes, no tax credits for "greening" your house, no hiding your income....nothing. Imagine how easy doing your taxes would be!
Click to expand...

And imagine how much harder it would hit the lower, and middle classes.
 
cpwill said:
i'm applying the kind of logic that the law seeks "a reasonable person" type stuff. to preclude canards such as "fine, my metric is whether or not the topic is income oops grades aren't income therefore it's totally not the same". i want to see a real, rational explanation for why we should treat income and grades differently, when both are the product of the same complex swirl of individual and social factors?
Click to expand...

So, you are filtering out the arguments that point out the difference between grading and income and then after that filtering going "see they are really the same!"? And you don't see the problem with this?
 
Your Star said:
And imagine how much harder it would hit the lower, and middle classes.
Click to expand...

as they currently pay no income taxes, i would rather think that that would be a good thing. 6 out of 10 households get more back than they pay in - that's just wrong. even if it's a progressive system, even if you are paying only 1%, you should still be paying the taxman something on April 15 for your use of the shared resources of governance, rather than just waiting to see how big your check from ole uncle sam is going to be.
 
megaprogman said:
So, you are filtering out the arguments that point out the difference between grading and income and then after that filtering going "see they are really the same!"? And you don't see the problem with this?
Click to expand...

no i am simply trying to avoid tautologies or people positing a system that predetermines the result. I want an honest explination rather than spin.
 
cpwill said:
no i am simply trying to avoid tautologies or people positing a system that predetermines the result. I want an honest explination rather than spin.
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate these tautologies that you believe people are committing.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97977-progressive-grading-school-9.html#post1059449544 <-- here is a great (sarcasm) tautology where redress is pointing out a key difference between grades and taxes.

oh wait, heres another! http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97977-progressive-grading-school-10.html#post1059449553

Here's an awful one that I committed! http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97977-progressive-grading-school-15.html#post1059449651
 
Last edited:
The point of the educational system and taxation system is to provide optimum results. Trying to be "consistent" by ignoring pragmatic realities is moronic. The U.S. military is entirely inconsistent with the countries democratic values. Soldiers can be drafted against their will, are required to follow non-democratic authority under threat of punishment and even be sent to their deaths. In order to be "consistent" we would have to let soldiers vote for their commanders, ignore orders if they chose and let the military be sued for "providing an unsafe workplace".

Government policy should be decided on the independent merits of the system. It doesn't matter if you have different strategies for education and taxation provided that they both work.
 
cpwill said:
as they currently pay no income taxes, i would rather think that that would be a good thing. 6 out of 10 households get more back than they pay in - that's just wrong. even if it's a progressive system, even if you are paying only 1%, you should still be paying the taxman something on April 15 for your use of the shared resources of governance, rather than just waiting to see how big your check from ole uncle sam is going to be.
Click to expand...

A flat tax isn't the way to solve that problem, I've said before, and I'll say it again, the biggest reason for the progressive tax is that 15% of 30,000 is worth more to that person then 15% of 1,000,000. The person making 30,000 is more likely going to spend up to, and possibly over that amount on just the basics, food, housing, clothing, etc. While the person making 1,000,000 isn't. A progressive tax is to make sure that the standard of living of the middle and lower classes don't go down, due to the tax. It would in the flat tax.
 
megaprogman said:
Please demonstrate these tautologies that you believe people are committing.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97977-progressive-grading-school-9.html#post1059449544 <-- here is a great (sarcasm) tautology where redress is pointing out a key difference between grades and taxes.

oh wait, heres another! http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97977-progressive-grading-school-10.html#post1059449553
Click to expand...

It's not a comparison between grades and taxes.
It's a comparison between grades and income, where both are considered final results and are progressively taxed to help those at the bottom of both scales.
 
Mellie said:
It IS refreshing to see that no one wants this unfair practice in place in schools.

I'm for a flat tax rate as well. Everyone pays 12% (or whatever we decide is needed) of their income. No one gets to ride on anyone else's coattails. There should be no loopholes, no tax credits for "greening" your house, no hiding your income....nothing. Imagine how easy doing your taxes would be!
Click to expand...

Are people still comparing stupid to compare things?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not a comparison between grades and taxes.
It's a comparison between grades and income, where both are considered final results and are progressively taxed to help those at the bottom of both scales.
Click to expand...

And when were grades ever taxed?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not a comparison between grades and taxes.
It's a comparison between grades and income, where both are considered final results and are progressively taxed to help those at the bottom of both scales.
Click to expand...

Redistribution of incomes of most often achieved through taxation.
 
Your Star said:
And imagine how much harder it would hit the lower, and middle classes.
Click to expand...

Of course it would hit the lower classes hard because they're used to not paying anything. If we're going to have an income tax, everyone who has an income should contribute.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yes I know and we could do the same thing with grades/GPA's.
Click to expand...

We could, but there is no point in doing so when it comes to schooling while there is a point when it comes to incomes/taxes, as has been pointed out multiple times. Consistency for the sake of consistency is silly. So while, the two situation can be seen as similar if one looks at them through a kaleidoscope, the individual details (that have been pointed out by multiple posters in this thread, some of which I even linked on this very page) make the actual situations very difference. Those messy details that some in this thread want to ignore are very important.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
The point of the educational system and taxation system is to provide optimum results. Trying to be "consistent" by ignoring pragmatic realities is moronic. The U.S. military is entirely inconsistent with the countries democratic values. Soldiers can be drafted against their will, are required to follow non-democratic authority under threat of punishment and even be sent to their deaths. In order to be "consistent" we would have to let soldiers vote for their commanders, ignore orders if they chose and let the military be sued for "providing an unsafe workplace".

Government policy should be decided on the independent merits of the system. It doesn't matter if you have different strategies for education and taxation provided that they both work.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI if you did not know. In the line of duty a soldier can ignore orders of suficient grounds.

One I know of was whatyacallit got a medal, I believe durring the Clinton era.

On the other hand, it's the army and war is war, I wouldnt say a thing about it in the service. Attitudes change, and even if not there are personalities to contend with. Then there is the odd and obsurd but undeniable, dictatorships sweep in like a wind at times. The viel of truth is sometimes thin and contentious.

Personally I dont see the correllation between tax and grades and did not bother to ponder the purported simularites long.
 
Mellie said:
Of course it would hit the lower classes hard because they're used to not paying anything. If we're going to have an income tax, everyone who has an income should contribute.
Click to expand...

Nope, because 15% of 30,000 hurts alot more than 15% of 1,000,000, because the person making 30,000 is going to spend most, if not all of their income on the basics, while the person making 1,000,000 is not. They can carry a bigger burden, and should.
 
megaprogman said:
We could, but there is no point in doing so when it comes to schooling while there is a point when it comes to incomes/taxes, as has been pointed out multiple times. Consistency for the sake of consistency is silly. So while, the two situation can be seen as similar if one looks at them through a kaleidoscope, the individual details (that have been pointed out by multiple posters in this thread, some of which I even linked on this very page) make the actual situations very difference. Those messy details that some in this thread want to ignore are very important.
Click to expand...

That's just an assumption though.

I'm perfectly fine looking at the details, only the details of progressive income taxation aren't as easy to see, as doing the same with grades.

It is assumed that, progressive taxation of income is good, based on personal bias.
While taxing grades progressively, is not good.
 
Your Star said:
I was just pointing out the ludicrousness of the comparison.
Click to expand...

People in this thread seem to think that simply because there are some minor similarities between the two things that they are equivalent and that people pointing out problems with the analogy fail in their arguments because they don't address that small link between the two.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That's just an assumption though.

I'm perfectly fine looking at the details, only the details of progressive income taxation aren't as easy to see, as doing the same with grades.

It is assumed that, progressive taxation of income is good, based on personal bias.
While taxing grades progressively, is not good.
Click to expand...

Yes Harry, I have a point of view, as do we all. As far as the details go, again, I linked out some of the discussion of those details last page, you even quoted me. You are quoting them and then pretending that they don't exist?
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
We could, but there is no point in doing so when it comes to schooling while there is a point when it comes to incomes/taxes, as has been pointed out multiple times. Consistency for the sake of consistency is silly.
Click to expand...

But it's not consistency for the sake of consistency.

The rich pay more in taxes that benefit the entire society because they have more money whether it be from their own hard work or an inheritance or luck. They pay for those who did not work hard, had a tough life, or bad luck.

Why shouldn't the smart kid give a little of his good grades to the kid who grew up in a horrible family environment which resulted in him failing? It's only fair. It's the right thing to do, isn't it?

Similarly, why shouldn't the rich pay more for a loaf of bread? It's not fair that a poor person has to pay the same amount. Do you know the toll that has on a poor family to have to pay the same price that rich people pay? It's just not fair.

(Devil's advocate, of course.)
 
Mellie said:
But it's not consistency for the sake of consistency.

The rich pay more in taxes that benefit the entire society because they have more money whether it be from their own hard work or an inheritance or luck. They pay for those who did not work hard, had a tough life, or bad luck.

Why shouldn't the smart kid give a little of his good grades to the kid who grew up in a horrible family environment which resulted in him failing? It's only fair. It's the right thing to do, isn't it?

Similarly, why shouldn't the rich pay more for a loaf of bread? It's not fair that a poor person has to pay the same amount. Do you know the toll that has on a poor family to have to pay the same price that rich people pay? It's just not fair.

(Devil's advocate, of course.)
Click to expand...

Because very few children are in acute danger of losing their homes, food, humanity, whatever else due to bad grades (at least in this country). While the same is not true for adults who may lose their job or be unable to find a job for whatever reason.

Hey Harry, this is one of those details.
 
megaprogman said:
Yes Harry, I have a point of view, as do we all. As far as the details go, again, I linked out some of the discussion of those details last page, you even quoted me. You are quoting them and then pretending that they don't exist?
Click to expand...

I already directly address CC's points(in your second link).
I did not ignore it.

Red's criticism could be addressed with Mellie's comment.
Both forms of "progressiveness" can exist to equalize unequal situations in society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom