• 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
Mellie said:
Old method? --- Fending for yourself and helping out your neighbor during hard times? I'm all for that.
Click to expand...

No, government cheese :)

It removes some of the problems with people trying to cheat the system that we currently face. Plus such a large purchaser can negotiate prices more effectively.
 
Your Star said:
But food stamps are better than this plan. This plan is ludicrous, and does not have the same benefits of a progressive tax system.
Click to expand...

How does it not? The rich are paying more (as they should) and, therefore, putting more into the economy. There would be more money for the store and their employees. Everyone wins, right?

But we shouldn't stop there. Gas prices are horrible. Do you know the toll it takes on a low income family to buy a tank of gas? It's not fair that a rich family pays the same price for gas as the poor. Those on poverty level should get free gasoline.

I would go down the housing path, but that's already been done.....a few years ago I was looking to rent an apartment. I didn't realize the apartments I was looking at were government housing. The lady had me fill out an application that asked my income. When she saw it she was like, "Whoa.....I'd have to charge you almost 3 times as much as normal for rent each month since your rent is based on your income." Whoa is right. :shock:
 
Mellie said:
How does it not? The rich are paying more (as they should) and, therefore, putting more into the economy. There would be more money for the store and their employees. Everyone wins, right?
Click to expand...

What I find interesting in this statement is that you are assigning a moral value to the rich paying more taxes. I am willing to bet that to most liberals, the rich paying a higher percentage is neither moral nor immoral, but simply necessary.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The results of progressively taxing grades, widely agreed by everyone here, results in the person receiving those grades, not getting a education, But merely getting grades.

I'm trying to get people to think that shuffling grades is analogous to shuffling income, both resulting in no long term solution to learning, whether it be math or learning to provide for oneself.

Do you now see the analogy I'm trying to make?
That it is somewhat comparable?
Click to expand...

Sure they are somewhat comparable. Just like Mike Tyson and the straw man share some similarities. However, if you try and treat them the same in the real-world you are a fool. Government policy should be based on those real world results, not analogies.
 
megaprogman said:
What I find interesting in this statement is that you are assigning a moral value to the rich paying more taxes. I am willing to bet that to most liberals, the rich paying a higher percentage is neither moral nor immoral, but simply necessary.
Click to expand...

This x1000.
 
megaprogman said:
What I find interesting in this statement is that you are assigning a moral value to the rich paying more taxes. I am willing to bet that to most liberals, the rich paying a higher percentage is neither moral nor immoral, but simply necessary.
Click to expand...

Paying a higher percentage for what? Income taxes? But that's clearly not working. We still have people who go hungry, have no homes and cannot purchase gasoline for their vehicles. Why shouldn't the rich have to pay a higher percentage for EVERYTHING? As you said, "it's necessary". Right?
 
Mellie said:
Paying a higher percentage for what? Income taxes? But that's clearly not working. We still have people who go hungry, have no homes and cannot purchase gasoline for their vehicles. Why shouldn't the rich have to pay a higher percentage for EVERYTHING? As you said, "it's necessary". Right?
Click to expand...

Because clearly at some point it becomes impractical. While there will always be more need than any level of help, public or private, can provide for, killing the golden goose kills it for everyone.
 
rathi said:
Sure they are somewhat comparable. Just like Mike Tyson and the straw man share some similarities. However, if you try and treat them the same in the real-world you are a fool. Government policy should be based on those real world results, not analogies.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm comparing, the real world results of such a situation.

It has largely already been agreed to that the real world results of progressively taxing education, would lead to people graduating uneducated.
A terrible result.

What I'm also questioning is that progressively taxing people, leads to the same result, people having more money but not having the understanding of how to use it or make it effectively.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's exactly what I'm comparing, the real world results of such a situation.

It has largely already been agreed to that the real world results of progressively taxing education, would lead to people graduating uneducated.
A terrible result.

What I'm also questioning is that progressively taxing people, leads to the same result, people having more money but not having the understanding of how to use it or make it effectively.
Click to expand...

A huge problem with your analogy that just came to the surface of my mind (but was lingering down in my subconscious ever since I spotted this thread and I could not figure out how to fully express it, I think) is that grades aren't currency. They cannot be exchanged for goods and services. Moving grades around to those who did not earn them devalues the grades, because you can't use those grades for anything else. On the other hand, money still retains value when you move it around.
 
megaprogman said:
Because clearly at some point it becomes impractical. While there will always be more need than any level of help, public or private, can provide for, killing the golden goose kills it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Your saying my points before I can type them :2razz:
 
megaprogman said:
A huge problem with your analogy that just came to the surface of my mind (but was lingering down in my subconscious ever since I spotted this thread and I could not figure out how to fully express it, I think) is that grades aren't currency. They cannot be exchanged for goods and services. Moving grades around to those who did not earn them devalues the grades, because you can't use those grades for anything else. On the other hand, money still retains value when you move it around.
Click to expand...

I already brought up this last night. Yet I don't think I got an answer for it.
 
Let me flip this around. Lets say you are in favor of the consumption tax instead of progressive taxation. Naturally, you want to follow Harry's example and do the same for education. So students now receive a grade penalty when they consume the schools resources. Getting textbooks, using the school computer lab, taking the teachers time after call as result in a grade penalty. You can see the analogy between taxing both the student and taxpayer when consuming resources.
 
Last edited:
You can cut and slice it any way you'd like. The main problem with American public schooling is American cultural decline. Nothing else can be blamed with any accuracy. Nothing short of a revolution will fix the problem. America is fast-becoming a nation of bums.
 
This is such a bad idea. It's wrong and unfair. It's robbery. It would teach kids to have a bad work ethic and ensure that everyone passes because the smarter kids pulled your weight. It's unfair to both those who excel and those who fail. Sometimes tough love is necessary, and kids need to learn through failure and get their act together.
 
Last edited:
ElCid said:
You can cut and slice it any way you'd like. The main problem with American public schooling is American cultural decline. Nothing else can be blamed with any accuracy. Nothing short of a revolution will fix the problem. America is fast-becoming a nation of bums.
Click to expand...

I agree. We have gotten too used to our success and have become careless as a result. I believe this is one of our top five problems as a nation. We no longer believe in something greater than ourselves. Even what passes for love of our culture is really just love of the self, which is why ideologies like libertarianism are flourishing (that and the ongoing effort to reshape history in that image). I still wish we made the great gothic style buildings of years past and loved our society in that manner.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's exactly what I'm comparing, the real world results of such a situation.

It has largely already been agreed to that the real world results of progressively taxing education, would lead to people graduating uneducated.
A terrible result.

What I'm also questioning is that progressively taxing people, leads to the same result, people having more money but not having the understanding of how to use it or make it effectively.
Click to expand...

I get your argument. The problem is that your analogy is nothing but an albatross. Income and education have severely different real world results and trying to pretend they are the same is foolish.
 
megaprogman said:
A huge problem with your analogy that just came to the surface of my mind (but was lingering down in my subconscious ever since I spotted this thread and I could not figure out how to fully express it, I think) is that grades aren't currency. They cannot be exchanged for goods and services. Moving grades around to those who did not earn them devalues the grades, because you can't use those grades for anything else. On the other hand, money still retains value when you move it around.
Click to expand...

Grades are a type of currency, the higher your GPA and over all grades, the more likely you are to qualify for honorary titles and admittance to prestigious Universities.
Grades carry a value of personal success.

Remediation of inequality by shuffling things around, it does not inherently fix the problem if it is not self sustaining.

Money does still have value even when shifted but that value is lessened through the system used to collect and spend it.
Basically, it costs to do so and the end results may be an inefficient allocation of those funds.
It might as well be valueless, in that scenario.
That is the unseen.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Grades are a type of currency, the higher your GPA and over all grades, the more likely you are to qualify for honorary titles and admittance to prestigious Universities.
Grades carry a value of personal success.

Money does still have value even when shifted but that value is lessened through the system used to collect and spend it.
Basically, it costs to do so and the end results may be an inefficient allocation of those funds.
It might as well be valueless, in that scenario.
That is the unseen.
Click to expand...

A type of currency yes, but a general currency (like dollars), no. Grades can only be used in a very specific manner. Also money only decreases in usefulness of the new method is less efficient than the old method. If it is more efficient, it will increase in usefulness. There is a presumption of many here that private movement of money is always more efficient, but all it is an opinion.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Remediation of inequality by shuffling things around, it does not inherently fix the problem if it is not self sustaining.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
I get your argument. The problem is that your analogy is nothing but an albatross. Income and education have severely different real world results and trying to pretend they are the same is foolish.
Click to expand...

I did not say they were the same but that doing something progressive to the end results could carry the similar problems.

I am questioning that.
 
ElCid said:
You can cut and slice it any way you'd like. The main problem with American public schooling is American cultural decline. Nothing else can be blamed with any accuracy. Nothing short of a revolution will fix the problem. America is fast-becoming a nation of bums.
Click to expand...

A revolution in thinking, maybe. The cause of the cultural decline is ideology.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I did not say they were the same but that doing something progressive to the end results could carry the similar problems.

I am questioning that.
Click to expand...

That bring up some evidence for your actual point. Explain the mechanism by which progressive taxation prevents people from learning how to make money.
 
Progressive grading would also hinder success. Those who excel would be making B's or C's depending on the class average. They would have to work two or three times harder to make an A and hope that someone else's failure doesn't rob them of their A.
 
megaprogman said:
Because clearly at some point it becomes impractical. While there will always be more need than any level of help, public or private, can provide for, killing the golden goose kills it for everyone.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom