• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

That is valid, the intensity of each situation, however that does not take away from the point of progressiveness, as outlined by others, to equalize an unequal world.

Like I said though, it is assumed that it needs to exist for taxation of income.
It's called the "unseen" and how that has reverberations throughout the economy and human psychology.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the details were pertinent enough to address, then please don't pretend that they don't exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is valid, the intensity of each situation, however that does not take away from the point of progressiveness, as outlined by others, to equalize an unequal world.

Like I said though, it is assumed that it needs to exist for taxation of income.
It's called the "unseen" and how that has reverberations throughout the economy and human psychology.
Click to expand...

Oh, I never denied that I want to better equalize some things. I doubt any of the self described progressives here would deny this.
 
megaprogman said:
Oh, I never denied that I want to better equalize some things. I doubt any of the self described progressives here would deny this.
Click to expand...

This is more about the method of equalization though.

Your Star has already pointed out quite well, that giving people grades, does not make them educated.
Would it not also be true that just giving people money/services, does not teach them to be productive enough, to be self reliant?
 
So Harry, do you think "consistency" should be the basis for government policy. Should we destroy perfectly functioning systems in order to satisfy a vague comparative analogy?
 
rathi said:
So Harry, do you think "consistency" should be the basis for government policy. Should we destroy perfectly functioning systems in order to satisfy a vague comparative analogy?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider "perfectly functioning."

It's not vague at all, I think it's pretty well comparable.
It's about discussing the solutions to problems and how they are not necessarily long term solutions.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
This is more about the method of equalization though.

Your Star has already pointed out quite well, that giving people grades, does not make them educated.
Would it not also be true that just giving people money/services, does not teach them to be productive enough, to be self reliant?
Click to expand...

I have always believed that there should be a cut off point for social welfare. Without going into details if the person continues to fail after some number of remediation attempts, then yeah, let them live under a bridge. However, the inverse your statement is also not true. Often withholding services from someone will not make them work harder, especially if they have no opportunity in which hard work will do any good for them. Often in neither case is self reliance achieved or taught.
 
megaprogman said:
I have always believed that there should be a cut off point for social welfare. Without going into details if the person continues to fail after some number of remediation attempts, then yeah, let them live under a bridge. However, the inverse your statement is also not true. Often withholding services from someone will not make them work harder, especially if they have no opportunity in which hard work will do any good for them.
Click to expand...

And I agree, I'm just bringing out this in, what I thought, was an entertaining way.

I'm interested in setting up a system of productivity where the rules are clear and that we don't subsidize sloth.
My problem is that many people assume our system is safety net, when it could be very clearly seen, that it's a way of reshuffling the deck for political gain.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And I agree, I'm just bringing out this in, what I thought, was an entertaining way.

I'm interested in setting up a system of productivity where the rules are clear and that we don't subsidize sloth.
My problem is that many people assume our system is safety net, when it could be very clearly seen, that it's a way of reshuffling the deck for political gain.
Click to expand...

Well, what happens is that the system helps some and not others, because frankly, some people do not have enough moral fiber to be helped for whatever reason. Thats not really a failure of either ideology, but a fact of human nature and as long as there are allowances for that (which I will admit is lacking on the liberal side, but I have made proposals to fix that in the loft), then the system we constructed will be fine (with some financial adjustment due to the current recession and reduction in government revenues)
 
megaprogman said:
Well, what happens is that the system helps some and not others, because frankly, some people do not have enough moral fiber to be helped for whatever reason. Thats not really a failure of either ideology, but a fact of human nature and as long as there are allowances for that (which I will admit is lacking on the liberal side, but I have made proposals to fix that in the loft), then the system we constructed will be fine (with some financial adjustment due to the current recession and reduction in government revenues)
Click to expand...

I don't blame liberals for their beliefs like that though.
I think modern liberalism is very intuitive and that's what draws many people to it.
Although I do not believe everything that is intuitive is right.

When I speak of reverberations I'm thinking very broadly, from things not considered social welfare to things considered as such.
I think the fatal flaw in education is that people believe they pay the whole cost and that when you pay for something to be done, you are not expect to do anything else to help it.
Education is somewhat funded through progressive taxation and that the true cost is not born by the majority of individuals who use it and thus they treat it cheaply.

This is just an example, but I hope it makes sense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Depends on what you consider "perfectly functioning."

It's not vague at all, I think it's pretty well comparable.
It's about discussing the solutions to problems and how they are not necessarily long term solutions.
Click to expand...


Your stupid proposal completely ignores the reality that the real life effects of implementing both system are completely different. Your worthless analogy is irrelevant compared to what actually happens meatspace. Do you honestly think that implementing progressive education is going to have the same economic impact on consumer spending and investment as a progressive income tax?
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
Your stupid proposal completely ignores the reality that the real life effects of implementing both system are completely different. Your wothless analogy is irrelvent compared to what actually happens meatspace. Do you honestly think that implementing progressive education is going to have the same economic impact on consumer spending and investment as a progressive income tax?
Click to expand...

No I believe they have the same effect of cheapening the results of achievement through "work."

It is not a stupid analogy, I have clearly explained that we are focused on the remediation of inequality and that both forms do not fix the problems of those inequalities by simply giving people "things."
 
megaprogman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Let's move past the grade thing now and go to food. You make a good argument for progressive food prices. Many children of people who pay no income taxes are STILL going hungry or not getting adequate nutrition because the parents cannot afford groceries. Would you support a progressive system where the rich pay more for their food than the poorer do?
 
Mellie said:
Agreed. Let's move past the grade thing now and go to food. You make a good argument for progressive food prices. Many children of people who pay no income taxes are STILL going hungry or not getting adequate nutrition because the parents cannot afford groceries. Would you support a progressive system where the rich pay more for their food than the poorer do?
Click to expand...

I would just support food stamps.
 
Your Star said:
I would just support food stamps.
Click to expand...

But we wouldn't even need food stamps under this plan. The uber rich would have to pay 2x to 3x more than the average middle class person. Anyone on poverty level would get their food for free. Everyone would have an ID card that identified them as to which "level" they were on. That card would be scanned at the grocery counter and either you pay less than average, average, more or none.

The store could use the extra money from the uber rich people to pay their workers more. The rich have the money - they can afford it. Why shouldn't they be obligated to pay more?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I believe they have the same effect of cheapening the results of achievement through "work."

It is not a stupid analogy, I have clearly explained that we are focused on the remediation of inequality and that both forms do not fix the problems of those inequalities by simply giving people "things."
Click to expand...

If you want to argue that the progressive income tax doesn't help with equality, that is fine. I'd probably agree with you on some points. Howver, you invetning a braindead proposal like progressive education and trying to pretend its the same as progressive taxation is a false argument. The systems have vastly differing real world impacts and thus cannot be treated the same.

Since you seem to like analogies, I'll try one on you. Your argument is like making a straw man of mike tyson, punching that straw man in the face, and claiming you can knock out the actual Mike. In truth, you might be able to knock out mike tyson, but the only way you can prove that if you get into the ring with the real man himself.
 
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...
It's an apple and oranges comparison. The more you earn, you progressively use more of the commons taxes pay for.
 
rathi said:
If you want to argue that the progressive income tax doesn't help with equality, that is fine. I'd probably agree with you on some points. Howver, you invetning a braindead proposal like progressive education and trying to pretend its the same as progressive taxation is a false argument. The systems have vastly differing real world impacts and thus cannot be treated the same.

Since you seem to like analogies, I'll try one on you. Your argument is like making a straw man of mike tyson, punching that straw man in the face, and claiming you can knock out the actual Mike. In truth, you might be able to knock out mike tyson, but the only way you can prove that if you get into the ring with the real man himself.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said.....
 
Mellie said:
Agreed. Let's move past the grade thing now and go to food. You make a good argument for progressive food prices. Many children of people who pay no income taxes are STILL going hungry or not getting adequate nutrition because the parents cannot afford groceries. Would you support a progressive system where the rich pay more for their food than the poorer do?
Click to expand...

The problem with progressive food prices is that the computer system and data entry requirements for such a system are extremely impractical. Food prices are forever changing, culture is forever changing, what is gourmet one day is not another, etc. Food stamps (or even better, go back to the old method) is a better solution as it is a simpler system to maintain and would likely have lower costs associated with it. Why have a complicated system when a simple one that effectively meets the same or similar goals would suffice? There is no point in having government just to have it.
 
Last edited:
Mellie said:
But we wouldn't even need food stamps under this plan. The uber rich would have to pay 2x to 3x more than the average middle class person. Anyone on poverty level would get their food for free. Everyone would have an ID card that identified them as to which "level" they were on. That card would be scanned at the grocery counter and either you pay less than average, average, more or none.

The store could use the extra money from the uber rich people to pay their workers more. The rich have the money - they can afford it. Why shouldn't they be obligated to pay more?
Click to expand...

But food stamps are better than this plan. This plan is ludicrous, and does not have the same benefits of a progressive tax system.
 
megaprogman said:
Food stamps (or even better, go back to the old method) is a better solution.
Click to expand...

Old method? --- Fending for yourself and helping out your neighbor during hard times? I'm all for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom