Students in Favor of Wealth Distribution Asked to Pass Grade Points to Others

[bijou]

A California college student is conducting a social experiment where he’s trying to get his peers to sign a petition in favor of distributing grade point averages to show how the federal government distributes wealth.

Oliver Darcy, a recent college graduate, proposes that students with good grades contribute their GPA to their academically sluggish friends. He argues that this is how the federal government takes wealth from the country’s high wage earners and distributes it to the low income earners.

“They all earn their GPA,” said Darcy in an interview with "Fox and Friends." “So we asked them if they’d be interested in redistributing the GPA points that they earned to students who may be having trouble getting a high GPA.”

Darcy, who films his encounters with teachers and fellow students, doesn’t have much luck selling this theory.

He said many students on college campuses support high taxes on the rich, but when put into relative terms, cringed at the thought of spreading around their academic wealth.

In a video posted on Exposingleftists.com, one student said, “If I do give GPA points to students that don’t deserve it, it isn’t fair, I work for what I have.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/17/college-students-in-favor-wealth-distribution-are-asked-to-support-grade/#ixzz1VPiSqRhk

[thundley4]

All leftists are hypocrites when it comes to sharing their own wealth.

[JohnnyReb]

Student studies hard, all night, makes a 100 on a test, then professor takes 35% of his grade and spreads the wealth around a little leaving the hard working student with a 65 on the test. Some in the class wind up with a higher grade than he has after the grade points are spread around.....student drops out of school and gets on SS Disability siting, "What's the use".

[Wineslob]

“If I do give GPA points to students that don’t deserve it, it isn’t fair, I work for what I have.”



No shit, Sherlock.   

Now to make every single college student deal with that reality......................

[Kryder]

Income distribution is based on the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility which states that for every additional dollar you make you lose utility for it.   The truth is that for someone who is making 250,000 dollars per year, paying 82.5k in taxes is a pretty nice chunk of change to just have to sign over to the government.  That's if you literally just pocketed all that cash and didn't invest it or use it for anything business related.  Yes, the government doesn't want you to do this, because it doesn't benefit society to just hoard all of your cash.  It also doesn't benefit the taxpayer to just sit on a lot of liquidity either.  Someone who makes 250k should be investing their capital into long-term assets, to mitigate inflation and to receive the benefit of paying 15% on Capital gains.  Not only that, the government provides a lot of deductions for expenses related to expanding your net worth through business, which the overall purpose is so that you provide jobs to the public.

With regards to the afformentioned example, the reason I brought up the law of diminishing marginal utility, is that the GPA spectrum is a lot smaller than the variances in income levels.  Someone who is making 250k and has to doyle out 50k isn't exactly going broke on taxes, and I would gladly pay 50k to the government to ensure that individuals who are receiving this benefit aren't going to rob me when they are starving on the streets.  I mean think about it, we're basically paying for their benefits so that the poor can resort to using food stamps and the little money they receive in unemployment to stay off our lawns and backyards.  That's a crappy way to put it, but go to a country like Columbia, where the rich have to hire bodyguards and teams of security to guard their estates from the poor and you'll realize why the rich pay higher taxes. 

[docstew]

Income distribution is based on the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility which states that for every additional dollar you make you lose utility for it.   The truth is that for someone who is making 250,000 dollars per year, paying 82.5k in taxes is a pretty nice chunk of change to just have to sign over to the government.  That's if you literally just pocketed all that cash and didn't invest it or use it for anything business related.  Yes, the government doesn't want you to do this, because it doesn't benefit society to just hoard all of your cash.  It also doesn't benefit the taxpayer to just sit on a lot of liquidity either.  Someone who makes 250k should be investing their capital into long-term assets, to mitigate inflation and to receive the benefit of paying 15% on Capital gains.  Not only that, the government provides a lot of deductions for expenses related to expanding your net worth through business, which the overall purpose is so that you provide jobs to the public.

With regards to the afformentioned example, the reason I brought up the law of diminishing marginal utility, is that the GPA spectrum is a lot smaller than the variances in income levels.  Someone who is making 250k and has to doyle out 50k isn't exactly going broke on taxes, and I would gladly pay 50k to the government to ensure that individuals who are receiving this benefit aren't going to rob me when they are starving on the streets.  I mean think about it, we're basically paying for their benefits so that the poor can resort to using food stamps and the little money they receive in unemployment to stay off our lawns and backyards.  That's a crappy way to put it, but go to a country like Columbia, where the rich have to hire bodyguards and teams of security to guard their estates from the poor and you'll realize why the rich pay higher taxes. 

Now you're just being intentionally thick. It's not MEANT to be an exact analog to the current income/welfare system. It's meant to show that wanting to keep what you worked hard to earn is not dishonorable.

Would you sign a pledge to give half a point of your GPA to be distributed to other students who were going to be dropped for academic non-performance? Or do you just let those who, for whatever reason, have demonstrated that they can't handle the workload get dropped?

[Kryder]

The example was thick... Income taxes give benefits to the people who are taxed, whether there be a direct implication or not.  I mentioned the law of diminishing marginal utility as the point behind my argument.  If they wanted to make it a fair analogy with regards to distributing income and GPA points, they would have to use a grade point scale much higher than a 4.0.  Say the GPA scale was based on a 25, someone making a 24.0, who is well within making their A, is asked to distribute their grade point average to someone making a 5.  Giving them a few points to receive benefits would be a lot more similar to income distribution than the example used.  That's how Foxnews does it, they use loaded examples to prove a point that isn't really a point but a bad example.  People go "See those kids don't know what they're talking about when they are "for" taxes."

[docstew]

It doesn't have to be a perfect analogy to get the point across. If college students say "that's my GPA, I worked for it", they might draw the conclusion that wealth redistribution is the same thing.

[Celtic Rose]

The example was thick... Income taxes give benefits to the people who are taxed, whether there be a direct implication or not.  I mentioned the law of diminishing marginal utility as the point behind my argument.  If they wanted to make it a fair analogy with regards to distributing income and GPA points, they would have to use a grade point scale much higher than a 4.0.  Say the GPA scale was based on a 25, someone making a 24.0, who is well within making their A, is asked to distribute their grade point average to someone making a 5.  Giving them a few points to receive benefits would be a lot more similar to income distribution than the example used.  That's how Foxnews does it, they use loaded examples to prove a point that isn't really a point but a bad example.  People go "See those kids don't know what they're talking about when they are "for" taxes."

Sorry, I'm not buying your argument.  As it is, each grade point can be divided into hundredths, and that hundredth of grade point can make the difference between getting into the graduate school of your choice or not.  An "A" isn't good enough now.  I bet that if you asked most of those kids how much of their GPA they would be willing to sacrifice to keep somebody from flunking out, the high achievers wouldn't be willing to even give up a tenth of a point. 

[Rugnuts]

if such a program was created, you know there would be kids who get 4.0GPA and then still reap from distribution because of who they know and 4.2GPA becomes the new 4.0
then all the 4.0 kids who dont know the right people get minimized because they dont 4.2gpa.

[OhioGringo]

Oh come now. Comparing grade point averages to monetary wealth is the equivalent of comparing apples and cats. Mr. Spock would not approve.

[Duke Nukum]

Oh come now. Comparing grade point averages to monetary wealth is the equivalent of comparing apples and cats. Mr. Spock would not approve.

It is about taking what someone earned and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.

[OhioGringo]

It is about taking what someone earned and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.

Define "earned." The student, unless he or she cheated or had sex with the teacher, earned the grades. The CEO and shareholders only earned their profits from the labor of others, for whom they feel free to lay off or cut wages or denigrate their working conditions. You may believe that the CEO or shareholders have the right or privilege to do so, but comparing GPA's to redistribution of wealth is still a false analogy, in my opinion.

As I said before, I'm a Firebagger, a real "leftist," though I hate the whole left vs right, Dem vs Rep, meme. I think I have more in common with the members of CC than I do with the major contributors of the Democratic National Committee. I am not here to pick a fight or engage in snark, but to engage in some intelligent and civil debate and maybe even to find some common ground.

So, I have said the analogy is false and why. Convince me I'm wrong. Here's your chance.

[Duke Nukum]

Well, then, lets get rid of CEO's and shareholders and see how the workers do. Seems simple enough.

[Rebel]

Define "earned." The student, unless he or she cheated or had sex with the teacher, earned the grades. The CEO and shareholders only earned their profits from the labor of others, for whom they feel free to lay off or cut wages or denigrate their working conditions. You may believe that the CEO or shareholders have the right or privilege to do so, but comparing GPA's to redistribution of wealth is still a false analogy, in my opinion.

For a publicly-traded company to thrive, they must have shareholders investing so they can grow. As a shareholder, I'm not investing in a damn company with no certain future and, with my vote as a shareholder, I want it under the stewardship of someone that's going to make the right decisions so I can see a greater chance at a return on my investment. A CEO, the head dog, is that steward. If he/she ****s up, they'll be voted out by the shareholders, I.e. me. If there is no chance for a greater return, I store my money under my mattress like everyone else and the flow of money comes to a halt AS does our economy. A 20 dollar an hour worker isn't going to be able to handle a multi-billion dollar company or they wouldn't be MAKING 20 damn dollars an hour. Sorry, people in a company with menial jobs just aren't that damn important. Why? Because the ones at the lower rung are the easiest to replace. The ones at the middle are as well, but add a little more value and it's advantageous to keep them on. However, the #1 job a company has is profit. You having a damn job isn't their concern. YOU'RE the one that interviews for a job to trade your services for capital. They don't get interviewed BY you because, quite frankly, you're expendable.

Leftist? No. You're a Marxist that doesn't seem to like Capitalism.

[OhioGringo]

For a publicly-traded company to thrive, they must have shareholders investing so they can grow. As a shareholder, I'm not investing in a damn company with no certain future and, with my vote as a shareholder, I want it under the stewardship of someone that's going to make the right decisions so I can see a greater chance at a return on my investment. A CEO, the head dog, is that steward. If he/she ****s up, they'll be voted out by the shareholders, I.e. me. If there is no chance for a greater return, I store my money under my mattress like everyone else and the flow of money comes to a halt AS does our economy. A 20 dollar an hour worker isn't going to be able to handle a multi-billion dollar company or they wouldn't be MAKING 20 damn dollars an hour. Sorry, people in a company with menial jobs just aren't that damn important. Why? Because the ones at the lower rung are the easiest to replace. The ones at the middle are as well, but add a little more value and it's advantageous to keep them on. However, the #1 job a company has is profit. You having a damn job isn't their concern. YOU'RE the one that interviews for a job to trade your services for capital. They don't get interviewed BY you because, quite frankly, you're expendable.

Leftist? No. You're a Marxist that doesn't seem to like Capitalism.

Bingo! Yes, I do agree with Marx' analysis of capitalism. Yes, I think capitalism is destroying itself before our eyes.  No, I don't know what will take its place. No, I'm not a capitalist, I really am a democratic socialist. And I completely disagree with you. That said, I'm not a Communist, either. Are you a Nazi? I doubt it.

Look. This is your site, not mine. Mine's Fire Dog Lake. I've been pretty up front about this here.  Guess we're not going to agree on this one. Since this is your place, not mine, allow me to show some respect and bow out before this degenerates into flame-baiting. It should not surprise you that I believe in the First Amendment. It may surprise you that I believe in the Second. But that's another story.

Anywhere on here we can talk about football? I like football.

[Duke Nukum]

Why don't you be totally honest and call yourself "pro-mass starvation?"

[OhioGringo]

Why don't you be totally honest and call yourself "pro-mass starvation?"

You are flame-baiting and insulting your cause, not I. I will answer no more of your posts. Dude.

[Duke Nukum]

You are flame-baiting and insulting your cause, not I. I will answer no more of your posts. Dude.

Nope, I am looking at your philosophy and noting the end result.

The end result of Marxism is always mass starvation and a dumbing down of the population. Usually by murdering anyone smart enough not be be a Marxist.

[Rebel]

Bingo! Yes, I do agree with Marx' analysis of capitalism. Yes, I think capitalism is destroying itself before our eyes.  No, I don't know what will take its place. No, I'm not a capitalist, I really am a democratic socialist. And I completely disagree with you. That said, I'm not a Communist, either. Are you a Nazi? I doubt it.

How's Marxism worked out? Last I checked, capitalism has built the greatest economy and nation on the planet. Problem is, too many idiot politicians picking and choosing winners and losers, I.e. crony capitalism which I like to describe as fascism.

So, about that Marxism shit. ....I'll be waiting on a response. When you can show me a success story, I'll be all ears.

[Rebel]

BTW, the people at the top ALWAYS make a ton more than the people at the bottom, in ANY economic model. Difference is, we've built the greatest engine of upward mobility of any economic model on the planet. Democrats want to change that. They want the haves and the have nots. ...with the haves being the Trumpkas, Soros's, Buffetts, Obamas, etc. being the haves.

...oh, but you'll get your free healthcare, 4 weeks of vacation, and your free bread.

[OhioGringo]

How's Marxism worked out? Last I checked, capitalism has built the greatest economy and nation on the planet. Problem is, too many idiot politicians picking and choosing winners and losers, I.e. crony capitalism which I like to describe as fascism.

So, about that Marxism shit. ....I'll be waiting on a response. When you can show me a success story, I'll be all ears.

"I am not a Marxist."
--Karl Marx

Look, I think the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just as silly a term as "free enterprise." Neither one has ever, does, or will exist. I'm not a Communist. That doesn't mean Marx was wrong about capitalism. He just pointed out how it would destroy itself, and it's doing so even as I type this. In fact, Marx made very few predictions about what would replace it because he really didn't know. Lenin and Trotsky did, but I'm not talking about those dead Russians. Read "Capital." Better yet. Don't. It's really tedious and long-winded. Just take my word for it since I read it for you. Besides, Marx died over a hundred years ago, you know. He didn't know shit about the longterm future from his perspective.

Capitalism just doesn't work. It will not survive. Socialism has many meanings. Communism doesn't, and didn't work. Libertarianism can never work, either, anymore than anarchy can. Capitalism is doomed. All capitalism is is the relentless pursuit of more and more profit faster and faster, and the Devil take the hindmost. It results in an inequality of wealth that grows so fast it eventually screws the people it needs to survive, like the cops and the army, and it's doing that right now. How long do you think they will take this shit?

You talk about crony capitalism and describe that as fascism. Here's how I define fascism: The advance of corporate interests by state power. Mussolini came up with that one. I'll take his word for it. By that definition. Barack Obama is a Fascist, is he not? When has Obama EVER done ANYTHING to curb corporate power? Is not mandated private health insurance fascism?

Well, I guess I have to agree with you on one point. Crony Capitalism rules. Geithner. Bernanke. Jamie Dimon. Goldman Sachs. JP Morgan. The President of the United States saying "I know these guys. They're friends of mine. They're like baseball players. They're just savvy businessmen."

I really don't think Jesus would approve of capitalism because it is a celebration of greed and a worship of something other than the Creator. Something else will replace it. I don't know what. Maybe you'll come up with a better idea.

I'm all ears. But I'm still not a Marxist as you define the term, and no, I can give you no examples of Marxist societies that work, because none exist!

Like it or not, I'm just an American. And I like beer and football. Now I'm going to log out and go watch Conan the Barbarian. Peace. Somehow, you don't strike me as my enemy.

And please don't accuse me of being a Leninist or a Stalinist. I ain't. Nazis and Stalinists are good only for killing, as far as I'm concerned. 

As far as building the greatest nation on the planet, it wasn't capitalism that made the USA so. It was community and people looking out for each other, not capitalism. It was people of disparate interests coming together to fight for what they had in common, not capitalism.

There's a big difference, no matter what the capitalists tell you on the news networks. BTW, my family's been on this continent since about 1640, and the Sons of the American Revolution would have to accept my membership if I ever bothered to apply for one.

[Rebel]

Capitalism just doesn't work. It will not survive. Socialism has many meanings. Communism doesn't, and didn't work. Libertarianism can never work, either, anymore than anarchy can. Capitalism is doomed. All capitalism is is the relentless pursuit of more and more profit faster and faster, and the Devil take the hindmost. It results in an inequality of wealth that grows so fast it eventually screws the people it needs to survive, like the cops and the army, and it's doing that right now. How long do you think they will take this shit?

Capitalism will work, and HAS worked. Problem is, too many f'n politicians have gotten their hands involved. Capitalism won't fail if people allow it to work. Your hero isn't allowing it to work anymore than Bush in his second term. The government can't pick winners and losers in a capitalist system. That must be chosen by the consumer. As for Socialism, it ALWAYS fails, ALWAYS. Always has, always will. Why? Look no further than right here:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/news/WhySocialismAlwaysResultsInTyranny.html

The basic tenets of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents

Capitalism is based in freedom. If you don't like it, or what this country was founded as, kindly get the **** out and migrate to whatever Socialist hellhole you choose. I find it quite funny that some of the biggest opponents of Capitalism, like Michael Moore, Danny Glover, etc., are some of the biggest benefactors.

Read the story of James Bradford and the Plymouth Colony and you'll see why Socialism always fails. Problem is, you fools on the left don't care about how many people suffer through famine and die, no, it's all about protecting your failed ideology.

[USA4ME]

The analogy is pretty clear.  If I study hard and earned an "96" on a final exam, and someone else scored a "73," it'd be wrong for the prof to take 7 points I earned and give me a "89" just so he could give 7 points to the other student and make his grade an "80."

In the same manner, if I made $100,000/yr, it's wrong to take $20,000 of that and give it to someone making only $20,000/yr.  Some would say "But you'd still make twice as much as them, you having $80K and them having $40K, so you really wouldn't miss it, and it would greatly help them."  But that's not the point.  The point is it's mine, I earned it.  If I voluntarily assist the $20K person, that's one thing because I'm doing what I wish to do with what is my own.  But to force me to do it via taxes... that's not really freedom.

This talk of "only earned their profits from the labor of others" is a bunch of baloney and has no place in a discussion of standard business practices.  The political left needs to keep quiet if they can't come up with anything better than that.  An investment in a company is just that; an investment.  It's a risk one takes and hopes for a reasonable return.  If you make more than you ever dreamed possible, then good for you.  If you lose every penny you put into the investment, that's the chance you took.  But it entails putting your money into something you believe will earn you more money.  The investment is mutually beneficial for those employeed by the company, as prudent use of working capital has the potential to create more business and all that goes with it.

.

[Duke Nukum]

According to something I heard on Mark Levin a few months ago, Marx, when a little money would come into his hands, loved to play the market and he would brag about it when his investment panned out.

And of course, all the modern day rich Marxists invest in the market. Including Michael Moore.