GPA vsTAX CUTS

It's a decent enough analogy. If you're a liberal and you vote for tax increase and more programs (or a conservative who votes to go into trillions of debt to start a war), you're basically saying, "you made this money, but fuck you, I'm telling you where to put it." Fuck. That. Shit.

Ridiculous analogy. If you think GPA redistribution and income redistribution are analogous, you don't understand the philosophical basis for income redistribution. The argument is generally from Rawls, the veil of ignorance. From behind the veil of ignorance, it is obvious that you would want to live in a society which has a social safety net (which can only be implemented through taxation of the wealthy). Not so for GPA.

I agree that you cannot really compare them. It made sense at first but the more and more I thought about it, it became really different. Income is not so dependent on the individual (unless you are a trader) where as GPA is completely solely dependent on the individual. There is also no economical benefit in distributing the GPAs across the board.

Really, so a teacher never helped you learn anything? You never bought a book written by someone?

They're different, yes, but the analogy isn't complete shit. And I have no confidence in this "safety net". I'd much rather rely on my friends and family when I'm going through something difficult then to rely on a bloated, overextended government. Of course, that doesn't mean that I won't use resources I'm paying for.

No one is backing down - the current situation is the definition of political gridlock.......

The analogy only appears to be valid if you believe that income distribution is fundamentally meritocratic. I think most people agree that GPA distribution is meritocratic in nature but income isn't necessarily. I think the debate would get even more interesting (in this case) if you were to consider the correlation between high GPA and future earning potential.

There's also the moral dilemma concerning those who benefit from the GPA vs. income redistribution. I don't think many of us have qualms with low-performing students failing out of school. However, the equivalent situation for low-earning individuals is arguably much less favorable.

GPA is a much smaller byproduct of societal institutions than income

Good points, Khal, but I still think they're similar because of what your GPA implies. While a 4.0 does not guarantee you a high-paying job, you're going to be earning a lot more over your life because of it. If people's grades get redistributed, it's essentially wealth redistribution. Of course, how you do it would have a big role to play as well.

So, I will admit you guys are right that it's not the best analogy, BUT I find it somewhat valid and I still think it has served its purpose in illustrating the issue at hand.

Income distribution is just as meritocratic as GPA is.

You could say that wealthier families have connections, resources, and other things that poorer families might not have and this is why income may not be solely dependent on your own abilities (wealth breeds wealth). However, it's the same for GPA. Wealthier families, in general, have more resources, money, and support and will in turn generate "better students". Poorer students, perhaps, have to worry about working another job, working issues back at home, and facing the effects of maybe a substandard secondary education: thus, a lower GPA.

You cannot say that income distribution is not meritocratic, while GPA is. They are very similar. Just as some people with poorer backgrounds can work hard, get lucky, and become very wealthy so to can students with poorer backgrounds work hard, get lucky, and obtain very high GPAs. If you're comfortable taxing the rich and distributing it to the poor, I cannot see why you are not comfortable in taxing "high GPA students" and giving those points to the "lower GPA students". You earn both your income and GPA in life, and yes, your backgrounds also affect that. One is not more meritocratic than the other.

It's very simple to not be "poor". If you go out, have IQ over 100, and work 100+ hours per week, you won't be poor. If you put some effort into your work, you won't be poor. It's all about motivation and willpower. You don't even need a college education, hell, these days you can give yourself an education with a computer. People are just lazy, for the most part, I'd say. They don't care enough to work 60 hours per week instead of 40 and expect to have the same opportunities and benefits as someone who works 60-80 hours per week and takes home a million dollar paycheck.

I think you're missing the point though. I completely agree with your statement. But I do not believe that GPA distribution is as easily comparable to wealth redistribution.

It has nothing to do with how either works. The idea behind the video is to show hypocrisy, redistribution is redistribution no matter what you are spreading around. Liberal college students want to spread money around because it largely does not affect them, how ever when it is something that does affect them they start quoting fairness and how they worked for that. Yet they dont see the glaring hypocrisy thats right in front of them.

Those arguing that the analogy is wrong because wealth can be inherited make me just shake my head. That's one of the main arguments against higher INCOME taxes and redistributing those earnings (calling wealth redistribution is fallacious). INCOME is NOT wealth. How many times does this have to be stated? Being taxed on $300,000 in EARNINGS is not the same thing as inheriting $10 million in wealth and paying capital gains taxes on the subsequent investments. How finance professionals can't grasp this concept is simply beyond me. If you are being taxed an INCOME tax on your EARNINGS then you most likely ACTIVELY did something to acquire those earnings. If not, then your passive investment income would be taxable at the capital gains tax rate, which is not being debated.

The analogy is a good analogy--TAXABLE INCOME EARNINGS is a very valid comparison to GPA earnings. How you could say otherwise is...moronic?

EDIT: the analogy holds, too, at any taxable income level over $250,000, whether it's $300k or $300 million because the threshold IS $250,000. Those arguing FOR "GPA" redistribution are saying those with > "3.0 GPAs" must distribute points to those with less than 3.0 "GPAs" no matter how they earned the "GPA", what classes they took, what their socioeconomic backgroud was, or whether they earned that "GPA" by creating an amazing science project in a biology class.

Functionally, the two re-distributions are quite different. While the analogy is somewhat legitimate, the shifting of income vs the shifting of GPA serve vastly different purposes. If you want to argue that those in the lowest income brackets do not have the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, then I completely agree with you that income redistribution is terribly wrong in all cases. However, I find that particular argument to be baseless and somewhat inane.

As it stands now, GPA redistribution doesn't and can't serve the same function to anywhere near the same degree as income redistribution. Sure, both arguments share many of the same tenants, but that doesn't make them equal or even functionally similar.

Wow, American liberals sure do have a way of bastardizing America's founding principles. Someone's right to the "pursuit of happiness" is taken away because he doesn't have the right to another man's earnings? Functionally (the word you like to use), that is an absolute and utter bastardization of the principle of the pursuit of happiness. So your argument is basically a red herring, indicating that we who oppose income redistribution don't support founding principles of liberty, as if a liberal understood the first thing about liberty.

If that's your argument, then I'll simply state that it's easily demonstrable that lower income people are worse off because of the welfare state, that the black family in particular is held hostage to low performance and low expectations as generation after generation become dependent upon government assistance. Necessity is the mother of all invention--take away the welfare state and people are forced to be accountable for their own support. That was one of the successes of Republican welfare reform in 1996. Therefore, I'd argue that income redistribution harms the ultimate pursuit of happiness for lower income individuals and families, thus making your argument the "inane" one.

GPA and income redistribution, you state, serve "vastly different purposes". Maybe. They also have similar outcomes--taking away what one man has earned and giving to someone else who has not earned, disincentivizing the successful person from pursuing happiness.

You have the god damn RIGHT to control your OWN life. The RIGHT means the government will protect you in your efforts to pursue happiness...

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP YOU IN YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Ah, but I thought conventional wisdom dictates money != happiness?

It works like this. Liberals love wealth redistribution for one simple reason, it buys votes.

I suppose the argument against wealth redistribution is that we should cull the weakest of our society by not supporting those who can't make it completely on their own?