fenrirguild.com -> View topic

LokiDelphoric

Warlord

0. Mike S. Adams » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:56 pm

I found this on one of the forums I read and found it a good reality check.

Quote:
Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.

Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.

After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.

By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.

I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.

These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.

Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.

But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”

Hume

Sergeant

1. » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:25 pm

Taxation is the most intriguing part of government for me.

I'm going to try to expand the teachers analogy a little.

The object of acedemic measures is to assess comprehension of the course material. The object of economic measures (prices and incomes) is to asses supply relative to demand. If we were to eliminate the academic measure we would have no idea who has a better understanding of the material. If we were to eliminate the economic measure we would have no idea which goods or services are in highest demand relative to their supply. Both measures are obviously important and should not be done away with.

The instructor of a course only has a limited amount of time to help students. He starts out by providing the class as a whole with an alotment of time that is meant to benefit everyone equally, a lecture. This can be compared to how the government provides a military to protect each of its citizens equally by protecting their lives.

The instructor then provides an exam to assess the comprehension of the material by his students. In the authors comparison, this exam would be equal to real world economics to assess who is meeting demand most efficently. The results of the exam come in and some students score well and others score poorly. The professor has more allotted time to spend with students outside of the classroom, say 30 minutes with each student individually. The student that scored an A on the exam obviously needs no further instruction from the teacher, therefore the teacher chooses to redistribute the time that he would have spent with that A student by spending more time tutoring the student who recieved a D on the exam.

This time for tutoring time I just described can be compared to real world social services such as mass transportation, social security, medicare, and welfare. The person who earns a million dollars a year does not need these services and will forego many of them. However, the poor person takes great benefit from them and could depend on them for survival much as the D student may depend on the teacher's private instruction to pass the class.

Zovella

Centurion

2. » Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:38 pm

You may be an asshole Loki, but that was a fine and amusing copy/pasted analogy! Thank you for sharing.

My loony bun is fine Benny Lava

LokiDelphoric

Warlord

3. » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:29 pm

Hey I treat Everyone the same.

Hume

Sergeant

4. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:39 am

I was thinking about this analogy some more and I've come to the conclusion that author is trying to compare two unlike concepts. In the acedemic setting he is talking about the accumulation of knowledge while in the economic setting he is talking about the RATE at which wealth is accumulated. To put it in physics terms, he trying to compare a measure of distance to a measure of velocity.

To make my point clear let me put it in the context of deciding between two cars. The first car can travel up to 200k miles before breaking down. The second car can travel up to speeds of 200mph. Which car would you prefer to buy (assuming equal cost). The answer is THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. The first car may have a top speed of 10mph and is therefore undesirable while the second car may only travel 1k miles before it needs replacement and is also nearly worthless.

To make the acedemic-economic analogy more sound we must convert them to the same units. For instance, instead of comparing test scores to income (the rate at which you earn money) we should use accumulated wealth. Now we're comparing equal units. In the classroom the required passing grade is a D. While this is a wholely undesirable grade for most students, it nevertheless is deemed as enough comprehension of the material to receive credit for taking the class. This grade of D can be compared to the real world poverty line. Someone above the poverty line has enough resources to subsist while someone below the poverty does not.

Nazgrim

High Warlord

5. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:07 pm

That was something I was going to touch on, Occam/Hume. This analogy is terrible because the units are unsimilar. A grading scale has a hard ceiling: 100%. (Plus extra credit, I suppose) Money simply does not.

Let's posit 3 theortical people, A B and C.

Annual Income
Person A: 500,000
Person B: 5,000,000
Person C: 50,000,000

All 3 of those people are living quite comfortably. Person A is making more than 12 times the income of an average American. Surely, by any reasonable standard, Person A would get an "A" on the academic scale of wealth. Yet, Person B is making 10 times what he makes and 120 times the average American income. What does she get, a super A? What about Person C, who is making 10 times Person B's income, 100 times person A's income, and 1200 times the average American's income? A superhypermega A++++? This logic can obviously be extended to theoretical people that make even more, though I think the absurdity of the anology is pretty evident.

More importantly, this whole income redistribution business is a red hearing anyway. If you want to argue that any taxation is income redistribution, fine. I think it's a dumb arguement, but it has certainly been made and will continue to be made. However, arguing that increasing the tax burden on the richest Americans is some kind of socialist redistribution scheme is garbage. And, for some historical reference, since we're talking about McGovern:

Taxes have been at historical lows since the early 1980s, including under the dread rake, William Jefferson Clinton, whose much maligned tax increase merely brought tax policy back in line with conservative dreamboat Ronald Regan. A marginal tax increase, say 5% on the richest .01% of Americans, would cause the highest earners to pay similarly to the mid-80s. A major increase, say 10 or 15%, would still allow the highest earners to take home more money than they would've under Nixon.

In otherwords, don't believe the hype.

Hume

Sergeant

6. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:46 pm

Here's another look at historical income tax rates.

You can see that the top income bracket for the 45 year span from 1936 to 1981 was over 70%, compared to today's top income bracket of 35%.

Here is what I have problems with though:

In theory, income it is a measure of how well you are meeting the demands of the marketplace. If you are paid more, it's because you are providing supply where there is high demand. With that in mind, Why do we penalize people for meeting the demands of society by taxing their income? Shouldn't we instead penalize people who create the demand and not those who create the supply? After all, those creating supply are the ones who are putting the most strain on society by detracting supply from everyone else.

I propose it would make much more sense if instead of taxing income, we taxed expendatures. Increase taxes on luxury items, items non-essential to subsitance. Implement a graduated property tax so that people in massively expensive homes pay a larger % of their property value over a certain amount. Increase the taxes on recreational substances, such as alcohol and tabacco, to reflect the true cost they have on society. I could go on and on :wink:

, but i'm curious to see if anyone else thinks differently.

EDIT:
This seems similar to what I was aiming for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax_Act

Nazgrim

High Warlord

7. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:57 pm

I think that idea might have merit in a perfect society, where everyone's input is reward comesurate to their output. That's not our society, unfortunately. As the recent economic meltdown has shown us, there are plenty of individuals who are grossly overpayed for the services they render. Often, these individuals determine their wage either through comparison with others in similar positions or just plain old haggling. Some of them even get big fat bonuses if they get fired, which means they've failed to provide the goods they should've delivered.

Frankly, I don't see the problem with taxing the income of some CEO who has run his company into the ground and recieves 1000 times the average American's yearly income as a severence package after being fired by the company's board of directors.

[ Last edited by Nazgrim on Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total. ]

Zovella

Centurion

8. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:07 pm

And here all along I thought the analogy was supposed to be humorous.

I rather like the fact that we aren't all mediocre and that some people have more than others. Myself earning the equivalent to "lower middle class", it gives me something to work towards.
I like rich people, they give me a job. I don't want my boss to be taxed more, it means he can't pay me more.
As for the United States of America, the land that I love, freedom (I used to think) includes not being told what you can and cannot buy and be taxed on. Why tax someone more because they smoke, buy a private jet, and enjoy life the way they want to enjoy it? If that's the basis, then why not tax people for buying other things that harm them/display their wealth?

Tax sugar! It's bad for you.
Tax soft drinks! They're bad for you.
Tax people who have nice cars! It makes other people feel inferior (<3 my '95 Honda Civic btw).
Add a higher tax on Charmin Ultra! Some people can only afford the Wal-Mart off brand that chafes your ass.

When exactly do you stop the taxation?

/doesn't word ideas very well
/loves mild Southwestern dishes

My loony bun is fine Benny Lava

Nazgrim

High Warlord

9. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:31 pm

Unless your boss is in the top 30,000 wage earners in America, his taxes probably won't go up more than a fraction of a %, if they do at all. I think that's something we all have to remember when we're talking about increasing taxes on top wage earners. These aren't lawyers and doctors, they're movie stars, atheletes, and CEOs.

Some of these folks almost literally couldn't spend their money fast enough to deplete their resources. In 2007, the top .01% made an average of $25.7 million pretax, about $16.7 million after taxes. They'd have to spend $45,767 a day, roughly the price of an entry level BMW 5-series, to go broke. Or, if you prefer, a new Ferarri 430 every week.
That's 365 BMW sedans or 52 Italian sports cars a year. Obviously, that example is a little silly, but still, think of the mind boggling amount of wealth we're considering. That's more in a day after taxes than most people make in a year before taxes.

Personally, I think those folks can pay a bit more to keep our highways nice and our military well armed. Maybe they'll only be able to afford 30 new Ferraris a year, but I think being ok with that doesn't make me some kind of socialist. Or maybe it does. Either way...

Hume

Sergeant

10. » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:56 pm

Zovella wrote:
Tax sugar! It's bad for you.
Tax soft drinks! They're bad for you.
Tax people who have nice cars! It makes other people feel inferior (<3 my '95 Honda Civic btw).
Add a higher tax on Charmin Ultra! Some people can only afford the Wal-Mart off brand that chafes your ass.

When exactly do you stop the taxation?

You may have said those first lines in jest, but that's exactly what I'd propose. In fact the governor of NY proposed those first two taxes.

Where does it stop? When the price of good reflect their true price.

The most obvious example is perhaps smoking. Smoking cigarettes shortens your lifespan. In 2002 smoking caused a loss of over half a million years of life for Canadians. If the average wage of a Canadian is $40k a year, that's $20 billion of lost income/production. That's about 2% of Canada's GDP just smoked away. On top of that if the tobacco industry were not in existence the people employed by them could be using their time and talents to help improve the lives of people instead of systematically killing them.

In 2002 Canada collected $7 billion from in taxes (both federal and provincial) on tobacco. Just on the rough estimates I provided, they would need to increase their tax rate by about 300%. In 2002 the tax per pack of cigarette was $2.25. This means the tax should be about $6.75 per pack. Compare this to the
2002 average tax on a pack of cigarettes in the USA of $1.03 per pack and is obvious we have a long way to go....
(Excuse the old data, it was simply the most readily available and should only be used as an example, not as a suggestion for current action.)

In my opinion, taxes rates should be meaningful and the revenue generated from them should be justified. I find it hard to justify income taxes though, outside of defense spending.

Brocklee

High Warlord

11. » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:07 pm

Pallytodd wrote:
i admit defeat

Brocklee

High Warlord

12. » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:11 pm

Just thought i would step in and add my thoughts =P

Pallytodd wrote:
i admit defeat

Zovella

Centurion

13. » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:49 pm

<3 Brock. Miss you guy!

It has now become a difference of morals and opinion or government. Hume, this is sadly where my argument with you must end, although I have thoroughly enjoyed it.
While many Canadians and other countries citizens seem to believe it is the government's responsibility to decide for the people what is "good" and "bad" for them, many Americans believe that the decision should not be made for them. I very loosely and generally use the word 'many', of course.

From my perspective, if someone decides they want to kill or harm themselves slowly, quickly (smoking/drugs/suicide) or remove cells from their body (be it cancer or abortion, a totally different discussion heh) it is no business but their own. Darwin had a theory; if anyone, government or individual, tries to deny or tax a human being's individual decision then that, to me, is immoral. Even if the individual is incapable of making an intelligent or informed decision, it's still none of my business and I won't try to force my beliefs onto them unless they're a friend or family member. I will love my neighbor and even help them (be they rich or poor) but only if I personally decide they are worthy of it. Taxing my work to pay for someone else is no one's right. Long live charity!

/end ramble
//begin consumption of sugary beverage
///goin' a'farmin'

My loony bun is fine Benny Lava

LokiDelphoric

Warlord

14. » Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 pm

Hume I haven't really had time to talk on this subject, however, Zov put it probably the best. We are capitalists, not socialists. Let us decide what we want to do with our money. Let me make sure that my money goes to something I feel is a worthwile cause. I don't want to donate my money to someone who brings down the nation because all he wants to do is get drunk lay on the street and shoot heroin into his veins. If I did it would be to my uncle.

The article was meant to point out that one should not be forced to make up for anothers short comings. Those people getting 60% or have no savings and now eating out of a garbage can is because they CHOSE to make poor decisions. While people who were getting 90% or working hard for their income CHOSE to do so.

Also before anyone goes there about Capitalism, that is not why this recessions is happening. It's once again because of BAD DECISIONS.

Put your 160x600 ad code (or other content) in: styles/pbwow/template/custom/ads_forum_side.html

GeneralGeneral Discussion >

General General Discussion >