Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

_

Cosmo wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Those of you for wealth redistribution, It should only be fair that students GPA's also be redsitributed. Right?

...
It would be if there were 2 students with GPAs of 400,000,000.0 that drew off of the rest of the student bodies.

And this is the point I think so many seem to miss. The very wealthy can only get that way through the exploitation of others. It's not that poor people work proportionately less hard than rich people; it's that the fruits of their labor go to the rich people and not to put food on their own tables. Therefore, much of the money in very rich people's bank accounts actually belongs (by right, if not ownership) to the poor. It wouldn't kill them to give just a little of it back. Some day they're going to take it back.

usamamasan1

"they" already give about 50% of their earnings "back".

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

"they" already give about 50% of their earnings "back".

It's your term "THEIR earnings" with which I take issue. Just because the system is set up for the money to go into their bank accounts doesn't mean they, themselves, actually earned all of it.

usamamasan1

wow.

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

wow.

You took the word right out of my mouth.

usamamasan1

This is "A Moving Train" at it's finest.

JonnyPistachio

usamamasan1 wrote:

This is "A Moving Train" at it's finest.

nah, I was going to vote for the torture thread...

Jason P

JonnyPistachio wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

This is "A Moving Train" at it's finest.

nah, I was going to vote for the torture thread...

They are Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, not torture! Sheesh ... :ugeek:

megatron

_ wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

"they" already give about 50% of their earnings "back".

It's your term "THEIR earnings" with which I take issue. Just because the system is set up for the money to go into their bank accounts doesn't mean they, themselves, actually earned all of it.

you win..

megatron

cajunkiwi wrote:

megatron wrote:

there are some people that are insanely wealthy through inheritence that have millions or even billions. and there are also people that make 200k a year that started with nothing and only through working 100 hours a week for 20 years created their wealth. even though by comparison one is much more wealthy than the other, both of these people are in the top % of earners and have to give half their money back.

i agree some heirs don't need billions, but if i broke my back making my small fortune so my kids can have an easier future i'll be damned if some lazy f'ers want my money.
i personally am a working stiff that will have trouble retiring, and i don't want rich people to give me their money. when i'm broke and near not paying rent i get another job.
damn hippies

I think this is where a lot of the problem lies - there is an assumption that people below, or hovering around, the poverty line are automatically lazy. I come from a broken home that was comfortably below the poverty line - and that's with my mother working full time to support me and my two sisters. My mum never finished high school, but she was incredibly well-read and excelled at everything she attempted as an adult... but because of a bad decision she made as a 16-year-old nobody would hire her for anything other than a menial minimum wage job. So she worked (usually much more than) 40 hours each week to put food on the table - and it was usually generic, not brand name. It was a big deal if we got to go to McDonald's. So excuse me if I give a hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone who automatically assumes poor people are lazy simply because they have no money.

While there are some people out there below the poverty line that are lazy, you'll find that true of rich people too. Paris Hilton is worth more than what I'll ever be worth, and her definition of "career" is "sex tapes, parties, and reality TV shows."

There are a few people on this board who should stop automatically assuming people below the poverty line are lazy. I'd wager the people making those comments have no idea whatsoever the percentage of people below the poverty line that are hard workers who had some unlucky breaks in life compared to the percentage that are content to draw unemployment and not lift a finger.

i know there are some circumstances with medical bills, families and so forth where people get screwed and just can't get out of debt. but..how bout a big hearty one right back at you. i got kicked out of high school my junior year. i lived on a friends couch in detroit working as a fry cook where i lied about my experience just to get my foot in the door. then i paid $50 for a GED test, passed it and enrolled in a community college. i've worked 1-3 jobs at anytime to pay my bills and live an awesome life. i've also made the decision not to have a family until i'm READY. thats another thing..how about a little planning in life.
now i've been at the same job for years where i've worked my way through the ranks and don't need 2 jobs anymore. i still have a roommate to help keep the money not too tight..but seriously. paris hilton? thats not a normal person of wealth.

usamamasan1

That all sounds terribly responsible and self-motivated.

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

That all sounds terribly responsible and self-motivated.

Yes, but the flaw in logic here is the idea that the results of responsibility and self-motivation are necessarily generalizable. Just because person A became "successful" as the result of responsibility & self-motivation, does not mean that all persons B will necessarily have the exact same result for their equal level responsibility & self-motivation. Additionally, the converse is not necessarily true. Just because person A became "successful" as a result of responsibility & self-motivation, it doesn't mean that all persons C who have not become "successful" lack responsibility & self-motivation.

usamamasan1

the harder you work, the better chances you get "lucky". Not everyone can be a winner and if we all get the same, then fuck this place...

make better choices if you are a failure, that's all. there is no flaw in my logic. it's mine.

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

the harder you work, the better chances you get "lucky". Not everyone can be a winner and if we all get the same, then fuck this place...

make better choices if you are a failure, that's all. there is no flaw in my logic. it's mine.

I agree that hard work is one part of being "successful". And I certainly agree that not everyone can be "successful". (So then why do people keep suggesting that EVERYONE who works hard will be successful, if they know not everyone can be?)

But your assumption that anyone who is a "failure" has necessarily made bad choices - worse choices than those who are "successful" - and therefore need to make better choices... that's the logic that's flawed.

brandon10

Oh it's flawed!

usamamasan1

Losers are paid for their time. Winners are paid for their results.

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

Losers are paid for their time. Winners are paid for their results.

Exactly. Very wealthy people got that way by being paid to exploit the time of lesser-paid employees (= "getting results"). This system does not allow for people to become "winners" just by working hard. The idea that people who have more money work proportionately harder than those who have less is a myth. I'm glad we're starting to see eye to eye on this.

usamamasan1

work smart, not hard.

_

usamamasan1 wrote:

work smart, not hard.

smart = exploit poor people & pretend you are more worthy than they are to have money

usamamasan1

take ownership and stop hating on those who win, that's all. must suck being on the outside looking in. I would hate it, but I would work my way in.