RealTalk: Your President Wants To Raise My Taxes to Close to 60%

[j burner]

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What it all comes down to is this to me, if you can give than give point blank. It's cool if you want to be on your high horse and have that "I got here alone so they could do the same" mentality but realize those same people who you said nah I'm not giving jack *##$ to you will be the same that will rob you when you walking out of the bank

. Desperate times call for desperate measures and we have to survive.

Real talk it's bigger than $$ no problem don't give up your money but atleast GIVE a solution, a answer, a job. Let us know how we could get where you're at or help us start somewhere but just saying no because you're selfish and greedy isn't going to get you nowhere because you live in the same world as me.

Its not everyone elses job to fix your problems. These are private citizens you are talking about taking money away from. This is the"entitlement" mentality that needs to be removed from people's mind set immediately. You are not entitled to jack %@%@, go out and earn it. Ifyou can't get it yourself, that doesn't mean you are entitled to take it from someone else who did. Kill that BS.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25

Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by kidposite

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by kidposite

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

just felt like this is relevant to this post

I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.

obviously there are exceptions to both but you can't try and say that most of the the people living in poverty are always trying there hardest and spending their money wisely

Ofcourse you are right...there those who live in poverty who really are "lazy"...but republicans often forget that a great amount of those in poverty are actually comprised of the working poor. I was just pointing out the weakness of the "4.0 vs. 2.0 student" analogy. It portrays all wealthy people has hard-workers who deserve every penny they get while all poor people are lazy and who survive by leaching off of the wealthy.

I agree and disagree with you to a certain point. I do believe that there is a certain percentage of low income people who try as they might, will forever be stuck in the lower class. However, I also believe that there is decent sized percentage of people that have the aptitude to achieve more, such as going to school at night to get a degree or learning a trade, who chose not to pursue these options. I feel like some are under the mindset that they would rather another person else pay more taxes and get a handout than to make a personal sacrifice for their own benefit.

How did you come to this conclusion?

You are saying that you don't know a single person who has the ability to do more than they are currently doing? Every person in the lower, middle, and upper class are maxed out as far as their potential is concerned? Like I previously said, I realize that some people may be doing everything that they possible can and are still stuck in the lower class, but you can't be serious if you are saying that everyone in the lower class can't advance if they put more effort into it.

You can't be serious if you think that everyone in the "lower class" is there because they're lazy. That's just the crux ofthe ridiculous Reaganomics arguments. I just don't get how that works with the whole ethos of America.

You might be familiar with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


I don't get where that was turned into "get what you can without looking out for anyone else".

 

[j burner]

^^^talk about quoting out of context. Your little excerpt there is completely irrelevant to this discussion; it has nothing to do with tax code and policy.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by GTEK

---

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by bhzmafia14

http://www.youtube.com/v/x1C_NWMRs8Q&hl=en&fs=1&http://www.youtube.com/v/x1C_NWMRs8Q&hl=en&fs=1&The Minister wrote:

---

WTH? When did this happen and where?

Obama got schooled in Russia. Got lectured like a little boy by Putin for an hour.
When someone in Russia lectures you for an hour that basically means they think pretty low of you.

Not surprised he got snubbed here.� Obama's "hope" and "change" means nothing there.
They're explouiting Obama's psychology. Putin prob had an entire volume drawn up on Obama's entire (real) history.

Stop overreacting. It's just a handshake.



Guy beating his chest like he is standing in front of the iron flag.
��

Not beating anything considering I have somewhat of a disdain for Russia (even though I'm tech Russian but that's another story).

I was trying to explain why something like that would happen and how Obama is viewed in Russia.
They have no respect for Obama because they know he's a politician peddling nonsense and they can exploit his (seemingly) non aggressive and overlyapologetic nature when it comes to US relations with foreign nations.


You think I like my President to be treated like a Dunce?

I may not like Obama in the first place but I don't want to see him schooled by foreigners who I detest in the first place.

Instead of outright dismissing things that may sound "wrong" to you, you should at least try to disprove them instead of typing up idiot one liners.

 

[kdawg]

Yeah, okay, it's just taxes and that has nothing to do with Healthcare and generally considering your fellow man? Riiiight.

 

[j burner]

---

Originally Posted by kidposite

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

just felt like this is relevant to this post

I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.











So, by this logic you believe that someone who works really really hard, and studys all day, but still can't get above a 2.0 should be entitled to take GPApoints from someone who was able to reach that 4.0 mark with out as much effort? And you believe thats fair? Thats like saying "its your faulti'm not as smart as you, I'm taking some of your GPA points as punishment." Absolutely ridiculous no matter how you slice it, whether the 2.0student is a lazy slacker, or a hardworking person who just can't make the grade, neither situation entitles the 2.0 student to take points away from the4.0 student. Welcome to the real world. Just because you have it worse off than the next man does not give you the right to take what he has in thename of being fair, life isn't fair, get over it. The thing with the bleeding hear liberals seems to be they want all the worlds problems to befixed, but they don't want to be the ones contributing to the fix, they want to tell YOU what you have to do to fix the problems; ask them to donate halfof their paycheck for the "greater good of the people" and watch how quick the story changes.

 

[Senoj]

Will someone who is arguing against this post a solution so you're not just complaining just to complain...

 

[kdawg]

What people are saying is that using GPA as the example is wrong.

Sure, in that case anyone can work hard and improve their lot - that's all it takes - dedication and effort.

But in society that's not true - like people have said there are plenty of really hard working people out there bring home $25k a year. Sure, some of themcould work harder and improve their situation - but there are a lot of people (the majority) who can't - because they don't have the time or just theopportunity because of their background.

And these people shouldn't be penalized because of that.

I guess that means that the opposite is true - that those who have the privilege of wealth should pay a little more tax on the high part of their income toprovide services for everyone - it's not communism, it's not redistribution of wealth, it's looking out for your fellow man.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by kdawg

Yeah, okay, it's just taxes and that has nothing to do with Healthcare and generally considering your fellow man? Riiiight.

If you want to talk about helping your fellow man, why only increase taxes on the rich? Why not raises taxes across the board? Why doesn'teverybody lend a hand?

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

Originally Posted by J Burner

life isn't fair, get over it.

exactly...

/thread

 

[j burner]

Originally Posted by kdawg

What people are saying is that using GPA as the example is wrong.

Sure, in that case anyone can work hard and improve their lot - that's all it takes - dedication and effort.

But in society that's not true - like people have said there are plenty of really hard working people out there bring home $25k a year. Sure, some of them could work harder and improve their situation - but there are a lot of people (the majority) who can't - because they don't have the time or just the opportunity because of their background.

And these people shouldn't be penalized because of that.

I guess that means that the opposite is true - that those who have the privilege of wealth should pay a little more tax on the high part of their income to provide services for everyone - it's not communism, it's not redistribution of wealth, it's looking out for your fellow man.

So your solution is to penalize other people who have no control over your or anyone elses financial or living situation by taking money out of their pocket tosubsidize your lack of funds, just because they were successul? Being successful is now a crime? And your rationalization for that penalty is "well theycan afford it." Well, that doesn't make it right. You are a complete fool. It is communism, it is redistribution of wealth. The GPA metaphor is aperfect example.

 

[kdawg]

Because that just screws the little guy.

If you make taxes 20% on everyone then the small guy is giving from his poverty and the rich guy is giving from his wealth. It's like when people weregoing nuts because MJ was betting $10k on a whole of golf - but that's probably like me betting $5. A tiered tax system is the obvious and sensible way torun a country.

Sure, it's maybe not "American" but like I said - I don't get how that gels with why people set up your country.

 

[jibbycanoe]

I'm not going to read this whole thing but HOV I know you are a smart dude. so why are you saying "your president" he is your president too, evenif you didn't vote for him. for the 8 years prior some of us suffered under what we thought was wrong, but I at least still accepted that my fellowamericans elected the ****** and thus he was my president. I wasn't proud of it but I knew he was my president. so yea, take your own advice and become ajanitor and then maybe you will understand the world from a different perspective. but I really doubt you could live a life whose content was based on theexperiences you had and the people who loved you rather than stuff and things...

 

[addictedtofreshkicks]

can't say I didn't warn you guys. Even when TBONE tries to show you guys the truth, you just attack him.

This is what America wanted though.... You guys made your bed, unfortunately I have to lay in it too. (pause)

 

[j burner]

What people are failing to realize about this situation is this: If you are taking away 60% of a doctor's pay (or a lawyer, or any other high payingprofession), giving the doctor the same NET INCOME as say the regional manager of a retail outlet store, where is the incentive for someone to become a doctor?Why would you spend 8+ years in school, and a ton of money to get a Phd, when you could come right out of highschool and get a job, then spend that 8 yearsgetting promoted and making money (instead spend 8 years going to school and gettin in debt to a University). All this does is remove incentive, and punishpeople for succeeding.

 

[justscoreda100]

This isn't the middle ages where you were often locked into one social status. In America there are too many opportunities for one to remain poor all oftheir life. In life there are paths that lead to either stability or destruction. People CHOOSE which path they follow in life. That means that if you havechildren when your not financially secure, don't do well in school, abuse drugs or engage in unlawful activities you setting your self up to become poor.Even if you do choose to go down one of these paths there are still a multitude of opportunities that are left for you to turn around and become succesful. Itjust means that you have to work harder! I know that people make mistakes but mistakes also make people. If you were born into a bad situation or put your selfin a bad situation you have to man up and deal with it. When you get lemons make some god damn lemonade!

When people who have absolutely nothing can come to this country and make something for themselves, can you honestly say that the poor in America have nooptions?

 

[fede dpt]

Elections have consequences...



You know what is great about Capitalism? It gives the motivated people the freedom to pursue anything they want, it also gives scrubs in this thread whoaren't business owners and worked hard to make it and say "get over it" to be lazy pieces of +*+!. We were moving to Socialism with Bush, now weare officially a Socialist Democracy if this bill passes.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by J Burner

What people are failing to realize about this situation is this: If you are taking away 60% of a doctor's pay (or a lawyer, or any other high paying profession), giving the doctor the same NET INCOME as say the regional manager of a retail outlet store, where is the incentive for someone to become a doctor? Why would you spend 8+ years in school, and a ton of money to get a Phd, when you could come right out of highschool and get a job, then spend that 8 years getting promoted and making money (instead spend 8 years going to school and gettin in debt to a University). All this does is remove incentive, and punish people for succeeding.

What you're not getting is that that's not how it works.

The top rate is only paid on a proportion of your income - say above $250k. So you never have the situation where you make more but actually make less.

So (numbers are just for examples as I don't know the actual rates)

If you make $300k you would pay 20% on the first $250k and then 50% (if that was the appropriate rate) on the next $50k.

You would still be making more than the store manager in your example - just paying a higher percentage on part of your salary - the part way above what mostpeople could ever imagine making.

No-one is advocating a tiered flat rate - that would just encourage people to stop at a certain number as there would be a disincentive to earn more.

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by J Burner

---

Originally Posted by kidposite

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

just felt like this is relevant to this post

I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.











So, by this logic you believe that someone who works really really hard, and studys all day, but still can't get above a 2.0 should be entitled to take GPA points from someone who was able to reach that 4.0 mark with out as much effort? And you believe thats fair? Thats like saying "its your fault i'm not as smart as you, I'm taking some of your GPA points as punishment." Absolutely ridiculous no matter how you slice it, whether the 2.0 student is a lazy slacker, or a hardworking person who just can't make the grade, neither situation entitles the 2.0 student to take points away from the 4.0 student. Welcome to the real world. Just because you have it worse off than the next man does not give you the right to take what he has in the name of being fair, life isn't fair, get over it. The thing with the bleeding hear liberals seems to be they want all the worlds problems to be fixed, but they don't want to be the ones contributing to the fix, they want to tell YOU what you have to do to fix the problems; ask them to donate half of their paycheck for the "greater good of the people" and watch how quick the story changes.

You went way off track with your response to my critique of the GPA analogy. All I said was that the GPA analogy does not necessarily resonatewith the real world because in the real world you have your fair share of very hard-working "2.0 students" who despite all their struggles andefforts can not do much better than attaining a "2.0". What Republicans often focus on are the complacent "2.0 students" who are capable ofbettering themselves but decide not to due to their lack of desire to work harder. I was just downplaying the significance of this analogy because it is notvery strong or accurate.

No where did I say that a hard-working person should give their money away to people less well-off or that it is fair to do so. I personally believe that aprogressive tax system is the best way to go however no where in my post that you quoted could you get that impression.

I could be mistaken but hasn't the U.S. had a progressive tax system for a great part of their history? Regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican wasin power, weren't the rich usually expected to give a greater percentage of their earnings back in taxes than lower earners?

One last thing...I do not buy the argument that "Higher taxes will reduce the incentive to improve one's education/income levels/profession etc".Believe it or not, but not everyone who works hard for something is purely motivated by monetary reasons. Some people want to become Doctors/Lawyers etc.because they are genuinely interested in the profession. Some people want to pursue a certain profession because they enjoy helping others. Some people chooseto go through 7+ years of post-secondary education because they enjoy the challenge and they gain utility out of expanding their knowledge. And of course, somepeople go through all that hard work just so that they can make more money. The incentive to work hard will not diminish among those who are only interested inmaking lots of money because being a doctor/lawyer/executive/business owner will almost always be more profitable than non-professional jobs, regardless of howdisproportionate tax rates are.

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by p0tat0 5alad

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What it as comes down to is this to me, if you can give than give point blank. It's cool if you want to be on your high horse and have that "I got here alone so they could do the same" mentality but realize those same people who you said nah I'm not giving jack !!%+ to you will be the same that will rob you when you walking out of the bank

. Desperate times call for desperate measures and we have to survive.

Real talk it's bigger than $$ no problem don't give up your money but atleast GIVE a solution, a answer, a job. Let us know how we could get where you're at or help us start somewhere but just saying no because you're selfish and greedy isn't going to get you nowhere because you live in the same world as me.

Real talk, I hate to hear people complain but then don't have a solution. Basically they are complaining to be complaining. For all you guys against it, could you atleast explain an alternative that would help out. I'm not saying I agree with taking half of someones paycheck but maybe that will help curb people from spending beyond their means.

going after the fraud that doctors commit on a daily basis

 

[knightngale]

This is music to my ears.

 

[utvol23]

Let me ask you a question:

I wasnt brought up in a wealthy family I worked hard in high school, paid for my undergrad and busted my behind to succeed and get into med school, borrowedover 200K to get myself through med school while working crazy hours to get what i needed to acheive what i wanted.

Tell me why most everyone cannot succeed as I did? What is it that I had that they didnt? I did it all on my own without any hand outs and there were others inmy class who came from severe poverty to do the same thing. Im not saying that everyone should become doctors or other higher levels of education but if youwork hard and are not complacent you can make a better life for yourself. The problem is that a lot of people dont have the personal drive to get them out ofthe $7/hr job and choose to wait for someone else to get them out of the hole, or they are content in making 25K a year, but just because they are content intheir situation doesnt mean that I should have to pony up all the money to pay for all the initiatives the government wants to implement, and since around $40%of wage earners dont pay any income tax that means I am also paying for the police, firemen, roads, construction, etc etc all that they use, and I am ok withthat but when you keep adding on expense after expense that you expect the so called "rich" to pay for that is a problem.

 

[snake201]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by kidposite

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.

She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

just felt like this is relevant to this post

I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.


What you fail to realize was that in this example they are not trying to portrait the 2.0 student as lazy or stay at home bum but someone thatwent out to party and took easy classes. She is trying to say that if she didn't party all the time and study just like the 4.0 student and actually wentto class then she wouldn't be stuck at a 2.0. She is saying that Mary has the same opportunity as her but she chooses to not take it. So why would she wantto help her out? This is not an example of one being smarter than others or being born into a wealthy family and having better opportunities than somebodyelse, but that of two people that both have the same opportunities and one just being a hard worker and one just trying to get by.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by J Burner

What people are failing to realize about this situation is this: If you are taking away 60% of a doctor's pay (or a lawyer, or any other high paying profession), giving the doctor the same NET INCOME as say the regional manager of a retail outlet store, where is the incentive for someone to become a doctor? Why would you spend 8+ years in school, and a ton of money to get a Phd, when you could come right out of highschool and get a job, then spend that 8 years getting promoted and making money (instead spend 8 years going to school and gettin in debt to a University). All this does is remove incentive, and punish people for succeeding.

CO- SIGN

While their salary may never drop to that level it would take all incentive away from anyone persuing the field because you would take away a lot of the rewardsomeone receives for putting in so much work.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by J Burner

What people are failing to realize about this situation is this: If you are taking away 60% of a doctor's pay (or a lawyer, or any other high paying profession), giving the doctor the same NET INCOME as say the regional manager of a retail outlet store, where is the incentive for someone to become a doctor? Why would you spend 8+ years in school, and a ton of money to get a Phd, when you could come right out of highschool and get a job, then spend that 8 years getting promoted and making money (instead spend 8 years going to school and gettin in debt to a University). All this does is remove incentive, and punish people for succeeding.

CO- SIGN

While their salary may never drop to that level it would take all incentive away from anyone persuing the field because you would take away a lot of the reward someone receives for putting in so much work.

Dont fool yourself into thinking that how much you make and job stability doesnt factor into people seeking professional jobs such as doctors, lawyers etc. Ilove what I do and couldnt see myself doing much else but income was a factor in my decision and is a factor in everyone's decision even if the say theyare just doing it to help people. What makes it so attractive is that you get to do both.