Originally posted by techsouthOf course - just as you are willing to restrict the freedom of those born into poverty because you cling to some failed conception of meritocracy.
Also, Harvard is a private school. Your telling me that we should make it illegal for me to form a school of any kind and charge people to attend? You're willing to place that restriction on freedom all because you cling to some failed idea of utopia?
Originally posted by techsouth"Also, Harvard is a private school. Your telling me that we should make it illegal for me to form a school of any kind and charge people to attend? You're willing to place that restriction on freedom all because you cling to some failed idea of utopia?"
Hey, I'm not overlooking the single mom who works harder than I can imagine. The trouble is it's hard to make laws that distinguish levels of need.
You've got one family whose parents go from job to job putting in a half hearted effort. Another family's parents may work as hard as they can to attain the same income. From the perspective of government ...[text shortened]... pport and what they don't. There's a little more power on our way to totalitarianism.
I think all schools that teach, what are in effect essential things from teaching young children to read and write to teach the doctors of tomorrow about the latest advances in surgery and everything in between.
If however you want to teach adults say a second language or chess. Things that they will not need to know to function as a member of society or to get a job but because they want to improve themselves or have a hobby or interest then it could be a kind of private school.
“Your telling me that we should make it illegal for me to form a school of any kind and charge people to attend? You're willing to place that restriction on freedom all because you cling to some failed idea of utopia?”
If this school is going to teach the same things as a public school then I would say no you can’t build that everything that you would teach is already available for learning in the public schools. If it would be a school that was teaching extras more specialised things say an evening school for literature then ok, you can. I have to ask though how many people you know or have even heard of have decided to just set up a school it would be a very small restriction on freedom for a very small percentage of people I really don’t see it happening. If people do have some dream of owning there own school they could apply for a job administrating in a current one.
“Some may argue that the government should pay for people to go to Harvard even though it is a private school. That's a good idea. I'll have an easy life starting my own school that teaches pizza eating and football watching.”
I am more in favour of the government taking control of Harvard and letting people go there. They would not let you just eat pizza as they would check what everyone’s doing I’m sure you can’t do that now and you wouldn’t be able to do it then.
“But the government can just step in and make up rules for what private schools they support and what they don't.”
I would have expected they did at the moment and the point is that there would not be private schools they would all be public.
Originally posted by techsouthHey, the government paid for all my education. I wouldn't have got it otherwise. Attending university should be (was for me) based upon your ability, not your parents income, as you seem to believe. Sounds a bit like you're one of those people that believes that you are rich because you're smarter and better than those stupid poor people. A families means should not prevent it's kids from fulfilling their potential. That should be the aim of any socialist government.
Of course the Soviets didn't murder for equality. They required a totalitarian state for equality, and that totalitarian state, to solidify power murdered millions. People like you supported it because it sounded good on paper. But you can't get around the fact, equality of means requires an all-powerful state.
Also, sending someone to school is unfa ...[text shortened]... idn't save. After all, they are in need, right? Wouldn't want to give me an unfair edge.
Originally posted by scottishinnz"Attending university should be (was for me) based upon your ability, not your parents income, as you seem to believe. "
Hey, the government paid for all my education. I wouldn't have got it otherwise. Attending university should be (was for me) based upon your ability, not your parents income, as you seem to believe. Sounds a bit like you're one of those people that believes that you are rich because you're smarter and better than those stupid poor people. A families ...[text shortened]... s kids from fulfilling their potential. That should be the aim of any socialist government.
If this is true, it has to be true for all affected.
Thus if a child should not benefit from the hard work of their parent, then a parent has no right to offer benefit to his or her child through hard work.
Do you agree with this statement?
Providing your child with the advantage of a top rate education should not depend on your willingness to save and sacrifice, but rather on the governments judgement and control of who most deserves such things.
If you agree with this then I honestly feel sorry for you and your kids.
Note: there are lot's of opportunties for kids of modest means, even if they don't have all the opportunites of kids from wealthy families.
"Sounds a bit like you're one of those people that believes that you are rich because you're smarter and better than those stupid poor people."
I don't know what basis you use to make that judgement. I've already acknowledged I've had advantages some have not (and others have had advantages I haven't). I've met people in the third world who I am certain could prosper as well as me given the opportunities I've had, and I've tried to help some of them. Many of them would shed tears of joy if they could swap places with a "poor" American. Also, I don't know on what basis you've concluded I'm rich unless you assume all Americans are rich.
Originally posted by techsouth"If this is true, it has to be true for all affected."
"Attending university should be (was for me) based upon your ability, not your parents income, as you seem to believe. "
If this is true, it has to be true for all affected.
Thus if a child should not benefit from the hard work of their parent, then a parent has no right to offer benefit to his or her child through hard work.
Do you agree with thi ...[text shortened]... at basis you've concluded I'm rich unless you assume all Americans are rich.
I agree lets do it to all schools everywhere.
"Thus if a child should not benefit from the hard work of their parent, then a parent has no right to offer benefit to his or her child through hard work."
There will still be benefits for hardworking parents for there children just not so many to do with education. What about a single mother of three compared to two parents with an only child then the hard work would really come to nothing and it would be a lot easier to get private education for the single child and very hard for the three. The hard working (and when you say that you mean rich you confuse the two) could use the money gained from there work for other purposes knowing that there child will get the best education regardless of money.
"Providing your child with the advantage of a top rate education should not depend on your willingness to save and sacrifice, but rather on the governments judgement and control of who most deserves such things."
There are massive inequalities in payment take a rich businessman he will not need to sacrifice anything and will only need to save a small percentage of his wages as opposed to someone working in a shop they would need to save a large part of there wage for a long time and sacrifice a lot for the same result. Also I think everyone deserves a top rate education or as close to one as they can get the government wouldn't really decide who does and who doesn't apart from the very late specialised stages where the student would study what they did well in and enjoyed only the people who did the best would get this privilege and if you are so keen well then you can work hard and get a place.
“If you agree with this then I honestly feel sorry for you and your kids.“
At the moment I am only 16 no kids yet😉 and please don’t feel sorry for me because of my views I have chosen them.
Originally posted by techsouthYou are suggesting that I am saying that parents of rich kids SHOULDN'T be able to help their kids out? Ha ha, great joke! Of course, children of rich parents should be able to get help from their parents, but in a socialist country a child from a poor background should have the same opportunities that other kids do.
"Attending university should be (was for me) based upon your ability, not your parents income, as you seem to believe. "
If this is true, it has to be true for all affected.
Thus if a child should not benefit from the hard work of their parent, then a parent has no right to offer benefit to his or her child through hard work.
Do you agree with thi ...[text shortened]... at basis you've concluded I'm rich unless you assume all Americans are rich.
Ability has just as much to do with hard work as it does innate ability. I worked extremely hard to get where I am. Being smart isn't enough, and neither should be being born to rich parents.
"Providing your child with the advantage of a top rate education should not depend on your willingness to save and sacrifice, but rather on the governments judgement and control of who most deserves such things."
My dad worked, and continues to work, despite being on his third replacement hip and being diabetic, hard. The fact that he couldn't pay for my education has nothing to do with his willingness or lack of willingness to save. He just wasn't able to do it. Why should he anyway? This is my life, I wanted this education, I wanted this job. I work, I sacrifice, and now I pay the tax for my education, and I repay the loans that I accumulated (despite the fact that I worked through university).
"Note: there are lot's of opportunties for kids of modest means, even if they don't have all the opportunites of kids from wealthy families."
True, but there aren't enough.
The basis for my judgement? Well, it is true that you live in the richest country in the world, but that wasn't a factor in my judgement. My judgement is based on the fact that you seem to be arguing AGAINST free education, and the use of tax money on improving the lives of the poorest members of society. Not an argument you'd use were you poor yourself.
Originally posted by Rajk999There are many other factors that have affect weath. The coselation is a very weak one.
Whether you like it or not there is a corelation between financial success and IQ.
Many of the people with the highest IQs don't run after money they go after there interests science, music, art, maths, or become a writer not for the money but for the love of the subject.
Originally posted by VargI agree with Ted Kennedy. He wants to raise the estate tax so that very little can go to the children of the deceased.
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned.
The argument was that nobody should have a natural advantage in life because of how well their parents (or distant ancestors) did for themselves. Everybody should have the same start in life and, obviously, the same opportunity.
At first glance this seems aimed at aristocratic, old money ty ...[text shortened]... eed any property. I suppose the proponents of the idea see that as a good thing.
Any thoughts?
Do like he does. Put your $284,000,000 in a "family trust" in the island nation of Figi or whichever one it is. Then there is absolutely no tax on it from anyone ... ever.
So... in summa,
"Tax everyone not as smart as you." seems the best policy.
I am not being facetious. I mean it.
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/kennedy/?PROMO_CODE=19B7-1
Originally posted by scottishinnz
You are suggesting that I am saying that parents of rich kids SHOULDN'T be able to help their kids out? Ha ha, great joke! Of course, children of rich parents should be able to get help from their parents, but in a socialist country a child from a poor background should have the same opportunities that other kids do.
So I am free to make sacrifices in order to provide anything I want to give my kid an advantage, so long as the government uses tax money to provide that same advantage to other kids whose parents are unable or unwilling to provide the same. So if I sacrifice for my child, great, but if I don't sacrifice for my child, the government takes the same money through taxes so that my child won't be "disadvantaged". Why do I find it so hard to find any reason to make sacrifices under such a system?
I have offerred a few arguments to demonstrate how incompatible socialism is with freedom. At first I thought I was not making clear enough arguments, but I now realize that some people for whatever reason just don't yearn for freedom. They are perfectly content to hand over to the government whatever percent the government says is needed, and are for some reason grateful that the government "let's" them keep the rest. These people are not troubled by the fact that government by nature becomes corrupt and wasteful and for some reason trust the government sponsored studies that say the waste and inefficiency is minimal.
Sadly some of these people vote in America.
Ability has just as much to do with hard work as it does innate ability. I worked extremely hard to get where I am. Being smart isn't enough, and neither should be being born to rich parents.
If you worked hard to get where you are, why are you so eager for those who won't work hard to reap the same benefits?
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthI think the chief problem with your argument is your underlying assumption that it is acceptable (okay, granted, regrettable; unfortunate, certainly, but basically acceptable) for a child to begin with inferior life chances to someone else simply because his parents were out-performed economically by someone else's parents. Not only is that the exact opposite of promoting freedom, it's medieval, socially extravagant, extraordinarily cavalier, and actually anti-meritocratic - and there's nothing inevitable or natural about it, just as there is no identity between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The genuinely free and dynamic society frees its citizens, it doesn't arbitrarily repress its creative talent in the name of "incentives".
I have offerred a few arguments to demonstrate how incompatible socialism is with freedom.
Originally posted by techsouthPersonally, I would have all kids who get the grades to be able to go to university with their tuition fees paid and a grant which gives them the ability to survive. If the parents want to boost their sibling's income, fine. If the kid wants to (or like me, needs to) get a part-time job, fine. Kids from neither poor nor rich families should be disadvantaged.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]You are suggesting that I am saying that parents of rich kids SHOULDN'T be able to help their kids out? Ha ha, great joke! Of course, children of rich parents should be able to get help from their parents, but in a socialist country a child from a poor background should have the same opportunities that other k ...[text shortened]... ou are, why are you so eager for those who won't work hard to reap the same benefits?
What does society get out of this? A workforce able to complete globally for highly skilled, highly paid jobs. This raises tax dollars for all of society. A couple of years back when Fuhrer Blair was passing the tuition fees acts in the UK, he brought forth the fact that the mean increase in wages a graduate gets over a non-graduate comes to about £400,000 over the entire life time. Even at the modest tax rate of 25% that gives the government an additional £100,000. More than enough to pay for the spending on the extra eduction. If they fall into a higher tax bracket, let's say 40%, that would raise £160,000.
To conclude, educating people of ability within the state system is not wasteful, indeed, it promotes success in the poorest sectors of society. These people also tend to actually pay for their own education over their working lifespan. They also tend to rely less on the state, as they typically have healthier lifestyles, meaning they're not using healthcare, not taking days off work, and are more likely to contribute to a pension plan.
1 edit
Originally posted by Amaurotewhat inequality of opportunity?
Since social mobility in the UK (and, incidentally, the US) has been static for nearly twenty years, I think that the probability is quite the opposite. I know plenty of hard-working people who find it impossible to afford even the first step onto the housing ladder until entering their thirties, and equally I once worked for a family of hardware vendors wh ur current indifference to inequality of opportunity is a scandalous waste of social resources.
in the developed nations, anyone can go to college, and can even pick a degree that might produce them some income after they graduate.
Originally posted by AmauroteSo it is medival for a parent to hope to help his child succeed? Socialist philosophy calls for the government to do this.
I think the chief problem with your argument is your underlying assumption that it is acceptable (okay, granted, regrettable; unfortunate, certainly, but basically acceptable) for a child to begin with inferior life chances to someone else simply because his parents were out-performed economically by someone else's parents. Not only is that the exact opposi ...[text shortened]... citizens, it doesn't arbitrarily repress its creative talent in the name of "incentives".
Let me ask you this, if you had enough money to send your child to Oxford, what would you choose. Do you (a) send a piece of chalk to each kid in Africa, or (b) send your one child to Oxford? The key to this is it's your child and your money.
Just how important is equality anyway? Is it better in your opinion that society is generally prosporous, with almost all having good opportunity, yet some more than others, or would it be better if all were equal, yet all were in poverty with virtually no opportunity? It is easy to attain equality if you are willing to eliminate all wealth. Sadly, that is what socialism tends to do.
Personally, I am willing to accept some in-equality of opportunity due to the belief that many more will prosper this way, and this is true even though I've lacked some opportunities in my life.