Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Redistribution


After passing back weekly US History quizzes on World War I, I paused a few minutes for the “whad-ja-gets” - students asking each other about their scores.

When they were done I said, “I have a good idea.”

“What?” said a girl.

“Many of you are doing well on these lately, getting hundreds and nineties, but others are still doing poorly - getting only thirties and forties.”

They all knew that after the whad-ja-gets.

“I’m thinking about redistributing grades - taking thirty points from those of you who got hundreds, and giving them to the students who got thirties. That way, the kids with hundreds would still have seventies, which is a C- and not that bad a grade, while those with thirties would then get sixties, which is D- and passing. This way, things would be more equal. How does that sound to you?”

Several looked at me blankly. Some had their mouths open. Students I knew had been studying extra hard were wincing.

“I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said one.

“Okay,” I said. “Does anybody like the idea?”

Only four raised their hands.

“Who else doesn’t like it?”

All the rest put their hands up.

“Alright, why not?”

“We worked for those grades,” said a boy. “It’s not fair to take our points and give them to someone who didn’t study. They shouldn’t get points for not doing anything.”

“Yeah,” said a girl. “If you did that, those kids who don’t study won’t ever do anything. They won’t have any reason to.”

“Plus, other kids wouldn’t want to work so hard if the points they earned were just going to be taken away and given to someone else,” said another boy.

“Well,” I said. “It’s just an idea at this point,”

“Not one of your better ones,” said a boy.

“I haven’t made any decisions yet and I’ll let you know when I do. Meanwhile, would you open your books to page 888 please?”

They did.

“I’d like someone to read the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913 - almost a hundred years ago. Any volunteers?”

A boy read aloud: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

“Thank you,” I said. “There had been a temporary income tax during the Civil War and a few times after, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, so passage of the 16th Amendment was necessary to resume it. The tax was only on people who earned the most money - an amount that would be equal to around $80,000 per year or above today. Soon it turned into something called a “graduated” or “progressive” income tax.”

I drew charts on the board illustrating that with a flat tax of 15%, someone making $10,000 per year would pay $1500 in taxes while someone making $100,000 per year would pay $15,000. So the wealthier would pay more, but the percentage would be the same. Then I explained how under a “graduated” or “progressive” tax structure, the percentage went up enormously for wealthier taxpayers to the point where government took most of what they made above a certain amount. In the 1940s, 50s and 60s, government took over 90% of their earnings. I passed out charts showing the top marginal tax rates since 1913.

“Wow,” said a boy. “There would be no point in working hard if the government takes it all away.”

“Uh-huh,” I said.

“This is what you were getting at with the quiz grades, right?”

“Uh-huh.”

Finally, I explained that the top half of American workers paid just about all the income taxes, while the bottom half paid almost nothing, or government gave them money under something called the “earned income tax credit.”

“That’s like what the communists did in Russia,” said a girl. We had watched “Dr. Zhivago” to learn about World War I, the Communist Revolution in Russia, and the rise of the Soviet Union.

“Similar,” I said, “but not as drastic. There are other taxes the bottom half of Americans pay so nobody escapes paying some kind of tax, but the rich pay for most of what the federal government does. And - the bottom half figured out that they can vote in congressmen and senators who will give them things somebody else has to pay for.”

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Tom. At least one teacher in the school systems of this country run by the socialist NEA is teaching sound values.
Keep up the good work!

Harvey in North Baldwin

Anthony Tiani said...

FINALLY.

Think of the wealthy!

Won't SOMEONE think of the wealthy?!

Anthony Tiani said...

When a the super-rich run everything (as they always have)and are a relatively tiny minority, it's called capitalism. When the poor (which is quickly becoming the majority) dare to have their say, it's called socialism.

Anonymous said...

Tom - thank you for a well-presented article. It teaches a great principle. To the remarks about "super-rich" (capitalism) and the "poor" (socialism) - let me say this... Capitalism produces the wealth; socialism produces *want*. Capitalism provides opportunity for equal wealth, while socialism causes equal misery.
Mr. McLaughlin, please keep up the important teaching that you do.

Steve said...

Thanks as always Tom. Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Anonymous said...

I hope that that the $10,500.00 as fifteen percent of $100,000.00 is a typo or be glad you don't teach math. Better check those test scores again.

Tom McLaughlin said...

There's a good reason why I don't teach math as you detected. I did it once once many years ago in a self-contained fifth grade class and I was able to handle it, barely.

I've made the correction.

Anonymous said...

Merry Capitalistic Christmas! I seriously wish you were running our country; things would be oh that much better.

-Monroe Mann
monroemann.com

Anthony Tiani said...

Again, I find myself at the mercy of a better writer:

"Many proponents of the free market defend our current system of corporate-based capitalism as if it descended directly from heaven into the pen of Adam Smith and then onto the hearts of our all-knowing Founding Fathers. An investigation of the history of the corporation, however, reveals a much different story.

The first corporations appeared in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and were chartered by governments for specific public missions. The largest and most powerful of these early corporations was The East India Company, founded by Queen Elizabeth in 1600 to facilitate trade between England and her colonies. At the height of its power, The East India Compnay held economic control over 1/5 of world’s population and maintained a private army of over 250,000 soldiers. Unjust taxation policies favoring this company insured that the crown, and not the colonists themselves, reaped the benefits from the colonies’ natural wealth and industry.

During the 18th century, Enlightenment ideals began to challenge the power of monarchies and corporations, and the power of the queen’s corporation began to fade. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 signaled not only a victory over the economic tyranny of the East India Company, it also helped pave the way for the political uprising known as the American Revolution. Also around this time, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations, arguing for free market economics, but AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF LARGE CORPORATIONS, claiming that they limit fair competition among smaller-sized merchants and artisans.

When the United States gained its independence in 1776, there were 336 corporations in the United States, but most had been chartered by state governments for specific public works projects. The Founding Fathers, still mindful of the crushing power once wielded by the East India Company, SEVERELY LIMITED THE POWER OF CORPORATIONS and never would have dreamed of nor allowed the trans-national behemoths we see today. In fact, the original limitations seem laughable when we consider our modern corporations."

Some of the greatest lies ever told are that George Washington and Jesus Christ were in favor of absolute capitalism.

GBA said...

Anthony, you have unfortunately been blinded by class warfare that the left relentlessly pushes. Class warfare has no place in a country that was founded on the values of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Your attack on capitalism is also flawed. You offer no other economic system that has produced more wealth and freedom for a greater number of people then capitalism. You cant offer a better system because man has yet to discover one.

Anthony Tiani said...

GBA, please allow me to catch my breath from laughing before I respond.....

.....okay, I'm good.

I haven't been "blinded" by anyone; ESPECIALLY not from an ideological group. I've never belonged to so much as a chess club in my young life, never mind a political group. I largely despise group thought. Individuals are smart, but people behave mostly like reactionary, knee-jerk, angry mobs with little to no historical perspective--or they assume that past historical figures would most assuredly be on "their side".

The whole "us vs. them" mentality has seemingly gripped this nation even more so than it did in the Bush years. The idea that truth and intelligence is indicative in liberals OR conservatives ONLY is absolutely preposterous.

I have no idols, no gods, and no kings.

What I do have is a rapacious independence that is incorruptible, but not evenly divided to arbitrarily appease outside observers.

There are a few reasons why I attack conservatives almost exclusively on Tom's blog. Firstly, I love debate and in order to do so on Tom's blog, I respectfully point out our differences. However, in other arenas of discourse, people would swear that I am a contemptuous neo-con.

Another reason my ire has been geared towards conservatives is that we recently exited the Bush years and, well, I'm bitter. I don't need to explain why. You can probably reason that yourself.

However, my seemingly conflicting ideologies really don't conflict that much, if at all. This typically drives people who love to pigeon-hole me absolutely nuts; which, truth be told, puts a big, smarmy grin on my big, smug head.

Ralph said...

Anthony:

Somebody with less patience for youth than I, might take you for an unprincipled fool. I don't. Just take your ego back a bit in your comments and you'll do ok some day.

Why are you mad at 'corporations'? Corporations didnt steal your money. The government did.

Furthermore you confuse capitalism with State Capitalism. TOTALLY different thing. Any kind of economy in which government has a say, besides enforcing criminal law, is NOT capitalism.

there is nothing at all wrong with 'large' corporations.

the problem comes from their preferential treatment by government.

Corporations, like banks, should be treated like any other business. Sink or swim on their own merit.

Corporations have no police power. they cannot force anyone to do anything, including buying their products.

the only institution with coercive power is government. Divorce government from business, and there is no problem.

I'm beginning to see an emerging pattern on this board of populist anger against companies. Those companies didnt do anything to anyone that would have been possible without government.

I recommend watching Milton Friedman here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha90TJACY8k

Anthony Tiani said...

"Somebody with less patience for youth than I, might take you for an unprincipled fool. I don't. Just take your ego back a bit in your comments and you'll do ok some day."

Thanks for the backhanded compliment.

I implore you, Ralph, do not underestimate me simply because of my youth (I'm 24, certainly not a naive high school student anymore).

I don't have most of the answers in life, I haven't traveled the world, and I'm generally afraid to try new things. What I have, and have had my whole life, is an insatiably curious disposition that leads me to analyze every facet of human behavior--whether it's debunking myths, or figuring out why we love to touch wet paint, if there is an answer, I want to find it.

I also NEVER said (here or anywhere) that I hate capitalism or corporations. When it comes to big business and government, I don't fully trust either. What troubles me is that people seem to believe that one is more trustworthy than the other. They both lust for power and money--yet they both serve VITAL purposes in our way of life. Having both combat each other at LEAST creates a sort of check and balance system.

"Corporations have no police power. they cannot force anyone to do anything"

I'm guessing you haven't read up on the abuses doled out by mining corporations, among other organizations, that would set up their own towns for their workers in our not-too-distant past. Look up where the term 'rednecks' came from and you'll understand.

Oh yeah, I guess you haven't heard of Blackwater (oops! I mean Xe!) either. They got to set up their own police force in Iraq without all those pesky "rules" and "moral code" that the darned military has to obey.

I've seen what unchecked, corporate mercenaries do with no rules.....and it is terrifying.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anthony Tiani said...

Who does this? Are there really that many people out there who fall for this crap?

It's like getting assaulted by a peddler on the street selling fake Rolex watches.

Ralph said...

Anthony

It's just a SpamBot. Don't worry. Tom is going to make it go away.

You spent half of your comment, again, talking about yourself and about what a great mind you are.

The other half is about "mining corporations of the past" and about "Blackwater"? WTF?

You have tried and failed to answer ONE short sentence out of my comment. What about the rest?

Anthony Tiani said...

Ralph, if you want ME to take YOU seriously, then quit with the text speak. You're obviously an adult in an adult forum. If you want to say "What the Fuck" then you are free to do so. I won't tell on you.

Do I have somewhat of an ego? Sure I do--in certain situations. However, I thought I made it very clear when I said, "I don't have most of the answers in life, I haven't traveled the world, and I'm generally afraid to try new things" that I do not purport to know it all.

I feel the need to explain myself because people casually assign me labels (probably because they are too lazy to argue merits). I also feel people will get a better understanding where I'm coming from when I try and explain my belief systems.

"You have tried and failed to answer ONE short sentence out of my comment. What about the rest?"

Let's take a trip down memory lane and see what questions of yours I did, in fact, answer.

You: "Why are you mad at 'corporations'?"

Me: "I also NEVER said (here or anywhere) that I hate capitalism or corporations. When it comes to big business and government, I don't fully trust either. What troubles me is that people seem to believe that one is more trustworthy than the other. They both lust for power and money--yet they both serve VITAL purposes in our way of life. Having both combat each other at LEAST creates a sort of check and balance system."

You: "Corporations have no police power. they cannot force anyone to do anything, including buying their products."

Me: "I'm guessing you haven't read up on the abuses doled out by mining corporations, among other organizations, that would set up their own towns for their workers in our not-too-distant past. Look up where the term 'rednecks' came from and you'll understand.

Oh yeah, I guess you haven't heard of Blackwater (oops! I mean Xe!) either. They got to set up their own police force in Iraq without all those pesky "rules" and "moral code" that the darned military has to obey."

Since you "WTF"-ed me on that one, let me explain:

In the early 20's, the West Virginia coal miners took part in what was later called The Battle of Blair Mountain. They were coal miners rebelling against their oppressive bosses who stifled their right to organize, and often refused to provide them with even basic accommodations--this, while most had no choice but to live in company-owned communities. Well, I guess they did have a choice, they could have quit and starved to death. Instead, they tried to come together and ask for a semblance of fairness. The company even hired a PRIVATE police force that murdered their most outspoken supporter. To show there solidarity, the mine workers wore red bandannas and were called "rednecks" (ironic that the first rednecks were poor workers trying to unionize) to identify themselves as seeking the opportunity to unionize.

Blackwater (now called XE) is a private "security force" that was dispatched in Iraq that claimed to not be bound by American or Iraqi laws. They've been accused of numerous heinous crimes including murder and child rape.

Have I sufficiently explained my positions and answered your questions? If not, I'd be happy to answer any more you have.

Anonymous said...

Anthony is only 24, with any luck he will grow and mature a bit and find that there are things in the world more important than himself and his I am wonderful me attitude.
I always thought I was special and what I said meant something but no one really cares that much.

And to Tom, about the math, I hope you understand it was mostly in fun, but I am glad your picked another field. even if we dont always agree.

Merry Christmas and a bah humbug to the political correctness folks.

pinko said...

As always, this would be much more palatable if it were illustrated with some of Tom's extensive gay porn collection.

Perhaps Educator McLaughlin could explain the difference between Communism and socialism - if he knows.

Anthony Tiani said...

"Anthony is only 24, with any luck he will grow and mature a bit and find that there are things in the world more important than himself and his I am wonderful me attitude.
I always thought I was special and what I said meant something but no one really cares that much."

Again, no one can seem to stay on the issues. If you disagree with me, then by all means point out where you disagree, or where you think I am wrong. I could participate in further self-deprecation, but I have no interest in a "I'm more humble than you"-off. If you didn't "care that much" then surely you wouldn't be reading Tom's article and responding yourself.

It seems to me that my youth actually threatens you. It's understandable, considering most people my age are too busy watching youtube videos of men getting hit in the balls then paying attention to anything that goes on in this world.

Peter said...

It seems to me to be a bit naive trying to make a correlation between student grades and taxes, but let me address my main issue. This would be the repeated bit of nonsense about there being "no point in working hard if the government takes it all away.” to which you, and educator, replied “Uh-huh,”!

Yikes.

First off, the government doesn't take it all, right?

"Uh-huh"

Second, surely you see the difference between taking a menial job and making 22,000 after the government takes it's little chuck and working really hard to make 1,000,000 after the government takes it's big chunk, right?

"Uh-huh"

And third, even if you have no inner desire to work hard and do your best, regardless of the perceived "unfairness" of the government taking too much, is that really a sentiment that a teacher wants to be passing along to their students?

Ralph said...

Anthony:

Look at your posts, Anthony. They are like an archeological dig in Narcissism Land. You are incredibly vain.

If I care to abbreviate an expression on a blog that is being read by youngsters, I will do so and don't need admonishment from a snot nosed poseur.

Here, again, are the center points of my original post:

"you confuse capitalism with State Capitalism. TOTALLY different thing. Any kind of economy in which government has a say, besides enforcing criminal law, is NOT capitalism.

there is nothing at all wrong with 'large' corporations.

the problem comes from their preferential treatment by government.

Corporations, like banks, should be treated like any other business. Sink or swim on their own merit."

By using Blackwater or some extreme occurences from a century ago you only discredit your own points. EVERY system has its distortions and excesses. But they prove NOTHING about the general merit of said systems. And human traits of character will exist and prevail in any system - good or bad. Do you understand that?

We talk about systems, NOT about excesses within systems!

Anthony Tiani said...

Ralph, we are all vain to some degree. If you feel that I'm vain because I defend myself against cowards who anonymously attack me and falsely label me as one kind of person or another, then call me whatever you want--regardless, my perceived character flaws don't detract from my positions.

"Look at your posts, Anthony. They are like an archeological dig in Narcissism Land."

Boy, that sure would sound clever if you weren't insinuating that I was old in that joke while also deriding me for being young.

..."don't need admonishment from a snot nosed poseur."

Whatever your age is, "Ralph", that comment makes you sound like a third-grader. I don't recall calling you an old, stubborn, cantankerous fart.

"there is nothing at all wrong with 'large' corporations."

You're right, there isn't anything inherently wrong with large corporations, and I certainly don't want them to disappear. What's wrong is when they exploit child labor in other countries. What's wrong is when they deny coverage for life-saving operations so that their stock goes up a percentage point. What's wrong is when American workers have there already slim benefits slashed while executives enjoy fat bonuses and other luxuries.

Is it so wrong that our government protect us from some corporate abuses?

Anonymous said...

OK, Anthony, you had your chance.
You're on your own now.
Ralph

Anthony Tiani said...

"You're on your own now."

Just the way I like it, "Ralph".

Anonymous said...

I can't believe Anthony is taking crap for being a narcissist when the biggest most flatulent ego is the one belonging to the author of this blog.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Anonymous feedback is as useful as yesterday's newspaper.

Anonymous said...

Wow, if you can't find useful information from a newspaper that is a day old I can understand why you write such sophmoric and naive articles!

DAWN said...

"if you can't find useful information from a newspaper that is a day old I can understand why you write such sophmoric and naive articles!"

sooooo you'd rather live in the past than in the present? You'd rather go by the news of yesterday than the updated news of the current day? And you think you're making sense with that comment?

Anonymous said...

No, Dawn, if you were paying attention you'd see that I never said I prefer old news or would rather live in the past. If you are going to argue, stick with what was said and don't put words in people's mouths. I am simply stating that one can find many useful facts and information from a paper that is a day old. That is a plain fact.