Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon
Similarly, one of the smartest young ladies in my high school class went to Harvard on a full scholarship because she was a minority student -- a female with a Hispanic surname.
The minor detail that her family had been one of Alta California's leading families for hundreds of years -- indeed the city of Santa Monica in which our families lived had been built on a small part of her family's Hacienda! -- and were one of the wealthiest families in town apparently never entered into the question! We're talking seriously old money here, and lots of it!  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
I knew a wealthy black man who could and did because he was a member of the "disadvantaged class". My experience with statistics is one of the reasons I prefer to be considered an individual and why I "know" that there is not equality even when "well meaning" law makers try to acheive equality.
|
But why blame
the system, in stead of
either the moral fibre (or lack thereof) of that young lady or her family,
or the lawmakers who created the system without building in exceptions?
Not to belabor the point, but slayda's whole problem with "I would've appreciated financial aid which I couldn't get due to the fact I didn't qualify" could've been avoided if you'd had either state-funded (i.e., low, tax-paid) tuition fees, or decent student loans (with a negligible interest rate)
Now, as I understand it these student loans were created (later?), but I also hear that G.W. did quite a bit to destroy these things in recent years, claiming they were "too expensive" or somesuch.
Quote:
|
There has been a lot of talk that "the rich" should pay more than the poor "because thay can afford to". So when a rich person pays $10 for an apple at the farmer's market, does it taste better to him than the $1 apple the poor person buys. And if the rich should pay more taxes than the poor (and this usually meeans a larger percentage not just more dollors), shouldn't he also have to pay more for food, housing, cars, etc., etc.? Isn't that fair?
|
You could also just argue that he needs to pay more to ensure that all those people don't bash his head in out of jealousy. Because he wouldn't stand a chance against all of them, and the richer he is, the more people will be jealous of him.
The only reason rich people can stay rich (in any society) is by ensuring "the poor" don't lynch them, which can be interpreted to mean they have to enter into social compacts with them. Taxation is one of those. How else do you figure you'll be able to convince those hordes of poor people? By arguing that they "might have been richer, and then they wouldn't have appreciated having to pay taxes"? I'll bet you that won't persuade many.