50% of Americans think taxes are too high, the other 50% think taxes need to be higher so they’ll get a larger refund.
It’s not a sustainable system. A better solution would be to change tax law so a “payer” can’t receive a larger refund than what they paid. No more credits, only deductions.
Because find me a person who thinks 25% of their income is “next to nothing”
Meanwhile, a tax avoiding billionaire will double their net worth and take out an asset-backed loan of 100mil to live off and then pay ~0% of that in taxes.
I did about the same, until my GF said "it's them or me". Haven't touched one in over 30 years, thank god.
To anyone out there that does smoke - stop. You will improve your health, your finances, and you won't smell (well, no more than you would otherwise). And you probably don't look much like James Dean anyway.
Is your omission of the attacks on October 7 carried out by Hamas equally glaring? How do you know what exactly Israel will do with the weapons? They presumably need this for defense as any country needs weapons for defending themselves.
It was omitted because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter which ally the US sells weapons to. If the Gazans attacked Luxembourg, Luxembourgers have the right to defend themselves (and win) too.
Yes. If you're a guest in a country and don't follow the law you should be deported. You don't need waste money putting them on trial (except for murder/rape/etc), just deport.
Hate is absolutely natural. Just like steeling or lying, hate doesn’t need to be taught.
When people realize they have wants and needs that require competition they become jealous and coveting. That leads to hatred. The only way to fix it is teach people the world doesn’t revolve around them and to do unto others …
> Research in the 1990s found that in California, Latino students scoring above the 90th percentile on standardized tests had only about a 50% chance of being placed in college preparatory classes, while Asian and white students with similar scores had more than a 90% chance.
The data is split by community ( Black, Latino, White, ...). Whites and Asians fare the best (see also their fig. 6.1). Kids from other communities are prevented from getting the same opportunities as kids from these two communities performing equivalently.
So it is not that Asian kids don't matter, it is that the data indicates that Asian kids already seem to be treated reasonably well.
It just seems arbitrary to me. Split the groups of people into "good results" and "bad results" and then treating everyone in both groups the same seems so reductive as to not just be useless but convince me there's some kind of background reason for doing so.
They did not
treat "results" as a binary "good" vs "bad" variable. In the article they take pains to justify their methodology in assessing students' chances of success in 8th grade algebra as a continuous variable:
> EVAAS is a statistical tool that could predict with remarkable accuracy which students would succeed in advanced courses.
Then
> The table demonstrates a strong correlation between EVAAS predictions and actual student performance. Students were grouped into probability ranges based on their predicted likelihood of success in 8th grade Algebra I, and their actual performance was then tracked.
So both the input (EVAAS predictor) and output (success in 8th grade algebra) are continuous variables (as shown in the first and last columns of the table mentioned in the quote), and they use this strong correlation to study access to 8th grade algebra against non-academic factors by using the EVAAS predictor as a control variable. I am not a professional statistician but honestly it looks pretty solid to me, or at least far more rigorous than most education science I have come across.
What they are then saying is that if you control for probability of success, Black and Hispanic children are significantly less likely to be admitted in 8th grade Algebra than White and Asian students. Looking at racial differences is not a particularly contentious way of studying bias in American society.
Of course they could have looked at other factors: economic and social class, gender, etc. This is the tragedy of sociology: you can't study social bias without being accused of introducing bias in how you study it...
From my perspective this is like doing a study on how much the average person can bench and then concluding that society is unfair towards women because they bench less. That is to say I just don't take it for granted that the conclusion is "society is unfair (in this particular regard)."
You mean that you believe that Black and Hispanic kids are being blocked from taking Algebra in middle school because Blacks and Latinos are bad at Algebra compared to Whites, just as women cannot bench press as much as men?
Surely you can't be surprised that not everyone shares that belief??
I don't know the reason for the disparity, but I do know we've spent... how many decades at this point? trying and failing to correct for it. At some point I feel compelled to consider the possibility that our scope is wrong.
It’s not a sustainable system. A better solution would be to change tax law so a “payer” can’t receive a larger refund than what they paid. No more credits, only deductions.