Raising the gas pollution taxes may be a controversial reform, and that's what i'll be explaining today. Raising the tax would be good for 2 points, the overall well being of our nation and our pollution epidemic. If the tax were to be raised, that would mean more money for our infrastructure, including roads bridges and others, and more money for government programs such as medicare and social security. Both of those would be extremely beneficial for our nation, and would be a good reason to raise the tax. A problem that our nation faces is pollution. Gasoline powered vehicles are an huge source of these emissions and if a gas tax were instated, emissions would go down.
On the flip side, a gas tax increase could be very detrimental to the US. First of all, it would hurt middle-class families that are already barely skating by with the money that they have. Also, a gas hike could cause our economic growth to slow or even stop because of the price raising of consumer goods. The price raise would occur because of the tax, seeing as though it would cost more to transport these goods.
Overall, their are plenty of arguments on raising gas taxes, but personally I agree with not raising it. I believe that if our economic growth slowed, it would be way more harmful than the good of raising the tax. It would be harder to transport goods across the nation, causing a price increase on almost all goods, which would cause families to struggle even more. Additionally, I feel that the price of gasoline is already a bit too high, and I don't enjoy having to pay that much money just to be able to transport myself to everywhere I need to go.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Friday, May 3, 2019
Gas Tax
The increase would be an issue because the government makes more money off lower gas prices. "Lower gas prices will actually increase government revenue because people more will drive more with lower prices. People then purchase more gas, and the per-gallon tax sends more money to the government"(Attia). If people have to pay less for gas then they do not feel as bad about driving so much because they don't have to spend as much. In the end they spend more because they feel like they are saving money even though they are spending more money.
The government makes massive amounts of money with little change in prices. "For every 1 cent increase in the gas tax, $1.5 billion is taken away from American consumers"(Attia). The government could barely change the prices and make billions of dollars. The government does not need to make large changes to make large amounts of money. If the government only makes a one cent change in price not many people would notice.
I believe that the gas tax that we currently have is fair. The money that is gained from that goes towards our roads and make sure that our roadways are safe to drive on. If the government takes more gas money then the families that are low income and can barely afford the car that they are driving. If we make gas too much for low income families then those families will suffer more than the rest because then they do not have enough money to get gas to get to their job that they need to feed their families. if we raise the gas tax then we could do more bad than good.
The government makes massive amounts of money with little change in prices. "For every 1 cent increase in the gas tax, $1.5 billion is taken away from American consumers"(Attia). The government could barely change the prices and make billions of dollars. The government does not need to make large changes to make large amounts of money. If the government only makes a one cent change in price not many people would notice.
I believe that the gas tax that we currently have is fair. The money that is gained from that goes towards our roads and make sure that our roadways are safe to drive on. If the government takes more gas money then the families that are low income and can barely afford the car that they are driving. If we make gas too much for low income families then those families will suffer more than the rest because then they do not have enough money to get gas to get to their job that they need to feed their families. if we raise the gas tax then we could do more bad than good.
Pollution tax
In favor:
The tax on gas should go up. according to thehill.com they say that the highway trust funds for the highways in america is not enough to keep the maintenance and expanding up to date. They are saying that raising the gas tax is the solution for that problem. By raising the federal gas tax that could jump start the way to cleaning the planet.
Argument:
If the Federal gas tax goes up it will hurt the economic growth of the economy. According atr.org they say that the tax hike will reduce the income of many Americans because they have to pay for the overly priced gas they need to drive their kids to and from school. That goes hand in hand with the tax hike, if it happens that means less bills for middle and lower class Americans have to pay their bills that goes into the governments pocket and means a reduced rate of the economic growth in the country.
My opinion:
Even though a clean earth is what most people should start worrying about I do not think that we should raise gas tax. If the government does decide to raise the tax people will have to start taking the bus or walking and that is a good thing for the environment, but not for the economy. The money they get from gas would start to go down, that would be money lost for the government, if they decided to raise the tax on gas, and that means worse roads, and more traffic jams all around the country. we could always clean up the earth but in a different way, but if there are more traffic jams that just means more cars running for longer, and that wouldn't be the best for the environment either.
The tax on gas should go up. according to thehill.com they say that the highway trust funds for the highways in america is not enough to keep the maintenance and expanding up to date. They are saying that raising the gas tax is the solution for that problem. By raising the federal gas tax that could jump start the way to cleaning the planet.
Argument:
If the Federal gas tax goes up it will hurt the economic growth of the economy. According atr.org they say that the tax hike will reduce the income of many Americans because they have to pay for the overly priced gas they need to drive their kids to and from school. That goes hand in hand with the tax hike, if it happens that means less bills for middle and lower class Americans have to pay their bills that goes into the governments pocket and means a reduced rate of the economic growth in the country.
My opinion:
Even though a clean earth is what most people should start worrying about I do not think that we should raise gas tax. If the government does decide to raise the tax people will have to start taking the bus or walking and that is a good thing for the environment, but not for the economy. The money they get from gas would start to go down, that would be money lost for the government, if they decided to raise the tax on gas, and that means worse roads, and more traffic jams all around the country. we could always clean up the earth but in a different way, but if there are more traffic jams that just means more cars running for longer, and that wouldn't be the best for the environment either.
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Should we raise pollution tax?
There are many benefits to raising the state and federal taxes on gasoline. Raising taxes on gas would cause fewer people to drive and maybe even carpool. Like the energy institute at Haas said: "when we drive we impose a long list of negative externalities" like the impacts of the fumes and how the environment is affected, how much pollution is created by people driving to and from places. These are two examples of why we need to raise the tax because if we do then people will maybe start carpooling to places and help stop pollution which will help the environment not die and become unstable.
One disadvantage of raising the gas tax is that it will hurt middle-class families. according to Americans for tax reform," middle-income households make up roughly one -third American's" by raising the tax on gas would hurt these families because they are already making very little money this would mean that there would be less money in their pockets. not only are you hurting middle-income families but you are also hurting the economy because if you raise taxes more people won't buy gas which would crush the gas industry and take money out of their pockets.
My opinion is that we should not raise the gas tax because it would not only hurt the middle-income families it would hurt the economy. a lot of people say that the taxes would help the government improve the roads and highways but how would it help if no ones buying gas because it's too expensive and some people are barely making enough to live. It hurts the economy too because it takes money out of these huge gas companies pockets because with the tax raise nobody would buy gas so then companies would need to jack up prices to even make a profit which then would make even more people not want to get gas. this is why I do not support the raising of the gas tax.
One disadvantage of raising the gas tax is that it will hurt middle-class families. according to Americans for tax reform," middle-income households make up roughly one -third American's" by raising the tax on gas would hurt these families because they are already making very little money this would mean that there would be less money in their pockets. not only are you hurting middle-income families but you are also hurting the economy because if you raise taxes more people won't buy gas which would crush the gas industry and take money out of their pockets.
My opinion is that we should not raise the gas tax because it would not only hurt the middle-income families it would hurt the economy. a lot of people say that the taxes would help the government improve the roads and highways but how would it help if no ones buying gas because it's too expensive and some people are barely making enough to live. It hurts the economy too because it takes money out of these huge gas companies pockets because with the tax raise nobody would buy gas so then companies would need to jack up prices to even make a profit which then would make even more people not want to get gas. this is why I do not support the raising of the gas tax.
Pollution Taxes
A pollution tax or green tax as some politicians call it has been around for a while. When reviewing the limitations on how much an increase should be, it should be noticeable, but not high enough to make people stop buying. According to the Tax Policy Center (Howard Gleckman, taxpolicycenter.org, 2019), both businesses and people, could afford a 25 cent increase. This would significantly increase the amount of funding that would be available for road funds. Over time this tax increase will have amassed enough money to fix roads and highways.
The downsides to increasing the tax on gas is that you would see the middle class respond negatively as they are the ones driving the most. Seeing that now it is pricier to drive somewhere, we would see other items become more expensive as it is now worth more to make and purchase. Raising this tax would not only hurt the people or businesses, but it would make the economy take a huge hit (Emma Boone, Atr.org, 2015).
Personally, I believe that having a tax increase would not be beneficial. This increase would not be beneficial as it would not be efficient for businesses. As stated prior, prices of consumer goods would go up because of the price of driving. This means that businesses would have to offset their whole income ratio for that year. Increasing the tax on gasoline would only through everyone off and might even make our economy worse, this is why I am against a tax increase.
The downsides to increasing the tax on gas is that you would see the middle class respond negatively as they are the ones driving the most. Seeing that now it is pricier to drive somewhere, we would see other items become more expensive as it is now worth more to make and purchase. Raising this tax would not only hurt the people or businesses, but it would make the economy take a huge hit (Emma Boone, Atr.org, 2015).
Personally, I believe that having a tax increase would not be beneficial. This increase would not be beneficial as it would not be efficient for businesses. As stated prior, prices of consumer goods would go up because of the price of driving. This means that businesses would have to offset their whole income ratio for that year. Increasing the tax on gasoline would only through everyone off and might even make our economy worse, this is why I am against a tax increase.
Noah Abbott - Pollution Tax
Raising the taxes on gas will bring in much more money for the federal government. According to Travis Brown, if the gas tax was raised by $1, it would bring in $100 billion dollars for the federal government to spend on many things (Brown, howmoneywalks.com, 2015). The economy would overall be better if we raised these taxes by just $1. This money would better help the transportation systems, public schools, or anything else that is federally funded.
Raising the taxes on gas would put even more pressure on most Americans. Emma Boone states that the gas tax will increase the price for many other consumers goods, which will hurt middle to lower- income families (Boone, atr.org, 2015). With the taxes being higher other goods will also cost more, which will hurt many people since they won't be able to buy the things they need for their everyday life. The only ones not being hurt by this are the upper-income people, which only makes up less than 25% of the U.S. population.
I believe the tax should not be raised, as it will hurt the middle and lower-income class. These people would have to pay more for other goods as well as more for their gas. This is not fair as the upper class would be able to pay for it easily. The U.S. also gets income taxes which could easily pay for the roads, parks, and other things the government pays for. These taxes would also lead to less people driving which would bring down the revenue for car companies, and would overall hurt the economy.
Raising the taxes on gas would put even more pressure on most Americans. Emma Boone states that the gas tax will increase the price for many other consumers goods, which will hurt middle to lower- income families (Boone, atr.org, 2015). With the taxes being higher other goods will also cost more, which will hurt many people since they won't be able to buy the things they need for their everyday life. The only ones not being hurt by this are the upper-income people, which only makes up less than 25% of the U.S. population.
I believe the tax should not be raised, as it will hurt the middle and lower-income class. These people would have to pay more for other goods as well as more for their gas. This is not fair as the upper class would be able to pay for it easily. The U.S. also gets income taxes which could easily pay for the roads, parks, and other things the government pays for. These taxes would also lead to less people driving which would bring down the revenue for car companies, and would overall hurt the economy.
Pollution Taxes
One argument for pollution taxes being raised is that it would help repair infrastructure in the city where the taxes are raised. According to the Chicago Tribune, the gas tax might be raised 19 cents to "fund road and bridge repairs. This would be a good thing because more than 80% of bridges need to be repaired so this could be the start.
One argument against raising taxes is that it would increase the price of consumer goods. According to atr.org "most goods are transported via highway" which would cost more due to gas costing more which in turn would "lead to higher prices of goods." This would destroy the middle and lower classes because they would have to pay more for gas and goods.
In my opinion gas taxes do not need to be raised. I think that they are at an okay spot where it isn't an absurd amount but also is cheap. I think that if they are raised however it could help the air pollution because less people would drive gas-powered vehicles but would hurt due to the rise in prices of goods.
One argument against raising taxes is that it would increase the price of consumer goods. According to atr.org "most goods are transported via highway" which would cost more due to gas costing more which in turn would "lead to higher prices of goods." This would destroy the middle and lower classes because they would have to pay more for gas and goods.
In my opinion gas taxes do not need to be raised. I think that they are at an okay spot where it isn't an absurd amount but also is cheap. I think that if they are raised however it could help the air pollution because less people would drive gas-powered vehicles but would hurt due to the rise in prices of goods.
Pollution Taxes Alex Springer
The government should raise the pollution tax on gas. An increase of the pollution tax could greatly benefit the economy. An increase in pollution tax, according to Senator Tom Carper, would allow the country to increase its infrastructure and better improve the transportation of the country. The improvement of the infrastructure would drastically change the way our country could function. Goods could be transported across the country and out of the country at a faster rate and more money would run through the country which would be a great benefit.
The government should not raise the pollution tax on gas. Raising the pollution tax would have a huge effect on the number of people that would be able to drive which is bad for those who need transportation to commute to places of employment. According to Emma Boone, a tax expert, raising taxes would mostly affect the middle and lower classes. This is bad for the economy because it limits the flow of money from employer to employee. If taxes were raised people would not be able to buy gas as often and more of the money that they make would have to be spent on gas, which goes against all the hard work that they put in. Raising taxes would not even make that much of a difference for the government, but a huge difference for those who pay for gas.
The government should not raise the pollution tax on gas. The cons of raising taxes on pollution, highly outweigh those of the pros. The main benefit of raising the taxes would be the difference it could make for infrastructure, which is highly beneficial, but the millions of people that could be sucked into poverty are not worth that of raising the pollution tax. If more people ever manage to make it out of poverty and into the middle or upper class, then we can raise the tax on gas and focus on infrastructure, but as of right now it is not worth raising the taxes on gas.
The government should not raise the pollution tax on gas. Raising the pollution tax would have a huge effect on the number of people that would be able to drive which is bad for those who need transportation to commute to places of employment. According to Emma Boone, a tax expert, raising taxes would mostly affect the middle and lower classes. This is bad for the economy because it limits the flow of money from employer to employee. If taxes were raised people would not be able to buy gas as often and more of the money that they make would have to be spent on gas, which goes against all the hard work that they put in. Raising taxes would not even make that much of a difference for the government, but a huge difference for those who pay for gas.
The government should not raise the pollution tax on gas. The cons of raising taxes on pollution, highly outweigh those of the pros. The main benefit of raising the taxes would be the difference it could make for infrastructure, which is highly beneficial, but the millions of people that could be sucked into poverty are not worth that of raising the pollution tax. If more people ever manage to make it out of poverty and into the middle or upper class, then we can raise the tax on gas and focus on infrastructure, but as of right now it is not worth raising the taxes on gas.
Pollution Tax
Pro: By putting a tax on gasoline, we will not only decrease the amount of fossil fuels used, but make the planet healthier. The tax should be installed since it would be a small price to make our world a better place. "In fact, the authors estimate that the health benefits of a gasoline tax would increase by 90 percent once the variation in responsiveness of vehicle emissions is taken into account."(Brunel, nber.org, 2019). As this statistic shows, health benefits could increase by 90% if were to have a gas tax. This would be because less people would be driving so far, or as much. Since the price increased, public transportation would increase which would help get even more cars off the road.
Con: A con to raising the gas tax is that it will cost more money for the American people to get gas. This increase will cause Americans to make tougher decisions about how they spend their money. This will only make it tougher for families living paycheck to paycheck and they may have to sacrifice other things to get the gas they need. "It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities."(Boone, atr.org, 2015). With all this money being taken from American people this will hurt the economy and the American people, taking away even more money from the people. Raising the gas tax will only hurt the American economy and it's people.
In my opinion I don't think the gas tax should be raised. If we were to raise this tax, it would only hurt the economy and the American people. It would make some of them even more desperate, and they would have to choose what they couldn't get so they could get gas. We would be forcing people to possibly give up things they need to have a good life. This would hurt the economy as people would have to give up certain things they like to have in their life. Which would hurt the businesses that make them. I believe that the gas tax shouldn't be raised because it would hurt the economy and the American people.
Con: A con to raising the gas tax is that it will cost more money for the American people to get gas. This increase will cause Americans to make tougher decisions about how they spend their money. This will only make it tougher for families living paycheck to paycheck and they may have to sacrifice other things to get the gas they need. "It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities."(Boone, atr.org, 2015). With all this money being taken from American people this will hurt the economy and the American people, taking away even more money from the people. Raising the gas tax will only hurt the American economy and it's people.
In my opinion I don't think the gas tax should be raised. If we were to raise this tax, it would only hurt the economy and the American people. It would make some of them even more desperate, and they would have to choose what they couldn't get so they could get gas. We would be forcing people to possibly give up things they need to have a good life. This would hurt the economy as people would have to give up certain things they like to have in their life. Which would hurt the businesses that make them. I believe that the gas tax shouldn't be raised because it would hurt the economy and the American people.
Pollution Taxes
There are many benefits of increasing the state and federal tax on gasoline. Some believe that we are too reliant on a potentially detrimental industry to our country. Raising taxes on oil would cause less people to drive, thus benefiting the environment and quality of air. In addition, raising taxes on oil "would help pay for the President's $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan" (Rapier, Business Insider, 2018). The government needs tax dollars in order to operate. This tax, along with other consumer taxes, would allow people to determine how much and when they are taxed. People could make many choices to offset the high cost. For example, people can drive less often, get fuel efficient cars, carpool, or take the public transit.
There are also several disadvantages of raising the tax on gasoline. Some are convinced that increasing the tax on gasoline will hurt the economy. "It's estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers' pockets. That's $1 billion that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and other leisure activities" (Boone, Americans for Tax Reform, 2015). In addition, since companies need to transport goods from store to store, businesses will be forced to raise the prices of their consumer goods to pay for the extra costs. People are convinced that the government will use the extra funds for more wasteful spending instead of using it to pay off debts. Therefore, some believe that this proposal will only reduce the discretionary income of millions of Americans. Economists have shown that reductions in discretionary income often correspond with diminished economic growth.
After analyzing both sides of the debate over pollution taxes I am against raising taxes on gasoline. Scientists have gone back and forth over weather global warming is real. Due to the lack of knowledge on how air pollution affects the environment, I don't see the environmental benefit as a compelling reason to sacrifice our economy. Many Americans don't have the money to afford this additional cost of gasoline. Therefore, this proposal would prevent millions of Americans from driving their own vehicles daily. We should not have to sacrifice our quality of life to compensate for poor financial decisions on behalf of the government. Taxes are already too high. The government should stop giving money away before they increase the tax burden.
There are also several disadvantages of raising the tax on gasoline. Some are convinced that increasing the tax on gasoline will hurt the economy. "It's estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers' pockets. That's $1 billion that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and other leisure activities" (Boone, Americans for Tax Reform, 2015). In addition, since companies need to transport goods from store to store, businesses will be forced to raise the prices of their consumer goods to pay for the extra costs. People are convinced that the government will use the extra funds for more wasteful spending instead of using it to pay off debts. Therefore, some believe that this proposal will only reduce the discretionary income of millions of Americans. Economists have shown that reductions in discretionary income often correspond with diminished economic growth.
After analyzing both sides of the debate over pollution taxes I am against raising taxes on gasoline. Scientists have gone back and forth over weather global warming is real. Due to the lack of knowledge on how air pollution affects the environment, I don't see the environmental benefit as a compelling reason to sacrifice our economy. Many Americans don't have the money to afford this additional cost of gasoline. Therefore, this proposal would prevent millions of Americans from driving their own vehicles daily. We should not have to sacrifice our quality of life to compensate for poor financial decisions on behalf of the government. Taxes are already too high. The government should stop giving money away before they increase the tax burden.
The automotive business is something that has been increasing rapidly throughout the last century. Since the creation of the car the world's prices on some natural resources and things such as gasoline have been going up. "funding some of the costs of the Administration's $1.5 trillion Infrastructure plan"(Forbes.com, David Blackman, 2018). The plan for the trump administration is to increase the creation of a stronger infrastructure of the American Roadways around the United States. The rise in the gas tax would contribute to the growth in better roadways as well as bridges which are currently faulting and most are too broken to be repaired yet they are still allowed to be driven across.
Though most roadways are lacking repairs and the government is unable to provide proper funding in the 2019 budget in order to repair roadways, it shouldn't be put onto the people of America to be forced to pay outrageous gas taxes. This can hurt most normal mid to low class drivers and would cause a troubling fact that would be added to the already failing budgets that they are forced to deal with. "It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities"(Atr.org, Boone, 2018). This would just make poverty rates increase and hurt the economy.
The gas taxes shouldn't be raised for the simple fact that most people around the country to rely on the ability to get to work and other places to earn money and support their families through the use of a car. Taking the poverty-ridden families abilities to get to work and provide for their family since the gas taxes would be too high to be able to be paid would break families and people. All this would do is just increase the amount of poverty in our country today. If anything the gas price should be lower to compensate for lower income families.
Pollution Tax
Here is why it is increase a tax on pollution is a good idea. Washington Environmental Council communications director stated that a "carbon fee is just one of the ways the state is tacking pollution (Lam, USA Today, 2019). Adding on, "several local governments have committed to 100 percent renewable energy" (Lam, USA Today, 2019), which can be a better alternative for fuel and energy to reduce pollution. Finally, the prices would go up if the bill gets approved for a higher tax on gasoline is because the funds would be used for both environmental and infrastructure needs. In conclusion, those are some things on why it is a good idea to put a higher tax on higher gasoline for pollution.
Now here is why it is a terrible idea to tax gasoline for pollution. The tax on the emissions would not be good at reducing inefficiencies. What that means is that "the dirtiest vehicles, which are most responsive to an emissions tax, would not be taxed enough while some clean vehicles would be over-taxed" (Brunel, NBER, 2019). Basically, there is no point in raising a tax or doing a possible solution in general if it will do little or no help to stop the conflict/conflicts. In conclusion, those are some reasons why it is not good to raise a tax on gasoline.
Here is where I stand on increasing a gas tax for pollution. I do not think the government should increase the tax. First of all, I do not see how we are being benefited. It is very hard for us to stop pollution as a whole, so there is no reason to increase the tax. The government can start doing hands on pollution him/herself, or use the extra tax money, if there is any, to solve the problem. Overall, those are some reasons why it is a bad idea to increase the tax on gasoline for pollution.
Now here is why it is a terrible idea to tax gasoline for pollution. The tax on the emissions would not be good at reducing inefficiencies. What that means is that "the dirtiest vehicles, which are most responsive to an emissions tax, would not be taxed enough while some clean vehicles would be over-taxed" (Brunel, NBER, 2019). Basically, there is no point in raising a tax or doing a possible solution in general if it will do little or no help to stop the conflict/conflicts. In conclusion, those are some reasons why it is not good to raise a tax on gasoline.
Here is where I stand on increasing a gas tax for pollution. I do not think the government should increase the tax. First of all, I do not see how we are being benefited. It is very hard for us to stop pollution as a whole, so there is no reason to increase the tax. The government can start doing hands on pollution him/herself, or use the extra tax money, if there is any, to solve the problem. Overall, those are some reasons why it is a bad idea to increase the tax on gasoline for pollution.
Pollution Taxes
One pro to having higher pollution taxes on gas is because it will make people cut back on how much they use it. Oecd.org states that " Environmental pricing through taxation leaves consumers and businesses the flexibility to
determine how best to reduce their environmental “footprint". If people can make a smaller footprint our environment will flourish instead of giving us snow in April. Nobody wants the world to be covered in smog and car fumes for the next generations to come. Most of the people want what's best for people so they can help make an impact on the world.
One con is that raising pollution taxes on gasoline will hurt the people who are trying to work low-end jobs who are trying to help pay for their family. That extra tax on gas can take away a meal for that family. Nber.org states that" That same increase in gas prices would also increase hours worked by 0.07 percent, approximately 2 hours per household per year". Pollution taxes are making people work longer hours just so they can pay or gas and food for their families. Working longer hours also means time away from family which no parent likes.
I am all for raising pollutions taxes as the benefits to our environment is all for it in my opinion. Being able to live in a world where I do not have to wear a mask from too many gases in the air that might give me cancer or asthma. I want the world we live in to live as long as it can without it blowing the earth up. People will be able to help keep the environment just by not riving as much or carpooling. Simple solution can go a far way.
One con is that raising pollution taxes on gasoline will hurt the people who are trying to work low-end jobs who are trying to help pay for their family. That extra tax on gas can take away a meal for that family. Nber.org states that" That same increase in gas prices would also increase hours worked by 0.07 percent, approximately 2 hours per household per year". Pollution taxes are making people work longer hours just so they can pay or gas and food for their families. Working longer hours also means time away from family which no parent likes.
I am all for raising pollutions taxes as the benefits to our environment is all for it in my opinion. Being able to live in a world where I do not have to wear a mask from too many gases in the air that might give me cancer or asthma. I want the world we live in to live as long as it can without it blowing the earth up. People will be able to help keep the environment just by not riving as much or carpooling. Simple solution can go a far way.
Gas Tax
Gasoline taxes are questioned a lot because it has obvious positives and negatives that come with it. Focusing on the positive, gas taxes would be able to help the funding towards many bad roads in the US. It was stated that 1 in 5 miles of road needs to be repaired (ASCE, Infrastructure Report Card, 2017). These taxes could also help people be more cautious about driving when they do not need to.
If gas were to be taxed more, there would be other issues that come with it too. Hederman and Goyburu from heritage.org state that "gasoline consumption would not decrease significantly in the short run if the tax were increased" (2004). Many people would not change their driving habits and instead would only be losing money. This would turn people to sacrifice other things to pay for gas.
I believe that it would be a good thing to raise the gasoline taxes. In addition to funding for better roads, it could also help more public transportation be available. This could drastically change how people get places, and it could also help save a lot of money in the long run. It could also cut down on the amount of traffic in bigger cities. The only negatives that come with increasing this tax is that people would have a lower ability to pay for gas, and people would have to get used to other means of transportation instead of driving everywhere without thinking of the implications of fuel emissions.
If gas were to be taxed more, there would be other issues that come with it too. Hederman and Goyburu from heritage.org state that "gasoline consumption would not decrease significantly in the short run if the tax were increased" (2004). Many people would not change their driving habits and instead would only be losing money. This would turn people to sacrifice other things to pay for gas.
I believe that it would be a good thing to raise the gasoline taxes. In addition to funding for better roads, it could also help more public transportation be available. This could drastically change how people get places, and it could also help save a lot of money in the long run. It could also cut down on the amount of traffic in bigger cities. The only negatives that come with increasing this tax is that people would have a lower ability to pay for gas, and people would have to get used to other means of transportation instead of driving everywhere without thinking of the implications of fuel emissions.
Wednesday, May 1, 2019
Pollution Taxes
Argument in favor:
Many benefits can come with increasing our pollution tax on gasoline. One of the major benefits for increasing the tax is that we would reduce the amount of pollution in our atmosphere and contribute more to government programs. According to pbs.org, by increasing the gas tax it can reduce the chain of pollution which leads to better health outcomes and climate change as well as congested roadways (Dan Siechel, pbs.org, 2018). People would be forced to use different alternatives to get from one place to another if they didn't want to pay the higher tax. Also by raising the tax on gas, we are able to contribute more to government programs. For example, we would be giving more to police, firefighters, and even help pay for the construction of roads. So by increasing the tax on gas, we could be benefiting others and our Earth in many different ways.
Argument against:
There are also many arguments against raising the gas tax. The number one argument is that people won't be able to afford it. It will especially hurt middle - income Americans who make up one third of the American population. According the Americans for Tax Reform, "if we increase the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too (Emma Boone, atr.org, 2015). If the tax in increased, it not only hurts the consumer but the economy as well and in this case, both parties lose. Not only is that all, but prices of production will rise as well because it would be more expensive to transport goods from one place to another and this also means more financial pressure on the middle class. Overall, raising the tax on gas might hurt the economy more than help it.
My position:
In my opinion, I don't think we should raise the gas tax. There could be too much to risk if we were to raise the tax and it would impact many aspects of the economy and the people. Many citizens are already struggling as it is to afford the daily necessities for life so increasing the tax rate would only hurt them more. Instead of putting the money to food, water, clothing, etc., they have pay an extra fee just to be able to transport themselves around the area. Even if we only increased by a little, it wouldn't have much on an effect on people with more money because it's easier for them to pay for things but it might hurt the minimum wage workers by a good amount. Also, it would put in a dent in our economic growth because it will impact the prices of the goods made. So, overall I do not think we should increase the tax on gas because it could hurt the economy by a great amount.
Many benefits can come with increasing our pollution tax on gasoline. One of the major benefits for increasing the tax is that we would reduce the amount of pollution in our atmosphere and contribute more to government programs. According to pbs.org, by increasing the gas tax it can reduce the chain of pollution which leads to better health outcomes and climate change as well as congested roadways (Dan Siechel, pbs.org, 2018). People would be forced to use different alternatives to get from one place to another if they didn't want to pay the higher tax. Also by raising the tax on gas, we are able to contribute more to government programs. For example, we would be giving more to police, firefighters, and even help pay for the construction of roads. So by increasing the tax on gas, we could be benefiting others and our Earth in many different ways.
Argument against:
There are also many arguments against raising the gas tax. The number one argument is that people won't be able to afford it. It will especially hurt middle - income Americans who make up one third of the American population. According the Americans for Tax Reform, "if we increase the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too (Emma Boone, atr.org, 2015). If the tax in increased, it not only hurts the consumer but the economy as well and in this case, both parties lose. Not only is that all, but prices of production will rise as well because it would be more expensive to transport goods from one place to another and this also means more financial pressure on the middle class. Overall, raising the tax on gas might hurt the economy more than help it.
My position:
In my opinion, I don't think we should raise the gas tax. There could be too much to risk if we were to raise the tax and it would impact many aspects of the economy and the people. Many citizens are already struggling as it is to afford the daily necessities for life so increasing the tax rate would only hurt them more. Instead of putting the money to food, water, clothing, etc., they have pay an extra fee just to be able to transport themselves around the area. Even if we only increased by a little, it wouldn't have much on an effect on people with more money because it's easier for them to pay for things but it might hurt the minimum wage workers by a good amount. Also, it would put in a dent in our economic growth because it will impact the prices of the goods made. So, overall I do not think we should increase the tax on gas because it could hurt the economy by a great amount.
pollution taxes
putting more taxes on gas could help the environment. If less people were driving on the roads it would help with the pollution. Putting more taxes on gas would lower the demand of gas. "the tax would also encourage people to cycle or walk to work, promoting a healthy lifestyle." ( Crystal Lombardo futureofworking.com) If people find a eco-friendly ways to help the environment there would be less pollution and carbon emissions going into the atmosphere.
Keeping the taxes the same could help with jobs and employment. "this would mean that a significant number of workers would lose their jobs, causing unemployment rates to shoot to the roof." (Crystal Lombardo futureofworking.com). It might help the environment but people could have a hard time getting to work and lose they job for being late to their jobs. If people can't afford cars it would affect people making money and buying things to survive. It would hurt companies if people aren't buying things because people can't afford it.
I don't think there should be more taxes on gas. The government might make more money from the taxes, but if people can't afford a car it can raise unemployment. It also will hurt the middle class because gas would dramatically increase and not everybody in the middle class can afford to pay more for gas.
Keeping the taxes the same could help with jobs and employment. "this would mean that a significant number of workers would lose their jobs, causing unemployment rates to shoot to the roof." (Crystal Lombardo futureofworking.com). It might help the environment but people could have a hard time getting to work and lose they job for being late to their jobs. If people can't afford cars it would affect people making money and buying things to survive. It would hurt companies if people aren't buying things because people can't afford it.
I don't think there should be more taxes on gas. The government might make more money from the taxes, but if people can't afford a car it can raise unemployment. It also will hurt the middle class because gas would dramatically increase and not everybody in the middle class can afford to pay more for gas.
One benefit of the government increasing the pollution tax on gasoline is that it could potentially help lower the demand for oil, which is a natural resource that adds pollutants to the environment every day. By increasing taxes it will potentially lower the consumption of oil. "Therefore, I believe we need to limit our level of dependence on crude oil, and shift to more sustainable energy sources" (Robert Rapier, www.businessinsider.com, 2018). Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline would have the benefit of potentially lowering the demand/usage of oil, which is better for the environment.
One negative of the government increasing pollution taxes on gasoline is that it will hurt middle class Americans the most, and the middle class makes up nearly one-third of Americans. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too" (Jsykes, www.atr.org, 2015). Ultimately rasing taxes on gasoline will not only hurt the wallet of many Americans but it will also hurt the economy. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline has the negative that it will mainly hurt middle class Americans, which will in turn hurt the economy.
I believe that the US government should not increase the pollution taxes on gasoline because gasoline prices are high as it is, and it will leave many Americans without the ability to pay. Gasoline is expensive with the current federal sales tax on gasoline at $0.184/gallon. By increasing this tax it would be unfair because it would leave many Americans without the ability to pay the tax. Finally, I believe that the US government should not increase the pollution taxes on gasoline because it will cause the price of gas to be irrationally high.
One negative of the government increasing pollution taxes on gasoline is that it will hurt middle class Americans the most, and the middle class makes up nearly one-third of Americans. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too" (Jsykes, www.atr.org, 2015). Ultimately rasing taxes on gasoline will not only hurt the wallet of many Americans but it will also hurt the economy. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline has the negative that it will mainly hurt middle class Americans, which will in turn hurt the economy.
I believe that the US government should not increase the pollution taxes on gasoline because gasoline prices are high as it is, and it will leave many Americans without the ability to pay. Gasoline is expensive with the current federal sales tax on gasoline at $0.184/gallon. By increasing this tax it would be unfair because it would leave many Americans without the ability to pay the tax. Finally, I believe that the US government should not increase the pollution taxes on gasoline because it will cause the price of gas to be irrationally high.
Should the various levels of American government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline?
There are arguments for both sides of raising gas taxes. One argument in favor of raising taxes on gasoline is how "Higher taxes on motor fuels could raise significant revenue to pay for infrastructure"(Dan Sichel, PBS, 2019). With an increase in the tax of gas, the Government would be able to provide better roads to drivers. This is a good way to get the money because people who don't drive will not have to pay for this, as it is calculated into the cost of gas. The Highway Trust Fund is currently in a deficit, and they are paying more annually, then they receive. Increasing the tax of gas would help eliminate the deficit.
One argument that is against raising the taxes on gas is how it is not proportional for all drivers. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their [the middle class] pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too. It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities"(Emma Boone, Americans for Tax Reform, 2015). If gas taxes are raised the middle class will be hurt the most, because the upper class has enough money to spend extra, and much of the lower class most likely cannot afford vehicles. The middle class (which makes up roughly 1/3 of America), can afford vehicles, but many could not afford the raised prices of taxes. This would cause the government to lose much of the money that it could potentially gain from raising taxes on gas.
I think that the government should not raise the taxes on gasoline. I think that although it could help the government earn more money for struggling programs, much of the money would not be received because much of the middle class would have to stop, or significantly reduce the amount, that they drive. Not raising the tax on gas allows more people to be able to pay for it. It is very simple because it is already in place, but people would receive more benefits if there was an increased tax, because more roads, bridges and other transportation necessities could be improved.
There are arguments for both sides of raising gas taxes. One argument in favor of raising taxes on gasoline is how "Higher taxes on motor fuels could raise significant revenue to pay for infrastructure"(Dan Sichel, PBS, 2019). With an increase in the tax of gas, the Government would be able to provide better roads to drivers. This is a good way to get the money because people who don't drive will not have to pay for this, as it is calculated into the cost of gas. The Highway Trust Fund is currently in a deficit, and they are paying more annually, then they receive. Increasing the tax of gas would help eliminate the deficit.
One argument that is against raising the taxes on gas is how it is not proportional for all drivers. "By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their [the middle class] pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too. It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities"(Emma Boone, Americans for Tax Reform, 2015). If gas taxes are raised the middle class will be hurt the most, because the upper class has enough money to spend extra, and much of the lower class most likely cannot afford vehicles. The middle class (which makes up roughly 1/3 of America), can afford vehicles, but many could not afford the raised prices of taxes. This would cause the government to lose much of the money that it could potentially gain from raising taxes on gas.
I think that the government should not raise the taxes on gasoline. I think that although it could help the government earn more money for struggling programs, much of the money would not be received because much of the middle class would have to stop, or significantly reduce the amount, that they drive. Not raising the tax on gas allows more people to be able to pay for it. It is very simple because it is already in place, but people would receive more benefits if there was an increased tax, because more roads, bridges and other transportation necessities could be improved.
Increasing the U.S. Polution Tax on Gasoline
Should the U.S Government increase the polution tax on Gasoline?
By Ryan Coiner
In England the British drivers are more heavily taxed at the pump than any other motorists in Europe. They are doing this because a big percent of the money goes to the government to pay for other things. The government gets 61% for every liter of petrol and 59% for every litre of diesel (Nick Collins, www. telegraph.co.uk, March 2014). The taxes on fuel haven't increased since 2011 but if they do increase even more than some people might start walking or using bikes to save money and to help the environment.
Other people in the world, like the United States, disagree with increasing the pollution tax on gasoline. These people who disagree say that an increase in tax will have a good chance of increasing the price of consumer goods (Emma Boone, www.art.org, May 29, 2015). They are saying that people will now have to pay more money for the items at a store because it takes more fuel and more money for trucks to deliver the goods. This increase would hurt the people who don't have as much money the most.
In my opinion I don't think that the U.S. Government should increase the pollution tax on gasoline. I don't think they should because people are taxed enough and that could make prices for everything go up more than they need to be. Most people need the money more for something else that is more important like food for their family or just other basic things they need to live like paying for their house or their bills. Maybe the U.S. government could find a different thing to tax that wouldn't hurt as many people.
Other people in the world, like the United States, disagree with increasing the pollution tax on gasoline. These people who disagree say that an increase in tax will have a good chance of increasing the price of consumer goods (Emma Boone, www.art.org, May 29, 2015). They are saying that people will now have to pay more money for the items at a store because it takes more fuel and more money for trucks to deliver the goods. This increase would hurt the people who don't have as much money the most.
In my opinion I don't think that the U.S. Government should increase the pollution tax on gasoline. I don't think they should because people are taxed enough and that could make prices for everything go up more than they need to be. Most people need the money more for something else that is more important like food for their family or just other basic things they need to live like paying for their house or their bills. Maybe the U.S. government could find a different thing to tax that wouldn't hurt as many people.
Pollution Taxes
Our government should increase the pollution tax on gasoline. Increasing the pollution tax on gasoline will ultimately lead to benefits received by those paying the taxes. The earth will be cleaner because fewer people will be using gasoline and emitting carbon. "With higher taxes, firms will reduce pollution and lock for alternatives which have a lower environmental impact. For example, it will make solar power even more competitive than traditional fossil fuels" (Tejvan Pettinger, economicshelp.org, 2017).
Our government should not increase the pollution tax on gasoline. Not all people that afford cars can afford the increase in tax. Many people use their cars to transport their children to school, themselves to work, or visiting family. People should not be financially punished for doing these things. "Those that already struggle to afford a car will almost certainly be forced to find other means of transportation if gasoline tax increases " (Matthew Collins, GovernmentInSchools.edu, 2018).
I do not believe the pollution tax on gasoline should be increased. The government is receiving increased benefits, but many taxpayers suddenly need to sell their cars in order to be able to afford transportation. Not only will gasoline prices go up, but bus prices will, Uber, and other transportation services will be forced to increase their prices as well. In my opinion, the gasoline price is fine where it is. I do not support an increase in the pollution tax on gasoline.
Our government should not increase the pollution tax on gasoline. Not all people that afford cars can afford the increase in tax. Many people use their cars to transport their children to school, themselves to work, or visiting family. People should not be financially punished for doing these things. "Those that already struggle to afford a car will almost certainly be forced to find other means of transportation if gasoline tax increases " (Matthew Collins, GovernmentInSchools.edu, 2018).
I do not believe the pollution tax on gasoline should be increased. The government is receiving increased benefits, but many taxpayers suddenly need to sell their cars in order to be able to afford transportation. Not only will gasoline prices go up, but bus prices will, Uber, and other transportation services will be forced to increase their prices as well. In my opinion, the gasoline price is fine where it is. I do not support an increase in the pollution tax on gasoline.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Pollution Taxes (due Thurs, May 2 at 12:55 pm)
The Economics of Pollution Taxes:
The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.184/gallon. Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a state sales tax of $0.305/gallon. For comparison, the sales tax on gas in England is $3.44/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org, 2018). Should the various levels of American government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline? Analyze this issue using the following format:
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
2) In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the US government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.
This assignment is due by 12:55 pm on Thursday, May 2.
The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.184/gallon. Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a state sales tax of $0.305/gallon. For comparison, the sales tax on gas in England is $3.44/gallon (Source: taxfoundation.org, 2018). Should the various levels of American government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline? Analyze this issue using the following format:
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
2) In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against our government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the US government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.
This assignment is due by 12:55 pm on Thursday, May 2.
Friday, April 26, 2019
Should service hours be required?
One pro of requiring service hours is that they learn to respect their community and be able to give back to their communities. "Volunteering gives students a chance to give back."(Payton). Giving kids mandatory service hours helps them give back to their community. many high school students have homework, jobs and social lives that distract them from their communities, but with the service hours, it helps them get a better look at what's going on in their community.
one con of requiring service hours is that it might overwhelm students because it's one more thing they have to worry about on top of homework, a job, and now service hours. "They can easily become overwhelmed with homework, part-time jobs, sporting events, and home and church obligations."(Hagensen). with service hours students might lose time to do homework, study for tests, and having a social life. with service hours taking up most of their time we might see students test scores drop.
I feel like service hours shouldn't be required because it can be overwhelming for students that don't have time to do them. some students might not be able to because of struggling in class so they would need to focus on homework and studying than doing community service. This is my stance on should service hours be required.
one con of requiring service hours is that it might overwhelm students because it's one more thing they have to worry about on top of homework, a job, and now service hours. "They can easily become overwhelmed with homework, part-time jobs, sporting events, and home and church obligations."(Hagensen). with service hours students might lose time to do homework, study for tests, and having a social life. with service hours taking up most of their time we might see students test scores drop.
I feel like service hours shouldn't be required because it can be overwhelming for students that don't have time to do them. some students might not be able to because of struggling in class so they would need to focus on homework and studying than doing community service. This is my stance on should service hours be required.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
cheating in school
Some schools actually encourage cheating because it can allow them more government funding. "Incredibly, teachers may even be encouraging their students to cheat! Last year at a school in Detroit, teachers allegedly provided their students with answers to statewide standard tests" (). The students were asked to cheat on their tests because they knew that they would not get enough government funding without the students test scores improving. The staff knew that the students test scores needed to improve and instead of just teaching them with a better curriculum they just went the easy route and gave them the answers.
the schools that are the most strict are usually the ones that crack down the most on cheating. these schools are the ones that have the most cheating problems because they make the work too hard for the students."high-tech testing center, like the one they have at the University of Central Florida, no gum is allowed during an exam. That's because chewing could disguise a student speaking into a hands-free cell phone to an accomplice outside"(New York Times). The schools are making sure that the students have no chance to cheat in any way.
Cheating in school should not be seen as an example of what their future would be like. some kids cheat on tests because they have too much going on at home and do not have time to study. For kids like that their only option is to cheat in order to pass the class. if these kids cannot pass the class then it can make things worse for them at home. So i believe that cheating on tests and in school is not that big of an issue because most kids do not cheat.
Monday, April 22, 2019
Harsher Punishments for Cheating?
Here are some reasons why it is a good idea to add more harsh punishments to cheating. First off, the consequences for a student caught cheating is that "most teachers just give them a zero on the work and contact the student's parents" (Abdulla, Sun Sentinel, 1998). However, two schools, which are Pine Crest and Westminster, have more serious punishments than the typical punishments. "Both schools refer offenders to a committee that administers the punishment. Both schools [then] contact parents, award give zeros on the work and put students on probation" (Abdulla, Sun Sentinel, 1998). Those are some reasons why it is a good idea to add more harsh punishments to cheating.
Now here are some reasons why making punishments harder to cheating is a bad idea. First of all, "Eric Anderman, a professor of educational psychology at Ohio State University, says less cheating occurs 'when teachers emphasize that the learning is what's really important”' (Anderman, Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2008). Basically, the more time the teacher teaches the material as well as give students some time to study the material before the test day, the students will know the material and score well on the test without cheating. Finally, unless it is an emergency, the teacher will never leave the classroom during test days, which therefore makes it impossible to cheat because we are each monitored. In conclusion, those are some reasons why it is a bad idea to make punishment tougher if a student get caught cheating in school.
Here is where I stand with adding harsher punishments on students caught cheating. I do not think it is necessary to make punishments harsher for students caught cheating. Teachers rarely leave the room while students are taking tests, meaning that it would be tough for students to cheat because they are frequently being monitored by their teachers. Plus, I feel most teachers do a good job of teaching their content, meaning each student should know the material well enough before test days to prevent cheating. Overall, those are some reasons why I feel making punishments harder for cheating is not necessary.
Now here are some reasons why making punishments harder to cheating is a bad idea. First of all, "Eric Anderman, a professor of educational psychology at Ohio State University, says less cheating occurs 'when teachers emphasize that the learning is what's really important”' (Anderman, Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2008). Basically, the more time the teacher teaches the material as well as give students some time to study the material before the test day, the students will know the material and score well on the test without cheating. Finally, unless it is an emergency, the teacher will never leave the classroom during test days, which therefore makes it impossible to cheat because we are each monitored. In conclusion, those are some reasons why it is a bad idea to make punishment tougher if a student get caught cheating in school.
Here is where I stand with adding harsher punishments on students caught cheating. I do not think it is necessary to make punishments harsher for students caught cheating. Teachers rarely leave the room while students are taking tests, meaning that it would be tough for students to cheat because they are frequently being monitored by their teachers. Plus, I feel most teachers do a good job of teaching their content, meaning each student should know the material well enough before test days to prevent cheating. Overall, those are some reasons why I feel making punishments harder for cheating is not necessary.
Cheating in school
Pro harsher punishment
Schools need to crack down more on punishment because those students that are cheating on tests will just find a different way to cheat and not get caught. No lessons are learned from actions in place right now. Schools should be able or start enforcing more strict rules of getting dropped from the classes they cheat on. Neatoday.org says that students should not be given any opportunities to cheat on a test by taking away all technology and going simply as pencil paper. If any cheating is caught you're immediately called out and sent to the office with lasting punishment.
Cons to harsher punishment
The very big downside is that lots of people cheat on test for many different reasons. Some people can do it for only half a second where others do it for the whole test. Most people would not like to get punished because that stays on record and could hurt them later on in life. A cheater's report from U of I says that " I was left degreeless and stuck working at low paying jobs the rest of my life. Just because I was caught looking up one work on my test where I knew at least half the class was cheating on all of it." This case shows that punishment is a way to hard and can affect persons well being later on in life.
My opinion
I believe that harsh punishment should be harsher because people who cheat do not deserve that spot in life. The people who work hard day on day out deserve these good jobs and stability. I feel no remorse towards cheaters as they are practicing scummy habits. Automatic expulsion should be in effect as you cannot trust these individuals to not do it again. My views seem harsh but I hate to see cheaters flurish and do better than I when I do not cheat. A person needs strong morals to truly grow into adulthood.
Schools need to crack down more on punishment because those students that are cheating on tests will just find a different way to cheat and not get caught. No lessons are learned from actions in place right now. Schools should be able or start enforcing more strict rules of getting dropped from the classes they cheat on. Neatoday.org says that students should not be given any opportunities to cheat on a test by taking away all technology and going simply as pencil paper. If any cheating is caught you're immediately called out and sent to the office with lasting punishment.
Cons to harsher punishment
The very big downside is that lots of people cheat on test for many different reasons. Some people can do it for only half a second where others do it for the whole test. Most people would not like to get punished because that stays on record and could hurt them later on in life. A cheater's report from U of I says that " I was left degreeless and stuck working at low paying jobs the rest of my life. Just because I was caught looking up one work on my test where I knew at least half the class was cheating on all of it." This case shows that punishment is a way to hard and can affect persons well being later on in life.
My opinion
I believe that harsh punishment should be harsher because people who cheat do not deserve that spot in life. The people who work hard day on day out deserve these good jobs and stability. I feel no remorse towards cheaters as they are practicing scummy habits. Automatic expulsion should be in effect as you cannot trust these individuals to not do it again. My views seem harsh but I hate to see cheaters flurish and do better than I when I do not cheat. A person needs strong morals to truly grow into adulthood.
cheating punishents marty paris
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
I think that cheating should be harsher because it doesn't encourage learning. if someone is cheating than they don't need to know the material they are cheating on as that is the point of cheating. someone could learn to throw an ax and learn how to properly step, but if there was a much easier way to do the same task with the same results than everyone would do that. in video games, this is called dominant strategy the idea goes like this. in a video game, there is an instant win button if there is a difficult task up ahead the player, in this case, the student will do that every time if there are no harsh repercussions. so currently the fix to this problem is to make the punishment for hitting the win button more punishing but I don't think this is the fix at all if instead, the option was never there as in the win button never existing than that would circumvent the entire problem. in this analogy, the win button is cheating as this is almost impossible to remove if it was then the problem would never be there. my solution for making the punishment for cheating harsher is to remove cheating in general, but suppose that wasn't possible I would double whatever the current punishment because if kids are barely doing it now doubling the punishment would certainly remove a lot more.
2) In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
In the south capital punishment is the way people learn theirs. if nature doesn't kill people the schools might. direct punishment for not completing assignments on time or capital punishment at all in school is only prevalent in 19 states. I feel the reason they do this is for schools to be very harsh on students so that when they to the "real world" it feel much easier thought this is just speculation. whether or not what I think this is evidence supporting that this doesn't do much at all. according to PMC they say "disproportionately apply corporal punishment to children who are Black, to boys, and to children with disabilities. This policy report is the first-ever effort to describe the prevalence of and disparities in the use of school corporal punishment" which to me sounds like discrimination to people based off of their color and birth. this is not what America is supposed to be like, we are the land of the free.
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.
I think that video game physically can be brought out to the real world in some ways. one of these ways in cheating. the reason I think this is because creating a test is a lot like a video game developer creating a level. there has to be a good challenge but not so much that they don't know what's going on. there also needs to be a decent background on the subject of design the test/ level. if there was a way to cheat either system both people would do that so in a video game aspect there are two solutions. one remake the level as there is a big flaw and its because of the level. the second is more applicable to the situation at hand, make the flaw a feature but make it almost impossible to complete. currently, we are trying to create option two but if possible go with one. I think that if cheating was never an option it would obviously be the best option.
I think that cheating should be harsher because it doesn't encourage learning. if someone is cheating than they don't need to know the material they are cheating on as that is the point of cheating. someone could learn to throw an ax and learn how to properly step, but if there was a much easier way to do the same task with the same results than everyone would do that. in video games, this is called dominant strategy the idea goes like this. in a video game, there is an instant win button if there is a difficult task up ahead the player, in this case, the student will do that every time if there are no harsh repercussions. so currently the fix to this problem is to make the punishment for hitting the win button more punishing but I don't think this is the fix at all if instead, the option was never there as in the win button never existing than that would circumvent the entire problem. in this analogy, the win button is cheating as this is almost impossible to remove if it was then the problem would never be there. my solution for making the punishment for cheating harsher is to remove cheating in general, but suppose that wasn't possible I would double whatever the current punishment because if kids are barely doing it now doubling the punishment would certainly remove a lot more.
2) In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
In the south capital punishment is the way people learn theirs. if nature doesn't kill people the schools might. direct punishment for not completing assignments on time or capital punishment at all in school is only prevalent in 19 states. I feel the reason they do this is for schools to be very harsh on students so that when they to the "real world" it feel much easier thought this is just speculation. whether or not what I think this is evidence supporting that this doesn't do much at all. according to PMC they say "disproportionately apply corporal punishment to children who are Black, to boys, and to children with disabilities. This policy report is the first-ever effort to describe the prevalence of and disparities in the use of school corporal punishment" which to me sounds like discrimination to people based off of their color and birth. this is not what America is supposed to be like, we are the land of the free.
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.
I think that video game physically can be brought out to the real world in some ways. one of these ways in cheating. the reason I think this is because creating a test is a lot like a video game developer creating a level. there has to be a good challenge but not so much that they don't know what's going on. there also needs to be a decent background on the subject of design the test/ level. if there was a way to cheat either system both people would do that so in a video game aspect there are two solutions. one remake the level as there is a big flaw and its because of the level. the second is more applicable to the situation at hand, make the flaw a feature but make it almost impossible to complete. currently, we are trying to create option two but if possible go with one. I think that if cheating was never an option it would obviously be the best option.
Cheating and Punishments Nick Jennings
David Jaffe states that today in American schools, cheating in school does not carry the same weight as if you cheated twenty years ago. Seventy-three percent of all test takers concluded that every student cheats at some point in their academic life (David Jaffe, Stanford.edu, 2019). If students today think that cheating in school is not that hard or simply does not matter then we should harshen the punishment, as this would reignite the stigma that was apparent years ago. In 1940, David states that college students reported only 20 percent of all students admitted to cheating in high school, while today close to 98 percent of all college students admit to having cheated once in high school. Harshening the punishment would not only reduce the number of students that cheat but would improve the student's quality of work as it would exemplify what the student could actually do.
Andrew Simmons points to the classroom as being one of the biggest factors for cheating. Peer pressure and harsh classroom attitudes only help the problem climax and worsen the situation. He says that the best way to reduce classroom cheating is by investing students in their work, using metacognition, and creating honor councils (Andrew Simmons, Edutopia.org, 2018). By reducing the punishment and investing time into preventative measures like honor councils would reduce cheating far more than harsh reprimands.
As for my personal position, I am in favor of harshening punishment. the 98 percent of students who graduate from high school and have cheated, not only hurt themselves, but also ruin my education as it takes away from my experience. Those who cheat should not have the ability to go as far as someone who gets the same grade but does not cheat. The whole idea of lightening the classroom attitude could coexist with harsh punishment. This would not only prevent more cheating but also punish those determined enough to cheat. Cheating does not end in high school or college, it follows someone into their life and effects their integrity as a person. We cannot allow cheating to seep into the moral compass of future students.
Andrew Simmons points to the classroom as being one of the biggest factors for cheating. Peer pressure and harsh classroom attitudes only help the problem climax and worsen the situation. He says that the best way to reduce classroom cheating is by investing students in their work, using metacognition, and creating honor councils (Andrew Simmons, Edutopia.org, 2018). By reducing the punishment and investing time into preventative measures like honor councils would reduce cheating far more than harsh reprimands.
As for my personal position, I am in favor of harshening punishment. the 98 percent of students who graduate from high school and have cheated, not only hurt themselves, but also ruin my education as it takes away from my experience. Those who cheat should not have the ability to go as far as someone who gets the same grade but does not cheat. The whole idea of lightening the classroom attitude could coexist with harsh punishment. This would not only prevent more cheating but also punish those determined enough to cheat. Cheating does not end in high school or college, it follows someone into their life and effects their integrity as a person. We cannot allow cheating to seep into the moral compass of future students.
Cheating at BHS
Cheating is something most people now would think is normal. Others think that punishments need to be harsher. According to lawyers.com "86% of college students have admitted to cheating" If someone is caught cheating in college they are failed from the class. Same goes for high school but as we can see that punishment isn't changing anything.
Some people would also argue that punishments like failing the class are too harsh. They think that someone should just be helped instead of being failed from the class. This idea could work but I'm not sure if it would stop them from cheating in the future.
In my opinion punishments for cheating are fine where they are. They get harsher as you progress through school. Unfortunately I don't think any punishment will stop the people that cheat from continuing to cheat.
Some people would also argue that punishments like failing the class are too harsh. They think that someone should just be helped instead of being failed from the class. This idea could work but I'm not sure if it would stop them from cheating in the future.
In my opinion punishments for cheating are fine where they are. They get harsher as you progress through school. Unfortunately I don't think any punishment will stop the people that cheat from continuing to cheat.
Cheating in School Alex Springer
Schools should have harsher punishments in school for cheating. Lots of students cheat whether its to get ahead or if it's so they don't have to study, either way, it happens all the time and people always get away with it. If there was a harsher punishment than not as many students would cheat. According to neatoday.org, 80 to 85 percent of students have admitted to cheating. This is a huge deal, this undermines those who study and work hard to come out ahead. Depending on how much someone cheats a possible punishment should be being expelled. Cheating is a very big deal and should be dealt with in a more serious manner.
Schools should not have harsher punishments in school for cheating. Cheating is usually done only 1 time and should not ruin someone's life just because they made a bad choice. According to neatoday.org, the students who cheat are the ones who are struggling in the class. Students that cheat generally don't understand the material and because of this, they cheat. What needs to be done is more 1 on 1 time with the teacher. If the teacher helps the student in an individual setting than maybe they could learn the material in a more significant way that would prevent cheating in the long run.
In my opinion, I don't think cheating is a huge deal. I don't know anyone who cheats at Bettendorf High School, and even though I'm sure people do I don't think that harsher punishment is necessary than just a 0 on the test of homework they cheated on. If someone did cheat I would inform my teacher that they did and also recommend the student to spend more 1 on 1 time with the teacher. Cheating is probably a bigger deal in schools with a worse education system, so we are lucky.
Schools should not have harsher punishments in school for cheating. Cheating is usually done only 1 time and should not ruin someone's life just because they made a bad choice. According to neatoday.org, the students who cheat are the ones who are struggling in the class. Students that cheat generally don't understand the material and because of this, they cheat. What needs to be done is more 1 on 1 time with the teacher. If the teacher helps the student in an individual setting than maybe they could learn the material in a more significant way that would prevent cheating in the long run.
In my opinion, I don't think cheating is a huge deal. I don't know anyone who cheats at Bettendorf High School, and even though I'm sure people do I don't think that harsher punishment is necessary than just a 0 on the test of homework they cheated on. If someone did cheat I would inform my teacher that they did and also recommend the student to spend more 1 on 1 time with the teacher. Cheating is probably a bigger deal in schools with a worse education system, so we are lucky.
Punishments in School
Punishments in School
By Ryan Coiner
Should punishment in school for cheating be increased? Some places like the United Kingdom are in favor of harsher punishments (UK ministers are declaring a clampdown of plagiarism and have set their cross hairs on both the students who plagiarise and the websites (i.e. "essay mills") that help them, ). So these people here in United Kingdom want there to be harsher punishments for cheating in school
Corpral Punishment is still done in 19 states of the U.S(Thats unacceptable. Schools should be safe and supportive enviorments for students, where they can learn and thrive, Doug Baldwin and Demario Davis,). The U.S. Supreme Court still ruled that public schools still using corpral punishment what not a cruel and unusual punishment and it does not violate constitutional rights. Every state dosen't agree that they should do corpral punishment whenever a student is caught cheating in school.
I don't think that corpral punishment should be made harser for students that cheat. There are better ways to handle when a student dosen't behave the right way. When a kid is hit they might think it is ok to ok to hit someone else and then they go and do that to someone else and they learn to be aggressive. Students do need to have some type of punishment if they cheat. Maybe flunking a class and getting students to have to take it over would get students to understand that cheating is not a good way to get through and that they have to do the work even if it's hard.
Cheating in School
If one student get caught cheating it leads them into getting themselves punished. Now more or less that same student doesn't learn from being punished or caught and decides to do it again. Some punishments from cheating one is if you want to get into the college you prepared for but you can't. Others might try and go for getting into a professional foot ball team but aren't allowed to now. Students can also be placed in academic probation. "Some schools impose harsh disciplinary penalties on students who cheat, particularly if the cheating was very egregious or the student has been caught cheating before" (2019).
Teachers kick in on a way to prevent punishments from happening. They try and create a friendly environment for their students. Getting to know their interests starting out, notice who's struggling the most to try and help. Teachers can also make their own test, give students different tests and none of the are the same. Separating seats, asking students to put everything away and for them to only bring a pencil. "Princeton professors agreed not to proctor exams in exchange for students pledging not to cheat and report to anyone who even looked like they were trying to gain an unfair advantage"(New jersey 2019).
My position in this is I think that punishments should be a thing just not that they should be as harsh as people have them. I think it would depend on how much they cheat, if it's constant or it only happens one time. I feel like it should mainly be a detention or sitting in the front of the class room. I don't think that they should be harsher.
Cheating In School
There are many debated punishments for people who cheat in school. People who cheat in college and get caught may be able to drop the class to avoid their F grade before anything is filed. "If you had cheated in a class or been accused of it, if you tried to drop once charges were filed, you would automatically be re-enrolled" (Mac Zilber, The Guardian, 4/12/12). This means that once a student cheats, and there is suspicion of them cheating, they cannot do anything to try to avoid legal punishments with the school.
There are also less severe punishments that use the offenders morals for punishment. Kenneth Bernstein, a 9th grade teacher, said that he had the students turn in a written confession, and also he had them come up with the punishment (Jay Matthews, The Washington Post, 10/28/01). This helps the student to change their ways and realize that they were not right to cheat.
I believe punishments should not be based on severity, but more on how to actually correct the wrongdoing. I do not believe that a first time cheater should fail an entire class due to their offense. I think the student should be monitored more when taking tests, and they should also have certain privileges taken away, but nothing should be completely ruined due to one mistake. Even though I have not cheated on a test, I know that many people who do so, only do it because of the pressure that is put on them by parents, teachers, and administrators. People should instead try to figure out the problem and help the student through whatever they are going through. If it turns out the student is just cheating because they don't feel like working, I think that they should have harsher punishments though.
Harsher Punishments for Cheating
By having harsher punishments in schools, we would stand a better chance of lowering the amount of cheating done in schools. "In a survey of 24,000 students at 70 high schools, Donald McCabe (Rutgers University) found that 64 percent of students admitted to cheating on a test, 58 percent admitted to plagiarism and 95 percent said they participated in some form of cheating, whether it was on a test, plagiarism or copying homework."( McCabe, plagiarism.org, 2017). This shows that students don't really care that they are cheating. With such high percents of students found cheating in this study, harsher punishments need to installed in schools. If they aren't currently afraid of the possible repercussions of being caught cheating. We need to change their mind and make sure they don't cheat, by having harsher punishments for cheating we can make sure they think twice before possibly cheating. Whether it be automatically failing the class or possible expulsion.
While harsher punishments for cheating are one route to go, there is always more than one option to solve a problem. Instead of having harsher punishments Denise Pope thinks, "Do you know the name of every child in your classroom? Do you know their interests, do you take the time to answer every question? If not, that’s not a climate of care and not a fertile ground for learning. We found that students who really believe they belong in the classroom and really feel teacher support are less likely to cheat."( Pope, neatoday.org, 2012). Instead of having harsher punishments, maybe we need to change the way students think. By making them think that they are in a caring climate, they will not be as likely to cheat. They will be more open to asking for help and working with the teacher and fellow students to study and understand the topic better instead of cheating. While harsher punishments may risk angering the student and other people in the community, and cause problems for everyone. A simpler and more caring approach may be the best way to solve this problem.
I believe that there shouldn't be harsher punishments for cheating. Already failing the test or the assignment is already a good punishment. Anyways, the student will still need to continue to show up to that class and deal with that teacher. Which hopefully they feel some guilt, and realize that what they did was wrong and hopefully they change for the better. School is also a place to learn, so by failing their assignment or test. They learn that cheating isn't a good thing, but if you give harsher punishments. You will only create resentment and piss more students, which could hurt their learning more. Also, cheating will only hurt a student in the long run. Once they enter the workforce, they won't be able to cheat. It's either you get your work done, or you get fired. Maybe if they didn't cheat and did their work, they would have learned more that would've helped them more in their job. By cheating, the student is only cheating their self out of learning more, and becoming better at their job.
I believe that there shouldn't be harsher punishments for cheating. Already failing the test or the assignment is already a good punishment. Anyways, the student will still need to continue to show up to that class and deal with that teacher. Which hopefully they feel some guilt, and realize that what they did was wrong and hopefully they change for the better. School is also a place to learn, so by failing their assignment or test. They learn that cheating isn't a good thing, but if you give harsher punishments. You will only create resentment and piss more students, which could hurt their learning more. Also, cheating will only hurt a student in the long run. Once they enter the workforce, they won't be able to cheat. It's either you get your work done, or you get fired. Maybe if they didn't cheat and did their work, they would have learned more that would've helped them more in their job. By cheating, the student is only cheating their self out of learning more, and becoming better at their job.
Punishments for cheating in school
Pro harsher punishments:
Over 50% of students admit to cheating on some sort of assignment or exam. By having harsher punishments it can make students fear the consequences of cheating. Most students cheat because they aren't prepared for a certain task the next day, and this is totally unfair to the students who are prepared and took time to get ready for an exam or assignment. By letting the student's get away with cheating or by not giving them a harsher punishment, might make them think it's fine or it's the easy way out and they will continue to do it. This could cause problems when they're older as well because nobody during high school caught them or said anything about it. According to Cal Poly, "learning to think and work independently is part of the educational process," so if schools don't implement stronger punishments, students will continue to do it and they will always depend on others for help (academicprograms.calpoly.edu, 2019). Overall, cheating is very common and there's not much to do to stop it but by creating harsher punishments, the number of students who cheat could go down.
Con harsher punishments:
There are also many reasons why we should not have harsher punishments in schools. By having harsher punishments it might scare the students enough to not have them cheat anymore but it could also impact students for a long term. For example, the fear of being hit or hurt in any type of way, can take a toll on a child's brain development and lower their IQ (Morin, verywell.com, 2018). A study done by the Pediatrics Report showed that students who were given harsh and hurtful punishments could grow up with anxiety disorders, mood disorders, personality disorders, increased aggression, or even a substance abuse. Some schools in the U.S. decide what punishment to give based on the severity of issue. For example, in Georgia, when a student plagiarizes on a paper, then they get a zero for that assignment, but if they cheat on an exam, then they fail the class. Some people say that these punishments aren't effective and don't scare the students as much but these consequences can impact a student's future.
My Position:
In my opinion, I don't think we need harsher punishments because the punishments we already have are already meaningful. When a student cheats, its their decision and they will have to deal with the punishment they get. Sometimes students don't get enough time to study the night before or they didn't have time to write a paper so they cheat. Instead of embarrassing or punishing the student on the spot, the teacher could easily ask why or how come they didn't prepare and sometimes all a student needs is a little more time. There are also many easy and more effective alternatives for cheating as well, like taking away a privilege. If a parent was contacted because their child was cheating, the parent could take away their phone because during this generation, where nearly everyone has a phone, it would scare the child much more to not cheat again. Finally, if a student cheats, it could go on their transcript and make it harder for that student to get a job or even to move to another school. So, I believe by implementing harsher punishments, it would be doing more harm than good.
Over 50% of students admit to cheating on some sort of assignment or exam. By having harsher punishments it can make students fear the consequences of cheating. Most students cheat because they aren't prepared for a certain task the next day, and this is totally unfair to the students who are prepared and took time to get ready for an exam or assignment. By letting the student's get away with cheating or by not giving them a harsher punishment, might make them think it's fine or it's the easy way out and they will continue to do it. This could cause problems when they're older as well because nobody during high school caught them or said anything about it. According to Cal Poly, "learning to think and work independently is part of the educational process," so if schools don't implement stronger punishments, students will continue to do it and they will always depend on others for help (academicprograms.calpoly.edu, 2019). Overall, cheating is very common and there's not much to do to stop it but by creating harsher punishments, the number of students who cheat could go down.
Con harsher punishments:
There are also many reasons why we should not have harsher punishments in schools. By having harsher punishments it might scare the students enough to not have them cheat anymore but it could also impact students for a long term. For example, the fear of being hit or hurt in any type of way, can take a toll on a child's brain development and lower their IQ (Morin, verywell.com, 2018). A study done by the Pediatrics Report showed that students who were given harsh and hurtful punishments could grow up with anxiety disorders, mood disorders, personality disorders, increased aggression, or even a substance abuse. Some schools in the U.S. decide what punishment to give based on the severity of issue. For example, in Georgia, when a student plagiarizes on a paper, then they get a zero for that assignment, but if they cheat on an exam, then they fail the class. Some people say that these punishments aren't effective and don't scare the students as much but these consequences can impact a student's future.
My Position:
In my opinion, I don't think we need harsher punishments because the punishments we already have are already meaningful. When a student cheats, its their decision and they will have to deal with the punishment they get. Sometimes students don't get enough time to study the night before or they didn't have time to write a paper so they cheat. Instead of embarrassing or punishing the student on the spot, the teacher could easily ask why or how come they didn't prepare and sometimes all a student needs is a little more time. There are also many easy and more effective alternatives for cheating as well, like taking away a privilege. If a parent was contacted because their child was cheating, the parent could take away their phone because during this generation, where nearly everyone has a phone, it would scare the child much more to not cheat again. Finally, if a student cheats, it could go on their transcript and make it harder for that student to get a job or even to move to another school. So, I believe by implementing harsher punishments, it would be doing more harm than good.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Luke Wareham- Harsher punishment for students cheating in school
Harsher punishment for cheating in school is important because it prevents students from making the same mistake again. Not only does harsher punishment give students a consequence but it also has a ever-lasting effect on the student. The student will not forget a harsh punishment and it will promote them to make the right decisions. "Punishing criminals deters crimes--in fact, the harsher the punishment, the more it will deter crime" (Michael Cholbi, www.phsycologytoday.com, 2015). Not only does harsh punishment deter crime. but the harsher it gets the more crime is deterred. Ultimately harsher punishment is important for students cheating in school because it prevents them from making the same mistake again.
Punishment for cheating in school should not be harsher because it does not teach morals or make the person more likely to do the right thing later on. It does not teach the student morals because punishment focuses more on consequences rather than what was done wrong. "Punishment makes a child feel like he's a bad person, which is always a self-fulfilling prophecy, so he's more likely to repeat the bad behavior" (Laura Markham, www.physchologytoday.com , 2014). Punishment makes a student feel like a bad person, which does not help teach the real lesson of avoiding cheating. Ultimately harsher punishment for cheating in school is bad because it does not teach morals and makes a person less likely to make the right decisions in the future.
I believe that punishments for cheating in school should be harsher, because it will teach the student a more everlasting lesson and ultimately make it so they make the right decisions going forward. I believe that by giving students a light punishment it will not faze them and they will not fear/think twice about making the same mistakes. By giving students a harsher punishment they will learn from it and avoid making the same mistake again. Finally, I believe that punishment should be harsher for cheating in students because it will have a long lasting effect on the students.
Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher?
For centuries adults have used corporal punishments as a means to discourage poor behavior. Although many countries have banned corporal punishment, there are some that still allow teachers and parents to employ these tactics. Today, nineteen states in the US allow corporal punishment in public institutions. "Physical pain, embarrassment, and fear are strong deterrents for the person who receives corporal punishment and for those who witness it" (Josphine, Legal Beagle, 2018). Therefore, proponents believe that corporal punishment is an effective deterrent of poor behavior. In addition, corporal punishment is a cheap and efficient way to teach a child structure and discipline.
However, news stories about child abuse commonly raise questions about the costs of corporal punishment and whether it should remain legal. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "parents, schools, and caregivers refrain from using any type of physical punishment with children. They report corporal punishment is ineffective over the long-term and leads to negative outcomes" (Morin, Very Well Family, 2108). Still, many educators use various types of physical punishment, including spanking, slapping, pinching, pulling, and hitting with an object in school. These actions can have negative effects on students including: worsening their behavior, lowering their IQ, and causing mental illness. Instead, teachers should use methods that entice the child to control themselves. This can be done by taking away their privileges, placing them in 'time outs', and assigning chores.
Therefore, I believe that corporal punishment should be banned in all schools. Many schools in America punish students by giving them a detention. This forces the child to think about their actions for a prolonged period of time while missing out on other opportunities. Also, if I was a parent, I would not feel comfortable with allowing teachers to hit my child if he was caught cheating. Physically disciplining a child can quickly turn into abuse. There is not enough supervision in the classroom to ensure educators don't cross the line. Therefore, legalizing corporal punishment would be a mistake.
harsher punishments in school
There are good things about harsher punishments for cheating in school. According to Tim Walker 85 to 90% of people cheat in high school, also 75% of people admit to cheating four or more times in school. ¨ In the mid-1990s, it was around 60 percent. Cheating happens in every school.¨(Tim Walker neatoday) A lot of people are cheating in high school there should be a harsher punishment for cheating. Maybe instead of getting a 0 for that one assignment/test, maybe the teacher should on two things in the class so cheating would affect your grade
There you some bad things to having a harsher punishment for cheating, like if the person doesn´t have a good grade in that class. ¨when in fact studies show that high-achieving students cheat almost as much as other students.¨ (Tim Walker neatoday) Not just people that are struggling in a class cheating, but people that are doing good in a class are cheating.
I think that we should have harsher punishments. Maybe not something were are failing a the class but maybe just put in a 0 for another assignment/test. The people might to not cheat because it can affect your grade. If people are struggling than they should try to get help from other people or the teacher.
There you some bad things to having a harsher punishment for cheating, like if the person doesn´t have a good grade in that class. ¨when in fact studies show that high-achieving students cheat almost as much as other students.¨ (Tim Walker neatoday) Not just people that are struggling in a class cheating, but people that are doing good in a class are cheating.
I think that we should have harsher punishments. Maybe not something were are failing a the class but maybe just put in a 0 for another assignment/test. The people might to not cheat because it can affect your grade. If people are struggling than they should try to get help from other people or the teacher.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Harsher punishments for cheating in school.
There are benefits to having harsher punishments for cheating in schools. "According to many studies, in between 80 and 95 percent percent of high school students admitted to cheating at least once in the past year and 75 percent admitted to cheating four or more times" (Tim Walker, neaToday, 2012). Since between 80-95% of the surveyed admitted to cheating, it is possible that harsher punishments would deter more students from cheating. For example, in some courses at Bettendorf High School the first time you are caught cheating. it is a zero on the assignment/test and only after multiple times that you are caught cheating, do you fail the class. If there were harsher punishments, and the first time you were caught cheating, you could get an 'f' in the class, it could deter people from cheating.
Harsher punishments for cheating also has drawbacks. for example "[t]he reluctance of people to inflict harsh punishments often leads to situations where nothing is done, [and] less harsh penalties that are designed to be rehabilitative in nature potentially have a more positive impact" (Jay Mathews, Washington Post, 2001). If harsher punishments are instated, some teachers might not report cheating the first time. If teachers are not reporting some cheaters anyway, more severe punishments would be less effective than if the punishments were less severe. If a student cheats and has a less severe punishment, there is more chance that they can learn from their past mistakes.
I believe that there should not be harsher punishments for cheating in school. I think that harsher punishment could deter students from cheating. Conversely, it could also make teachers less likely to report cheating. Another reason is fewer students would likely report the cheating of fellow classmates. The reasons listed are some of the reasons why schools should not instate a harsher punishment for cheating.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Cheating in school is a fairly common thing, but cheating can lead to further issues later on in life. By instating harsher punishments, it might deter students from cheating. One option is physical punishment, which is legal in around 20 states. This would cause students to think twice before cheating, because no one likes physical punishment, at least I don't.
However, students shouldn't be punished for trying to get good grades. If you want to get into an ivy league college, you need a good GPA. Students might feel the pressure of getting these outstanding grades on tests and assignments and will feel the need to cheat their way through it. Cheating is a surefire way to get a good grade if executed properly.
In my opinion, I feel like harsher punishments for cheating in school shouldn't be a thing. There isn't a direct correlation between cheating in school and performing bad deeds later in life, it's merely a coincidence. If I need a good grade on my assignment, I would rather cheat than ruin my chances of maintaining a good grade. As long as you keep it only in your school life, it shouldn't be too impactful on your future.
Noah Abbott - Cheating in School
Cheating allows students to not Put in the maximum effort to get their grade up. According to Middle Earth, 66% of students say they have cheated on a test, 80% say they have copied someone else"s homework, and 58% say they have plagiarized (middleearthnj, middleearthnj,com, 2015). These numbers show that almost everybody in school is cheating in some way, shape, or form. The students that are cheating are not putting in the same amount of effort that the students that do not cheat are. This is unfair for the students that do not cheat, and leads to many more problems for the students who do cheat.
Although cheating is very bad, some students are so stressed out that they have no other choice. According to Andrew Simmons, students competing at Ivy League schools may turn to cheating to get keep a bad test score form ruining their hard work (Andrew Simmons, edutopia.org, 2018). Students want to maintain all of their hard work by cheating in order to keep their high grades and achievements. These students are also kept at high standards, which stresses them out and make them want to keep their good grades even more.
I believe students should be punished harshly if they cheat. Cheating shows laziness, which shows that some students are not willing to work hard to get good grades. These students are the students who cheat more often to get good enough grades to pass. This is unfair to the students they are cheating off of, because those students worked much harder than the students cheating. Students should be suspended for cheating, and given 0's on the assignment/test they were cheating on.
Although cheating is very bad, some students are so stressed out that they have no other choice. According to Andrew Simmons, students competing at Ivy League schools may turn to cheating to get keep a bad test score form ruining their hard work (Andrew Simmons, edutopia.org, 2018). Students want to maintain all of their hard work by cheating in order to keep their high grades and achievements. These students are also kept at high standards, which stresses them out and make them want to keep their good grades even more.
I believe students should be punished harshly if they cheat. Cheating shows laziness, which shows that some students are not willing to work hard to get good grades. These students are the students who cheat more often to get good enough grades to pass. This is unfair to the students they are cheating off of, because those students worked much harder than the students cheating. Students should be suspended for cheating, and given 0's on the assignment/test they were cheating on.
A recent article that was written showed that no matter what punishing a child with the use of corporal punishment can be beneficial. While many ways work the one with the most behavioral changes is corporal punishment. Cheating can be a huge part of why students fail and why many of the members in our today society turn to crime as a way to make ends meet. Students will not cheat if they know that the punishment for cheating is much harsher then previously. More guilt reactions to transgression since an unpleasant consequence was imposed (Trumbell, www.goodparents.org, 2017). Students and children show more guilt when harsher punishments come and that is mostly because they do not want the punishment again so they don't do it.
While corporal punishment can be a good learning tool for some children it has been proven to be worse than other forms of punishment. Many children that grow up with the use of capital punishment see the use of force as something that is ok and should be used to discipline. This can be good most take the punishment to a whole new level and it becomes abuse. Children who are hit are more likely to be aggressive toward their peers, approve of violence in relationships, bully others, and be aggressive toward their parents (Schwartz, www.mother.ly, 2018). These children become tools of hate and aggression towards others and this can be contributed back to their childhood and the type of punishment they receive.
While cheating is a horrible thing to do, it ruins lives later on. The use of capital punishment from a teacher or other staff member should not be allowed. This just shows kids that it is okay for anyone to abuse them and this only leads to fear within children. The only question that should be asked is if students should be afraid to stand up to something with the fear that a teacher with the right of the law can hit them. I believe that it is okay in a home setting yet doing this at a school would not only hurt the child it would ruin their lives forever.
While corporal punishment can be a good learning tool for some children it has been proven to be worse than other forms of punishment. Many children that grow up with the use of capital punishment see the use of force as something that is ok and should be used to discipline. This can be good most take the punishment to a whole new level and it becomes abuse. Children who are hit are more likely to be aggressive toward their peers, approve of violence in relationships, bully others, and be aggressive toward their parents (Schwartz, www.mother.ly, 2018). These children become tools of hate and aggression towards others and this can be contributed back to their childhood and the type of punishment they receive.
While cheating is a horrible thing to do, it ruins lives later on. The use of capital punishment from a teacher or other staff member should not be allowed. This just shows kids that it is okay for anyone to abuse them and this only leads to fear within children. The only question that should be asked is if students should be afraid to stand up to something with the fear that a teacher with the right of the law can hit them. I believe that it is okay in a home setting yet doing this at a school would not only hurt the child it would ruin their lives forever.
Harsher Punishments for Cheating
Sometimes, corporal punishment may get the job done better than a verbal warning ever could. Corporal punishment can be useful, when in moderation. The kids that aren't used to being hit, may fear being hit; hence, they will fear cheating because they know they can get a punishment that they fear. Also, corporal punishment sets clear boundaries that motivate children to behave at home or in school. "Children make better decisions about their actions and behaviors when they understand what the penalties for misbehaving happen to be. This process allows each child to exercise and enhance their level of self-control" (Crystal Ayers, connectusfund.org, 2019).
Other times, however, corporal punishment for cheating may not be beneficial at times. For example, it increases the risk of injury for a child. If the child becomes injured due to corporal punishment, the school may be sued. "The size difference between an adult and a child creates the risk of injury to kids who receive corporal punishment" (Robert Johnson, TeachersTeach, 2017). Corporal punishment could end up getting quite messy for schools throughout America. Also according to Robert Johnson, corporal punishment can lead to childrens developing depression, increased anxiety, and other mental health issues.
I do not believe that schools should increase punishment for cheating in schools. Corporal punishment, in my opinion, offers more cons than pros. School should be a safe place, especially for the children that live in abusive households. Corporal punishment will make them fear to go to school. Also, adults are much bigger than children. An injury, whether accidental or not, is simply not something students need to worry about in school. Mental health is incredibly important. Childrens' mental health will depreciate due to corporal punishment. I do not believe that schools should increase punishment for cheating.
Other times, however, corporal punishment for cheating may not be beneficial at times. For example, it increases the risk of injury for a child. If the child becomes injured due to corporal punishment, the school may be sued. "The size difference between an adult and a child creates the risk of injury to kids who receive corporal punishment" (Robert Johnson, TeachersTeach, 2017). Corporal punishment could end up getting quite messy for schools throughout America. Also according to Robert Johnson, corporal punishment can lead to childrens developing depression, increased anxiety, and other mental health issues.
I do not believe that schools should increase punishment for cheating in schools. Corporal punishment, in my opinion, offers more cons than pros. School should be a safe place, especially for the children that live in abusive households. Corporal punishment will make them fear to go to school. Also, adults are much bigger than children. An injury, whether accidental or not, is simply not something students need to worry about in school. Mental health is incredibly important. Childrens' mental health will depreciate due to corporal punishment. I do not believe that schools should increase punishment for cheating.
Community Service Hours
One benefit of having a requirement for community service hours before graduation is that it "benefits the community and encourages responsibility" (Simrin Gupta, Silver Chips Online, 3/10/11). Community service is a way to give back to the surrounding community. Having students go out of their comfort zone to help people, teaches them responsibility, and helps give them increased productivity. This can also teach people how to begin to help their community when they are needed most.
Although community service is a good thing, Claire Koenig says that requiring it just takes away from the meaning of volunteer work (Silver Chips Online, 3/10/11). Community service is good, but when somebody is forced to do it, the work becomes almost pointless. While it still helps the community, it also pushes away many students from volunteer work when they may have desired to do it more if it was not required.
Overall, I believe that community service should not be required. It should be something that people may want to strive for as part of an extra part of their life, but it should not be forced. The point of community service is to offer up your time to be able to help other people or organizations, and when people are reluctantly doing this, there is no moral value.
Overall, I believe that community service should not be required. It should be something that people may want to strive for as part of an extra part of their life, but it should not be forced. The point of community service is to offer up your time to be able to help other people or organizations, and when people are reluctantly doing this, there is no moral value.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
ASSIGNMENT: Should punishments for cheating in school be harsher? (due Monday, April 22 at 10:25 am)
The Economics of 'Cheating in School':
1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
2) In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against harsher punishments for cheating in school. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).
3) In paragraph three, justify your position on harsher punishments for cheating in school.
The due date is 4/22/19 at 10:25 am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)