"A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and
was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that
her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what
he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA,
and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking
a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her
no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even
have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends
because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes
because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's
office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend
who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly
that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired
back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades!
I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done
next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the
Republican party."

I would have to say that I find the analogy questionable, as people can work quite hard at low paying jobs, yet still not get paid as much as someone who works hard at a high-paying job.

To try to work this into the college analogy, it would be as if "Audrey", the 2.0 student had a cap on the maximum grades she could get. Maybe she is a lazy bumb, but her maximum GPA would be a 2.0. She would not be able to allowed to get a 4.0 GPA, just like a Walmart employee is not allowed to be paid $50 an hour, but a lawyer or investor is. There's a low cieling for Audrey, but not for the protragonist of this story.

There is no lower cieling for Audrey, she's just to lazy to use the stairs to get to the higher ground. Hmm, i wonder who went to college, the wal mart employee, or the lawyer?? Mabe the walmart guy cant afford college. Hmm, get loans, and work hard to pay them off. There's a couple words most Americans dont like hearing, WORK HARD.

Lets give the guy who sat on his ass all day in school some extra moeny. He deserves it!!! Get outta here.

So? That's just life.

She would not be able to allowed to get a 4.0 GPA, just like a Walmart employee is not allowed to be paid $50 an hour, but a lawyer or investor is

Sure she can make $50/hr at Wal-mart, if she advances up the ranks of management.

No, the analogy isn't perfect between school and the work world. But it is an effective analogy as far as redistribution goes. Here's the reason:

Let's say that a student is getting Ds, while another is getting As. Now a redistributionist would say, give the poorer student an A too. In effect, what bleeding hearts tend to do is lower standards so almost all students can get good grades, but grade inflation is another issue entirely.

What a smart, compassionate person does is help that student raise his Ds to better grades through special attention to get them up to speed. And that's how our national policies should work. No to handouts(except as a very temporary measure), yes to job training and education. And if a person fails at job training or education, then they live with the consequences.

__________________
chicken butt

And some people find higher GPA's easier to maintain than others, and some people are incapable of maintaining a high GPA no matter how hard they work for it as well, but the analogy is, in essence, correct.

Redistribution of wealth is a punitive action against successful people, usually to appease unsuccessful people in order to get votes. Like the analogy if the GPA is redistributed, both student examples are equally qualified for the same position upon graduation, but one is more likely to fail, just as wealth redistribution fails.

How does this analogy "poor earner because lazy" fit together with lets say Paris Hilton?

For doing nothing productive except making useless headlines about herself she is earning a fortune.

You have rich ones that are lazy asses, you have poor ones who work themselves into the grave just to get their families through.

The analogy does not work that neatly.

That isn't entirely true, she was a TV personality with a popular show. Like it or not a lot of celebrities make a lot of money.

The thrust of your argument I believe is that she was born advantaged, which is true. She started life rich, and has parleyed that into more wealth by being a celebrity, and she is pretty smart in how she does that, maximizing her assets.

Some people start life athletically gifted and get rich playing basketball, even though they are little more than low class thugs. Should we level that field as well? Cripple the extra able so the ordinary can get a chance to be a basketball stars as well?

The fact is, things are never going to be completely fair or even, but that doesn't mean we should redistribute wealth. Had we taken Paris Hilton's wealth away from her at birth and distributed it to the poor, we might never have watched her sex tape on the internet, but the poor would be no better off for it, and she would likely still be doing better than they are.

I dont think thats the reason why she earns so much money. Its just a side effect. Unlike others in the show business is Paris rather talent free. What I am saying principally is that she does not deserve half the money she earns. An example? She flies to the Opernball in Vienna (the greatest society event here in the whole year). But not that she would pay the entry card like everyone else, no she is supposed to earn 1 mio Dollars just to grin into the camera and most likely be sooner gone again than you can see.
I cant see how she should have deserved the 1 mio for that, when a hard working man in the factory gets a little more than nothing for ruining his health and doing something that really benefits our society.

But if you still think Paris deserves it, we can easily swap examples. There are enough heirs of millionaires who do exactly nothing except wasting the money. Without earning it before like Paris.

Actually thats true yes. She seems to be smart in making other pay for here. Thats also a talent.
I dont know what you are aiming at. If you think that I am opposing perfomance and talent you are wrong. I am not even saying that better and more talented people should not earn more. I am saying that enough earn more than the deserve, while others earn far less than they would deserve.

I am not talking about making things completely fair. I want make things at least a bit fairer

I am no communist either, taking away all the money of Paris Hilton is no legal option. Even though I disagree, it would help and would do a good job financing a small part of the social system.

Well, typically you don't get a high paying job for being lazy.

There is no ceiling in America, only what you create in your mind.