Could you Imagine being told that you can not get your driver's licence because you GPA is too low? Passing a law to insure that teens with low GPA’s can not drive is a bad idea. To start off who would even manage the millions of teens to see what GPA they have. Something else is how much would it cost for taxpayers? Finally how many illegal drivers do you think would be on the road then? The first reason why not letting teens get their licence because of their GPA is wrong is, because there are lots of teens that just struggle academically. Think about how many teens learn slower than others so they might fall behind, but that's not because they're inferior it's because of how they learn. Something else is how many teachers do not care about
individual student needs for learning so they just teach one way which makes many students fall behind. Next, According to www.express.co.uk people with postgraduate qualification or higher may take their driving test more times. This is compared to people with no qualifications that usually pass there first time (Fifty-nine percent). Then expess.co.uk continues on to say that business owners take around four or more times to pass there test (Twenty-two percent). Furthermore, Who exactly would have the job to monitor every teens GPA so they know who is eligible. Think about how many people are gonna have to watch them and how much they will need to be paid. Do you wanna pay moe money for taxes for something that doesn't need to happen. Now I know that the other side is going to say something similar to this: This will stop many car crashes around america. Just think about this though when you take hundreds and thousands of people off the road you're gonna get more illegal drivers which will cause many problems. In conclusion changing the GPA requirement to drive is a terrible idea. This idea could lead to more crashes and more illegal driving. Plus there is no evidence to prove that being smart makes you a good driver.
Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, is an act that applies savings towards mental health and drug treatment programs. It is extremely controversial and viral, with large amounts of support and protests. This piece of rhetoric is relevant and has a critical impact on our local community and state of California. As the Californian General Election Official Voter Guide states, the goal of Prop 47 is to “…ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses, to maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime, and to invest the savings generated from this act into prevention and support programs in K–12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment” (Bowen 70). This explains
If people want to save lives by raising the driving age, then how about saving lives by allowing only women to drive? Except raising the driving age won't save lives. Studies show that it is inexperience, not age, that causes accidents. Raising the driving age will just create inexperienced, accident-prone drivers at 18 instead of 16. Teens need the ability to drive just as much as anyone else—to get to school,
Many debates have been waged over the decades on what will be taxed, on who shall be taxed and how taxes are collected. Since the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the debate has intensified, centering on how high to make the income tax rate. Most Americans were not concerned since the Amendment was sold to them as something that would only affect corporations and the rich. With ever increasing fervor these corporations created lobbyists to convince Congress to exempt them from some or all of the income tax. The big breakthrough in this was taxing the worker directly with payroll taxes during World War II. This method of collecting income tax was sold to Americans as temporary, but Congress has extended it indefinitely and the public has become used to it. The next few decades saw the debate revolve around creating tax breaks for individuals in an attempt to modify behavior or spending. This has resulted in over 67,000 pages of tax code and an entire industry devoted to tax compliance and evasion, with the unintended behavioral change of corporations and the rich parking their money outside of the United States in small island nations to avoid taxation. These offshore accounts are estimated to hold $10 trillion dollars, a number approximate to the national debt. The FairTax Act should be enacted because it eliminates all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations, eliminates all federal payroll withholding taxes, abolishes estate and capital gains taxes and repeals the 16th Amendment; thus eliminating the need for offshore accounts.
The question “Should tougher DUI laws be enacted?” has several pros and cons to answer this that people want to know. Throughout various projects and studies people have done it has determined that it could go both ways. People want something to be done with drunk drivers all over the world because they have cause accidents and kill/injure people and could walk away without any consequences.
Texas is one of the seven states that have no state income tax. This means the state does not impose an additional state income taxes on someone’s earnings, but there is still a federal income tax. While many claim this is beneficial to all of Texas citizens and promotes population growth others find it disadvantaging. Their is many disadvantages and advantages to not having a state income tax.
It's a question that is coming up more and more in state legislation: Should good grades be required to get a driver's license? On the outside, it seems like a good plan. By requiring kids to do well in school in order to operate a car, it seems as though you could easily incentivize having good grades, which would make your city or state appear more appealing. Another point that comes up is the idea that students who have good grades are more responsible that those who don't, and therefore our streets will be safer because we have more 'responsible' people on the road driving. However, these points are flawed and unfair, and make it difficult for both students and law enforcement alike. However, these laws are not effective and are simply a nuisance for legislator to conceive, and for law enforcement to enforce.
Also, studies show that the same bad behavior commonly seen in men in their twenties is seen in sixteen and seventeen year olds. Driving is a huge part of a teenager’s social life, too. They need licenses to attend school, work, or social events. So, a way to keep the driving age at sixteen and have better driving on the road is to have a graduated driver license. This GDL would make it so new drivers would gain experience driving under supervision of an older, experienced driver before they can drive on their own.
Before the Drinking age was passed many states had a drinking age of 18 or 19. But the main ways the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) got passed was from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Passing this act has saved quite of bit of underage accidents still today. Underage drinking has led to 2.7 million injures and 5000 deaths in the US. So with that being said the government needs to take in to consideration the risk of teens drinking and driving, in which they do with adults. In many articles the all said things around the government needs to make teen’s obey an zero tolerance to driving drunk and raise the consequence if they are caught doing so. Which seatbelt and DUI checkpoints have helped a lot to keep the numbers down of alcohol related incidents.
It really is no secret that if the minimum legal drinking age were lowered, a large number of teens would then drink for perhaps the first time. “The age group with the most drivers involved in fatal crashes with Blood Alcohol Content levels of .08 or higher during 2011 was the twenty-one to twenty-four-year-olds” (“National Highway Traffic Facts”). Young adults are just as irresponsible at eighteen as they are at twenty-one, maybe even more irresponsible. The teenagers will indulge themselves on what they feel is a luxury the first chance they get. The young adults abuse the alcohol, and then go driving because even at twenty-one through twenty-four they are still not as responsible. If the age is lowered to eighteen, many eighteen-year-olds will go out and drink alcohol for the first time. The age group may rise to number one in fatal crashes. The National Highway Traff...
Should kids actually have to maintain a 2.5 GPA in order to receive and keep their driver’s license? If you think abou it. The reason why some teens GPA are so low is because they skip school driving up and down the streets instead of being in class. They could easily just get upset or angry and leave school. Hop in their car and drive away. They are missing assignments and teachers instructions how to do something. There grades will drop tremendously, because without help how would they know how to do something when they actually decide to come back to class. Also it should be a privilege to get your license and someone with bad grades should not be awarded with a new car and a right to drive it, Then they will think it’s ok to act out and
From when the first few cars where made teens have been behind the wheel. Many states did not require examinations or even licensing, it was not needed when so few distractions and other vehicles where on the road. Some states acquired licensing in the 1930's but Missouri was one of the first states in 1902. in the article “Driving Under Experienced” Gary Boulard explains, “It's a different world today than it was in the 1970's when many of the baby boomers first began to drive.” He goes on and states that lawmakers should revisit the procedures for how we give licenses to teens in our country (Boulard 38).
Through out the years teenagers have been driving without a license. In this century teenagers are decreasing to get their license (Teens getting their driver license. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2013, from ). Teenagers tend to think that just because they know how to pump gas press the brakes and rea...
There is already multiple car incidents cause by teens each year. If this bill passed, teens would be entering college with less than sufficient driving experience. In turn, this would lead to more serious wrecks on college campuses and would affect the safety of the upperclassman drivers. Most college students would not be able to get their 6th month restrictions off, until the middle of their freshman year. This would lead to more students breaking the law of only have 1 non-family member in the car with a beginning license. Increases in the amount of college campus wrecks, and the encouraged breaking of a beginner license, are two issues that would be faced if such a bill as the one proposed was
With these reasons, I am strong in my position that teens should still be able to drive. , there are still dangerous drivers on the road. Some of them, teens. In fact, the leading cause of death for teenagers aging from fifteen to nineteen is car accidents. As I stated, all the same, these are not always caused by teenagers themselves. No matter how many drivers on the road that seem unsafe, there are good drivers. Parents who didn't trust their teens wouldn't allow them to drive on the road, thinking that they are being put into a harmful and dangerous situation. With the reasons I've stated, it is easy to see that teenagers should be able to drive.
In addition to teenagers gaining independence and freedom with a license, parents also gain more freedom as well. Teenagers who cannot drive rely heavily on parents, siblings, and other people to chauffeur them around. Not only does this cost more for the driver, but schedule arrangements must constantly be made and even cancelled in order to drive teenagers to where needed.... ... middle of paper ... ... Deciding to raise the age does not seem like a prime choice, because not only does the argument include age as a factor, but it greatly affects the lives of everyday people.