First of all, the policy has pros and cons. But, it's important to look at what it is, what its effects are, and why it's implemented.
To start with, the idea isn't that you're getting a "0%", but that there's a higher minimum floor. An A is 100-90, a B is 89-80, C 79-70, D 69-60, F 59-50. By awarding 50% to incomplete work, you're not rewarding more, you're punishing less.
Why? It may seem crazy, but kids aren't adults and shouldn't necessarily be held to the same standards. Furthermore, school isn't work - you (or most adults) can choose their profession, children can't even choose what school they go to, let alone their subjects. If school was treated like work, it would look vastly different - probably more like trade schools. And, again, it's important to understand that these aren't adults, but children. Children have little to no choice over their home life. The kids frequently not handing in assignments are likely the ones with serious issues - abuse, homelessness, poor access to food, and so on. If you're comparing homework to professional work, you're just completely off-track.
But, what is it meant to accomplish? By raising the floor, kids have a track to succeed should the be able to turn their situation around. Getting a 0% on a test could mean the student has no chance to get better than a F or D. But, getting a 50% on a test will let students raise their grades if they work for it. In the former case, children are actually incentivized to care less, since there's less they can do to show improvement (they'll act up more, pay less attention, etc.) It's like forfeiting in a game, why should they waste their time on something they've already lost. In the latter case, they have some incentive to continue trying. In the end, your grade should represent what you've learned and mastered, not necessarily what you started with. By raising the floor, grades better reflect this goal.
Again, it's far from a perfect system. It certainly rewards people who just fail more than people who consistently try, but still fail. It also may take some work to understand higher average grades - but that doesn't matter from a top-down perspective, which is where the competition is.
This is bullshit, you shouldn't have wasted the time to type this horse shit.
They want partial credit because grants are based on performance. That is all. It is financially in the school's best interest that as few kids as possible fail. The superintendent wants clout and money, and stupid kids don't bring either. Teachers who play along are also treated better and promoted so there's that. ---
It's not the end of the world, but we can see it from here.