23 Dec 04
Some rich bugger who earns a heap of money is not going to miss the $150 fine for not wearing a seat-belt the same way a poor person would. Fines should be based on how much you earn. It should be a fixed fraction of your income. Of course larger offenses that carry larger fines would be a larger fraction of your income.
If Inland Revenue collect the fines, they could just tax it out of your pay, that way, it's guaranteed to be paid back, and everyone will learn their lesson.
Good idea?
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXAnyone that is dumb enough to not wear a seatbelt will get their fine in the form of a massive head injury.
Some rich bugger who earns a heap of money is not going to miss the $150 fine for not wearing a seat-belt the same way a poor person would. Fines should be based on how much you earn. It should be a fixed fraction of your income. Of course larger offenses that carry larger fines would be a larger fraction of your income.
If Inland Revenue collect the fin ...[text shortened]... that way, it's guaranteed to be paid back, and everyone will learn their lesson.
Good idea?
On the other hand, basing fines on ones income isn't fair at all. It is a penalty for being successful. Work a little harder and you too can pay your fine with the money in your couch.
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXIf the richer are fined heavier for a seat belt fine, wouldn't that also suggest that his life is of more value, due to the fact we are talking about seat belts saving lives?
Some rich bugger who earns a heap of money is not going to miss the $150 fine for not wearing a seat-belt the same way a poor person would. Fines should be based on how much you earn. It should be a fixed fraction of your income. Of course larger offenses that carry larger fines would be a larger fraction of your income.
If Inland Revenue collect the fin ...[text shortened]... that way, it's guaranteed to be paid back, and everyone will learn their lesson.
Good idea?
As far as $ pointing to crime penalties, who is to say a richer man's crime is worth more?
I think already your idea is in effect though, it seems bonds and fines are set so that if the judge wants to make sure they aren't getting bail, they will have just as hard of a time as us poor folk.
23 Dec 04
1 edit
I'm talking about fines in general, not just the seat-belt fine. Even some of the heaviest fines are easily paid off by rich people. Parking tickets, speeding tickets and so on.
A few times I've seen expensive cars illegally parked. The owners probably didn't care about the tiny little parking fee (but only tiny compared to their income), if they get caught. If they had to pay a much larger amount, they would be less motivated to park illegally. The most ignorant case I've seen is a convertible parked in a disabled parking zone. The car had all sorts of fancy features, all suped up and all. No disabled parking voucher of course, just a valuable car.
The fine for illegally crossing railway lines is $20,000. Do they really expect to squeeze $20,000 from someone who doesn't even earn that much in a year? It is a fine that motivates just about everyone not to cross railway lines, because it is such a large number. However, to a poor person, even $2,000 can seem large.
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXOnce again, assessing fines based on someones earnings is discrimination. Work harder to pay your fines.
I'm talking about fines in general, not just the seat-belt fine. Even some of the heaviest fines are easily paid off by rich people. Parking tickets, speeding tickets and so on.
A few times I've seen expensive cars illegally parked. The owners probably didn't care about the tiny little parking fee (but only tiny compared to their income), [b]if th ...[text shortened]... lines, because it is such a large number. However, to a poor person, even $2,000 can seem large.[/b]
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe point of a fine is to encourage you not to break the law. What I interpreted from your reply is that rich people are allowed to break the law because they can afford it.
Once again, assessing fines based on someones earnings is discrimination. Work harder to pay your fines.
I don't have fines to pay, I'm just sick and tired of seeing rich people "get away" with crime because they can afford it.
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXThey aren't getting away with anything, they are paying their fines the same as you. Should they charge more at the grocery store for rich people. I hate seeing rich people leaving the store with all of those groceries that I can't afford.
The point of a fine is to encourage you not to break the law. What I interpreted from your reply is that rich people are allowed to break the law because they can afford it.
I don't have fines to pay, I'm just sick and tired of seeing rich people "get away" with crime because they can afford it.
23 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinThey aren't paying their fines just like me, because unlike me, I have no intention of continuously breaking the law for my own convenience. Just because rich people can afford to pay the fine, doesn't mean they are allowed to break the law. The motivation not to break the law should be equal for low and high earners, so that the law is not broken.
They aren't getting away with anything, they are paying their fines the same as you. Should they charge more at the grocery store for rich people. I hate seeing rich people leaving the store with all of those groceries that I can't afford.
Trading and paying fines are two different money related ideas. If you try to equate paying fines to trading, you are saying that you pay the fine so you can break the law in return.
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXThey are paying their fines just like you. Unlike you, they can afford it. Whether it is motivation not to break the law is irrelevant. The law is designed to be equal to all, regardless of their economic status. I know a lot of rich people and none of them break the law because it is convenient. Do you know what the insurance is on a really expensive car? If you get multiple tickets it goes through the roof. This is one of the silliest threads in a mountain of silly threads, that I have read. You didn't answer my grocery question.
They aren't paying their fines [b]just like me, because unlike me, I have no intention of breaking the law for my own convenience. Just because rich people can afford to pay the fine, doesn't mean they are allowed to break the law. The motivation not to break the law should be equal for low and high earners, so that the law is not broken.
Trading a ...[text shortened]... aying fines to trading, you are saying that you pay the fine so you can break the law in return.[/b]
Should rich folks pay more because they can afford it?
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by CliffLandinI didn't answer your question because it is irrelevant. Trading and paying fines are not the same thing. When you trade, you are making a deal between you and the trader, by exchanging what you think are two objects of equal value.
They are paying their fines just like you. Unlike you, they can afford it. Whether it is motivation not to break the law is irrelevant. The law is designed to be equal to all, regardless of their economic status. I know a lot of rich people and none of them break the law because it is convenient. Do you know what the insurance is on a really expensi ...[text shortened]... u didn't answer my grocery question.
Should rich folks pay more because they can afford it?
They [the government] tax you more if you earn more. It is a fixed percentage of your income. Why should fines be different, especially if the money ends up in the same place?
It is all about motivation to break the law. If it was only $1 to break any law, how many laws do you think would be broken? If it was $100, how many would be broken? Less, of course. If it was $10,000, still less. The point is, they should be relevant to the money you have so that you aren't motivated to break the law from the penalty alone.
(PS: Rich people do pay more for their groceries; they buy more and get better stuff, that is a privilege).
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by DreamlaXI shop at the same grocery store as some of the richest people in the country if not the world and I pay exactly the same as they do. And as you say trading is not fines, nor are taxes. They are the price you pay to live in a country. As for bail and bond, that is assessed by the severity of the crime and the flight risk of the person accused of committing the crime. I hope you never make more than the $3/hour you make now, otherwise you'll be paying out the ass for your fines from the stupid police.
(PS: Rich people do pay more for their groceries; they buy more and get better stuff, that is a privilege).
23 Dec 04
I, for one, don't want to be fined at all.
I don't need my behaviour corrected, thank you very much.
"Oh Mark...you're driving without a seatbelt, here's a fine."
IT'S MY BLOODY LIFE! LEAVE ME ALONE.
"Oh Mark...you parked in a wrong area. Here's a fine."
AREN'T YOU THE COUNCIL THAT'S ALLOWING THE DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTE IN THE RIVER?
"Oh Mark...Don't steal. It's so immoral."
AREN'T YOU THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S BOMBING LITTLE CHILDREN IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN??
How dare they? How condola dare they even attempt to preach their fake morals and scumbag values to me.
I hope they all rot in hell. Seriously I do. And I don't even believe in Hell...
go figure....
blah blah blah
23 Dec 04
Originally posted by CliffLandinI don't earn $3 an hour. Minimum wage here is $9.00 (soon to be $9.50 in April I think).
I shop at the same grocery store as some of the richest people in the country if not the world and I pay exactly the same as they do. And as you say trading is not fines, nor are taxes. They are the price you pay to live in a country. As for bail and bond, that is assessed by the severity of the crime and the flight risk of the person accused of commi ...[text shortened]... our you make now, otherwise you'll be paying out the ass for your fines from the stupid police.
A fine is a penalty, much like the point of a jail, though for less severe crimes (or included with the jail sentence for the more severe crimes). A penalty is useless if it is not detrimental, and a rich person paying a $40 is hardly detrimental. It might not encourage them to break the law just because they can afford it, but knowing that the fine is cheap and affordable means you are more likely to commit it. If it was expensive for everyone, nobody would want to commit it, but it should also be payable at the same time.
If fines shouldn't be greater for rich people, I still think it is a good idea that Inland Revenue collects the fine. You are taxed more if you have a student loan etc, so you should also be taxed more if you have a fine, so it is just about guaranteed to be paid.
Still, I can't see why fines shouldn't be more expensive for rich people. Laws aren't there to be broken, but what you're saying is that if you can afford it, it's ok.
