1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYes they are serious!!!!!
No, they are fine. And I apologize for the 'optics' of the SHouse posts, but it is to expand my sentence from a question to an unbelievable query.
So to your post, are you saying that those countries would charge, say, a percentage of a person's income as the fine? At one percent, An income of $40K would be a fine of $400. For a man making $4M, it would be $40,000. ...[text shortened]... t mean that, so are you saying another sliding scale. What would be your example, as is mine here.?
Are you too stupid to understand the concept of punishment, it’s meant to be a punishment and all transgressions should be punished equally.
A woman with one hundred dollars to her name being fined 50 dollars is losing half her income, a millionaire being fined fifty dollars for the same offence is not being punished at all. How is that fair??????????
@kevcvs57 saidThe cost to society of having someone going slightly over the speed limit is minimal and the punishment should be minimal. We should not create a system where every town in America tries to entrap or defraud someone like Bezos into a minor infraction so they can give each person in the town a million dollar check.
I think your missing the point. A million dollar fine for bezos is not as prohibitive as a thousand dollar fine for someone on minimum wage. It’s a punishment it has to punish.
Thankfully my country won't adopt this stupid system.
@kevcvs57 saidAn example of fair pricing is buying a hamburger. It's $5 for me, it's $5 for you; its $5 for Bezos. Only a fool thinks you should show a copy of your tax return and price the hamburger accordingly. Speeding fines are no different.
Yes they are serious!!!!!
Are you too stupid to understand the concept of punishment, it’s meant to be a punishment and all transgressions should be punished equally.
A woman with one hundred dollars to her name being fined 50 dollars is losing half her income, a millionaire being fined fifty dollars for the same offence is not being punished at all. How is that fair??????????
@averagejoe1 saidNet wealth.
It has been suggested in the Heroic thread that the amount of fines paid by law breakers (speeding, etc) be based on their incomes.....'that, we might pay $100.00, but that Bezos pay more like a million.
What does everyone think about that?
@quackquack saidV Ery good. An example how these liberal dictums could get out of hand. A sherrif might tell his deputies to watch out for Daddy Warbucks so they can catch and fine him big time.
An example of fair pricing is buying a hamburger. It's $5 for me, it's $5 for you; its $5 for Bezos. Only a fool thinks you should show a copy of your tax return and price the hamburger accordingly. Speeding fines are no different.
Really……Have hamburgers priced on a scale?
Arreggh, is there no good answer?
@kevcvs57 saidI'm not missing the point.
I think your missing the point. A million dollar fine for bezos is not as prohibitive as a thousand dollar fine for someone on minimum wage. It’s a punishment it has to punish.
1. A fine is supposed to be a slight punishment to make up for a minor cost. Society is not damaged any more if Bezos speeds then if a homeless guys speeds and therefore the reimbursement to society not need be different.
2. When we give billion dollar fines we give municipalities warped incentives to entrap/ fraudulently prosecute people. We do not need to create situations where governmental employees believe the budget for their salary with be provided by harassing (wealthy citizens).
3. Minor fines need to be disposed of quickly. A full hearing on assets and valuation in order to impose a fine is an invasion of privacy, an undue cost, and an unbelievable inefficient and costly way to resolve minor issues.
@averagejoe1 saidThe point of making money is to have money to pay for stuff - all stuff, including fines.
It has been suggested in the Heroic thread that the amount of fines paid by law breakers (speeding, etc) be based on their incomes.....'that, we might pay $100.00, but that Bezos pay more like a million.
What does everyone think about that?
If everything starts costing on a sliding scale based on income, you're equalizing incomes of everyone, with all its attendant consequences.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
1 edit
@sh76 saidBull. The point of having money - inheriting and/or stealing money more likely than making it - it so the plebs don't have money.
The point of making money is to have money to pay for stuff - all stuff, including fines.
If everything starts costing on a sliding scale based on income, you're equalizing incomes of everyone, with all its attendant consequences.
The consequences, right now, really deserve to be Ah, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira: les capitalistes à al lanterne!
@shallow-blue saidWell, at least you're honest. It would be nice if the closet Marxists of the far left were as honest. At least we'd know what we were dealing with.
Bull. The point of having money - inheriting and/or stealing money more likely than making it - it so the plebs don't have money.
The consequences, right now, really deserve to be Ah, ça ira, ça ira, ça ira: les capitalistes à al lanterne!
@sh76 saidA sliding scale for items simply encourages a black market where prices would be related to cost.
The point of making money is to have money to pay for stuff - all stuff, including fines.
If everything starts costing on a sliding scale based on income, you're equalizing incomes of everyone, with all its attendant consequences.
1 edit
@sh76 saidExcept nobody mentioned "everything costing based on income". It's much easier to sound like you're making a good point if you invent some ludicrous position to argue against.
The point of making money is to have money to pay for stuff - all stuff, including fines.
If everything starts costing on a sliding scale based on income, you're equalizing incomes of everyone, with all its attendant consequences.
We're talking fines. Something meant as a deterrent for an action you don't want to send someone to jail for but you still don't want anyone doing it. If you don't want a poor person to drive like a maniac you also shouldn't want a rich person doing it and a 100 dollar fine will definitely not deter a rich person from doing anything.
1 edit
@quackquack said". A fine is supposed to be a slight punishment to make up for a minor cost"
I'm not missing the point.
1. A fine is supposed to be a slight punishment to make up for a minor cost. Society is not damaged any more if Bezos speeds then if a homeless guys speeds and therefore the reimbursement to society not need be different.
2. When we give billion dollar fines we give municipalities warped incentives to entrap/ fraudulently prosecute people. ...[text shortened]... n of privacy, an undue cost, and an unbelievable inefficient and costly way to resolve minor issues.
Wrong. A fine is supposed to be a deterrent so that people don't do the fineable action. I don't want maniacs driving 120km/h in my neighbourhood, period. I don't care if they pay a fine or not. I don't want corporations dumping toxic waste in rivers or making toys out of lead because they will pay a fine after they have done the deed. I want the fine to be prohibitive precisely so they look at the cost and reach the conclusion it's way cheaper to find a way to safely dispose of toxic sludge than to be fined for dumping.
"A full hearing on assets and valuation in order to impose a fine is an invasion of privacy,"
No it's not. You should already know that in order to properly tax someone.
"and an unbelievable inefficient and costly way to resolve minor issues."
You will forgive me if I don't believe you have actually done the math.
@sh76 saidWe're not talking about goods; we're talking about punishments.
The point of making money is to have money to pay for stuff - all stuff, including fines.
If everything starts costing on a sliding scale based on income, you're equalizing incomes of everyone, with all its attendant consequences.
The point that equal monetary punishments do not equally punish has not even been addressed by right wingers here. Given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility, fines should probably be progressive.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidEqual prison time punishments also don’t punish equally. For a homeless jobless pauper in the winter, the marginal punishment of a 30 day jail sentence may be close to zero.
We're not talking about goods; we're talking about punishments.
The point that equal monetary punishments do not equally punish has not even been addressed by right wingers here. Given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility, fines should probably be progressive.
For a person dragged out of a huge California estate with a tennis court, a large pool, ocean views and 3 live in servants, being dragged to San Quentin might be orders of magnitude worse.
Should we correct for those things too?