@zahlanzi saidDriving like a maniac can be punished by suspending drivers licenses or even jail time in extreme cases. Where nothing more than a fine is allowed as punishment, the offense is typically very minor. Even speeding can result in loss of driving privileges for repeat offenders.
Except 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.
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 m ...[text shortened]... h person doing it and a 100 dollar fine will definitely not deter a rich person from doing anything.
@zahlanzi said"You should already know that in order to properly tax someone."
". A fine is supposed to be a slight punishment to make up for a minor cost"
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 ...[text shortened]... y to resolve minor issues."
You will forgive me if I don't believe you have actually done the math.
Don't shoot me, I just report the news.
What does 'you should already know that' mean? If Elmhurst MS pulls over a speeder, how does he 'already know that". ? And why won't liberals answer this question ??
@quackquack saidGive an A:plus to QQuack
A sliding scale for items simply encourages a black market where prices would be related to cost.
@no1marauder saidProgressive Fines. So, the more you make , the more you pay. Marx, perhaps? Tell me if I'm wrong, and ,Oh, why I am wrong? Back Him Up Zahlanzi!!!! I didn't start this thread for nuthin!!!!
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.
@sh76 saidI LOVE that one. What a thread!!! Who started this thread?!?!?
Equal 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.
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?
sh76 is on it.
@zahlanzi saidBillion dollar fines based on someones income will just force the super wealthy to hire drivers. It will not make the world any safer it will just cause a different group to be the one violating the law.
". A fine is supposed to be a slight punishment to make up for a minor cost"
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 ...[text shortened]... y to resolve minor issues."
You will forgive me if I don't believe you have actually done the math.
@quackquack saidHA! How can libs be so easily defeated with common sense. Daddy Warbucks hires a driver and says, "drive as fast as you'd like, ....if you get pulled over, I will give you ten times whatever they charge you, just get me to my broker's meeting on time!!!!!!!"
Billion dollar fines based on someones income will just force the super wealthy to hire drivers. It will not make the world any safer it will just cause a different group to be the one violating the law.
Good stuff.
Just enough humor (for us to lay on the clueless libs) before tomorrow's news about Biden, who has singlehandedly created all of his messes, and blames EACH ONE on someone else. If I'm lying, I';m dyin'.
@averagejoe1 saidIn Finland, speeding fines are linked to salary. The Finns run a “day fine” system that is calculated on the basis of an offender’s daily disposable income – generally their daily salary divided by two.
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.?
The more a driver is over the speed limit, the greater the number of day fines they will receive.
This has led to headline-grabbing fines when wealthy drivers have been caught driving very fast.
In 2002, Anssi Vanjoki, a former Nokia director, was ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught driving 75km/h in a 50km/h zone on his motorbike.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/in-finland-speeding-tickets-are-linked-to-your-income/
The concept behind it is that if you fine a McDonalds’ cook 50 euro’s, it’s a serious incentive to nudge his behaviour in the needed direction. But fining Bill Gates 50 euro’s won’t nudge him anywhere.
So, instead of a fixed number, it’s a fixed percentage.
It makes sense on some level.
@quackquack saidYou don’t fine the driver. You fine the owner of the car.
Billion dollar fines based on someones income will just force the super wealthy to hire drivers. It will not make the world any safer it will just cause a different group to be the one violating the law.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou certainly didn't start the thread to have a serious discussion since all you do is scream "Marxist!" if anybody disagrees with you.
Progressive Fines. So, the more you make , the more you pay. Marx, perhaps? Tell me if I'm wrong, and ,Oh, why I am wrong? Back Him Up Zahlanzi!!!! I didn't start this thread for nuthin!!!!
Baron Montesquieu who lived a hundred years before Marx and who's ideas regarding separation of powers were incorporated in the US Constitution by the Framers wrote in his The Spirit of the Laws published in 1748:
"“Cannot pecuniary penalties be proportionate to fortunes?”
@averagejoe1 saidThat would make the owner of the car guilty of a crime. It's called "Criminal Solicitation" in my State though the conduct you describe could be considered a criminal conspiracy as well.
HA! How can libs be so easily defeated with common sense. Daddy Warbucks hires a driver and says, "drive as fast as you'd like, ....if you get pulled over, I will give you ten times whatever they charge you, just get me to my broker's meeting on time!!!!!!!"
Good stuff.
Just enough humor (for us to lay on the clueless libs) before tomorrow's news about Biden, who h ...[text shortened]... lehandedly created all of his messes, and blames EACH ONE on someone else. If I'm lying, I';m dyin'.
@sh76 saidNo it isn't. Deprivation of liberty is something all reasonable persons wish to avoid.
Equal 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.
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?
@quackquack saidYou are simply wrong. Many crimes have the potential punishment of a fine even if incarceration is also a possible sentence. The imposing of either does not preclude the imposition of the other. And sentencing for crimes always includes an investigation by the local probation department, so information regarding financial assets could be included in that investigation with no added delay. People who commit crimes and are put in prison or jail or on probation certainly have their privacy invaded, so any objection to a procedure to assess a proper fine on such grounds is rather ludicrous.
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.
1 edit
@quackquack saidThen scrap the fine system for everyone, simple isn’t it, make them do community service. Police and local authority fine systems have always been revenue raising scams.
The 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.
Thankfully my country won't adopt this stupid system.
So scrap them or make them equitable punishments and if they are deterrents it’s the same argument, a 50 dollar fine is not going to deter bezos and his ilk.
In the UK speeding convictions carry points which are applied to your licence, if you accumulate 12 or so points your licence is pulled.