A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

 

It is still boggling my mind how off base some people are on this thread.

 

I agree 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, smilesammich said:

ridiculous sense of entitlement, 'if you choose to spend your extra $ on speeding tickets by all means speed away - you worked hard for that money" what in the world?

you are the one talking about how it's unfair that poor people can't afford to break the law and whining about how rich people have earned the right to do so..

You may not like how I put it, but that’s exactly how it works.  People who can easily afford the fines tend to break the law more than those who have to work hard to pay them.  Just as Spooky pointed out pages back.

 

No, I am not whining about the unfairness of it.  I agree with the sentiment that rich people can afford to waste more money, so it isn’t as much of a deterrent to have a speeding (or other) fine.  That’s life.  Rather than sit around bemoaning how little I have and how a rich person can afford the ticket, it is my personal responsibility to drive within the law to avoid the fine, better my life so that I have more money, or both.  Scaling the fines according to income is just a bad idea overall.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

Eating at a restaurant isn't illegal and doesn't put other people at risk. Spending money on it is perfectly fine and reasonable.

 

Paying a fine for speeding is a penalty for having broken a law. Breaking the law isn't a luxury.

 

It's about as different as you can get, when it comes to spending money.

As I said... I am talking about the future.  If we start scaling speeding tickets towards income, it won’t be long before other things follow suit.  Which is a ridiculous concept, as you just said.  

 

And yes, breaking the law IS a luxury, to some.  Just ask OJ and Ethan Couch.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

As I said... I am talking about the future.  If we start scaling speeding tickets towards income, it won’t be long before other things follow suit.  Which is a ridiculous concept, as you just said.  

 

And yes, breaking the law IS a luxury, to some.  Just ask OJ and Ethan Couch.

Yes and I'm saying that there is no logical extension between scaling a fine based on income to scaling other types of punishments. 

 

The argument behind scaling a fine based on income is that a fine is a punishment based on money. If you are wealthier, you are paying relatively less for your punishment and therefore the punishment is relatively less to you than it is to someone else.

 

The same cannot be said for other forms of punishment. If you are wealthy, a life sentence is not "relatively" less punishment for you. It is the same punishment no matter how much money you have, because it isn't based on your wealth. 

 

You can't just make up random connections between two things and "predict" that one will follow with the other. There has to be some logical connection and you haven't produced one on this thread yet.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Yes and I'm saying that there is no logical extension between scaling a fine based on income to scaling other types of punishments. 

 

The argument behind scaling a fine based on income is that a fine is a punishment based on money. If you are wealthier, you are paying relatively less for your punishment and therefore the punishment is relatively less to you than it is to someone else.

 

The same cannot be said for other forms of punishment. If you are wealthy, a life sentence is not "relatively" less punishment for you. It is the same punishment no matter how much money you have, because it isn't based on your wealth. 

 

You can't just make up random connections between two things and "predict" that one will follow with the other. There has to be some logical connection and you haven't produced one on this thread yet.

If you are wealthier, you are paying relatively less for EVERYTHING in life. That’s not a valid argument for punishment, nor for buying groceries.  Justice is blind, and sees everyone as equal.  Not graded on a sliding income scale.  Notice how her scales are LEVEL?

 

I can most certainly make up any cockamamie idea I want, just as the OP did.  

[smilesammich 10,727]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You may not like how I put it, but that’s exactly how it works.  People who can easily afford the fines tend to break the law more than those who have to work hard to pay them.  Just as Spooky pointed out pages back.

 

No, I am not whining about the unfairness of it.  I agree with the sentiment that rich people can afford to waste more money, so it isn’t as much of a deterrent to have a speeding (or other) fine.  That’s life.  Rather than sit around bemoaning how little I have and how a rich person can afford the ticket, it is my personal responsibility to drive within the law to avoid the fine, better my life so that I have more money, or both.  Scaling the fines according to income is just a bad idea overall.

again, i do not know how to thank you enough for explaining to me how these things work. i'm forever indebted. and if you and spooky think that rich people have earned the right to break the law with little to no consequence, that's your opinion. too entitled for my taste, as i've pointed out.

 

personal responsibility is a personal thing, has nothing to do with traffic violation revenue or deterrents toward public safety - rich or poor. scaling the fines according to income is a good idea, one that would increase revenue - if anything to offset collections efforts.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

As I said... I am talking about the future.  If we start scaling speeding tickets towards income, it won’t be long before other things follow suit.  Which is a ridiculous concept, as you just said.  

 

And yes, breaking the law IS a luxury, to some.  Just ask OJ and Ethan Couch.

its just basic socialism by any other name, actually maybe a little more communist in nature.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

 

i heard this saying before just cant remember where ?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

again, i do not know how to thank you enough for explaining to me how these things work. i'm forever indebted. and if you and spooky think that rich people have earned the right to break the law with little to no consequence, that's your opinion. too entitled for my taste, as i've pointed out.

 

personal responsibility is a personal thing, has nothing to do with traffic violation revenue or deterrents toward public safety - rich or poor. scaling the fines according to income is a good idea, one that would increase revenue - if anything to offset collections efforts.

I think what you are missing is,  we don't think Rich people should have no or little consequences for breaking the law,  we think it should actually be the same as everyone else.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Just now, smilesammich said:

again, i do not know how to thank you enough for explaining to me how these things work. i'm forever indebted. and if you and spooky think that rich people have earned the right to break the law with little to no consequence, that's your opinion. too entitled for my taste, as i've pointed out.

 

personal responsibility is a personal thing, has nothing to do with traffic violation revenue or deterrents toward public safety - rich or poor. scaling the fines according to income is a good idea, one that would increase revenue - if anything to offset collections efforts.

Where did I say the rich earned the right to break the law with little consequence? You’re talking about someone getting a speeding ticket which doesn’t happy frequently or else they would have no license. The wealthy can’t get 20 speeding tickets and still drive. Nothing like making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think what you are missing is,  we don't think Rich people should have no or little consequences for breaking the law,  we think it should actually be the same as everyone else.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think what you are missing is,  we don't think Rich people should have no or little consequences for breaking the law,  we think it should actually be the same as everyone else.

i'm not missing anything. i agree the punishment should be the same for everyone. a 100 dollar fine is not the same consequence for a person worth a couple hundred thousand dollars or a person worth a couple thousand. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Where did I say the rich earned the right to break the law with little consequence? You’re talking about someone getting a speeding ticket which doesn’t happy frequently or else they would have no license. The wealthy can’t get 20 speeding tickets and still drive. Nothing like making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

 

i didn't think that's what you said. idwaf was explaining things to me, taxes, personal responsibility, your opinion. take it up with him.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i didn't think that's what you said. idwaf was explaining things to me, taxes, personal responsibility, your opinion. take it up with him.

That’s exactly what you said. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

That’s exactly what you said. 

Quote

People who can easily afford the fines tend to break the law more than those who have to work hard to pay them.  Just as Spooky pointed out pages back.

 

[-Trinity- 513]

What happens when someone is fined a couple times, but hasn't learned anything?

 

Don't  they loose their license? Seems fair to me. A rich person might see the fine as something they don't loose sleep over. But if the consequence is that one looses the driver's license.....no matter how much money you have or don't have....

Don't think anyone likes that; getting their license suspended.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by -Trinity-

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

If you are wealthier, you are paying relatively less for EVERYTHING in life. That’s not a valid argument for punishment, nor for buying groceries.  Justice is blind, and sees everyone as equal.  Not graded on a sliding income scale.  Notice how her scales are LEVEL?

 

I can most certainly make up any cockamamie idea I want, just as the OP did.  

You can make stuff up, they just end up being meaningless. I won't look to you for "predictions" for the future, if the logic used in this thread is typical of your predictions. 

 

Punishment is intended to reprimand someone and keep them from doing the same action again. We don't need deterrents for people buying groceries, or eating at restaurants. Those are all appropriate behaviors.

 

Inappropriate behaviors require punishments, and those punishments have to have meaning. A financial punishment is NOT equal without it being on a sliding scale. A 150 dollar fine given to everyone is only "equal" in the most basic sense of the term, but not for the purposes of the fine. Punishments need to have equal weight for everyone. In that sense, a fine should be adjusted to have equal impact.

 

12 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

its just basic socialism by any other name, actually maybe a little more communist in nature.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

 

i heard this saying before just cant remember where ?

Your reference is talking about social benefits. We are talking about punishments for illegal activity here. Different purposes, different topic. 

 

11 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think what you are missing is,  we don't think Rich people should have no or little consequences for breaking the law,  we think it should actually be the same as everyone else.

Except that a fine of 400 dollars is not the same for a millionaire as it is for a janitor. That is the basis of the entire article. That fine may mean the janitor can't buy groceries. The millionaire will never notice it missing. 

 

13 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Where did I say the rich earned the right to break the law with little consequence? You’re talking about someone getting a speeding ticket which doesn’t happy frequently or else they would have no license. The wealthy can’t get 20 speeding tickets and still drive. Nothing like making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

 

Fortunately we have other punishment systems in place for speeding so you're right in reality eventually everyone who is a frequent speeder will just lose their license.

 

However, I don't believe every law that is punishable by fines has a similar system in place, and this discussion doesn't just have to be focused on speeding. Speeding is just an easy example to conceptualize.