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

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Póg mo said:

All being equal, sure. The world sure ain't equal though  Some people are wealthy because they had wealthy parents. Why punish the poor, for being poor? Isn't the law supposed to be applied equally, so why are the rich being given a free pass to do what they want?

So using your logic, a person without a job who murders someone could potentially not go to jail, a middle-income bloke would get a life sentence, and a rich person (have to define rich, but...) would serve two life sentences for that same murder.  

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So using your logic, a person without a job who murders someone could potentially not go to jail, a middle-income bloke would get a life sentence, and a rich person (have to define rich, but...) would serve two life sentences for that same murder.  

We are talking about a punishment in the source of a financial burden, and comparing different levels of wealth.

 

Your example is stratifying people by wealth and then adjusting a non-monetary form of punishment. Very different thing.

 

Though you could argue in our current system the opposite of what you suggest already occurs. OJ is the poster boy.

 

To highlight how your example is wrong in a slightly different way -

 

The people in your example don't have different amounts of their "life" to give. A rich person doesn't live 6 lives and therefore can give 2 life sentences away. The punishment and the tool with which you are stratifying people are unrelated and therefore should remain independent of one another.

 

Now if we had a subspecies that lives 1,000 years then you could argue those people should serve relatively longer sentences to adjust for their long lives. 5 years in prison is not the same for them as it is for you or I.

Edited March 20, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, smilesammich said:

are you trying to prove my point now or what?

you do, every year when you file your taxes.

I find it obvious that he is pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

And no, you are not proving your income to anyone when you file your taxes.  You are simply balancing the books, making sure you didn’t pay too much, nor too little.  Just paying unto Caesar that which is due unto him.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, smilesammich said:

yep, states already pay collections agencies. not as difficult as you think.

 

i'm sorry. work harder.

Instead of telling poor NB to work harder, perhaps all the poor people should just get another job, so that their $100 fines are a lower proportion of their income.  Just like the rich.

[Dashinka 24,494]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I find it obvious that he is pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

And no, you are not proving your income to anyone when you file your taxes.  You are simply balancing the books, making sure you didn’t pay too much, nor too little.  Just paying unto Caesar that which is due unto him.

You seem to forget, it all belongs to Caesar.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, smilesammich said:

the premise of the op has nothing to do with poor people whining or being jealous of rich people. 

No, but most of your posts in this thread do.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

We are talking about a punishment in the source of a financial burden, and comparing different levels of wealth.

 

Your example is stratifying people by wealth and then adjusting a non-monetary form of punishment. Very different thing.

 

Though you could argue in our current system the opposite of what you suggest already occurs. OJ is the poster boy.

 

To highlight how your example is wrong in a slightly different way -

 

The people in your example don't have different amounts of their "life" to give. A rich person doesn't live 6 lives and therefore can give 2 life sentences away. The punishment and the tool with which you are stratifying people are unrelated and therefore should remain independent of one another.

 

Now if we had a subspecies that lives 1,000 years then you could argue those people should serve relatively longer sentences to adjust for their long lives. 5 years in prison is not the same for them as it is for you or I.

Today, perhaps.  But I assure you, that if what the OP suggests becomes the law, then what I proposed will soon follow it.  Just more ridiculous laws to separate the classes even farther.  
 

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Today, perhaps.  But I assure you, that if what the OP suggests becomes the law, then what I proposed will soon follow it.  Just more ridiculous laws to separate the classes even farther.  
 

You can't assure that because what you proposed has nothing to do with the original post's proposal.

 

One is talking about adjusting a financial based punishment by an individual's wealth. Money adjusted by money.

 

The other is suggesting we take a non-financial based punishment and adjust it by level of finance. Prison sentences adjusted by money.

 

One makes logical sense. The other one doesn't. It's pretty simple.

Edited March 20, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

16 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I find it obvious that he is pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

And no, you are not proving your income to anyone when you file your taxes.  You are simply balancing the books, making sure you didn’t pay too much, nor too little.  Just paying unto Caesar that which is due unto him.

i don't see it.

caesar takes what is due him and then you balance your books. ultimately, you are not the one determining if you've paid enough. you report your income and caesar makes that call.

14 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Instead of telling poor NB to work harder, perhaps all the poor people should just get another job, so that their $100 fines are a lower proportion of their income.  Just like the rich.

shouldn't nb work harder if he wants to fly first class?

13 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

No, but most of your posts in this thread do.

really,  quote where i have whined. i agree with the op. 

[Lupigirl 67]

I’ve thought about this in the past.  My ex used to park his trailer in the alley behind our home, which wasn’t legal.  He would get tickets all the time.  But the fines weren’t large enough to make him stop.  Is it fair that he could afford to park illegally while some of our neighbors could not?  

 

For a fine to be a deterrent, it has to have some sort of impact.  Otherwise, it’s nothing more than a transaction to facilitate illegal activity.

 

 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

That is speculative.

 

You don't know it doesn't work as a deterrent unless you have data without the fines showing the rates of speeding are the same.

 

A deterrent isn't expected to bring the rate to zero. It just needs to reduce it by whatever degree you consider "worth it" for the effort of the deterrent.

 

Fines are quite easy since the "effort" is quite minimal compared to their secondary benefit (raising money). So they don't need to reduce the rate by much to make them worthwhile.

 

It isn't hard to see that a 150 dollar fine means a lot more to someone in 20,000 a year than someone on 1,000,000 a year. It's simple math.

So a person making $20K per year should be extra careful driving since they don’t have any disposable income. 

 

The only deterrent I’ve personally heard about multiple speeding fines is losing your license. You guys are making it sound  like these people are getting tickets every time they get behind the wheel.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I guess I’m just strange and believe that I am responsible for my own actions. If I can’t afford to pay a speeding ticket, I better not speed. Ditto for a parking ticket. I’m 100% in control. 

 

What would you suggest, a hearing  for every traffic violation where the offender has to submit tax returns, pay stubs etc to prove income and then have a decision made on the fine? 

 

      Ultimately if the goal is to stop speeding the flip side is also true - you shouldn't have people doing 100 in a 60 zone every day just because the fine is of no consequence.  There has to be a consequence. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of monetary fine would balance that out though. You can make the fine 50x higher and it wouldn't deter those who can afford it.

 

   We already have drivers license points/demerits so that is one balance. The playing field is relatively level that way. Most people can only get a few tickets in a year before they are in court looking at their driving privileges revoked. Beyond that, the balance would be stiffer penalties for serial offenders. Some states do that already. Keep speeding, lose your license for a longer period.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Steeleballz

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      Ultimately if the goal is to stop speeding so the flip side is also true - you shouldn't have people doing 100 in a 60 zone every day just because the fine is of no consequence.  There has to be a consequence. Unfortunately I don't think any amount of monetary fine would balance that out though. 

 

   We already have drivers license points/demerits so that is one balance. The playing field is relatively level that way. Most people can only get a few tickets in a year before they are in court looking at their driving privileges revoked. Beyond that, the balance would be stiffer penalties for serial offenders. Some states do that already. 

Exactly. Here it’s 3 tickets and loss of license for x period. I’m not buying that the rich do whatever they want because they can afford the fine and the poor can’t. The connected can get a ticket fixed rather easily. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

Exactly. Here it’s 3 tickets and loss of license for x period. I’m not buying that the rich do whatever they want because they can afford the fine and the poor can’t. The connected can get a ticket fixed rather easily. 

 

   It's never going to be completely fair. If I'm a billionaire and I lose my drivers license I just hire a guy to drive me everywhere. Or yeah, maybe the judge is my neighbor and I just get a warning. Life has always been that way.  

 

  I think the loss of a drivers license is more of a deterrent in the long run than higher fines though. As much as people are arguing about it in this thread, I don't think rich people actually care if a fine is $100 or $1000, much like I don't care if my coffee costs $2 or $3. 

 

   

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

34 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't see it.

caesar takes what is due him and then you balance your books. ultimately, you are not the one determining if you've paid enough. you report your income and caesar makes that call.

shouldn't nb work harder if he wants to fly first class?

really,  quote where i have whined. i agree with the op. 

And I doubt you ever will.

 

No.  we pay an amount of taxes throughout the year based on a tier which is typically inflated.  Then at the end of the year, we adjust those taxes based on gross income and deductions.  Many people get a refund, because they did not properly set up their W4.  All Caesar does is provide the forms with which to balance the books.  It’s up to us to pay (or not).  Some choose not to.  In the end, we pay far less than what the tiers suggest.  (Kind of goes back to that Canadian tax argument Teddy and I underwent.  My ETR is around 10%, and Canadians pay 40-50%. Big difference.)

If NB should work harder to fly first class, then poor people who get tickets should work harder to reduce the ratio of the fines from tickets.  Same thing applies.

 

Agreeing with the OP is pretty much like whining.  You don’t think it’s fair that a rich person pays the same as a poor person.  And you also fail to see that if we WERE to move to an income based monetary punishment system, the court systems would be overwhelmed and the already slow process would become even slower.

Edited March 20, 2018 by IDWAF