you really shouldn't be speeding here

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 12:08:18 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Mar 5, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't see it as a "stick it to rich" issue. Everyone pays exactly the same percentage of their income when they choose to violate the law.

The flip side of this discussion would be that it is unjust for one person to pay $200 as a penalty for committing the same crime that another person pays a $60,000 penalty for committing.  If it's good public policy to penalize people based on their income, certainly the same would apply to the very poor and homeless, correct?  Since they have no, or very, very limited income, would they be free to commit crimes with complete impunity because they have no income on which to base any penalty?

Do you determie the penalty based on the severity of the crime?  Or do you determine the penalty based the income of the criminal?  If the penalty is based on the income of the criminal, you'd better open the doors to most of our prison cells and release all the prisoners who were poor or low income at the time of their incarceration.    

Well, since we are only talking about crimes that involve a financial penalty, I'm not

sure it would engender a crime spree. For some perhaps, but unless they had zero income,

there would be a non zero fine. Are all rich people committing crimes with impunity because

they can afford the fines? Some perhaps, but most of them I think not. I think it would be

similar for the poor.

The real bad stuff includes prison time which is based on the crime.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 12:21:27 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Then the question becomes why do the poor and rich pay the same for anything? I mean a rich person pays the same for a bag of potatoes as a poor person does.  Shouldn't the poor person get potato price break?  How about property taxes,  if two people are living in identical houses why is fair that the person who makes less money has to pay a higher percentage of their income in property taxes. Yes I'm wandering down the strawman argument path,  probably because I see this income based fine system just as ridiculous. 

Well your strawman actually has legs in a case or two. Some towns choose to lower

property taxes for their over 65 year old residents irregardless of their income so someone

with less income under 65 does indeed pay more property taxes than someone in a similar

house with better income whether retirement or still working at 65 or older.

Likewise, the poor often live near fewer grocery stores with often overall higher prices.

Depending on the item they often do pay more than the average or rich person with more options.

Property taxes you at least can vote on and to some extent choose when you buy. How

many of us have the option to vote on traffic fines and other municipal violations? I'm not

aware of most of the fines, so I'd be in shock most likely if I ran afoul of them. I do think it

would be more fair to have a income based system or at least some version of sliding scale

so we don't keep the poor in financial chains just because they did one stupid thing.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 10:47:59 GMT -5 justme said:

Mar 6, 2015 10:45:40 GMT -5 Opti said:

I don't write the laws, but very few highways actually have fences running near them, so

people, deer, dogs, cats, etc. can get onto the highway and sometimes do. Maybe that's

part of the reasoning, IDK. I have seen some limits of 55mph when a school was within

a certain amount of yards of the highway.

The slowest parts are elevated actually. And there's fences.

Urban area?

[justme]

Mar 6, 2015 12:36:06 GMT -5 Opti said:

Mar 6, 2015 10:47:59 GMT -5 justme said:

The slowest parts are elevated actually. And there's fences.

Urban area?

Yea but not like NYC urban or anything.

[tskeeter]

Mar 5, 2015 20:04:28 GMT -5 beergut said:

Mar 5, 2015 18:23:30 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country.

Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules.

If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get.

While I completely agree with the gist of your argument, the fine represent .8% of his annual income. I hardly think that is 'sticking it to the rich', or a reason to leave the country. 

Beer, like with most decisions people make, a rich person's decision to leave their home country isn't based only one something like receiving an expensive traffic ticket.  Rather, it's based on a pervasive system of public behavior and social engineering that imposes a heavier burden on one group than another.

Rich people pay bigger fines than poor people who commit the very same crimes.

Rich people pay a higher percentage of income taxes on their income than poorer people.

Rich people are deprived of certain tax deductions/tax credits that poorer people enjoy.

A rich person pays a luxury/gas guzzler tax on the car they purchase while the poorer person does not at a time when there is a surplus of motor fuel.  (I recognize there is some discretion involved in this decision, but it is a part of our Robin Hood mentality.)

Rich people are publicly vilified by politicians and social activist groups.  (What poor person has ever been referrred to as a robber baron?  Why aren't the poorest 1% of our population vilified for their lack of economic contribution?)  While at the same time the rich provide jobs in their businesses, spend their wealth in a fashion that creates employement for others, and are the largest contributors to not for profits that often provide services to the poor.

Frankly, the last item is probably the biggest reason why the rich abandon their home country in search of places that will appreciate the contributions they make to the country where they live or operate businesses.  The other things become the straw that breaks the camel's back and confirms the perception that they are really persona non grata in their home country simply because they, or someone in their family, worked really hard to generate significant wealth.  

 

   

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 12:36:36 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 12:34:16 GMT -5 Opti said:

Well your strawman actually has legs in a case or two. Some towns choose to lower

property taxes for their over 65 year old residents irregardless of their income so someone

with less income under 65 does indeed pay more property taxes than someone in a similar

house with better income whether retirement or still working at 65 or older.

Likewise, the poor often live near fewer grocery stores with often overall higher prices.

Depending on the item they often do pay more than the average or rich person with more options.

Property taxes you at least can vote on and to some extent choose when you buy. How

many of us have the option to vote on traffic fines and other municipal violations? I'm not

aware of most of the fines, so I'd be in shock most likely if I ran afoul of them. I do think it

would be more fair to have a income based system or at least some version of sliding scale

so we don't keep the poor in financial chains just because they did one stupid thing.

You don't vote for local government where you live?   Huh... that's odd. 

I vote for local government. I don't get any direct input on traffic fines or

municipal violations. You do?

[Opti]

Rich people pay bigger fines than poor people who commit the very same crimes.

Maybe in Finland, where is this true. But generally not in the US.

In spite of all the added costs of being rich, who really would choose to be in the bottom 1%

when you could choose to be in the top 10 or 1%? When it becomes more desireable to be

poor than to be rich, we will know the scales have totally tipped in favor of poor people.

ETA: Until then, let's not lie to ourselves how horrible it is to be rich and how

wonderful it is to be poor. If it was more wonderful to be poor, you would have already

chosen to be poor. The fact you haven't made that choice says its still far better to be rich

all issues and obstacles included.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 13:27:04 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 13:10:16 GMT -5 Opti said:

ETA: Until then, let's not lie to ourselves how horrible it is to be rich and how

wonderful it is to be poor. If it was more wonderful to be poor, you would have already

chosen to be poor. The fact you haven't made that choice says its still far better to be rich

all issues and obstacles included.

Let's also not martyr all the poor people either and absolve them of personal responsibility based on their bank accounts.  

And where did I absolve them of all personal responsibility? In fact, I notice the word

responsibility does not even exist in what you chose to quote.

Please don't edit in your own biases to what I say. I'm merely making the point that with

all the baggage that comes with being poor or being rich, almost 100% of people would still

choose rich without hesitation. I'm not going to lift up rich people as Gods, just

because they have big wallets. We all know rich and famous people have been paying their

way out of being as responsible as those with more limited financial means. Thankfully some

do not, but money does get you lesser or no jail sentences and sometimes you can even evade

any punishment whatsoever.

[billisonboard]

Mar 6, 2015 11:36:22 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 10:51:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Answer: social pressure.

What makes justice less blind when the fine is a set percentage of income rather than a specific dollar amount? The judge says guilty, pay the clerk. Justice done. Now it is just bureaucratic process to determine the amount.

So then why don't we advocate the same for sentencing guidelines like Hoops mentioned? 

I believe that time and money operate differently psychologically for most people and thus would not have the same deterrent effect.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 13:25:32 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 13:06:36 GMT -5 Opti said:

I vote for local government. I don't get any direct input on traffic fines or

municipal violations. You do?

Not direct input,  but if something doesn't happen to my liking I have recourse.  I can go to city meetings,  I can start grass roots campaigns,  I can vote for someone who thinks like I do,  I can run myself.  

Recourse is something, but not as good as direct input IMO. I don't think I've ever voted

for someone who really thinks like I do. I usually choose the option I think I can best live with

and reluctantly accept the odds they won't be elected.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 14:01:52 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 13:51:07 GMT -5 Opti said:

And where did I absolve them of all personal responsibility? In fact, I notice the word

responsibility does not even exist in what you chose to quote.

Please don't edit in your own biases to what I say. I'm merely making the point that with

all the baggage that comes with being poor or being rich, almost 100% of people would still

choose rich without hesitation. I'm not going to lift up rich people as Gods, just

because they have big wallets. We all know rich and famous people have been paying their

way out of being as responsible as those with more limited financial means. Thankfully some

do not, but money does get you lesser or no jail sentences and sometimes you can even evade

any punishment whatsoever.

I'm not editing in my bias.  You are perfectly clear in this thread and the Ferguson that if you are poor you should be held to a different set of standards.  

I'm saying there should be reasonable fines and expectations for the poorer residents.

Its you who have chosen to see that as advocating a lack of responsibility for poor people.

[billisonboard]

Mar 6, 2015 12:08:18 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Mar 5, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I don't see it as a "stick it to rich" issue. Everyone pays exactly the same percentage of their income when they choose to violate the law.

The flip side of this discussion would be that it is unjust for one person to pay $200 as a penalty for committing the same crime that another person pays a $60,000 penalty for committing.  If it's good public policy to penalize people based on their income, certainly the same would apply to the very poor and homeless, correct?  Since they have no, or very, very limited income, would they be free to commit crimes with complete impunity because they have no income on which to base any penalty?

Do you determie the penalty based on the severity of the crime?  Or do you determine the penalty based the income of the criminal?  If the penalty is based on the income of the criminal, you'd better open the doors to most of our prison cells and release all the prisoners who were poor or low income at the time of their incarceration.    

I think that we should take a serious look at what crimes we punish people with a loss of property and what crimes we punish people with a loss of freedom of movement for a block of time. What is the goal of consequence in a given situation? Here is a simple one to me. If you demonstrate that you are going to kill people if we give you the opportunity, we need to stop giving you that opportunity by seriously restricting your access to other people. Other behavior/consequence connections are less clear to me.

[Opti]

Mar 6, 2015 14:09:14 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Mar 6, 2015 14:05:43 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm saying there should be reasonable fines and expectations for the poorer residents.

Its you who have chosen to see that as advocating a lack of responsibility for poor people.

I guess it depends on your definition of reasonable. 

It does.

I drew my line in the sand by suggesting no more than double the initial fine.

[billisonboard]

Mar 6, 2015 12:21:27 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Then the question becomes why do the poor and rich pay the same for anything? I mean a rich person pays the same for a bag of potatoes as a poor person does. ...

You are compensating a farmer for his/her time in production of the potato, you are compensating those ho produced the bag, those who got the potato to market, those who provide the market with the money paid for a bag of potatos. A fine for a behavior is an attempt to punish, deter, and/or create revenue for a government entity.

[dannylion]

This policy works in Finland because it is a very small country with a very homogeneous population and a consensus within that small, homogeneous population on "social equity" issues.  They also consistently rank very high in surveys that measure the perceived trustworthiness of the government and other social institutions. 

Trying to institute a similar policy in any large, diverse country where a large part of the population came from somewhere else and government or any other authority is viewed with suspicion and every locality has its own laws and agendas and sources (or lack of) funding is likely to get ugly and end in tears. 

[NastyWoman]

Rich people are publicly vilified by politicians and social activist groups. (What poor person has ever been referrred to as a robber baron? Why aren't the poorest 1% of our population vilified for their lack of economic contribution?)

Tskeeter, this just has to be the most ironic comment I have read in a long time! You mean you have never read anything about welfare queens, people abusing the welfare system (you know like the coach purse carrying, crab legs buying kind), the people who obviously did not try hard enough to find more than a minimum wage job if they found one at all, the free school breakfasts and lunches we are providing for these leeches that "spawn" indiscriminately just so they can keep milking the system   

With you closing in on 3900 posts I can only surmise that you only post and never read or else you would know that quite a lot of disdain is spouted about the poorest  people in this country. 

[beergut]

On 'robber barons':

Did you know what when Stanford chose to drop the 'Indians' mascot, and let students vote for a new team name, they overwhelmingly chose "Robber Barons"? The administration didn't like their choice, and chose Cardinal instead. 

In any case, some of those industrialists who were called such earned that title. 

[Spellbound454]

There are speed cameras everywhere in Britain...

I go through about four thousand per year... just getting to work

The fine is £100 for everyone (but the insurance usually goes up as well)

and I've been caught twice  for being just a few mph over.

Councils are using it as a cash cow... so it not stopping anytime soon.