Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Fines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fines. Show all posts

May 15, 2018

Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor

  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor
Garioshi 4 hours ago#1
Discuss.
yeah i agree i suppose.

i get a shitton of parking fines and they usually put me behind rent for the week
Started from the bottom now we here
JE19426 3 hours ago#3
I agree. They're often a large portion of a poor person's income, and a small portion of a rich person's income.
tennisdude818 3 hours ago#4
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.
"I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
Omega Hunter 3 hours ago#5
Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+
Living is naturally hell, you have to work to put a smile on.
http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/7_ugmpjq.gif
Southernfatman 3 hours ago#6
What's a $150 dollar fine to some millionaire? Meanwhile a $150 dollar fine can screw with a poor person's life.

Aren't fines supposed to be a deterrent against certain crimes? Fines not being scaled to income level is just another way rich people can get away with crimes.
https://imgur.com/hslUvRN
When I sin I sin real good.
(edited 3 hours ago)reportquote
John_Galt 3 hours ago#7
Southernfatman posted...
Aren't fines supposed to be a deterrent

No most of the bullshit fines are just extortion rackets used to prop up big government/welfare state
Who is John Galt?
Darkman124 3 hours ago#8
Omega Hunter posted...
Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+


imagine if instead of a ticket the car got towed to an impound lot [damage to your vehicle is not the responsibility of the towing company]

that would stop overnight
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
(edited 3 hours ago)reportquote
Mist_Turnips 3 hours ago#9
Then don't get the fines...
Posted with GameRaven 3.4
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


a little harder to implement practically..
Started from the bottom now we here
Fam_Fam 3 hours ago#11
haloiscoolisbak posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


a little harder to implement practically..


why? if you can do it for tickets, you can do it for that.

also, people will cheat the system so bad. there will be more fraud than there already is.
Fam_Fam posted...
haloiscoolisbak posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
 show hidden quote(s)


a little harder to implement practically..


why? if you can do it for tickets, you can do it for that.

also, people will cheat the system so bad. there will be more fraud than there already is.


the government has ready access to people's incomes 

imagine having to bring proof of your income bracket to the shop every time you wanted a sandwich
Started from the bottom now we here
They should just make the fines 50% of the person's income for that month. There, fixed.
I'm here! I'm furry! I'll try not to shed! =^_^=
i7 5820K|Rampage V Extreme|32GB DDR4 Ripjaws 4|2xSLI GTX 980ti Lightning LE|HAF 932|Sony 55inch 4K HDR|HTC Vive
lesidesi 3 hours ago#14
things like parking tickets are absolutely a loose form of a regressive tax, for better or for worse
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
Cal12 3 hours ago#15
lesidesi posted...
things like parking tickets are absolutely a loose form of a regressive tax, for better or for worse


Or you know, don’t park where you’re not supposed to?
lesidesi 3 hours ago#16
i don't disagree, but that's not the point i'm making
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
pinky0926 3 hours ago#17
Agree, because 

Omega Hunter posted...
Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+
CE's Resident Scotsman. 
https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV
pinky0926 3 hours ago#18
Cal12 posted...
lesidesi posted...
things like parking tickets are absolutely a loose form of a regressive tax, for better or for worse


Or you know, don’t park where you’re not supposed to?


Doesn't work because 

Omega Hunter posted...
Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+
CE's Resident Scotsman. 
https://imgur.com/ILz2ZbV
RE_expert44 3 hours ago#19
How can these people prove their income when many can't even provide an ID?
LockeMonster 3 hours ago#20
Cal12 posted...
lesidesi posted...
things like parking tickets are absolutely a loose form of a regressive tax, for better or for worse


Or you know, don’t park where you’re not supposed to?

"Scranton is great, but New York is like Scranton on acid. No, on speed. Nah. On steroids."
FC: 3282-3258-0224
Darkman124 3 hours ago#21
Cal12 posted...
lesidesi posted...
things like parking tickets are absolutely a loose form of a regressive tax, for better or for worse


Or you know, don’t park where you’re not supposed to?


tell the rich that

by towing their cars
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
Fam_Fam 2 hours ago#22
haloiscoolisbak posted...
Fam_Fam posted...
haloiscoolisbak posted...
 show hidden quote(s)


why? if you can do it for tickets, you can do it for that.

also, people will cheat the system so bad. there will be more fraud than there already is.


the government has ready access to people's incomes 

imagine having to bring proof of your income bracket to the shop every time you wanted a sandwich


people would just put cars under their poor friend's names
silentwing26x 2 hours ago#23
dont break the law and you'll be fine
No, and you know why:

This says that EVEN THOUGH you know you shouldn't speed, or park in front of a hydrant or roll through a stop sign, and even though they have a ticket amount that is relatively set in stone it's not as big a deal if you're poor. The fee is the fee. You know what when you took your drivers test, you knew that when you bought a car, and you knew that when you turned the car on and put it in drive that morning. 

You literally can not get more fair then "it's the same for everybody"
"I also advised their executives through e-mail that further behavior could result in a cyber attack[...]"
https://imgur.com/cSxy3Od
averagejoel 2 hours ago#25
Fam_Fam posted...
haloiscoolisbak posted...
Fam_Fam posted...
 show hidden quote(s)


the government has ready access to people's incomes 

imagine having to bring proof of your income bracket to the shop every time you wanted a sandwich


people would just put cars under their poor friend's names

then charge according to the income of the driver. problem solved
peanut butter and dick
Darkman124 2 hours ago#26
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
You literally can not get more fair then "it's the same for everybody"

except $100 is not the same for everybody

averagejoel posted...
then charge according to the income of the driver. problem solved


seems like this would break down with parking violations
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
(edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
pegusus123456 2 hours ago#27
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
You literally can not get more fair then "it's the same for everybody"

Omega Hunter posted...
Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+
https://imgur.com/Er6TT https://imgur.com/Er6TT https://imgur.com/Er6TT
So? I deeded to some gay porn. It doesn't mean anything. - Patty_Fleur
Darkman124 posted...
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
You literally can not get more fair then "it's the same for everybody"

except $100 is not the same for everybody


It literally is. 100 dollars from person A has the same buying power as 100 dollars from Person B.
"I also advised their executives through e-mail that further behavior could result in a cyber attack[...]"
https://imgur.com/cSxy3Od
(edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
voldothegr8 2 hours ago#29
This same logic can be applied to just about anything people buy. Rich people have easier lives financially, water is wet.
Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
JE19426 2 hours ago#30
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
It literally is.


Wrong. Try again.
Darkman124 2 hours ago#31
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
It literally is. 100 dollars from person A has the same buying power as 100 dollars from Person B.

you're being intentionally obtuse
And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.
DevsBro 2 hours ago#32
Fines that are are a free pass for the unemployed.
JE19426 2 hours ago#33
DevsBro posted...
Fines that are are a free pass for the unemployed.


Your sentence doesn't make any sense.
Garioshi 2 hours ago#34
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
Darkman124 posted...
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
 show hidden quote(s)

except $100 is not the same for everybody


It literally is. 100 dollars from person A has the same buying power as 100 dollars from Person B.

Let's just scrap the tax system and replace it with a $50,000 yearly fine for everyone. You literally cannot get more fair.
(edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
Darkman124 posted...
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
 show hidden quote(s)

except $100 is not the same for everybody


It literally is. 100 dollars from person A has the same buying power as 100 dollars from Person B.

JE19426 posted...
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
It literally is.


Wrong. Try again.


How am I wrong? If we both have 100 dollars and go to a store your hundred doesn't buy more. 

Listen if you want to start making the world a better place and all of that, why isn't food cheaper depending on how much money you have. Or Car insurance? Or any number of things that doesn't involve doing something wrong.
"I also advised their executives through e-mail that further behavior could result in a cyber attack[...]"
https://imgur.com/cSxy3Od
DevsBro 2 hours ago#36
JE19426 posted...
DevsBro posted...
Fines that are are a free pass for the unemployed.


Your sentence doesn't make any sense.

My income is $0 so I can park wherever I want.
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


Fines are punishments meant to deter behavior. If they are the same for all it won’t deter the rich from bad behavior.

Buying a sandwich is buying a fucking sandwich.
The FAM
voldothegr8 2 hours ago#38
Garioshi posted...
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
Darkman124 posted...
 show hidden quote(s)


It literally is. 100 dollars from person A has the same buying power as 100 dollars from Person B.

Let's just scrap the tax system and replace it with a $50,000 yearly fine for everyone. You literally cannot get more fair.

You're comparing taxes to fines which are fundamentally different. One is mandatory, the other is for breaking the law. Don't break the law if you can't afford the concequences.
Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
KiwiTerraRizing posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


Fines are punishments meant to deter behavior. If they are the same for all it won’t deter the rich from bad behavior.

Buying a sandwich is buying a fucking sandwich.


Doesn't stop poor people either. 

PEople speed and know that they could get pulled over and it would cost them, say, 200 dollars. When they still speed they are saying "i know this could cost me a fifth of my paycheck this month but I don't care." How is making the fine less to where it takes a tenth of their monthly paycheck helping anything?
"I also advised their executives through e-mail that further behavior could result in a cyber attack[...]"
https://imgur.com/cSxy3Od
JE19426 2 hours ago#40
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
How am I wrong?


It's already been explained. $100s means more to people with less money.

DevsBro posted...
My income is $0 so I can park wherever I want.

Are you incapable of making sense right now? Or are you just trolling? Because if it's none of those then I don't know why you aren't making any sense.
voldothegr8 2 hours ago#41
WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
KiwiTerraRizing posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
 show hidden quote(s)


Fines are punishments meant to deter behavior. If they are the same for all it won’t deter the rich from bad behavior.

Buying a sandwich is buying a fucking sandwich.


Doesn't stop poor people either. 

PEople speed and know that they could get pulled over and it would cost them, say, 200 dollars. When they still speed they are saying "i know this could cost me a fifth of my paycheck this month but I don't care." How is making the fine less to where it takes a tenth of their monthly paycheck helping anything?

Also this.
Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
averagejoel 2 hours ago#42
Darkman124 posted...
seems like this would break down with parking violations

idk there are lots of ways to fix this so that particular type of cheating the system doesn't work. that was just the first one that came to mind.
peanut butter and dick
ChainedRedone 2 hours ago#43
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


If all food cost $150, I'd agree. That work be an anti-poor policy. Don't see how you could argue against it.
voldothegr8 2 hours ago#44
JE19426 posted...
It's already been explained. $100s means more to people with less money.

So fucking what. Then maybe they should be more careful to not break the law. Lowering their fine isn't going to help, nor will raising them for rich people.
Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
(edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
JE19426 2 hours ago#45
voldothegr8 posted...
So fucking what


Are you just ignoring reading post that are multiple or a certain number? It's already been explained.
voldothegr8 2 hours ago#46
JE19426 posted...
voldothegr8 posted...
So fucking what


Are you just ignoring reading post that are multiple or a certain number? It's already been explained.

voldothegr8 posted...
Then maybe they should be more careful to not break the law. Lowering their fine isn't going to help, nor will raising them for rich people.

voldothegr8 posted...
Rich people have easier lives financially, water is wet.
Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
(edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
tennisdude818 2 hours ago#47
haloiscoolisbak posted...
tennisdude818 posted...
Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

Discuss.


a little harder to implement practically..


My point was that it’s absurd to charge a rich person $1,000 and a poor person $10 for the same infraction. If people are constantly parking in front of fire hydrants, their cars should be towed. Otherwise, the state is just trying to raise revenue from tickets.

If we are talking about expired parking meters, then it shouldn’t bother anybody if a rich guy would rather throw $150 at the state rather than walk outside and refresh the meter for $2. If he thinks his time is worth that much, then have at it.
"I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
JE19426 2 hours ago#48
voldothegr8 posted...
So that's a yes, you are only reading posts that are a multiple of certain numbers?
RE_expert44 2 hours ago#49
We should scale prices of everything. For the poor a gallon of milk is 20 cents. For the rich its 4000 dollars. I personally want a 40 dollar Lamborghini
JE19426 2 hours ago#50
tennisdude818 posted...
My point was that it’s absurd to charge a rich person $1,000 and a poor person $10 for the same infraction. If people are constantly parking in front of fire hydrants, their cars should be towed. Otherwise, the state is just trying to raise revenue from tickets.


Nonesense. The point of varying fines based on income is to make sure it's as much of a deterrent to everyone, regardless of how much they earn.
  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events
    3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor
    DevsBro 2 hours ago#51
    JE19426 posted...
    DevsBro posted...
    My income is $0 so I can park wherever I want.

    Are you incapable of making sense right now? Or are you just trolling? Because if it's none of those then I don't know why you aren't making any sense.

    Look all I'm saying is more people have been to Russia than you.
    JE19426 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    My point was that it’s absurd to charge a rich person $1,000 and a poor person $10 for the same infraction. If people are constantly parking in front of fire hydrants, their cars should be towed. Otherwise, the state is just trying to raise revenue from tickets.


    Nonesense. The point of varying fines based on income is to make sure it's as much of a deterrent to everyone, regardless of how much they earn.


    Then make it 6 billion dollars. Or make it so your car is towed for speeding for a third time in a year.
    "I also advised their executives through e-mail that further behavior could result in a cyber attack[...]"
    https://imgur.com/cSxy3Od
    John_Galt 2 hours ago#53
    Great idea, liberals

    Let's have brackets for jaywalking violations 

    Ugh
    Who is John Galt?
    JE19426 2 hours ago#54
    DevsBro posted...
    Look all I'm saying is more people have been to Russia than you.


    Are you suffering from a stroke? Or on drugs? Or anything?

    WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
    Then make it 6 billion dollars. Or make it so your car is towed for speeding for a third time in a year.


    How, on Earth, does that make it as much of a deterrent to everyone, regardless of how much they earn?

    John_Galt posted...
    Great idea, liberals

    Let's have brackets for jaywalking violations 


    Agreed, nice to see you support us, although I'm not a liberal.
    (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
    DevsBro 2 hours ago#55
    JE19426 posted...
    DevsBro posted...
    Look all I'm saying is more people have been to Russia than you.


    Are you suffering from a stroke? Or on drugs? Or anything?

    Good grief dude it's not that hard.

    If you have three apples and I give you an orange, that's thermodynamics.
    voldothegr8 2 hours ago#56
    It's not anti poor, it's rich privilege. And after accruing so many fines, no matter the infraction, usually more severe consequences happen which are on a level playing field.
    Oda break tracker 2018- 3 (2) | THE Ohio State: 11-2 | Oakland Raiders: 6-10
    Super Mario Maker Profile: 1237-0000-0073-02FE
    JE19426 2 hours ago#57
    voldothegr8 posted...
    It's not anti poor, it's rich privilege.


    Lmao, you say that as if they are different things. They aren't.
    tennisdude818 2 hours ago#58
    JE19426 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    My point was that it’s absurd to charge a rich person $1,000 and a poor person $10 for the same infraction. If people are constantly parking in front of fire hydrants, their cars should be towed. Otherwise, the state is just trying to raise revenue from tickets.


    Nonesense. The point of varying fines based on income is to make sure it's as much of a deterrent to everyone, regardless of how much they earn.


    Deterrent from what? I already sufficiently covered parking infractions. Speeding tickets ding your liscense.

    Edit: Also, this leftist busybody tendency to want to make the impact the same for everyone is impossible to achieve. 2 people making $200k per year can have wildly different lives, priorities, and recurring expenses. And this logic could be extended to prison sentences. A 10 year sentence doesn’t have the same impact to everyone.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    (edited 2 hours ago)reportquote
    JE19426 2 hours ago#59
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Deterrent from what


    From breaking the law that resulting in the person getting the fine. What else could I be saying it's a deterrent from?
    tennisdude818 2 hours ago#60
    ^see my edited post #58
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    JE19426 2 hours ago#61
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Also, this leftist busybody tendency to want to make the impact the same for everyone is impossible to achieve.


    Do you have a point here?
    ManBeast462 2 hours ago#62
    That means a poor would be able to commit a lot more crime
    tennisdude818 2 hours ago#63
    JE19426 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Also, this leftist busybody tendency to want to make the impact the same for everyone is impossible to achieve.


    Do you have a point here?


    Yes. The part you cut off.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    JE19426 2 hours ago#64
    ManBeast462 posted...
    That means a poor would be able to commit a lot more crime


    Wrong. Try again.
    tennisdude818 2 hours ago#65
    ManBeast462 posted...
    That means a poor would be able to commit a lot more crime


    Just what poor communities need!
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    JE19426 2 hours ago#66
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Yes. The part you cut off.


    I didn't cut off any points. So you obviously don't have a point.
    tennisdude818 2 hours ago#67
    JE19426 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Yes. The part you cut off.


    I didn't cut off any points. So you obviously don't have a point.


    Oh so you just disregard arguments that you don’t like.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    Balrog0 2 hours ago#68
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Also, this leftist busybody tendency to want to make the impact the same for everyone is impossible to achieve. 2 people making $200k per year can have wildly different lives, priorities, and recurring expenses. And this logic could be extended to prison sentences. A 10 year sentence doesn’t have the same impact to everyone.


    yeah, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here either
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    darkjedilink 2 hours ago#69
    haloiscoolisbak posted...
    yeah i agree i suppose.

    i get a shitton of parking fines and they usually put me behind rent for the week

    Stop parking illegally.
    'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen
    JE19426 1 hour ago#70
    tennisdude818 posted...
    Oh so you just disregard arguments that you don’t like.


    Not at all. You can't have an argument without a point, and you didn't list a point. You've even gone from "you cut off my point" to "your ignoring my argument", as if they are the same thing, when they are infact two different things.
    (edited 1 hour ago)reportquote
    KILBOTz 1 hour ago#71
    I illegally drive in the HOV lane every day I drive up to Bellevue. In HOV, about 30-40 minutes. In regular lanes, 50-90 minutes. It's something like a $100 fine if you get caught, I haven't been caught in the 18 months I've been doing it. 

    At $100 a pop I'm willing to take the risk. If it was $1000 for my income level I wouldn't do it though.
    Thompson 1 hour ago#72
    As it's said before, a $100 fine is chump change to a person who earns $10,000 every day, but ruinous to a person who earns $500 a month. A fine that's a set percentage of a person's income is fairer and hopefully dissuades the perpetrator from doing the crime again regardless of their wealth. This can't be compared to buying a sandvich, since food is a necessity, and prices are dictated by numerous factors, such as supply and demand, labor and manufacturing costs, qulity of ingredients, value of money and exchange rates, competitors product prices, etc. A fine is a statutory penalty for committing illegal actions. There is no supply and demand, or competitors trying to issue a "better" or "cheaper" fine.
    Sigs are rather pointless, except if it's to showcase animation and images.
    Simple solution: a "points" system similar to moving violations.

    tennisdude818 posted...
    Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

    Discuss.

    And, much like parking in either a designated lot or a fire zone, there's several sandwich options of varying prices (and occasionally varying legality).
    (edited 1 hour ago)reportquote
    Oatcakes 1 hour ago#74
    voldothegr8 posted...
    Garioshi posted...
    WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...
     show hidden quote(s)

    Let's just scrap the tax system and replace it with a $50,000 yearly fine for everyone. You literally cannot get more fair.

    You're comparing taxes to fines which are fundamentally different. One is mandatory, the other is for breaking the law. Don't break the law if you can't afford the concequences.


    But comparing it to buying a sandwich is completely fine? (No pun intended)
    John_Galt posted...
    Great idea, liberals

    Let's have brackets for jaywalking violations 

    Ugh


    it is astounding how ignorant some ppl are of basic economics
    Balrog0 1 hour ago#76
    silentwing26x posted...
    John_Galt posted...
    Great idea, liberals

    Let's have brackets for jaywalking violations 

    Ugh


    it is astounding how ignorant some ppl are of basic economics


    in what way do you think this is ignorant of 'basic economics'?
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    Balrog0 posted...
    silentwing26x posted...
    John_Galt posted...
     show hidden quote(s)


    it is astounding how ignorant some ppl are of basic economics


    in what way do you think this is ignorant of 'basic economics'?


    think critically for a second or two. would police departments be incentivized or disincentivized to penalize the poor vs the rich if fines for breaking the law were % of income? which areas would they stop policing entirely due to cost benefit analyses?
    Questionmarktarius posted...
    Simple solution: a "points" system similar to moving violations.

    tennisdude818 posted...
    Sandwich prices that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor.

    Discuss.

    And, much like parking in either a designated lot or a fire zone, there's several sandwich options of varying prices (and occasionally varying legality).


    Yeah, using points or towing more vehicles makes the most sense if violations are so disruptive that the fine is clearly not deterring people. If the only problem is that some people are upset about existing fines feeling “unfair”, I don’t really care. Like I said in an earlier post, if a rich guy doesn’t want to bother refreshing the parking meter and would rather pay the $150 fine, I see no reason to up it to $10,000. It really depends on the infraction.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    Balrog0 1 hour ago#79
    silentwing26x posted...
    think critically for a second or two. would police departments be incentivized or disincentivized to penalize the poor vs the rich if fines for breaking the law were % of income? which areas would they stop policing entirely due to cost benefit analyses?


    are you suggesting that police departments focus on crimes as a way of raising revenue rather than as a way of promoting public safety or deterring crime?

    because I think you need to think about that a little more if that's your premise in this scenario
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    FLUFFYGERM 1 hour ago#80
    Balrog0 posted...
    silentwing26x posted...
    think critically for a second or two. would police departments be incentivized or disincentivized to penalize the poor vs the rich if fines for breaking the law were % of income? which areas would they stop policing entirely due to cost benefit analyses?


    are you suggesting that police departments focus on crimes as a way of raising revenue rather than as a way of promoting public safety or deterring crime?

    because I think you need to think about that a little more if that's your premise in this scenario


    for things like parking violations and basic moving violations, absolutely. it is why speed traps exist
    Do good.
    Eat communists.
    Balrog0 1 hour ago#81
    tennisdude818 posted...
    It really depends on the infraction.


    I agree 100% with this btw

    Though that means I am open to the idea of variable fines based on income. 

    For some things it clearly isn't appropriate, though.
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    Balrog0 1 hour ago#82
    FLUFFYGERM posted...
    for things like parking violations and basic moving violations, absolutely. it is why speed traps exist


    right

    so once you concede that, doesn't it seem like it's a good thing not to have people extracting money from you/your neighbors for petty crimes that don't cause serious harm to anyone? 

    like I'm not saying you shouldn't have traffic fines, just saying, that argument isn't a very convincing one
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    John_Galt posted...
    Great idea, liberals

    Let's have brackets for jaywalking violations 

    Ugh


    Leftists ITT: Fines based on income brackets will discourage violations.

    Leftists in general: Don’t say that a progressive income tax is a disincentive to being productive at higher brackets.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    Howl 1 hour ago#84
    Thompson posted...
    As it's said before, a $100 fine is chump change to a person who earns $10,000 every day, but ruinous to a person who earns $500 a month. A fine that's a set percentage of a person's income is fairer and hopefully dissuades the perpetrator from doing the crime again regardless of their wealth. This can't be compared to buying a sandvich, since food is a necessity, and prices are dictated by numerous factors, such as supply and demand, labor and manufacturing costs, qulity of ingredients, value of money and exchange rates, competitors product prices, etc. A fine is a statutory penalty for committing illegal actions. There is no supply and demand, or competitors trying to issue a "better" or "cheaper" fine.


    This is a very good post tbh. I agree with this entirely.
    Posted with GameRaven 3.3
    Balrog0 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    It really depends on the infraction.


    I agree 100% with this btw

    Though that means I am open to the idea of variable fines based on income. 

    For some things it clearly isn't appropriate, though.


    I was saying that the use of a fixed fine, points, or towing should be based on the infraction, just to be clear. Blocking a fire hydrant should get your car towed for example.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    CapnMuffin 1 hour ago#86
    Fam_Fam posted...
    haloiscoolisbak posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
     show hidden quote(s)


    a little harder to implement practically..


    why? if you can do it for tickets, you can do it for that.

    also, people will cheat the system so bad. there will be more fraud than there already is.

    One is an optional product. The other is a mandatory punishment.
    "its okay a lizard ate me and elucidated my fate" - MJ_Max on Dark Souls
    3DSFC : 0860-3930-2170 | NNID : CapnMuffin | XBGT : Capn Muffin
    Howl posted...
    Thompson posted...
    As it's said before, a $100 fine is chump change to a person who earns $10,000 every day, but ruinous to a person who earns $500 a month. A fine that's a set percentage of a person's income is fairer and hopefully dissuades the perpetrator from doing the crime again regardless of their wealth. This can't be compared to buying a sandvich, since food is a necessity, and prices are dictated by numerous factors, such as supply and demand, labor and manufacturing costs, qulity of ingredients, value of money and exchange rates, competitors product prices, etc. A fine is a statutory penalty for committing illegal actions. There is no supply and demand, or competitors trying to issue a "better" or "cheaper" fine.


    This is a very good post tbh. I agree with this entirely.

    But, there is competition. That's why parking garages and lots exist.
    The risk/reward is on the parker, by either having to remember to stick a quarter in the meter every quarter hour, or just paying the parking attendant $5 for the day, or circling the block several times for a free space, or just plain double parking or blocking a hydrant.

    Even those black-market handicapped hang-tags could considered "competition": https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/04/23/scammers-earn-big-bucks-by-selling-disabled-parking-placards/
    (edited 1 hour ago)reportquote
    Balrog0 posted...
    FLUFFYGERM posted...
    for things like parking violations and basic moving violations, absolutely. it is why speed traps exist


    right

    so once you concede that, doesn't it seem like it's a good thing not to have people extracting money from you/your neighbors for petty crimes that don't cause serious harm to anyone? 

    like I'm not saying you shouldn't have traffic fines, just saying, that argument isn't a very convincing one


    I could have said this in response to your other post that I quoted but why not just model it off of what a private enterprise would do? When you improperly park on somebody’s property, they want your car towed. They don’t care how much money you make, and any monetary compensation would be based on damages rather than your income.

    If you drive like an idiot on a private road, the owner would want you off the road. So again, a penalty point system would be used rather than some sliding fine based on income.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    Howl 1 hour ago#89
    Questionmarktarius posted...
    Howl posted...
    Thompson posted... 
     show hidden quote(s)


    This is a very good post tbh. I agree with this entirely.

    But, there is competition. That's why parking garages and lots exist.
    The risk is on the parker, by either having to remember to stick a quarter in the meter every quarter hour, or just paying the parking attendant $5 for the day, or circling the block several times for a free space.


    He was taking about fines and the government issuing those fines not having competition in their role as fine issuers. You completely misunderstood his post.
    Posted with GameRaven 3.3
    Balrog0 53 minutes ago#90
    tennisdude818 posted...
    I could have said this in response to your other post that I quoted but why not just model it off of what a private enterprise would do? When you improperly park on somebody’s property, they want your car towed. They don’t care how much money you make, and any monetary compensation would be based on damages rather than your income.

    If you drive like an idiot on a private road, the owner would want you off the road. So again, a penalty point system would be used rather than some sliding fine based on income.


    Someone said this was ignorant of 'basic economics' because it would dissuade cops from policing low-income areas. That's what that discussion was about.

    And that's why it doesn't necessarily make sense to do what private enterprise would do. Or maybe I should formulate it as a question. Would you expect private enterprises to step up their enforcement of parking or traffic violations in response to inadequate revenue from their main business? If so, why would you think that is appropriate for government to do? If not, do you realize that is what governments do?
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    Howl posted...
    Questionmarktarius posted...
    Howl posted...
     show hidden quote(s)

    But, there is competition. That's why parking garages and lots exist.
    The risk is on the parker, by either having to remember to stick a quarter in the meter every quarter hour, or just paying the parking attendant $5 for the day, or circling the block several times for a free space.


    He was taking about fines and the government issuing those fines not having competition in their role as fine issuers. You completely misunderstood his post.

    No. I didn't. It's just simple economics.

    The "cost" of parking illegally is the risk of a fine, amortized among the number of times you've gotten away with it. It's functionally no different from just paying a lot attendant.
    (edited 53 minutes ago)reportquote
    Howl 50 minutes ago#92
    Questionmarktarius posted...
    Howl posted...
    Questionmarktarius posted... 
     show hidden quote(s)


    He was taking about fines and the government issuing those fines not having competition in their role as fine issuers. You completely misunderstood his post.

    No. I didn't. It's just simple economics.

    The "cost" of parking illegally is the risk of a fine, amortized among the number of times you've gotten away with it. It's functionally no different from just paying a lot attendant.


    Yes you did misunderstand it. He was talking about fines in general not about parking fines specifically. Go reread it. Your comment about competition makes absolutely no sense in context as a reply to that post.
    Posted with GameRaven 3.3
    tennisdude818 39 minutes ago#93
    Balrog0 posted...
    tennisdude818 posted...
    I could have said this in response to your other post that I quoted but why not just model it off of what a private enterprise would do? When you improperly park on somebody’s property, they want your car towed. They don’t care how much money you make, and any monetary compensation would be based on damages rather than your income.

    If you drive like an idiot on a private road, the owner would want you off the road. So again, a penalty point system would be used rather than some sliding fine based on income.


    Someone said this was ignorant of 'basic economics' because it would dissuade cops from policing low-income areas. That's what that discussion was about.

    And that's why it doesn't necessarily make sense to do what private enterprise would do. Or maybe I should formulate it as a question. Would you expect private enterprises to step up their enforcement of parking or traffic violations in response to inadequate revenue from their main business? If so, why would you think that is appropriate for government to do? If not, do you realize that is what governments do?


    Like I said, I could have posted the above on the other comment string that we quoted each other on.

    If a massive amount of land, roads, etc that are now state owned were instead privately owned, owners would be competing with each other for traffic. If one owner is not doing well financially, he would only hasten his own bankruptcy by driving clients away via speed traps and unreasonable parking rules.
    "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
    averagejoel 38 minutes ago#94
    CapnMuffin posted...
    Fam_Fam posted...
    haloiscoolisbak posted...
     show hidden quote(s)


    why? if you can do it for tickets, you can do it for that.

    also, people will cheat the system so bad. there will be more fraud than there already is.

    One is an optional product. The other is a mandatory punishment.

    this just in: people don't have to eat anymore
    peanut butter and dick
    M_Live 37 minutes ago#95
    Completely agreed. Especially in NY where a minor traffic violation can set somebody back 100s of dollars but is a drop in the bucket for those with money. Perfect example of the legal system being unfair/biased.
    M_Live 36 minutes ago#96
    Omega Hunter posted...
    Go to NYC and you regularly see sports cars and exotic cars par ked in front of hydrants. Guys literally pay multiple tickets a day because $150 is pennies to them. Their cars are worth 300,000+

    This is what I had in mind with my last post, shit like this.
    krazychao5 35 minutes ago#97
    This is stupid concept. The fine is chosen based on the costs of the violation. It isn't fair for the same infraction to cost more to others for what is essentially a fairly deemed cost of the infraction.
    Balrog0 34 minutes ago#98
    tennisdude818 posted...
    If a massive amount of land, roads, etc that are now state owned were instead privately owned, owners would be competing with each other for traffic. If one owner is not doing well financially, he would only hasten his own bankruptcy by driving clients away via speed traps and unreasonable parking rules.


    maybe, we don't live in that world, though

    that isn't historically how transit systems have worked even before government was heavily involved to the extent that they are now. of course, there is no example of any transit system beyond dirt roads that had no government involvement, so...
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    Cal12 32 minutes ago#99
    M_Live posted...
    Completely agreed. Especially in NY where a minor traffic violation can set somebody back 100s of dollars but is a drop in the bucket for those with money. Perfect example of the legal system being unfair/biased.


    It’s not unfair at all. Don’t get a ticket. You are solely responsible for getting the ticket. The fine is a deterrent. You can’t scale a fine based on income. That’s an unjust system regardless of the persons income. Plus how would you even know?
    Balrog0 31 minutes ago#100
    Cal12 posted...
    You can’t scale a fine based on income.


    I mean, many European countries do this and it seems to be a more efficient system than the one we have , at least with respect to raising revenue -- not sure about deterring crime
    It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events
    3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events
      3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor
      JE19426 13 minutes ago#101
      Cal12 posted...
      You can’t scale a fine based on income.


      Of course you can.

      Plus how would you even know?


      The goverment uses people's income, to determine how much income tax they pay so they'd know.
      Of course, the very act of installing parking meters screws over businesses along that street.
      https://www.kshb.com/news/downtown-businesses-frustrated-with-parking-tickets
      "Those customers are not going to come back after they get a ticket because that's a deterrent," she said with a sigh. "They drive down Main Street and cannot find a spot. Unless they have cash, they can't park in the garages, either."
      tennisdude818 7 minutes ago#103
      Balrog0 posted...
      tennisdude818 posted...
      If a massive amount of land, roads, etc that are now state owned were instead privately owned, owners would be competing with each other for traffic. If one owner is not doing well financially, he would only hasten his own bankruptcy by driving clients away via speed traps and unreasonable parking rules.


      maybe, we don't live in that world, though

      that isn't historically how transit systems have worked even before government was heavily involved to the extent that they are now. of course, there is no example of any transit system beyond dirt roads that had no government involvement, so...


      We don’t know how society would organize itself if the government didn’t use tax dollars for massive amounts of public infrastructure. The point is, why not model this off of what private enterprise does absent monopoly powers? I would argue that such monopoly power is impossible to maintain without state privilege, you may or may not agree but it’s not relevant here. A functional private owner, with whatever caveat you think is necessary, would use tactics referenced in my original post on this chain rather than sliding fines based on income.
      "I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." Thomas Sowell
      Southernfatman 5 minutes ago#104
      Doesn't that "Well just don't break the law" argument go for rich people as well? Don't want that big fine, don't do the crime. 

      I don't know why there's such a huge defense of the wealthy like this all the time. Is there just some sort need or liking of a aristocracy/caste/hierarchy built in to certain people?
      https://imgur.com/hslUvRN
      When I sin I sin real good.
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events 
      3. Fines that aren't a percentage of a person's income are inherently anti-poor