Proportional fines

[Noir]

Not something that I think will be overly popular here, but as something to consider - Should fines/fees for basic violations be set in tiers based on the income of the violator?

As a basic example, parking in restricted zones may incur a fee of $100, the zone itself is restricted for road safety, to most people $100 is no small change and acts as a reasonable deterrent, and punishment. However, if your income is such that $100 is negligible...

Should all fines be equivalent regardless of the violators financial position, or do diminishing returns on the deterrent and punishment aspects of a fine suggest that tiered fines are more appropriate?

[darin]

I'm torn on the issue -

First, most fines should simply go away.

But - to this issue - I fall towards the fixed amount. The salary of the citizens is NOT the concern of the government. The fine should address the seriousness of infraction, NOT the financial status. Simply unfair to ask higher wage earners to pay more.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm torn on the issue -

First, most fines should simply go away.

But - to this issue - I fall towards the fixed amount. The salary of the citizens is NOT the concern of the government. The fine should address the seriousness of infraction, NOT the financial status. Simply unfair to ask higher wage earners to pay more.

Unfair--yes, but there is a war being waged on the wealthy by the obama admin(his class warfare division). At least there is in its vote gathering propaganda, never mind how he helps Wall Street make out like bandits while he roundly condemns them in his lying speeches.
In liberal land the going thing is to stick it to the wealthy any and every way possible.
Noir just seems to be in tune with that mentality IMHO.-Tyr

[darin]

What happens is this: People are compassionate. People feel like making special rules for the poor shows their compassion. In theory that's right - but in reality, it's never compassionate to burden others to enable another group.

That is to say this: Giving money to the poor WILL NEVER cure poverty. Doesn't matter how much- but giving money to people who will not EARN their money only makes more poverty. It reduces the wealth of the wage-earners and tax payers, which trickles down to fewer jobs and opportunity for those claiming to want "help".

Poverty - self-curable. 100%

[Nukeman]

This is a European thing I guess. They like to base your fines on your income. I think its a bad move, as DMP stated its not the earning potential its the infraction that counts.. If you feel the violation is serious enough to cost a fortune that is fine. You can always have your day in court and hopefully the judge will give you a "hardship" decrease on the violation.

This is a Socialistic way of looking at fines, and a backdoor way to get people "OK" with tiered billing or "everyone paying their fair share". Sorry Noir its bad form even for European countries....

[jimnyc]

A straight fine across the board for all.

So now what, cross reference IRS records with police databases with government at the helm? I don't think so. And then they'll claim it's a good thing, as the money will be used to help the poor. Phooey on that.

[Gunny]

I'm torn on the issue -

First, most fines should simply go away.

But - to this issue - I fall towards the fixed amount. The salary of the citizens is NOT the concern of the government. The fine should address the seriousness of infraction, NOT the financial status. Simply unfair to ask higher wage earners to pay more.

Ditto on the torn part.

I see fines as gimmicks to put our money in THEIR pockets. I got a no seatbelt ticket last year for turning the truck on before I put my seatbelt on. Then the choices are: "Do I pay the $150. ticket?" or "Spend $2000. hiring a lawyer, time lost at work and court costs trying to fight it?"

[Noir]

As i said i didn't think it would be popular here.


People feel like making special rules for the poor shows their compassion.

I think an interesting perspective difference is i would view it as a 'special rule' for the rich. I'm guessing most on here see it the other way round.

[Gunny]

As i said i didn't think it would be popular here.



I think an interesting perspective difference is i would view it as a 'special rule' for the rich. I'm guessing most on here see it the other way round.

Then why bring it up? Doesn't seem to be a whole bunch of socialists 'round these parts. Your whole socialist tier system is EXACTLY what's wrong with our tax system. That mindset that it's up to those that make more to prop up those that don't isn't fair. Period.

And "poor" here means you still have internet, cable tv, a cell phone and a new car. I was an adult before I had any of that crap. I don't expect someone to pay my way so I can have luxury items.

[Nukeman]

As i said i didn't think it would be popular here.



I think an interesting perspective difference is i would view it as a 'special rule' for the rich. I'm guessing most on here see it the other way round.

I'm guessing that by this comment you feel most on here are "rich"?? I think you may be under a false understanding of most of us on this forum.. If I take responsibility for myself and maintain a certain lifestyle that affords me the opportunity to save my money and keep my dept to a minimum why should I be punished for making good choices?? If I make poor choices and live above my means and spend every damn dime I earn why should I get a pass on a fine...

This is the problem with today's society, those that make bad decisions want others to constantly bail them out or make things "cheaper" for them due to those poor decisions.. Conversely they want to punish me and others that make good choices based solely on those "GOOD" choices!!!!!

You see it as a special rule for the rich I see it as PUNISHMENT for having good sense and saving!!!

Tell me Noir if you make minimum wage and suddenly you receive a sum of lets say $100,000.00 are you rich?? or are you still working the same minimum wage job. Now you get a fine and since YOU have the money in your account they (the governing body) deem you "wealthy to pay a HIGHER fine and take $50,000.00 of your money for said fine... Guess what YOU still only make minimum wage and are by no means wealthy!!!! It s shitty plan rife with abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[darin]

I think an interesting perspective difference is i would view it as a 'special rule' for the rich. I'm guessing most on here see it the other way round.

People who think of it that way are mental midgits. They find something that sounds good on the surface without trying to understand the issue.

[Noir]

I'm guessing that by this comment you feel most on here are "rich"??

Not at all. I'd assume most are here are working or middle class.


Tell me Noir if you make minimum wage and suddenly you receive a sum of lets say $100,000.00 are you rich?? or are you still working the same minimum wage job. Now you get a fine and since YOU have the money in your account they (the governing body) deem you "wealthy to pay a HIGHER fine and take $50,000.00 of your money for said fine... Guess what YOU still only make minimum wage and are by no means wealthy!!!! It s shitty plan rife with abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$100,000 of savings in and off itself is certainly not what i would consider enough to make someone rich, and in the example you've made, talking 50% of someones savings for a parking fine, seems deliberately silly. Something i'd have more in mind -

Average parking violation $100
or
For someone with (post-tax) household earnings $250,000+ then fine equals 0.5% of post tax income.
i.e. Post-tax income of $300,000 would mean a fine of $1500.
That's still small change to the violator, but IMO it seems more reasonable.

Maybe there could be a 2 strike systems were the first offence is the flat rate regardless of income, a second similar offence within 12 months then can be tiered...Just thinking out-loud really.

[Noir]

People who think of it that way are mental midgits. They find something that sounds good on the surface without trying to understand the issue.

And yet I posted this thread, to discuss the issue :dunno:

[Gunny]

And yet I posted this thread, to discuss the issue :dunno:

And got owned. The issue HAS BEEN discussed. I nailed your a$$ to the wall and nukeman came in and hammered you all the way into it. Your idea has been summarily dismissed. Once again, we aren't socialists.

[jimnyc]

Not at all. I'd assume most are here are working or middle class.



$100,000 of savings in and off itself is certainly not what i would consider enough to make someone rich, and in the example you've made, talking 50% of someones savings for a parking fine, seems deliberately silly. Something i'd have more in mind -

Average parking violation $100
or
For someone with (post-tax) household earnings $250,000+ then fine equals 0.5% of post tax income.
i.e. Post-tax income of $300,000 would mean a fine of $1500.
That's still small change to the violator, but IMO it seems more reasonable.

Maybe there could be a 2 strike systems were the first offence is the flat rate regardless of income, a second similar offence within 12 months then can be tiered...Just thinking out-loud really.

Holy crap. 1500 bucks for a parking ticket? :laugh: 15x the amount of others, simply for making more money than others? Not exactly what I would call "equality", you know, the liberal word used so often. Or is equality only equality when it's the gay or poor folks?

Whatever town in the US that tried to institute such a policy would find themselves absent of any such folks likely wanting to visit this town and/or live there.

[Gunny]

Holy crap. 1500 bucks for a parking ticket? :laugh: 15x the amount of others, simply for making more money than others? Not exactly what I would call "equality", you know, the liberal word used so often. Or is equality only equality when it's the gay or poor folks?

Whatever town in the US that tried to institute such a policy would find themselves absent of any such folks likely wanting to visit this town and/or live there.

For $15k you could hire a lawyer and go to court. If the price was THAT high, it's what I'd do.

[Perianne]

Not at all. I'd assume most are here are working or middle class.



$100,000 of savings in and off itself is certainly not what i would consider enough to make someone rich, and in the example you've made, talking 50% of someones savings for a parking fine, seems deliberately silly. Something i'd have more in mind -

Average parking violation $100
or
For someone with (post-tax) household earnings $250,000+ then fine equals 0.5% of post tax income.
i.e. Post-tax income of $300,000 would mean a fine of $1500.
That's still small change to the violator, but IMO it seems more reasonable.

Maybe there could be a 2 strike systems were the first offence is the flat rate regardless of income, a second similar offence within 12 months then can be tiered...Just thinking out-loud really.

Interesting thread, Noir.

What would someone pay who has no income? Similar to our Earned Tax Income Credit, they would probably receive money instead of being fined. Imagine that, paying someone for being a low achiever. hahaha

[Noir]

Interesting thread, Noir. What would someone pay who has no income?

They'd pay the basic rate (as per the example used in previous posts was $100.)

[Gunny]

They'd pay the basic rate (as per the example used in previous posts was $100.)

Oh, there's a basic rate? You're contradicting yourself.

Your MO is obvious. Fine people who make more, more money. \

When are you idealistic lefties going to figure out that not one government is as idealistic as you want, and not one has survived?

[Noir]

Oh, there's a basic rate? You're contradicting yourself

Please use the quote function to highlight two contradicting statements i have made in this thread.

[aboutime]

Using Noir's suggested Logic (not really). Noir would probably be happy paying $15.00 for a BIG MAC to support the Minimum Wage for Fast-Food Workers...until they lose their jobs, and the store closes because the FRANCHISEE....had to go out of business.

[Gunny]

Please use the quote function to highlight two contradicting statements i have made in this thread.

Nah, You use it. Actually, all you have to do is read your own posts. Cut n paste ain't my style.

[Noir]

Mkays Gunny, so, your post was as follows


Oh, there's a basic rate? You're contradicting yourself.

Implying that the 'contradiction' was in relation to a 'basic rate' of fine. Having re-read my posts in this thread i see nothing stating their is no basic rate of fine, infact i state in my example a basic rate for those earning under the $250,000 threshold...

Where have i stated in this thread there is no 'basic rate' of fine?
If that is not the contradiction, then what is the contradiction?

[Noir]

Using Noir's suggested Logic (not really). Noir would probably be happy paying $15.00 for a BIG MAC to support the Minimum Wage for Fast-Food Workers...until they lose their jobs, and the store closes because the FRANCHISEE....had to go out of business.

Different topic entirely. I wouldn't pay a cent for a big mac.

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/minium.jpg

[Gunny]

Mkays Gunny, so, your post was as follows



Implying that the 'contradiction' was in relation to a 'basic rate' of fine. Having re-read my posts in this thread i see nothing stating their is no basic rate of fine, infact i state in my example a basic rate for those earning under the $250,000 threshold...

Where have i stated in this thread there is no 'basic rate' of fine?
If that is not the contradiction, then what is the contradiction?

Double-talking me will get you about a 16th of an inch. I pointed out your contradiction. You're trying to play semantics with your betters. Try again. Harder this time.

[darin]

http://icansayit.com/images/minium.jpg


Well - to be a bit of a prick...that's not exactly true.

A single E5 makes 2,761.88/month.

GENERALLY speaking the average work day is this: 0630-0730 PT. 0900-1130, 1130-1300 Lunch, 1300-1600. Counting PT we have 3hrs before lunch, 3 hours after.

6 hour "work" day, x 5 days per week. Diving the pay into work-weeks shows about $23 bux an hour - not including housing, meals, and health care. If rent cost a Soldier $1k/month, that'd be like making another $1000/month.

Please don't start lecturing me on "Yeah, but they have to do all this other stuff!" I know. I lived it.

My point is - Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and the boat people aren't living as bad as they did even 15 years ago. Today's Military CAN do okay - it's not like it was. Still not enough - because of how that "other stuff" can generally fuck with their lives.

[aboutime]

Well - to be a bit of a prick...that's not exactly true.

A single E5 makes 2,761.88/month.

GENERALLY speaking the average work day is this: 0630-0730 PT. 0900-1130, 1130-1300 Lunch, 1300-1600. Counting PT we have 3hrs before lunch, 3 hours after.

6 hour "work" day, x 5 days per week. Diving the pay into work-weeks shows about $23 bux an hour - not including housing, meals, and health care. If rent cost a Soldier $1k/month, that'd be like making another $1000/month.

Please don't start lecturing me on "Yeah, but they have to do all this other stuff!" I know. I lived it.

My point is - Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and the boat people aren't living as bad as they did even 15 years ago. Today's Military CAN do okay - it's not like it was. Still not enough - because of how that "other stuff" can generally fuck with their lives.



Oh, my goodness. Forgive me for everything I said. I was trying to make a point with those of US who never wore a uniform, who deployed, put their life on the line, spent time away from home on DEMAND.
I know they are making much more today.
Most of the people today, both civilian, and military COULD NEVER LIVE on what We Retired Military must live on today.
I KNOW IT TOO! I'm living it now.

[Gunny]

Well - to be a bit of a prick...that's not exactly true.

A single E5 makes 2,761.88/month.

GENERALLY speaking the average work day is this: 0630-0730 PT. 0900-1130, 1130-1300 Lunch, 1300-1600. Counting PT we have 3hrs before lunch, 3 hours after.

6 hour "work" day, x 5 days per week. Diving the pay into work-weeks shows about $23 bux an hour - not including housing, meals, and health care. If rent cost a Soldier $1k/month, that'd be like making another $1000/month.

Please don't start lecturing me on "Yeah, but they have to do all this other stuff!" I know. I lived it.

My point is - Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and the boat people aren't living as bad as they did even 15 years ago. Today's Military CAN do okay - it's not like it was. Still not enough - because of how that "other stuff" can generally fuck with their lives.

Actually, my retirement as a Gunnery Sergeant over 20 comes out to about $6 an hour. That's if you use an 8 hour day, 5 days a week schematic.

[darin]

Actually, my retirement as a Gunnery Sergeant over 20 comes out to about $6 an hour. That's if you use an 8 hour day, 5 days a week schematic.

Hell, that's plenty. Gunny's don't actually DO any work anyway...they delegate work.

:D