OpinionAll fines should be based off your yearly income.
      – Baslisks, 2009-06-04 at 16:34:14   (41 comments)

On 2009-06-04 at 16:36:33, Baslisks wrote...
I got a parking ticket from my university for 25 dollars because I had another parking tab fro another university covering another. Just the 25 dollar ticket is extreme and really unwarranted. This got me thinking about money and the relation to crime and fines. If you are exceedingly rich and you break the law that requires a fine. It won;t hurt you like it would if you were exceedingly poor and broke the law with a fine. I think we need to rectify this.
On 2009-06-04 at 19:48:19, Lee J Haywood wrote...
In olden times it was the case that all crimes were dealt with by a payment, even murder. If you disfigured or injured someone, the compensation you'd pay would be a fixed amount based on the body part in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild It's always been the case that the rich can easily pay for their crimes, and I'm sure there's a suggestion there that the poor are more likely to be criminals in the first place.
On 2009-06-05 at 03:01:15, BorgClown wrote...
@Baslisks: Getting a ticket for fractions of a cent would be ridiculous. There's gotta be a lower limit, and 25 sounds reasonable.
On 2009-06-05 at 07:45:47, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: That's true - it's not worth giving a fine if it doesn't hurt. But Baslisks presumably meant that it's unjust that it doesn't hurt rich people as much as it does him.
On 2009-06-05 at 15:34:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
Your just pissed because you can't follow the rules and you got caught. Manup and pay your fine and go on; quityourbitchin. A person's income is of no business to parking regulations. Sounds like wealth envy to me. One day, if you work hard, and you work smart, and make good decisions in your life, you may be wealthy too. Don't hate the rich, you may be one someday. That is my goal.
On 2009-06-06 at 01:43:01, BorgClown wrote...
As much as I like to argue against DB, he's right to an extent. The laws are supposed to be for the overall wellbeing, so they should be obeyed out of conviction, not out of fear of being caught. That said, there are some ridiculous laws, clearly made up to favor the few at the cost of the many. Copyrights living more than the author, the DMCA, the lenient financial laws that recently allowed the recession mess, the unequal weight of votes on elections, etc. Since law is imperfect, we're not morally obliged to follow it blindly, Breaking it might be the right thing to do, depending on context.
On 2009-06-06 at 07:57:22, Baslisks wrote...
I contested it today and they went "Oh, you have one. Ok no pay for you." What I did was a simple mistake that anyone could of done. I had the tag, it was visible but it wasn't the prominent one. Wasted a bunch of peoples time and was just ludicrous. All punishment should punish everyone equally. Poor and I break the law, 10 bucks may mean I don't eat. While if I have a couple k sitting in the bank, I can eat that cost and not really fret about it. Not saying that it has to be a massive number just a scaled number. morality and law are not always a single entity and I tend to choose what is more morally right then what is more legally right.
On 2009-06-07 at 21:32:15, Baslisks wrote...
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26fines.htm I just like being finish. Everyone knows how to use a gun, everyone has a bomb shelter in their basement, and their fiens are just fine.
On 2009-06-08 at 12:42:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Every time a law is passed, and a fine imposed, liberty is lost. Arguing over the progressive distribution of pain is nonsense.
On 2009-06-08 at 17:19:35, Baslisks wrote...
Though that isn't the argument here. The argument isn't to add or remove a fine. The argument is to make that fine more universal. That's tantamount to coming into cern looking around saying god did it and walking out. We don't exactly care who or what did it we are just looking how it happened.
On 2009-06-08 at 17:39:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
more universal = progressive distribution of pain
On 2009-06-08 at 20:37:32, Baslisks wrote...
What pain are we talking about? A rich man not able to speed and be careless anymore? We aren't causing any pain here, this takes away from it. Hell, bill gates gets a speeding ticket we get a new highway. I think thats actually a pretty good net boost of happiness.
On 2009-06-08 at 22:53:33, Thelevellers wrote...
I think I'm with Bas here. It's a good way of reducing the rich peoples feeling of being untouchable - they are just as responsible to the rest of the community, if not morally more so as they have the means to actually help. More progressive distribution of pain is a great idea in my book. Simple.
On 2009-06-08 at 23:19:55, Thelevellers wrote...
P.S. Dammit Bas, that link makes me start to wonder if I picked the wrong Scandinavian country to fall in love with?! :P
On 2009-06-09 at 01:19:41, BorgClown wrote...
What about cops? They tend to abuse the very traffic laws they enforce daily. Since most have an average salary, should the law be specially hard because they are rich in authority?
On 2009-06-09 at 03:54:48, Baslisks wrote...
@BorgClown: Well, theres tip lines and every good citizen should be at hand with a vid camera. Report them. Make notes. Be the citizen that people think they are. If a group of people are watching something happen fewer people will help but once enough people help you can't stop them from pouring in. POLICE THE POLICE!
On 2009-06-09 at 12:49:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
Sounds like a bunch of wealth envy to me.
On 2009-06-09 at 16:23:17, Thelevellers wrote...
It's not wealth envy, it's responsibility. Just cause you're loaded, doesn't mean you have to act like a petulant teenager.
On 2009-06-09 at 17:41:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
I believe that it is an invasion of my privacy for the government to know where I work, how much money I make, how many dependants I have, and how much interest I pay on my home loan.
On 2009-06-09 at 17:42:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
They want to know so they can use it against me.
On 2009-06-09 at 17:42:55, Baslisks wrote...
by making you pay taxes? How is that using it against you?
On 2009-06-09 at 17:49:31, Baslisks wrote...
Go to some shit hole either south of you or south east of you. Get a lot of guns. Start your own independent country, maybe it will last a week or two. You'll probably get shot up by the local drug cartels, rebels, or other militant groups. Until then, the country you would fight for is asking you to give a bit of yourself to it. It could ask for a lot by just looking at your land and estimating your income, maybe you would get a good deal maybe they would fuck you with the opposite end of a hairbrush. I'm just hoping you don't put your value on what violent actions you would do for your country. If you think of that there's a lot of pieces of patriots showering civs all over the world. Remember, santa is looking down on you judging if you are naughty and nice and its better to give than to receive.
On 2009-06-09 at 18:27:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yes, by making me pay taxes. And also by letting people who are ideologically opposed to me get off without paying taxes if they keep voting for Democrats. Our founding fathers never intended for the government to know that much information about private citizens.
On 2009-06-09 at 18:28:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
Do you pay income taxes? If so I bet you don't know how much.
On 2009-06-09 at 18:46:19, Thelevellers wrote...
I don't care how much, as long as there's enough to pay for me to live at the end of it. I look at all the good things that come out of taxes (and, indeed, fines), and I figure 'fair enough'. Roads are a good place to start. For me, the NHS is actually better, but I don't like to brag about that atm, as I don't currently (but have, and will be in September) contribute any taxes, so am merely taking from the NHS atm. That said, as I don't have any income the NHS is a godsend, otherwise I would have been mightily screwed by my diabetes by now. Could you explain the "letting people who are ideologically opposed to me get off without paying taxes" bit please?
On 2009-06-09 at 18:47:51, Baslisks wrote...
15% bracket if I'm lucky this year and school allows me to work. I should probably look into what college exempts me from and if it does. Though I think I can take off parking but maybe not. Didn't have to deal with parking last year. Since I've moved into Missouri but I get all my mail in Illinois and some other technicalities I need to see where I pay this year. I do pay income tax. I am hovering above the poverty line but the way I live means I still have plenty of cash about. Though the estimate when I graduate for tax bracket I should get about the 28% tax bracket. First year graduate of ME/EE degree(means I'll be making the things that make your things). I plan on taking a couple of business finace classes nearer to the end of the school year or perhaps in the summer sometime. The fucking census has been running longer then the bill of rights. Get the fuck out of the country if you aren't willing to pay.
On 2009-06-09 at 19:16:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am a citizen of the U.S. and I am staying, for now anyway. I have a right to try and change the system if I wish. I have an obligation as a citizen to learn what is really happening and try to correct it. Ignorance is no excuse. Why do you think we have government schools here? It is to raise you as a good little socialist; to raise you to think a certain way. As I said, the founders of this country meant to keep the government small and weak, and the rights of its citizens strong. The government can get its money from somewhere other than my pay check. Your pay up or get out attitude reeks of NAZI socialism. You have been well indoctrinated comrade. I am ok with the census as long as they stick to Constitutional requirements which means that they are only entitled to know how many people are living in a household. I will NOT tell them more than that, they will just try and use it against me.
On 2009-06-09 at 19:17:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
FairTax: http://www.fairtax.org
On 2009-06-09 at 19:44:20, Baslisks wrote...
why are we even arguing about taxation here.... Alright back to topic. You are arguing for privacy matters. You just broke the law. It is a short infraction but for the means of coming up with a suitable punishment I need to know what to base it off.
On 2009-06-09 at 19:52:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yearly Income? The only way the government would know how much to fine you would be through your tax returns.
On 2009-06-09 at 20:12:12, Thelevellers wrote...
Fairtax doesn't sound too fair to me.
On 2009-06-09 at 20:49:11, DigitalBoss wrote...
Why do you say that?
On 2009-06-09 at 20:52:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
You get your whole pay check. With the prebate, you only pay the fairtax on any income above approx 20,000 per year, so it completely untaxes anyone making less that 20,000. With the removal of corporate income tax, and the replacement with the fairtax, prices will stay about the same.
On 2009-06-09 at 22:10:21, Thelevellers wrote...
OK, I decided I didn't like it before I got to the removal of coporate tax. Now I KNOW it's a terrible idea. Why should some of MY hard earned money to to rich fuckers?! How is that remotely fair? This fairtax is fair in the strict dictionary definition maybe, but it is a retarded idea. One that only rich people, and poor people stupid enough to assume that one day they will be rich, would ever support.
On 2009-06-10 at 01:53:06, BorgClown wrote...
Crap, this discussion made me think of a new topic, and already spun its own topic, the tax laws. Well, someone's gotta do it...
On 2009-06-22 at 11:07:30, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I love that Finland has demonstrated that a good idea can actually work, rather than just having people discuss the idea as good but ultimately sticking with the unfair/broken system. Even if it didn't work out, it'd be worth a trial period in any country with the option of going back to fixed penalties if necessary. But countries like the US and the UK spend too much time arguing about what things might be like and too much money enforcing existing laws to try something new.
On 2009-06-22 at 13:26:02, Baslisks wrote...
would be cool if independent towns decided to take action.
On 2009-06-22 at 16:47:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Baslisks: Using your logic, students should be given an IQ test, and their tests should be made harder or easier according to their IQ. A person with a high IQ should have to take an extremely hard test as opposed to a low IQ taking an easy test. Even better, we have decided that some of our students scored low grades this semester, and you scored all A's. so we are going to take some of those A's you have, since you obviously can do without such a high score, and give some of our poorly scoring students your scores because they NEED them.
On 2009-06-22 at 16:51:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
We are going to take some of your A's by force, you have no say in the matter. Although you clearly earned these A's, just think about the students that are not as fortunate as you, they need a decent score, even if they did not earn it.
On 2009-06-22 at 21:24:27, Thelevellers wrote...
I was about to argue with you 'boss, but then I remembered 'it's only the internet', and I'm now tipsy so wont make much sense to boot...
On 2009-06-23 at 03:14:19, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: It would be more like if you gave kids an IQ test. You looked at the results and expected the student to perform similarly in their IQ bracket. If you are capable of studying higher math then we will give you a higher math. You write well? Well we expect you to write well.