income is class (and in the US usually race as well) it's impossible to discriminate against just oneBertster7 wrote:
How is this related to any of those things?S.Lythberg wrote:
no, no discrimination based on race, age, or class
Norway's just looking for a quick buck
It's not related to race. It's not related to age. It's not related to class.
It's related to income - which is not the same.
I can see the merits of both arguments with this. Either system (fixed or proportional fines) is fairly sound.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Rich Norwegian Fined $109,000 For Drunk Driving
Poll
Should fine amounts be based on income?
| Yes | 47% | 47% - 22 | ||||
| No | 52% | 52% - 24 | ||||
| Total: 46 | ||||||
I voted no. Laws should be applied to everyone equally.
Yeah but the question is if it's really equal when Mr. poor guy has to pay, say 20% of his monthly income while Mr. rich guy pays 0.01% of his income.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I voted no. Laws should be applied to everyone equally.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
then you get to the debate of rich vs. poor. Should I be fined more because I had the foresight to get an education and a well paying job? no. Are some rich people born into it and a waste of life? yes.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Yeah but the question is if it's really equal when Mr. poor guy has to pay, say 20% of his monthly income while Mr. rich guy pays 0.01% of his income.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I voted no. Laws should be applied to everyone equally.
Not all poor people are victims of circumstance, and not all rich people are greedy trust fund babies.
Drunk driving can sometimes be catch 22, cause you know you shouldnt do it, but sometimes your too drunk to realize your drunk. Or if you have been drinking slowly for a long time, you dont feel drunk at all.
My opinion is that the law is blind. There are specified penalties for committing certain crimes, and those penalties should be applied equally, regardless of income. I don't think punishment should be harsher simply because some one has worked and become successful.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Yeah but the question is if it's really equal when Mr. poor guy has to pay, say 20% of his monthly income while Mr. rich guy pays 0.01% of his income.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I voted no. Laws should be applied to everyone equally.
I'm not going to go on a Lowing rant, but I do believe in personal responsibility. If you commit a crime and it's going to hit you harder economically because you make less, then that's life. The best way to avoid this is simply not to break the law in the first place, but laws need to be applied equally.
The only way everyone is equal under the law is have those laws applied equally.
In some cases, the only way a fine would be effective is determined by income.
A good example involves environmental fines on corporations. In many cases, the fine for polluting is cheaper than complying with the laws in place, because the cost of cleaning up production is more than the fine costs.
So yeah, depending on what the fine is trying to enforce, income is a relevant factor.
In the case I mentioned, corporations have deep pockets, but if fines were high enough to actually affect their bottom line, they'd clean up instead.
A good example involves environmental fines on corporations. In many cases, the fine for polluting is cheaper than complying with the laws in place, because the cost of cleaning up production is more than the fine costs.
So yeah, depending on what the fine is trying to enforce, income is a relevant factor.
In the case I mentioned, corporations have deep pockets, but if fines were high enough to actually affect their bottom line, they'd clean up instead.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-05-13 17:41:17)
You went corporate... I think he is on a civil State vs. Turq level.Turquoise wrote:
In some cases, the only way a fine would be effective is determined by income.
A good example involves environmental fines on corporations. In many cases, the fine for polluting is cheaper than complying with the laws in place, because the cost of cleaning up production is more than the fine costs.
So yeah, depending on what the fine is trying to enforce, income is a relevant factor.
In the case I mentioned, corporations have deep pockets, but if fines were high enough to actually affect their bottom line, they'd clean up instead.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-13 18:23:07)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I don't think it differs much if the person being fined is as wealthy as Warren Buffett.DBBrinson1 wrote:
You went corporate... I think he is on a civil State vs. Turq level.Turquoise wrote:
In some cases, the only way a fine would be effective is determined by income.
A good example involves environmental fines on corporations. In many cases, the fine for polluting is cheaper than complying with the laws in place, because the cost of cleaning up production is more than the fine costs.
So yeah, depending on what the fine is trying to enforce, income is a relevant factor.
In the case I mentioned, corporations have deep pockets, but if fines were high enough to actually affect their bottom line, they'd clean up instead.
I think what matters even more though is the intent of the fine. If it's a minor violation and a first offense, the fine should be a flat fee. However, if it's something serious that a person has a habit of violating, then I believe the fines should increase to a level that would deter the individual based on income.
Incredible amount of people die in traffic accidents and road safety is too important for opinions to be swayed by dreamy views of "Justice is blind" or "equality for everyone", "no discrimination against success" etc.
Fines for reckless driving should hit everyone hard and make them think twice before doing it again. Unfortunately a 100€ fine for someone who makes millions is a joke and no incentive to drive more safely.
Either make the fines based on wealth or introduce a points system like many countries already have.
for example.
-Speeding get you one point or two depending on how much you crossed over the limit.
-Drunk driving gets you 2 (if you didnt caused an accident) or license revoked (if you caused an accident)
-Minor traffic violations gets you 1
etc
And if you reach a certain amount of points in a certain amount of time (lets say 5 in two months) you loose your license. You have equality than.
Rich or poor, if you drive like shit you loose your license.
Fines for reckless driving should hit everyone hard and make them think twice before doing it again. Unfortunately a 100€ fine for someone who makes millions is a joke and no incentive to drive more safely.
Either make the fines based on wealth or introduce a points system like many countries already have.
for example.
-Speeding get you one point or two depending on how much you crossed over the limit.
-Drunk driving gets you 2 (if you didnt caused an accident) or license revoked (if you caused an accident)
-Minor traffic violations gets you 1
etc
And if you reach a certain amount of points in a certain amount of time (lets say 5 in two months) you loose your license. You have equality than.
Rich or poor, if you drive like shit you loose your license.
You'd laugh it off if you were fined $20 for drunk driving.
I'd like to see this system applied for repeat offenders.
I'd like to see this system applied for repeat offenders.
In a case like this it appears that the fine is there as a deterrent therefore in order for it to have a deterrent effect on wealthy people and not be catastrophic of poor people then some measure of dependence on income is required.
Do people really think it's reasonable to become rich enough that you don't have to care any more about certain laws?
Do people really think it's reasonable to become rich enough that you don't have to care any more about certain laws?
No, but the punishment should fit the crime.PureFodder wrote:
Do people really think it's reasonable to become rich enough that you don't have to care any more about certain laws?
A slap on the wrist fine does nothing.
Can't the courts do something instead of fines for this sort of offense. Because I think a rich person would hate a couple months community service more than any fine lol.
Also 0.02% is a little bloody tough
Also 0.02% is a little bloody tough
I null voted - Fixed fines will disadvantage the poor more than the rich, but there are points at both ends of the scale where it becomes ridiculous.
Perhaps enforcing community service instead of a monetary fine would be better?
The amount of service could start at a base amount and have more added on depending on the offender's excess blood alcohol level, and also depending on whether its the offender's 1st, 4th, 9th etc drink-drive offense? Judges could even use a formula as a guideline - 20hrs + (5 * percentage over the legal limit) + (10 * number of previous drink-drive offenses). These figures are only here to help demonstrate use of the formula.
eg. Bob is nicked with a blood alcohol level of 0.03, and his legal limit is 0.02. The judge applies the foruma and arrives at a starting point of 52.5 hours::: 20 + (5 * 50% over limit) + (10 * 3 previous offenses) = 20 + 2.5 + 30 = 52.5
Beyond this, the judge could add or subtract time depending on the circumstances of the incident/offender.
Perhaps enforcing community service instead of a monetary fine would be better?
The amount of service could start at a base amount and have more added on depending on the offender's excess blood alcohol level, and also depending on whether its the offender's 1st, 4th, 9th etc drink-drive offense? Judges could even use a formula as a guideline - 20hrs + (5 * percentage over the legal limit) + (10 * number of previous drink-drive offenses). These figures are only here to help demonstrate use of the formula.
eg. Bob is nicked with a blood alcohol level of 0.03, and his legal limit is 0.02. The judge applies the foruma and arrives at a starting point of 52.5 hours::: 20 + (5 * 50% over limit) + (10 * 3 previous offenses) = 20 + 2.5 + 30 = 52.5
Beyond this, the judge could add or subtract time depending on the circumstances of the incident/offender.
No it isn't.S.Lythberg wrote:
income is class (and in the US usually race as well) it's impossible to discriminate against just oneBertster7 wrote:
How is this related to any of those things?S.Lythberg wrote:
no, no discrimination based on race, age, or class
Norway's just looking for a quick buck
It's not related to race. It's not related to age. It's not related to class.
It's related to income - which is not the same.
I can see the merits of both arguments with this. Either system (fixed or proportional fines) is fairly sound.
Perhaps in the US that is true (or at least more so than in other countries - although there will undoubtedly be other factors, such as education and suchlike), but it's not true of the UK nor is it true of Norway, where this happened.
There is little class system to speak of in the US, which might explain the lack of understanding of what it is. Certainly for countries with monarchs and aristocracy there is a whole lot more to class than income. You can be upper class and be poor, or be lower class and rich - income is not a defining factor (though being upper class does usually go hand in hand with being very rich).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-05-14 07:59:49)
Our class system is lolworthy.
Like you have the upperclass new money, who are fucking loaded.
Then the old nobility types, Earls of whatever who are generally broke
Then middle class who all aspire to be upperclass new, and spend stupid amounts of money (that they might not have) on making them appear to be wealthy.
and the lower who are generally the most satisfied with what they have.
Like you have the upperclass new money, who are fucking loaded.
Then the old nobility types, Earls of whatever who are generally broke
Then middle class who all aspire to be upperclass new, and spend stupid amounts of money (that they might not have) on making them appear to be wealthy.
and the lower who are generally the most satisfied with what they have.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
The concept doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to taxation...Dilbert_X wrote:
No.
It would be impossible to create a fair system, and why should someone be penalised for getting ahead?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This is what I believe also. A fine is supposed to be a deterrent. A person with a higher income would not even think twice about paying a fine representing less then a couple of hours of work. A lower income person's fine would represent up to 2 days of work.DonFck wrote:
Penalised for breaking the law, you mean?Dilbert_X wrote:
No.
It would be impossible to create a fair system, and why should someone be penalised for getting ahead?
Yes, I believe a progressive fining system is in order, in moderation.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Rich Norwegian Fined $109,000 For Drunk Driving