Should fines be proportional to your income?

[So]

Oh, and FEMA did a great job. The military, which would exist either way, did most of the heavy lifting.

 

[sniperruff]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nope. Nothing in this country should be determined based on income. Down with the income tax and the likes.

you'd probably lose most of the things funded by the government. even if you make millions each year, there'd only be more people who are richer than you.

i doubt that anyone on ATOT makes anything near the million range in annual income anyway.

Hypothetically, what would we lose? The military? We had a sufficient military before the income tax. Roads? AFAIK, they're mostly funded by the gas tax (a user fee -- drivers pay for road maintenance). Nasa? as much as I :heart: space travel, it doesn't justify the income tax...
what else is there?

Nothing. In fact, perhaps it will even save citizens money... how much does the IRS cost to run?

national parks, public education, etc etc. i wouldn't have been able to go to college if not for the federal aids. and in cases of natural disasters... so you actually think that the people in NO should just all drown because FEMA would not be there? (not that it did a good job but still)

National Parks can easily be made financially self sufficient, public schools can be made locally paid for by property taxes (afaik, that's the way they are), and you could have gotten loans from private sources.

therefore, the US of A should just separate into states that all fend for themselves just like before 1876? i do admit that a huge system like the federal government is a big waste of resources, but think of the federal government as worker unions... you hate the union dues (i do), but you'd hope someday it can help you somehow.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: So
CIVIL PUNISHMENTS ARE ABOUT COMPENSATING VICTIMS, NOT PUNISHMENT.

Therefore, the system in which the victim is paid for their costs is the most fair one.

Who is Ron Artest compensating?

Who gets the $250?

That doesn't really matter, the point isn't to compensate anybody, but to deter the crime.

The Artest case isn't civil it's criminal.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Nope. Nothing in this country should be determined based on income. Down with the income tax and the likes.

you'd probably lose most of the things funded by the government. even if you make millions each year, there'd only be more people who are richer than you.

i doubt that anyone on ATOT makes anything near the million range in annual income anyway.

Hypothetically, what would we lose? The military? We had a sufficient military before the income tax. Roads? AFAIK, they're mostly funded by the gas tax (a user fee -- drivers pay for road maintenance). Nasa? as much as I :heart: space travel, it doesn't justify the income tax...
what else is there?

Nothing. In fact, perhaps it will even save citizens money... how much does the IRS cost to run?

national parks, public education, etc etc. i wouldn't have been able to go to college if not for the federal aids. and in cases of natural disasters... so you actually think that the people in NO should just all drown because FEMA would not be there? (not that it did a good job but still)

National Parks can easily be made financially self sufficient, public schools can be made locally paid for by property taxes (afaik, that's the way they are), and you could have gotten loans from private sources.

Two things that won't die will be medicare and SS

 

[So]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
therefore, the US of A should just separate into states that all fend for themselves just like before 1876? i do admit that a huge system like the federal government is a big waste of resources, but think of the federal government as worker unions... you hate the union dues (i do), but you'd hope someday it can help you somehow.

1776?

The federal government was concieved as a tool to protect the states from outside invasion and lubricate trade. It fucntioned nearly perfectly in that role from 1789 to 1920, and in the process the US became the most prosperous nation on the planet with the highest standard of living, all without the federal goverment doing anthing for them except administering criminal and contract law, stabilising the money supply and protecting from invasion.

 

[dexvx]

Should fines? No.

Its the fact that everyone in this country is not equal, despite what all the politically correct people want you to think. Rich people are better off in the fact that these types of fines are worthless to them. They can afford better lawyers and thus get away with more criminal acts AND serve less time if convicted. Its a fact of life, deal with it.

 

[cchen]

Your argument is stupid. He was suspended for almost an entire season. How much did he lose there? 8 million?

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: cchen
Your argument is stupid. He was suspended for almost an entire season. How much did he lose there? 8 million?

I'm talking about fines in general. Not everyone that is fined by a court will be suspended from the NBA for a year. Please stay on topic.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Yes there should be. The purpose of a fine is to deter someone from doing it again (like in Basketball). For example, a $1000 fine levied towards a player like Ron Artest doesn't mean squat to him, and would likely not deter him.

so we're gonna assume that people with more money don't care about money quite as much. So you're gonna fine Bill Gates Millions of dollars if he was ever caught speeding? This is the exact type of proposition that poor people who both envy and are embittered by their lack of success would like to propose.

 

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: So
CIVIL PUNISHMENTS ARE ABOUT COMPENSATING VICTIMS, NOT PUNISHMENT.

Therefore, the system in which the victim is paid for their costs is the most fair one.

Who is Ron Artest compensating?

Who gets the $250?

Not the victim(s).
Also, the other fella said it, its not civil its criminal. Speeding, fighting, etc is against the law, i.e. commiting a crime.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Yes there should be. The purpose of a fine is to deter someone from doing it again (like in Basketball). For example, a $1000 fine levied towards a player like Ron Artest doesn't mean squat to him, and would likely not deter him.

so we're gonna assume that people with more money don't care about money quite as much. So you're gonna fine Bill Gates Millions of dollars if he was ever caught speeding? This is the exact type of proposition that poor people who both envy and are embittered by their lack of success would like to propose.

You can't really compare other 'class warfare' arguments like the graduated tax brackets in this country to a hypothetical graduated fine system. Everyone has to pay taxes. If you don't break the law you have nothing to worry about.

For those of you that say we shouldn't increase fines for wealthier people, are you planning on breaking the law?

 

[bmacd]

should not be based on income. Think about the people who have to pay child support or have their wages already garnished. They're going to be fvcked big time if it's based off their gross income.

-=bmacd=-

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: So
CIVIL PUNISHMENTS ARE ABOUT COMPENSATING VICTIMS, NOT PUNISHMENT.

Therefore, the system in which the victim is paid for their costs is the most fair one.

As has been stated, it's not a civil judgement. Fines ARE for punishment. The point of punishing criminals is to deter people from committing crimes. A fine of $250 cannot effectly deter a wealthy person from doing anything. A graduated fine would deter everyone equally. It's not communism.

However, like I said community service would also deter everyone equally, so I think that would be a better punishment than a graduated fine system. And it benefits the community. There's the solution to our over-crowded prisons, just give all of the drug offenders huge amounts of community service. Save money on prisons, save money on civil servants - everybody wins!

 

[akubi]

no, that's hobo talk

 

However, like I said community service would also deter everyone equally

Problem solved.

 

[Wolfsraider]

Not no but &^& NO

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: So
CIVIL PUNISHMENTS ARE ABOUT COMPENSATING VICTIMS, NOT PUNISHMENT.

Therefore, the system in which the victim is paid for their costs is the most fair one.

As has been stated, it's not a civil judgement. Fines ARE for punishment. The point of punishing criminals is to deter people from committing crimes. A fine of $250 cannot effectly deter a wealthy person from doing anything. A graduated fine would deter everyone equally. It's not communism.

However, like I said community service would also deter everyone equally, so I think that would be a better punishment than a graduated fine system. And it benefits the community. There's the solution to our over-crowded prisons, just give all of the drug offenders huge amounts of community service. Save money on prisons, save money on civil servants - everybody wins!

Well just get rid of the fine altogether, it's silly in this case.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: So

Who gets the $250?

I think the major sports organizations keep the fines in a fund that's used for charity.

 

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: So

Who gets the $250?

I think the major sports organizations keep the fines in a fund that's used for charity.

I seriously doubt that the $250 fine was from the NBA.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: So

Who gets the $250?

I think the major sports organizations keep the fines in a fund that's used for charity.

I seriously doubt that the $250 fine was from the NBA.

It was from a municipal court.

 

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: So

Who gets the $250?

I think the major sports organizations keep the fines in a fund that's used for charity.

I seriously doubt that the $250 fine was from the NBA.

It was from a municipal court.

That sounds more like it, the NBA would and probably did fine him ALOT more, like 10s of thousands.

Kind of interesting how that works.... Fines based on how much basketball players make.....

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Taggart
These guys got a year of probation, some community service and a $250 fine for the big fight. $250 is like $0.025 to them in average person terms. Do you think there should be a graduated fine system?

Yes, but there are flaws. Otehr countries used to do this. Laws seem to ignore special scenerios.

In some country, I read that some guy earned a ton one year and the laws used the previous years taxes. The guy went bankrupt and had like a $25,000 speeding ticket.

But yes, it should be based on income. When I was young, I worried. last time I got a ticket the cop was trying to scare me with "ooohhhhh, it's a $220 ticket" and I just said "Oh ya, that stink sir" and inside I kinda laughed. My income makes $220 look like nothing.

 

[imported_Ed]

Should little d^ck men just get a little bit of pu$$?