Should fines be proportional to your income?

[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?

 

[lokiju]

No

 

[KLin]

no.

 

[daniel1113]

Nope. Nothing in this country should be determined based on income. Down with the income tax and the likes.

 

[jammur21]

Worst. Speeding. Ticket. Ever.

 

[HN]

related to the infraction, not the income

 

[Taggart]

But the punishment isn't comparable to an average person's. How do you make up for the disparity?

 

[So]

No. Should jail sentences be proportional to how long you live?

The punishment for the crime should be based on the cost of the crime to the victim, not the cost to you.

 

[mugs]

If the point of a fine is to deter people from committing a crime, then you're right that flat fines do little to deter the wealthy from committing crimes. I think community service would be a better solution than graduated fines though.

 

[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.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: jammur21
Worst. Speeding. Ticket. Ever.

Haha. Bill Gates better not speed in Finland

 

[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?

 

[bootymac]

If each crime was worth a certain % of your annually income, then everyone would be equal. I like it

 

[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?

 

[So]

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?

An absurd amount of money.

 

[Koenigsegg]

They are.

If that woman who spilled coffee on herself had done it at at relative's trailer park home, do you think she would've gotten millions of dollars?

 

[FoBoT]

no , that is commie thinking

 

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no , that is commie thinking

:thumbsup:

 

[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.

 

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?

 

[FrustratedUser]

no

 

[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)

 

[Reckoner]

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]

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?

 

[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.