How to keep the Rich under control-

[imagep]

Well, if your countries objective is to motivate your rich people to leave, then this sounds like a good idea.

But beware...keep doing that and eventually you won't HAVE any rich people to pay for your social programs.

Unintended consequences...especially if they are obvious beforehand...can be a bitch.

I would personally welcome rich people to leave. That opens up more business opportunity for ME.

 

[imagep]

Not so much under control. More like keeping the rich spitting on the little guy. If I was a millionaire and got such a high ticket, someone from my staff would be getting laid off to save that $60,000....

Well why wouldn't you just lay that person of anyway? Obviously, you don't need that person on your staff. Since you have employees that you don't need, then you are a bad business person, I really don't understand how you got rich to begin with - it certainly wasn't your skill in business operations.

You obviously don't understand that businesses don't ordinarily employ "extra" people. They only employ the minimum that they think they need to get the job done. Hell, if you can recoup any cost just by laying people off, then why don't you lay off your entire workforce - and see how profitable your businesses is then.

 

[imagep]

I'm pretty sure when a Finland cop sees a Ferrari, he sees money. The guy was going 14mph over the speed limit. Most cops wouldn't even put down their drink to have to catch up to the speeder, get out of their car and do paperwork unless the speeder was really asking for a ticket.

Oh yea, good thinking, I didn't consider that. So yes, having a system like they do in Finland would be very effective and would actually motivate cops to do their job. Glad you support the idea.

 

[imagep]

shrug...

Ever heard of the straw that broke the camel's back?

You don't have to keep repeating the liberal mantra. It was already expressed in the OP. I'm just pointing out the possible consequences that are supported by the statement of the guy who was fined.

So it wouldn't be a good thing if rich people had incentive to drive the speed limit just like everyone else? Yes, I can see how a $60,000 speeding ticket could be the straw that broke the camels back, and such a ticket might very likely incentivize that rich dude to drive the speed limit.

This is basically a voluntary tax, so people who don't like to pay taxes should love the idea. If you speed, you consent to the tax, and if you don't consent to the tax then just don't speed.

 

[imagep]

you're assuming the rich will just pay it .... if it proportional to income ( however they measure it) it becomes worth it to let the lawyers work their magic.
these rich folks usually have lawyers on retainer.

in any event, traffic fines suck as a deterrent for every income level.... they don't work.
if they worked, very few would be breaking the common traffic laws like speeding...we know that's not the case.

I'm pretty sure that very few do break traffic laws - compared to what may be the case if we didn't have penalties.

Are you suggesting that everyone should have to do jail time for speeding? If you are, then I'm OK with that also, as long as it's jail across the board, and not an option between jail and a fine.

 

[imagep]

Does the phrase "overall cost" mean anything to you?

Have a great day....we're done here.

Goodbye

If we end up collecting more from fines, then we can reduce tax rates, thus the "overall cost" doesn't have to change.

Everything doesn't have to be all one way or the other, issues are rarely black and white.

 

[Helix]

I see that as two different issues, I have no desire to punish the rich, I plan on being wealthy myself one day (my ideal tax system is progressive until the median income, and flat from then on). I see this as ensuring the deterrence factor remains in fines, regardless of income.

i don't know. a thirty grand parking ticket sounds unsupportable no matter what your income is.

 

[Helix]

I am in favor of a tax system that does not allow the politicians to buy the votes of the many by promising them more goodies paid for by tax increases on a few

so are you against lobbying, as well?

 

[Fearandloathing]

If we end up collecting more from fines, then we can reduce tax rates, thus the "overall cost" doesn't have to change.

Everything doesn't have to be all one way or the other, issues are rarely black and white.

If, if was worth anything, we would all be billionaires.

"If" does not change the fact that upper middle income earners are leaving Switzerland and other countries because the over all burden is too great.

Please keep up and have a nice day We're done here

 

[spud_meister]

so an older thief should get less time in prison than a younger one?

I adressed that a few posts ago:

Because everyone gets roughly the same amount of life (when averaged out over a population).

 

[spud_meister]

i don't know. a thirty grand parking ticket sounds unsupportable no matter what your income is.

It would get rid of the casual disregard many wealthy have for minor infringements.

 

[Helix]

It would get rid of the casual disregard many wealthy have for minor infringements.

i doubt it. it would just give police a major incentive to pull over every Porsche.

 

[spud_meister]

i doubt it. it would just give police a major incentive to pull over every Porsche.

Ideally, police departments wouldn't profit from crime, but that's for another thread.

 

[Mycroft]

So it wouldn't be a good thing if rich people had incentive to drive the speed limit just like everyone else? Yes, I can see how a $60,000 speeding ticket could be the straw that broke the camels back, and such a ticket might very likely incentivize that rich dude to drive the speed limit.

This is basically a voluntary tax, so people who don't like to pay taxes should love the idea. If you speed, you consent to the tax, and if you don't consent to the tax then just don't speed.

Now see...this is a classic example of lefty spin...calling a fine a tax. Now where have we heard THAT before, hmmm? Next thing you know, you'll change your mind and tell me it's NOT a tax...that it's a fine. LOL!!

Why not just be honest like the OP and admit you want to control the rich?

 

[Mycroft]

I would personally welcome rich people to leave. That opens up more business opportunity for ME.

I don't know how it is in Finland, but here in the US, the existence of rich people doesn't limit YOUR opportunities one bit. Sounds to me like you are engaging in a cop-out.

 

[TurtleDude]

so are you against lobbying, as well?

nope-I am against the current tax system since it encourages politicians to jack up the rates of the rich to buy the votes of others

 

[TurtleDude]

I adressed that a few posts ago:

you did-you were right

 

[Helix]

nope-I am against the current tax system since it encourages politicians to jack up the rates of the rich to buy the votes of others

but buying the votes of politicians is ok?

 

[imagep]

...
Why not just be honest like the OP and admit you want to control the rich?

I would like penalties for breaking the law to be just as effective and punitive for rich people as they are poor people.

 

[Mycroft]

I would like penalties for breaking the law to be just as effective and punitive for rich people as they are poor people.

I think there are ways of doing that without making it about money...don't you?

 

[imagep]

I think there are ways of doing that without making it about money...don't you?

I'm also OK with non-monetary penalties. There's nothing wrong with anyone being required to volunteer time at a soup kitchen or picking up trash on the road sides.

But like other people pointed out, when we do have financial penalties, penalizing a bazilionaire $200 for speeding isn't nearly as punitive as penalizing someone who only makes $25k the same amount. It's not about the money, it's about having a justice system that is equally punitive to everyone.

You honestly can't see that?

 

[TeleKat]

I like the idea. If you think about it, it's not really punishing them for being rich as several people in this thread have claimed. It's really an equalization of punishment. A $1000 fine impacts a lower class citizen a hell of alot more than a higher class citizen. So essentially a flat monetary amount would allow richer people to get away with crimes most people cannot.

 

[TurtleDude]

but buying the votes of politicians is ok?

that doesn't increase the taxes of people who already pay too much

Lots of people cannot figure out that the current system almost guarantees massive government spending because it is designed to pander to the majority with promises of more and more handouts. And the progressive tax scheme allows politicians to make those promises without saddling the majority of voters with bills to pay for it

 

[TurtleDude]

I like the idea. If you think about it, it's not really punishing them for being rich as several people in this thread have claimed. It's really an equalization of punishment. A $1000 fine impacts a lower class citizen a hell of alot more than a higher class citizen. So essentially a flat monetary amount would allow richer people to get away with crimes most people cannot.

except it creates disparate treatment which violates equal protection and it creates disproportionate punishment

its a fail on both counts and also unconstitutional. As a former traffic prosecutor I can tell you the state doesn't have the time to actually do extensive pre-sentence reports on every speeding offender and using nothing more than tax returns would create massively disparate treatment. and as others have noted, it would encourage police to target expensive cars so that revenue return would be more important than actual public safety

we see this in animal control officers who are far more likely to pick up a stray poodle in a rich area than target vicious gang banger pit bulls in drug heavy areas., Rich old ladies will pay the fines for their poodles running loose-gang bangers tend to shoot people and don't tend to pay tickets for their guard dogs

 

[Helix]

that doesn't increase the taxes of people who already pay too much

Lots of people cannot figure out that the current system almost guarantees massive government spending because it is designed to pander to the majority with promises of more and more handouts. And the progressive tax scheme allows politicians to make those promises without saddling the majority of voters with bills to pay for it

but assuming that social safety nets can be boiled down to "buying votes," a position that i don't agree with, why aren't you equally concerned with the purchasing of votes / influence by special interests via lobbying and campaign financing?