Itâs time that the rich receive larger penalties for traffic tickets. This will allow states to increase revenue, which will in turn, be able to fund more social programs. This will also stop the rich from getting away with petty crimes with no real punishment.
Letâs say I get a speeding ticket. Here in Illinois, the minimum ticket is $75. If I get a ticket, I might not be able to afford medications next month. So I obey traffic laws pretty strictly. I have incentive to obey the law. Now, if a rich person gets a $75 speeding ticket, how does that hurt him/her? They could pull $75 out of the bank to pay it off, and pull out another $75 to use as toilet paper.
This is not some angry tirade. I received one ticket in my life, and it was four years ago. I am not advocating longer jail sentences or license suspensions. Those will remain equal. Nor am I demanding that minimum wage workers pay $5 for a ticket. Hell, keep the penalty at $75 or more. I just think the rich need to receive an equally proportional punishment when it comes to fines. While a ticket could devastate a minimum wage worker, it does nothing for a wealthy person.
I have no idea what the penalties should be. Maybe $0-$15,000 would pay $75 for a minor ticket. $15,001-$20,000 would pay $100. 20-30K would pay $200. Sweden has a system like this. A multi-millionaire recently received a $400,000 speeding ticket. He was going 150mph in an 80mph zone. Because he was so wealthy, he was given a punishment which would put a dent in his bank account.
This will do two things. First, it will actually punish people who make a lot of money. That man in Sweden with the $400K ticket will definitely think twice about going nearly double the speed limit again. Making higher penalties for the rich will cut down on traffic violations an road deaths. Secondly, this could be used to raise state revenues which could directly fund social programs such as healthcare, road construction, public projects, public jobs, etc. Having a proportional monetary punishment is the only just way to equally punish traffic offenders under the law.
The haves and have nots will both pay the consequences of breaking the law.
And since the law is supposed to be a deterrent, if the sum of money paid is a flat rate, it is not a deterrent.
All this bull**** about the law catoring simply to the rich is rediculous.
Seeing as it is based on empiricism and goes back hundreds of years to when it was the rich who crafted the laws in ther own interests, then yes it is biased.
Because every mother and father has a bloody right to pass down their possesions to their children. As simple as that.
Inheritance is very legal; but I don't think its right for my son to waste my money which I worked for, on fast cars and women and not be productive. What I'm trying to say is that the children should prove that they are worthy and ready for the large sum of money.
Yay! Wait, won't the prices of everything skyrocket in response?
But the people will have the money to pay for it. Yay!
The only difference now is that nobody is the richer. Oh wait, we solved the problem of jealousy! They still have nicer hats though... nevermind, jealousy problem not solved.
Jealousy will exist in humans forever. Evenly distributing money would still cause jealously to exist, but to a lesser degree.
Seeing as it is based on empiricism and goes back hundreds of years to when it was the rich who crafted the laws in ther own interests, then yes it is biased.
very true. Back in the early 1800s only land owing, white males could vote; the same people who draft the Constitution and made the laws.
Inheritance is very legal; but I don't think its right for my son to waste my money which I worked for, on fast cars and women and not be productive. What I'm trying to say is that the children should prove that they are worthy and ready for the large sum of money.
Let's just hope you raised your son well then. If you want to put on your will that your son only gets so much money at a time, then go ahead.
Do you honestly think that the government should have a right to tell us how to spend our money? I'm sure no parrents wants their son to waste their money, but if the son does get in trouble, you aren't the one who should be able to decide if they can use that money to bail themselves out with.
But the people will have the money to pay for it. Yay!
No, the value of the dollar will drop. This means prices will rise a lot.
If the rich divided their money equally *cough*moregovernmentcontrol*cough*, then you will find problems that parallel those that you have when you try to print money to get out of debt. The value of the dollar will drop so much that it won't solve a thing.
If people suddenly have more money to spend on food, then the prices of food and everything else will raise. The prices will raise to a point where prices = supply and demand.
This sounds good, except now everyone who has a job won't make money because the people who are supposed to be paying them gave up all their money.
You need to realize that you aren't fighting the middle class and the poor, just the poor.
Jealousy will exist in humans forever. Evenly distributing money would still cause jealously to exist, but to a lesser degree.
Nope, I'm glad people are more rich than me. I'm not too happy with some of those people, but the hard workers DESERVE that money. I'm not a selfish ingrate who thinks money = evil.
Screw it. Let's just get rid of money. We will solve everything with violence instead.
Now stop trying to sneak your communist views into the forum. You speak only fallacies and you know nothing about economics.
The more you try to make the rich suffer, the more the middle class has to pay. If you make the rich pay a percentage of their income, so will the middle class. Is it worth raising the middle class fines so that the upper class is forced to pay more?!
It's discrimination, and I can only imagine the rich suing the pants off the city for making them pay more (even if a law passes).
I'm all for having the license taken away after 3 or 4 times. However, if that happens, cities such as Burbank, CA need to control their police officers and stop pulling everybody and their brother and giving them a ticket. Pulling people over and giving them a ticket just to make money for the city instead of actually pulling them over for a legit reason is not good for society.
If you make the rich pay a percentage of their income, so will the middle class. Is it worth raising the middle class fines so that the upper class is forced to pay more?!
So... The middle class would be screwed if... lets say the new tax policy was everyone pays 10%? That 10% would be a different amount for everyone. Its basic math. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 500 is 50. ect. As a percentage the poor don't pay too much and the rich don't pay too little. The middle class won't be hurt by a percentage system.
Now stop trying to sneak your communist views into the forum. You speak only fallacies and you know nothing about economics.
I'm more of a socialist, but its surprising seeing a mod resorting to name-calling. *holds tongue*
Nope, I'm glad people are more rich than me. I'm not too happy with some of those people, but the hard workers DESERVE that money. I'm not a selfish ingrate who thinks money = evil.
I agree with you. Money itself is not evil, its an invaluable tool in this society. Hard workers deserve rewards much like kids who sturdy deserve A+s. What is unfair is that people who work hard, but don't receive the same reward as some one else. If a kid on the slums puts as much time and effort into getting a job as dental assistant as he would if born into the middle class, he would be the dentist, not the assistant.
You need to realize that you aren't fighting the middle class and the poor, just the poor.
I consider any one who makes under 6 figures part of the middle class.
If the rich divided their money equally *cough*moregovernmentcontrol*cough*, then you will find problems that parallel those that you have when you try to print money to get out of debt. The value of the dollar will drop so much that it won't solve a thing.
More money goes into the system. The value of the dollar drops meaning higher prices. But wages go up to even things out right? Also, There is no money be generated, just distributed. There is no change in the number of dollars, just who holds them.
This sounds good, except now everyone who has a job won't make money because the people who are supposed to be paying them gave up all their money.
So the money generated by the company ceases to exist? Profits will vanish now?
[quote]Now stop trying to sneak your communist views into the forum. You speak only fallacies and you know nothing about economics.
I'm more of a socialist, but its surprising seeing a mod resorting to name-calling. *holds tongue*[/quote]
Stating that calling someone a communist is an insult just solidifies the image of your biggoted ways. He is certainly right that your knowleged of the economy is nonexistant. Your rufusal to look at statistics is proof enough of that.
Upper middle class is anyone who makes more than the median income. So if your family income is at say $70,000 you are certainly upper middle class. The true rich never have to work at all once they are established as long as their funds are well managed.
Really? Plenty of philosophers would disagree. And for good reason. I happen to believe that the primary reason public education in much of the Western world is failing is because there is such a large safety net, and so no incentive to work. Really, 100% inheritance tax is not a socilaist principle, but a conservative one. In the same way that conservatives dislike progressive taxation for taking away income and distributing it to those they deem lazy or untalented, why should people have access to vast amounts of wealth due to the accident of birth?
Your response to this was pretty typical, but there was no real argument, just the assertion of a right, without considering where and why that right came to be the status quo.
What would happen if those people divided their wealth between the middle and lower class people? Everyone would have more money! Yay! Wait, won't the prices of everything skyrocket in response?
Aren't straw man arguments fun!
For one thing, there's no gaurantee inflation would occur, since cost push inflation has a much greater impact on the real price level than demand pull inflation. In addition, everyone having money doesn't mean they will spend it, and since it is redistributed, no one would have the income to buy enough goods to cause massive inflation to occur. It would probably be beneficial, hitting a steady 2.25-2.5% rate, which is what monetry bodies all around the world strive for.
But more importantly, no one is talkig about toal redistribution of wealth. You can tax people in proportion to their income (saying this is unfair would require some explanation on your part) without transforming into an egalitarian society.
No, the value of the dollar will drop.
Why exactly? The value of the dollar is floating against other currencies. If suddenly many more people had much more real income, the opportunities for foreign investors to buy US$ would sky rocket, leading to an increase in $ value.
The more you try to make the rich suffer, the more the middle class has to pay. If you make the rich pay a percentage of their income, so will the middle class. Is it worth raising the middle class fines so that the upper class is forced to pay more?!
I really see no connection to making people pay a fair proportion of their income in taxation, and making the middle classes suffer. As the system exists now, there is no leway for real income statistics, just flat rate fines. If you took real income into account, it would be fair for the lower, middle and upper classes.
Stating that calling someone a communist is an insult just solidifies the image of your biggoted ways. He is certainly right that your knowleged of the economy is nonexistant. Your rufusal to look at statistics is proof enough of that.
And trolling is helpful....how? How am I rejecting statistics? provide some next time before you decide to troll on me.
Firefly, thank you for using intelligence and logic. You don't know how rare that is.
What would happen if those people divided their wealth between the middle and lower class people? Everyone would have more money! Yay! Wait, won't the prices of everything skyrocket in response?
I read this some where else and this just reminded me of it.
A capitalist will see a nice house and say "Everyone should have a house like that. But then the value of it will plummet and it will be useless!"
Where you go wrong is assuming each social class makes an income relative to their class. I come from an upper-middle class family. However, my parents earn what someone from the utmost lower-middle class would earn. My parents worked their butt's off when they were younger just so that they could pursue their lower-paying dream jobs as they got older. Yet if fines are determined by class, they'll lose money that they don't earn. However, if fines are determined by income alone, someone who is nineteen and lives with their rich parents could break a law, not get fined (because they don't work), and get off easy. It would be unfair to fine the parents, because the parents didn't commit the offense (unless you count having a child which will eventually break a law as an offense).
