Police body camera video shows an officer dragged Miami Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill out of his sports car by his arm and head and then forced him face-first onto the ground after Hill put up the window of his car.
They could have said “no problem sir, we’ll get this ticket to you right away” and then slow walked the whole process. Taking up hill’s time would have caused him more problems than anything else.
Proportionate to what? Net worth? Income? If you actually think it through you are not targeting the rich by doing this. You are targeting small businesses and middle class families.
You could curve the proportion to income to scale impact to something more equitable. How you decide what’s equitable would be another problem to solve, but I imagine it would involve benchmarking around the middle class and poverty line. Right now fine rates are okay for the middle class, so keep the proportion similar, fine rates really fuck up poor people, and fine rates mean nothing to the upper class. So imagine you you feel would be a fair impact for a fine and scale it accordingly.
Correct, they are different. But if you accept that evaluating a person’s wealth happens successfully for taxation, there’s no reason why the same metric can’t be used for fines.
So instead of the law saying “If you speed, pay x amount of money” you want to make it a 400 page document for every city/county that details exemptions and allows for fine deductions based on specific scenarios? If you believe that will solve the issue you are incredibly naive. We can’t even get rich people to pay their taxes now, what makes you think adding a similar fine system will get them to pay their fines?
Complicating the tax law is a big part of why our tax system is so fucked.
So it sounds like you don’t believe progressive taxation works. I guess that’s an understandable viewpoint. But if you think complexity is the problem, I have a hard time accepting your assessment of me as naïve. People that want simple solutions to complex problems are showing the lack of sophistication that defines naïvety.
You’re assuming the fines will be scaled up to hurt everyone as much as they hurt broke people. They should be benchmarked against somewhere in the middle class, scaled down for poorer people and up for richer.
Fines should be punishing but not devastating. At least not for speeding.
Again in theory it sounds great. However you can not realistically put something like this on paper because a good lawyer would tear it apart.
Inal but I can think of several reason and scenarios why this wouldn’t be fair. There are way too many situations that people deal with that affect their income and saying if you make X amount of money you must pay more for no reason other than you are successful is discrimination.
Many young people don’t understand this but when there are rules in place, they need to apply equally to everyone, even the ultra wealthy. The fact that they aren’t isn’t a problem with the law, it is a problem with our police and public officials. Take it up with them instead of fixing something that isn’t broken. If it isn’t being done correctly now, what makes you think putting higher fines on rich people is gonna fix it?
Taxes are not the same as fines. I swear some some democrats have such a hard on for “eat the rich” you will give up your own rights to fuck with some one else.
You can’t target one group of people and expect no repercussions. Here is a relevant quote:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller
It’s easy to point at another group of people and say they are the problem. Why don’t you look in the mirror and ask yourself what are you doing to fix the problem
Taxes provide a legal precedent for what you claim is “unconstitutional” regarding scaling fines.
This is honestly stupid. The capitalists are the problem in capitalism because it affords them too much power.
That poem you quoted is about Nazis, the oppressors. The poem doesn’t go “they killed everyone and it is morally wrong for me to kill them back.” Lol. You’ll notice the Nazis aren’t included in the poem? It’s Jews, sure, but not Nazis? Why do you think that, oh brilliant one?
No, it isn’t. The Articles of Confederation are what we had first before deciding it had too many flaws and ditching it for the new constitution in 1789. (Note: this is 6 years after the Revolutionary War ended, and 14 years after it started.)
There’s no reason we can’t or shouldn’t do the same again now. The original writers clearly weren’t shy about pointing out the flaws, and anyone else defending the current constitution as if it shouldn’t be torn to shreds is not following what the founders wanted for us.
Fines need to scale based on the wealth of the perpetrator. It should be an equal punishment for breaking the law.
Also, you can just mail speeding fines to people, there’s no reason to pull anyone over for that shit except to initiate a conflict.
They use the pull over as opportunity to search for more offenses
Yes, as I said, to initiate conflict.
They could have said “no problem sir, we’ll get this ticket to you right away” and then slow walked the whole process. Taking up hill’s time would have caused him more problems than anything else.
That sounds good in theory but that only hurts the middle class disproportionately. Not to mention it violates the constitution.
Maybe there’s some precedent, but I can’t see why equally proportionate punishment should be unconstitutional.
Proportionate to what? Net worth? Income? If you actually think it through you are not targeting the rich by doing this. You are targeting small businesses and middle class families.
You could curve the proportion to income to scale impact to something more equitable. How you decide what’s equitable would be another problem to solve, but I imagine it would involve benchmarking around the middle class and poverty line. Right now fine rates are okay for the middle class, so keep the proportion similar, fine rates really fuck up poor people, and fine rates mean nothing to the upper class. So imagine you you feel would be a fair impact for a fine and scale it accordingly.
So you don’t think progressive taxation is possible?
Fines are not the same as taxes. Taxes already scale with income.
Correct, they are different. But if you accept that evaluating a person’s wealth happens successfully for taxation, there’s no reason why the same metric can’t be used for fines.
So instead of the law saying “If you speed, pay x amount of money” you want to make it a 400 page document for every city/county that details exemptions and allows for fine deductions based on specific scenarios? If you believe that will solve the issue you are incredibly naive. We can’t even get rich people to pay their taxes now, what makes you think adding a similar fine system will get them to pay their fines?
Complicating the tax law is a big part of why our tax system is so fucked.
So it sounds like you don’t believe progressive taxation works. I guess that’s an understandable viewpoint. But if you think complexity is the problem, I have a hard time accepting your assessment of me as naïve. People that want simple solutions to complex problems are showing the lack of sophistication that defines naïvety.
You’re assuming the fines will be scaled up to hurt everyone as much as they hurt broke people. They should be benchmarked against somewhere in the middle class, scaled down for poorer people and up for richer.
Fines should be punishing but not devastating. At least not for speeding.
Again in theory it sounds great. However you can not realistically put something like this on paper because a good lawyer would tear it apart.
Inal but I can think of several reason and scenarios why this wouldn’t be fair. There are way too many situations that people deal with that affect their income and saying if you make X amount of money you must pay more for no reason other than you are successful is discrimination.
Many young people don’t understand this but when there are rules in place, they need to apply equally to everyone, even the ultra wealthy. The fact that they aren’t isn’t a problem with the law, it is a problem with our police and public officials. Take it up with them instead of fixing something that isn’t broken. If it isn’t being done correctly now, what makes you think putting higher fines on rich people is gonna fix it?
“Being rich” isn’t a protected class. That’s not discrimination lol lol. We already structure taxes like this lawfully.
Taxes are not the same as fines. I swear some some democrats have such a hard on for “eat the rich” you will give up your own rights to fuck with some one else.
You can’t target one group of people and expect no repercussions. Here is a relevant quote:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” —Martin Niemöller
It’s easy to point at another group of people and say they are the problem. Why don’t you look in the mirror and ask yourself what are you doing to fix the problem
I’m not a Democrat.
Taxes provide a legal precedent for what you claim is “unconstitutional” regarding scaling fines.
This is honestly stupid. The capitalists are the problem in capitalism because it affords them too much power.
That poem you quoted is about Nazis, the oppressors. The poem doesn’t go “they killed everyone and it is morally wrong for me to kill them back.” Lol. You’ll notice the Nazis aren’t included in the poem? It’s Jews, sure, but not Nazis? Why do you think that, oh brilliant one?
Almost as if relying entirely on an aged document written by the rich to set laws for the modern rich doesn’t work 🤔
Say what you want about it but that price of paper is the o my reason you aren’t British.
No, it isn’t. The Articles of Confederation are what we had first before deciding it had too many flaws and ditching it for the new constitution in 1789. (Note: this is 6 years after the Revolutionary War ended, and 14 years after it started.)
There’s no reason we can’t or shouldn’t do the same again now. The original writers clearly weren’t shy about pointing out the flaws, and anyone else defending the current constitution as if it shouldn’t be torn to shreds is not following what the founders wanted for us.