But the premise here is that being “treated equally” means feeling equal pain. So how are you going to ensure equal pain?
It’s obvious you can’t do it when caning people, nor can you do it when fining someone. Unless you’re willing to make bigoted assumptions about what YOU think hurts.
Thinking the rich people have more money than poor people isn’t bigoted. So please don’t use nonsense hot words in an attempt to sway the issue.
If you’re going to pretend that you are incapable of understanding that having more money means you have more money, I guess I’ll just step back and let everyone know how utterly bereft of actual arguments you are.
The Tao’s Revenge: how do you propose to punish someone [equally] that has nothing to lose? Feel free to use your simple god damn logic.
Are you now suggesting we go after their financial support network? Should we base a kid’s fine on their parent’s income? If I lend a poor guy my car am I now financially liable for him speeding? Is his fine going to be based on his income or mine?
This really is simple god damn logic, problem is it doesn’t line up with the way you want things to be. Neither income nor wealth are going to reflect an accurate measure of how painful losing $100 is.
You’ve already acknowledge it’s possible for a guy making $100k to feel the loss more than someone making $20k, that is all that’s required to disprove your assertion.
Simple answer. No the don’t derive more benefits, so they don’t deserve to pay more.
Let’s turn the argument on its head. Why should the poor be punished more for fines? A $500 traffic citation for a poor person can mean they go hungry. Why should the wealthy have a trivial inconvenience when the poor suffer greatly?
Nice try. The issue isn’t that rich people have more money than poor people, that’s not the bigoted point. The issue is that of pain from losing money. The assumption you and Tao are making is that you can accurately measure that pain by looking at a tax return.
Or maybe I’m giving you too much credit.
Okay, I might have given you too much credit. Yes, a person with more money has more money than a person with less money. Now, the issue we’re talking about is the pain felt from losing said money.
You and Tao are attempting to assume the pain felt by the loss can be easily measured by either income or wealth, although neither of you seem to know which.
You brought up the hypothetical caning, so within YOUR hypothetical, how would you make sure everyone is hurt equally?
One of the many problems you seem to be having is assuming that everything must be perfect or it’s worthless.
Dealing with any system that is meant to treat millions of people isn’t going to be exact. A $50 fine could destroy a given poor person’s life while making another not break stride.
You have to be able to look at abstractions. If caning were used, you need to adjust impact on relative size. You can’t cane a grandmother with the same force you’d use on a Sumo wrestler. This should be obvious. If one given grandmother is tiny, but has a back like jockey’s ass, she’d feel a little less pain than society wanted. But she’s still made of meat, and she’s still not immune to canes.
So fucking what? The purpose of the rules should be to make the best effort for equality under the law.
If a poor person loses $500 their life is impacted hugely. For a rich person their life is impacted negligibly. The best thing to do, as a society that wants to treat people equally, is to make sure that the impact is as close as possible to equitable across the income spectrum.
So if the traffic system ceased to function, who has more to lose in that scenario?
The poor.
emacknight, I still want you to quote the source of the claim that:
Post the source that claim. Should be easy, if you’re being honest.
No, Qin, it isn’t. Discrimination in its purest, finest, most blatant form is when my brother and our wives get pulled over in his luxury car while driving under the speed limit and get harassed for half an hour, threatened with searches, threatened with arrest for exercising our constitutional rights not to be searched, and get accused of being drug pushers, all because we’re a pair of interracial couples in which the men are both black.
That’s just punishing wealthy people for being wealthy. When you have fines that are meant to deter bad behaviour, then fining folks proportionally to their wealth makes some sense.
There is nothing unconstitutional about taxing people based on their wealth, I don’t see why it would be unconstitutional to fine people based on their wealth.
As long as this is done on a percentage of wealth basis, I guess it would be fair (a bad idea but at least fairly implemented)
How do you measure that? I’ve already demonstrated cases where it’s false.
We can actually take this absurdity one level further and point out how the rich are better able to hide their real income. Under your proposed system (that you admit isn’t perfect) Warren Buffett would pay a lower fine/rate than his secretary. Is that fair?!?!?!
The best part of all this is that if you go after some sort of “wealth” measure then seniors will be hit hardest, despite not having much income. (I forget are we including SSI as income?)
If you go after income, you could severely impact a recent grad working the first month of his first job, Poor kid is drowning in debt, has zero assets to his name, but all you see is a dollar figure on his pay stub.
Under the US tax code debt forgiveness can count as income. Great, so a person with nothing, that managed to negotiate his way out of a fraudulent mortgage, now gets hit harder than the evil banker that conned him into the loan.
Even better than all this, a criminal making all his money under the table gets preferential treatment to the hardworking small business owner trying to create jobs for the poor.
Face it, this is class warfare at it’s ugliest.
But I thought some of the poor had nothing to lose.
You even said so, at least in regards to some of them:
It should be noted that poor people don’t pay less than the standard amount, only the wealthy who can afford to get a speeding ticket every time they step into a car.
Another example of this was a cigar club I went to in NYC after they made smoking in bars illegal. The penalty was a $50 fine so the cigar club tacked $50 onto the price of a cigar and proceeded as usual and the best part was it kept the riff raff out of the bar.
BTW just so it doesn’t get lost on the last page:
So what you wrote means that you think the fine for the poor should be lower.
It’s right there in your simple god damn logic. How do YOU propose to punish someone who has nothing to lose?
What I presented was the logical conclusion to your statement, it’s not my fault you couldn’t be arsed to think things through. If a fine means taking the food right out of their mouths, what is an appropriate fine?
Having a fine based on a percentage of income/wealth means that for some the fine will be zero. No wait, for some it will be negative! That’s awesome. People with income so low they get tax credits would end up having a negative speeding ticket. Simple god damned logic at its finest.
You measure it by looking at how much money they have left after paying the fine. Glad I could be of service in fighting your ignorance.
No he wouldn’t. He would be fined as a percentage of his income. Buffet’s income is many times that of his secretary.
I’m talking about income, not wealth. This would be yet another area where even if this were instituted, the wealthy would get a pass.
So? A poor woman could have, because of a fine, not enough money to get an abortion that ruins the rest of her life. Or not enough money to pay rent and be out on the street. Or pay her car payment and lose her car. Or food so her baby goes hungry.
If the student making 10k a month on his first month on the job, who the fuck cares? There are always going to be outliers. You make the system to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible.
That’s a pretty stupid objection. If only there were some way that debt forgiveness could not count as income for this purpose. If only there were some possible way that when writing the law, that debt forgiveness could not count as income for this purpose.
Are you taking the piss?
I think I speak for everyone when I express my astonishment that criminals get away with stuff that makes their lives easier.
No. It’s you slinging bullshit because of an ideological desire to shield the rich.
I don’t often win arguments this utterly. Thank you for the opportunity.
Again, this is the same fallacy you’re making with regards to the rich and the poor.
You are assuming grandmothers are old and frail, while assuming sumo wrestlers are fat.
I work with a 38 year old grandmother from Mexico that I’m pretty sure could take a caning better than most people.
Like with wealth/income your system isn’t just imperfect, it fails miserably at its stated goal.
You are trying to hurt people based on your preconceived notions of who they are based on simplistic variables.