You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-8 points

That sounds good in theory but that only hurts the middle class disproportionately. Not to mention it violates the constitution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Maybe there’s some precedent, but I can’t see why equally proportionate punishment should be unconstitutional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

So you don’t think progressive taxation is possible?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

“Being rich” isn’t a protected class. That’s not discrimination lol lol. We already structure taxes like this lawfully.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Not to mention it violates the constitution

Almost as if relying entirely on an aged document written by the rich to set laws for the modern rich doesn’t work 🤔

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Say what you want about it but that price of paper is the o my reason you aren’t British.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 201K

    Comments