• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poor defendants say they face modern-day debtors' prison

The same amazing capacity for denial when it comes to seeing the hypocrisy of his ways . :roll:


Oh please, show us Bernie's hypocrisy in this instance. I'm sure that any answer will do little more than reveal your ignorance in regards to various political matters.
 
If you are poor, how do you get a speeding ticket?

Poor people don't have cars.

Sure they do. Hell, some even live in their cars.

But there is a difference between being poor and being destitute. Sometimes keeping that car running so they can get to work is the only thing separating the two. Been there, done that. Don't want to go back.
 
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity

More equal?

What sort of bat**** elseworld math do you have to follow to buy when folks paying the same penalty for the same misdeed is not equal?
 
I think it is impossible to create civil penalties that are fair across the board. Flat dollar amount fines aren't even a slap on the wrist for wealthy people. And figuring out someone's net worth for the purpose of determining a fine amount is too problematic.

Just do away with dollar fines and go to community service. Each type of infraction is fined a particular number of minutes labor. Even if it is just cleaning up trash on the road. A minute is a minute to all of us.

It still isn't perfectly fair because poor people could be using that time to earn an income whereas richer people are better able to afford taking time off. But I think it is as close as we can get to fair.
 
I think it is impossible to create civil penalties that are fair across the board. Flat dollar amount fines aren't even a slap on the wrist for wealthy people. And figuring out someone's net worth for the purpose of determining a fine amount is too problematic.

Just do away with dollar fines and go to community service. Each type of infraction is fined a particular number of minutes labor. Even if it is just cleaning up trash on the road. A minute is a minute to all of us.

It still isn't perfectly fair because poor people could be using that time to earn an income whereas richer people are better able to afford taking time off. But I think it is as close as we can get to fair.
That makes more sense. LOL!!!
 
Except that's not fair. Its absolutely not fair to have someone pay up to hundred times the amount someone else pays for the same exact crime.
So it's fair to fine someone a greater percentage of their income than another? That's fair? It's fair to fine me 1% of my income and fine you 15% of your income? Do you feel that's fair?

The purpose of a fine, presumably, is to create a deterrent, while also repaying society. As others have said, paying a $20 fine is nothing to one who makes $200,000 a year (that's just an appetizer or two on a Wednesday night), but to the person making minimum wage, that $20 fine represents nearly three hours worth of work. How is that more fair?
So punish people because they've been successful? No thank you.
No, you are punishing people because they broke the law/ordinance. Big difference.

Sure it is, because the point is to punish, so in order to punish equally one must pattern the fine after the wealth of the one fined. This only works though if we have a reliable way to judge wealth on short notice and with little labor. I dont think we can do it.
This is 100% true. It would be very difficult to judge wealth/income on a quick basis. Heck, it's hard to do it over a period of time.
If you are poor, how do you get a speeding ticket?

Poor people don't have cars.
:lol:

Many many poor people have cars. Ironically enough, many times their vehicle is one of the reasons they are poor. My wife files Chapter 7 bankruptcies for a living...poor people have vehicles.
The impact on the violator is not what fines are about.

Fines are about filling the city or state coffers.
If that's the case, a percentage of income fine on someone making $100,000 a year certainly would fill the coffers much quicker, would it not?
Law breakers are given a break only when they are politically connected like Hillary and Dubya.

Poor law breakers get no break at all.
This isn't necessarily true either though. Most people who get breaks with the law are the ones who can afford attorneys. Generally speaking, attorneys turn problems into much smaller problems. For people who are REALLY poor, there are programs out there which allow them to hook up with an attorney who will represent them and the government pays the attorney a set fee. My wife's boss participates in such a program. They get a set amount per case and the attorney represents the client and they get to keep whatever money is left over after the case is over.
 
Sure they do. Hell, some even live in their cars.

But there is a difference between being poor and being destitute. Sometimes keeping that car running so they can get to work is the only thing separating the two. Been there, done that. Don't want to go back.

If you don't know the definition of poor, please look it up.
 
So it's fair to fine someone a greater percentage of their income than another? That's fair? It's fair to fine me 1% of my income and fine you 15% of your income? Do you feel that's fair?

The purpose of a fine, presumably, is to create a deterrent, while also repaying society. As others have said, paying a $20 fine is nothing to one who makes $200,000 a year (that's just an appetizer or two on a Wednesday night), but to the person making minimum wage, that $20 fine represents nearly three hours worth of work. How is that more fair?
No, you are punishing people because they broke the law/ordinance. Big difference.

This is 100% true. It would be very difficult to judge wealth/income on a quick basis. Heck, it's hard to do it over a period of time.
:lol:

Many many poor people have cars. Ironically enough, many times their vehicle is one of the reasons they are poor. My wife files Chapter 7 bankruptcies for a living...poor people have vehicles.

If that's the case, a percentage of income fine on someone making $100,000 a year certainly would fill the coffers much quicker, would it not?

This isn't necessarily true either though. Most people who get breaks with the law are the ones who can afford attorneys. Generally speaking, attorneys turn problems into much smaller problems. For people who are REALLY poor, there are programs out there which allow them to hook up with an attorney who will represent them and the government pays the attorney a set fee. My wife's boss participates in such a program. They get a set amount per case and the attorney represents the client and they get to keep whatever money is left over after the case is over.

For the uninformed as to what the word poor means, here it is.


poor
[poo r]



1. having little or no money, goods, or other means of support:

Here is another word that people don't know the meaning of


poverty
[pov-er-tee]

noun
1. The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

The fact that they have the car and other possessions, means they are not, by definition, poor.

What they are is living below an imaginary line the government draws to single people out that have less than others.
 
For the uninformed as to what the word poor means
I'm quite aware what poor means. I'm also aware that you are wrong when you say poor people don't have cars.

Anything else I can clear up for the uninformed?
 
If you don't know the definition of poor, please look it up.

lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.

So, again, you can be poor and have a car. When I was young and poor I had an uninsured car I paid $300 for.
 
I'm quite aware what poor means. I'm also aware that you are wrong when you say poor people don't have cars.

Anything else I can clear up for the uninformed?

So you reject the definition of poor?
 
So, again, you can be poor and have a car. When I was young and poor I had an uninsured car I paid $300 for.

Being poor means you have no items of value.

The fact that you had the car meant you were not poor.
 
For the uninformed as to what the word poor means, here it is.


poor
[poo r]



1. having little or no money, goods, or other means of support:

Here is another word that people don't know the meaning of


poverty
[pov-er-tee]

noun
1. The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

The fact that they have the car and other possessions, means they are not, by definition, poor.

What they are is living below an imaginary line the government draws to single people out that have less than others.

Sounds like you take the definition as an absolute.
 
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity

BS! Next you'll say, how about making a prison sentence based on who can afford to be locked up longer. You know give a homeless guy 10 years for pick pocketing but a business executive, give him a day.
 
Sure it is, because the point is to punish, so in order to punish equally one must pattern the fine after the wealth of the one fined. This only works though if we have a reliable way to judge wealth on short notice and with little labor. I dont think we can do it.

We must fix the bail system and we must get off of trying to fund government with sin taxes and fines, which amount to about the same thing. THAT is what drives the problem. We hand out way too many fines.

Honestly, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Cops will be targeting Mercedes and BMW's for speeding tickets and parking tickets - do you really think this makes sense? I mean really? Are you also voting for Hillary :)
 
Other than the ever so small fact that this was yet another attempt to deflect away from the thread's topic, it also is another fine example of something we see fairly often from the fanatics of either party - exaggeration The lakeside cottage on one of the islands in Lake Champlain cost $575,000, NOT $650K The funds to pay for it came from the sale of a family place in Maine, one that had been in Sanders' wife's family since 1900.

Oh and I have another idea also - you look like a scholar? Probably have a very high intellect? Why not fine people by their IQ. Why? Because smart people should know better right? Or for that matter, how about their age? Wisdom comes with age right? Hey last idea today - Socialists see themselves as smarter than all, why not bill them the most based on intellect and let's say Dems the least? That would work right?
 
So you reject the definition of poor?
No, I abide by it. Nothing in the definition of poor means you can't have a car. You're the only one making that up. Look at your own definition. It doesn't say anything about not having ANY possessions, it says having little to no possessions, thus allowing for a few possessions, one of which can be a car.

Do you reject the English language? Or are you just not good with it?
 
I have read all of the entries in this post and I think everyone is missing the most important point!! If you don't break the law, whether rich or poor, you won't get a fine.. I have driven for about 40 years, I have had 1 speeding ticket,, It cost me $400. I paid it because I got caught red handed.

This reminds me of when the city here wanted to put up camera's at a very dangerous intersection,(people always trying to beat the red light ) You would have thought that they wanted to stop and search every single car, almost as if it was a right to run that red light. I simply said,, Don't run the red light!! Don't get a ticket!! Of course I was the bad guy..

It pretty simple really

djl
 
Honestly, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Cops will be targeting Mercedes and BMW's for speeding tickets and parking tickets - do you really think this makes sense? I mean really? Are you also voting for Hillary :)

THat would sure make the underclass feel better. If it avoids some riots as the government promotes fairness shouldn't we do it?
 
More equal?

What sort of bat**** elseworld math do you have to follow to buy when folks paying the same penalty for the same misdeed is not equal?

When the penalty's effect is greater on a person with a lower income - THAT is the "bat**** elseworld math"! A person with millions in their pocket is not affected to the same extent as a minimum wage worker when the fine is $50. So tell us, how is charging the 0.1 percenter the same fine as a poverty stricken person going to affect the bazillionaire in the same manner.

I have worked with the 0.1% crowd, $50 can be a tip to a valet at their favourite restaurant; to them it is the equivalence of 5 cents for most Americans.
 
BS! Next you'll say, how about making a prison sentence based on who can afford to be locked up longer. You know give a homeless guy 10 years for pick pocketing but a business executive, give him a day.

Sad, but that's the way criminal punishment seems to work in America. The rich pay for the attorneys who can produce a smaller penalty. One can deny it but that's the system we have today.
 
Oh and I have another idea also - you look like a scholar? Probably have a very high intellect? Why not fine people by their IQ. Why? Because smart people should know better right? Or for that matter, how about their age? Wisdom comes with age right? Hey last idea today - Socialists see themselves as smarter than all, why not bill them the most based on intellect and let's say Dems the least? That would work right?

Incoherence does not provide support for whatever you believe you are saying
 
Back
Top Bottom