• Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • brianary@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • Soleos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

            • brianary@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • brianary@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

                  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    You didn’t ask if I thought it works. You asked if it could be implemented. Im also not suggesting complexity is the problem. It is part of the problem.

    • Makhno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      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 🤔

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.