#1 place not to speed - Page 2

Wickd89 · 01-08-2010, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svandamme

Actually, regular swiss natives are not taxed as low as Schumi, Tina and Lewis are.
They get a special tax deal to lure them over.

The idea is, that the Swiss govment figures they get 0% of nothing if they don't move there, so they might as well undercut the other countries by offering them an undercut rate... If the person in question makes 10 000 000 a year, that low percentage still means they get a reasonable amount...

Completely agree with you. Schumi negotiated with his village on a set amount instead of a percentage. Village and Canton were happy, and so was Michael.

BUT, the average normal citizen pays pretty low taxes. My wife use to pay one months salary and was compensated 13 months. 2 payments in one month with one expected to go to the government. I would take this deal any day!

BeyGon · 01-08-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb

does the Swedish Constitution have an equal protection clause?

do they even have a Constitution?

AND, if both are true above, then it is very easy to argue that a one-size-fits-all is NOT equal -- a $500 fine to a billionaire is nil; but $500 to a poor person using their car to reach their $6/hr job can destroy them financially or come close.

What does the Swedish Constitution, if there is or isn't, have to do with the Swiss?

Superman · 01-08-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Sliding scale ticketing...so much for equal protection under the law.

If every speeder is fined .1% of their earnings, how is that unequal?

If a guy making $15,000 per year is fined $300 and so is the guy making $26,000,000, then how is that "equal?"

Hugh R · 01-08-2010, 08:13 AM

Uh, lets see..they're both doing the same traffic violation, shouldn't they pay the same fine. Oh, I forgot, your a liberal. From your perspective I should pay as much in taxes as the average American family of four earns. Even though I don't use any more services from the government. In fact, I probably use less since I live on a private street. Tell me again how that is "equal". Please, I'd really love to see your thought process.

Superman · 01-08-2010, 08:26 AM

Okay Hugh......so you prefer that traffic fines be painful for poor people and MEANINGLESS for the rich.

BeyGon · 01-08-2010, 08:34 AM

the points on your license even things out.

MrScott · 01-08-2010, 08:46 AM

Right, you're only 'happy' with the current setup because the fines are in the ballpark of what you can afford. That's not the case for everyone. If fines increased to $10K for every 10mph it'd stop me from speeding. Bill Gates might not think twice. Roads are community property and should be available to all equally regardless of wealth.

The problem is in the idea of fines as punishment. Fines as compensation make sense, you cost me $500, you repay $500. As punishment it can never apply equally unless we're all equal financially which I don't think anyone's arguing for. A fair system would be based entirely on points, X points in Y time, no more license.

Hugh R · 09:34 AM

Supe as others noted, points on the license are a great equalizer. And yes, I have no problem with say a $100 fine being applied equally to you poor, and me rich. Equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I also don't believe in progressive income taxes. Not one bit. They should take the Federal, or state budget, divide it by the population and charge every man/women and child the exact same amount. Why, because it's "fair" in the truest sense of the word. One of the reasons that government gets so bloated is that the average Joe has no sense of what it really cost.

The average Joe thinks the drivel that the liberals (such as yourself) tell them that the rich get the tax breaks. In fact its the poor and middle class who get the tax breaks. Want a simple example? The average family of for in the USA earns in the range of $50K/year. The national average for K-12 education is in the $10K+ range. So if you have two kids in school, that's $20K per year, your share to educate your own kids. If you make $50K/year you darn sure aren't paying $20K in tax just for your kids education, let alone police, fire, flood control, sewers, national defense, etc.

The sad thing is that the average Joe thinks he pays his fair share of taxes, nothing could be further from the truth. BTW, I define "fair" as that the benefits you get are roughly comparable to what you paid in taxes.

I also don't believe in rent subsidies, food stamps, home heating oils subsidies, none of that crap. If you can't live where you live on what you earn, you need to move someplace else. Period. I'd like to live in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, or Malibu, but I can't afford it. So I live where I can afford to live. Why should anyone else be different. You can't afford to live in a bad part of Los Angeles, move to a bad part of Whichita, KS.

I'm glad CA has a high sales tax, it gets those people who pay little or no income tax to start paying more of their "fair" share.

BlueSkyJaunte · 01-08-2010, 10:06 AM

Here's another thought for the folks who think the wealthier you are the higher a rate you should be taxed^H^H^H^H^Hfined.

Ostensibly, traffic violations/fines are a deterrent to endangering other drivers on the road (that's what we're told, anyway).

Who is most likely to be carrying little or no insurance? Who is least likely to be able to compensate a victim of their bad/aggressive/stupid driving?

I'll tell you who: the people who would be financially ruined by a $200 fine.

Oh, and FWIW, the Swiss constitution does indeed guarantee equal treatment under the law:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switzerland

Art. 8 Equality before the law

1 Everyone shall be equal before the law.

2 No one may be discriminated against, in particular on grounds of origin, race, gender, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, ideological, or political convictions, or because of a physical, mental or psychological disability.

3 Men and women shall have equal rights. The law shall ensure their equality, both in law and in practice, most particularly in the family, in education, and in the workplace. Men and women shall have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.

4 The law shall provide for the elimination of inequalities that affect persons with disabilities.

Dottore · 01-08-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wickd89

Completely agree with you. Schumi negotiated with his village on a set amount instead of a percentage. Village and Canton were happy, and so was Michael.

BUT, the average normal citizen pays pretty low taxes. My wife use to pay one months salary and was compensated 13 months. 2 payments in one month with one expected to go to the government. I would take this deal any day!

Switzerland and Hong Kong are the only two places I've ever lived where I paid my taxes happily.

Says it all.

Superman · 01-08-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeyGon

the points on your license even things out.

Nope. A guy making $26,500,000 per year doesn't give a rat's ass about points.

Superman · 01-08-2010, 12:21 PM

Hugh, the wealthiest 1% of Americans owns 34.3% of the nation's net worth. Do they pay 34.3% of the nation's taxes? Make sure your answer passes the Straight Face Test. The bottom 40% owns way less than 1%, BTW.

As far as the "equal protection clause" goes, traffic fines expressed in dollars are nowhere near being more "fair" than fines expressed in percent of earnings. If you were fined $100,000, I'm guessing it would catch your attention. Sting just a little bit. If Bill Gates were fined that same amount, he wouldn't spend more than three seconds thinking about it. But if this were to actually happen, you would agree it is "fair?" Something tells me you might have a different view.

Let's heat this discussion up. Get this thread moved to PARF where you and the rest of the whiners can post cartoons and pat each other on the back. And where I won't have to look at the title.

cel · 01-08-2010, 12:22 PM

Fines are not used for controlling an individuals behavior, they are to raise money.
Community service would be a good way to control a persons behavior.
I think fines when used should be the same for everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the Constitution. I know "socialist" don't like this concept.

BlueSkyJaunte · 01-08-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superman

Let's heat this discussion up. Get this thread moved to PARF where you and the rest of the whiners can post cartoons and pat each other on the back. And where I won't have to look at the title.

Nobody's making you click on this thread, yet you have...at least 5 times! You have more posts in this thread than anyone else!!!

RWebb · RWebb's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh R

...

I also don't believe in rent subsidies, food stamps, home heating oils subsidies, none of that crap. If you can't live where you live on what you earn, you need to move someplace else. ...

this is beyond the OP, but why should people that live in cities subsidize Alaskans and rural areas by having everyone paying the same for postage stamps??

why should rural dwellers be subsidized by the Rural Electrification Act??

why should we subsidize some old granny who has lived in her house all her life - sure, the taxes went up when the area developed, but let's kick out people who were thoughtless enough to stay in an area when it gentrifies.

why should we have free public education?? if you don't have kids - or have fewer than average - then you are forced to pay an enormous subsidy for that

and what about free public libraries??

BeyGon · 01-08-2010, 03:32 PM

OK, so close them all AND kick the illegals out.

Hugh R · 05:46 AM

Ok supe, without looking it up let's assume the top 1% of wealthy Americans own 34.3% of the net worth. That isn't necessarily what they earned in a given year, is it? They own all kinds of trust funds, property, sterling silver flatware, whatever. Let's say they inherited 1/2 and earned 1/2, whatever. You're suggesting that they should therefore carry 34.3% of the nationsl debt or cost of ongoing business???? Are you nuts? You want to seem to imply that those who own more should pay more to fund the country. I don't accept that as any kind of an equitable deal in any way, shape or form. IIRC I pay more in taxes than the average family of four in this country EARNS. Yet someone like you would argue that I'm not paying my share. Pleae tell me exactly what is my fair share? BTW, don't the top 10% of wage earners, (not holders of net worth) pay something like 1/2 the income taxes in the USA? I'll put it back on you to say with a straight face that that's "fair".

You don't seem to get my point that government is as big and bloated as it is because the masses don't get taxed for the goodies that they get. I think the per capita cost of the Federal government under GWB was around $10K per person. I think it's greater under Obama. If everyone had to actually pay that amount, I think the general public would say WTF and government would be a lot smaller.

BTW, I've never posted a cartoon anywhere on this site.

RWebb, no we should'nt be subsidizing Alaskans with a 44 cent stamp to mail a letter to Boston. Of course it costs more than to send it from there to Rhode Island. Talk to Fed Ex or UPS and they'll tell you what it costs.

For Granny when taxes go up, I agree it's a problem. When land values go up through gentrification, why do government costs (taxes) have to go up as well?

Free public libraries? Again an involuntarily transfer of wealth. There is a public library in my neighborhood which I've never visited. Should I have to pay for it? I don't have any say since it comes out of taxes that I'm forced to pay under penalty of imprisonment. I'm sure somebody who doesn't pay for it's true cost and goes there for free thinks it's a good idea.

ossiblue · 09:02 AM

What's confusing this discussion, IMO, is the basic premise of Equal Protection of the Law. Yes, the OP was about Switzerland, but it has evolved to a discussion about equal protection of the law in the U.S. This is not a matter of equal protection--it is a matter of excessive fines and bail, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

The equal protection concept, 14th Amendment, is a one-size-fits-all concept meaning, regardless of who you are or how wealthy/poor you are, the law applies to you.
In this discussion, then, Bill Gates and Joe Sixpack should both be nabbed for speeding if they violate the law.

Punishments, however, are not one-size-fits all and this is the basis of the 8th Amendment. It specifically uses the terms, "no cruel or unusual punishments, nor excessive fines or bail...", words which are open to interpretation--one man's excessive ($500 for an impoverished person) is another man's chump change. This gives the judicial system leeway to apply different standards to different individuals as was the intent.

Why are some accused persons allowed to post bail until trial and others not? Because each person's circumstances, alleged crime, and history is different and the system must be able to account for that. If there was no flexibility allowed, where would Bernie Madoff be today if he was allowed to post bail? (Probably in Switzerland

).

My point applies to the tax portion of this discussion too. The tax law applies to all equally (we all fall under the umbrella of the tax law), but the way the law itself is written, the effect of the law is varied, and this is a legitmate ground for this discussion, IMO.

Bottom line, this is a very interesting and provocative discussion but the issue of taxation is not about equal protection of the law, it is about the laws themselves. The issue of the OP, fines for speeding, is about another concept entirely which may, or may not exist in Switzerland.

Hugh R · 01-09-2010, 09:09 AM

L.J. nice write up.

I don't disagree that the Courts can give different fines to different people for the same speeding fine, but I don't agree with it. Two drivers go 20 mph over the speed limit in front of a school they should get the same fine. The kid who could have got hit is at the same risk from both drivers. Just because one is Bill Gates in his 959 (note Porsche content), and the other is a dishwasher in his Yugo, the fine should be the same IMHO. To give Bill Gates a million dollar fine, and the dishwasher a $20 fine is just strip mining Bill Gates because you can. 2nd and 3rd, and 4th violations in front of the same school, I'll consider hitting someone where it hurts.

Dottore · 01-09-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ossiblue

What's confusing this discussion, IMO, is the basic premise of Equal Protection of the Law. Yes, the OP was about Switzerland, but it has evolved to a discussion about equal protection of the law in the U.S. This is not a matter of equal protection--it is a matter of excessive fines and bail, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

The equal protection concept, 14th Amendment, is a one-size-fits-all concept meaning, regardless of who you are or how wealthy/poor you are, the law applies to you.
In this discussion, then, Bill Gates and Joe Sixpack should both be nabbed for speeding if they violate the law.

Punishments, however, are not one-size-fits all and this is the basis of the 8th Amendment. It specifically uses the terms, "no cruel or unusual punishments, nor excessive fines or bail...", words which are open to interpretation--one man's excessive ($500 for an impoverished person) is another man's chump change. This gives the judicial system leeway to apply different standards to different individuals as was the intent.

Why are some accused persons allowed to post bail until trial and others not? Because each person's circumstances, alleged crime, and history is different and the system must be able to account for that. If there was no flexibility allowed, where would Bernie Madoff be today if he was allowed to post bail? (Probably in Switzerland

).

My point applies to the tax portion of this discussion too. The tax law applies to all equally (we all fall under the umbrella of the tax law), but the way the law itself is written, the effect of the law is varied, and this is a legitmate ground for this discussion, IMO.

Bottom line, this is a very interesting and provocative discussion but the issue of taxation is not about equal protection of the law, it is about the laws themselves. The issue of the OP, fines for speeding, is about another concept entirely which may, or may not exist in Switzerland.

I was about to post something similar—but you beat me to it, and very articulately.

There's a consistent confusion between the "rules" and the "punishment for breaching those rules" in the preceding "one size fits all" discussion.