<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0UjpmT5noto" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This one talks about how your local government is nothing more than a big money making scheme. . . Almost like Money Laundering . . . made legal Take money from the poor filter it through 'government' and give it to the rich [i.e. business class] It is a Reverse Wealth redistribution scheme to me. . . . When the rich talk about being against the government doing Wealth Distribution they know what they are talking about because the government does it all the times Take poor folx money through taxes and fines to give money to a small group of folx to make them richer Rocket River
And then given back through taxes and social programs More laws and larger government is clearly the answer to this
I don't watch John Oliver, but from a lot of his popular viral topics, he does seem to pick on the man a lot, something easy to rally the people against. He gets his litter of stories to pick and choose from and will sensationalize it with comedic hyperbole to get his point across. He doesn't seem to consider the other side of the story. As someone who has worked in a service where sometimes I have to collect outstanding balances, it is a pain in the ass to collect. More often than not, it doesn't happen and that's why fines/surcharges and late fees can become exorbitant. Nobody likes paying tickets. It's a burden on the violator, but the violator did do something to deserve the ticket and fine. Be a responsible citizen and pay up immediately. The worst thing you can do is fall behind on payments.
No Fine should EVER be more than DOUBLE the original cost much less something like 10 times the cost. And this isn't collecting from a credit card or purchase these are governmental organizations. Rocket River
And then eventually head to jail for an inability to pay those fines... Wait isn't that the same thing as debtors prison? Wait another sec... Wasn't that deemed illegal centuries ago? BTW, this probably should move to the D&D. I smell a D&D level poo flinging event incoming.
What? Just because Democrats support using government programs to assist those who need help doesn't mean they can't become frustrated with inefficient and broken systems that prey on the poor.
It depends on how long the outstanding balance lasts. There has to be some incremental interest as time goes on, or there would be no penalty for late payments past a certain point. And I agree that jail is probably a bit excessive, but how long should a debt stay delinquent before further action is taken? Maybe someone can shed some light on this, but are there any assistance programs that one can apply for in financial hardships? Some of those payment plan surcharges were ridiculous, but something like an extra 10% surcharge isn't out of the ordinary. Perhaps a payment plan that has interest structured on the amount you pay. Pay a good portion, no interest. Pay a modest portion, some interest. Miss a payment, higher interest. Fines for violations are one of those things that nobody wants, but it's a necessary evil for a functioning society. The system might just need to be reworked.
more like, this is the product of a love of mandates and prohibitions gotta have sticks for violating them case in point, Eric Garner
The obvious solution is to stop criminalizing so much of our behavior. But as GEICO would say, when you're a leftist like Oliver, mandates and prohibitions are what you do.
So you don't watch his videos but you have an opinion on them? How would you know he doesn't show both sides if you don't even watch him?
So...people shouldn't have to pay their tickets? Is that the message here? Or maybe people should be allowed to drive with no insurance and urinate on your front lawn without any consequence?
The message is that you probably shouldn't have a government system that can extract 100x the original fine over any period of time, especially when you go to jail when your unable to pay. It's like payday loans with even more consequences. I guess it goes back to the intent of the fine. Punishment or revenue generating?
That brings up the whole issue of conflict of interest. When a significant portion of municipalities receive more than half of their revenue from their residents breaking the law, the question that should be asked is: Do these municipalities want their residents to break the law?
The National Review had a good article on this in regards of Ferguson and how the corruption there was sort of driven by this revenue-seeking philosophy: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oj-uncovered-ferguson-wasnt-racism-ian-tuttle Excerpt: But what the material in the report reveals is less a culture of racial animus than one of predatory government: “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices,” states the report, “are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs.” In the interest of expanding its treasury, Ferguson has employed its police department — 58 officers, policing a town of 21,000 — as an enforcer of the myriad municipal regulations that, rigorously enforced, nickel-and-dime the citizenry to the local government’s benefit. This is the injustice on which the Justice Department has stumbled, which helps to explain the city’s racial tensions — and which merits urgent correction. In 2010, the city’s finance director encouraged Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson to “ramp up” ticket-writing to help mitigate an anticipated sales-tax shortfall. Not only did citations increase, but so did the issuance of “companion charges” — for example, charges for speeding and failure to maintain a single lane, to accompany DWI charges. One stop can yield six or eight citations, and officers have been known to compete to set single-stop records. Indeed, within Ferguson Police Department, because opportunities for promotion have been tied to “productivity” — that is, enthusiasm for ticket-writing — officers have perverse incentives to issue citations, and in concert with police and prosecutors, municipal courts regularly enforce the payment of fines in a way that compounds what a single defendant owes. The report recounts the case of a woman for whom a single 2007 parking infraction — two citations; penalty: $151 plus fees — has led to multiple arrests, jail time, and more than $1,000 in additional fines, half of which she has yet to pay. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oj-uncovered-ferguson-wasnt-racism-ian-tuttle
Where was that said in the piece or by anyone on here? The point is that the fines should.... 1. Fit the crime 2. Not create a situation where the person loses their means of being able to repay them. 3. Enrich a private company for a public ticket before the fine is actually paid off 4. Jailing the person which costs more to do than the fine they'll collect. No one is saying that the offender shouldn't pay the fine.
