4 ms·

> why prisoners? Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. Private companies profiteering on prison labor is a different story. > It is not cool to

> why prisoners? Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. Private companies profiteering on prison labor is a different story. > It is not cool to devalue them by paying them less. They're prisoners. Society has already devalued them.

komali2 7y ago
> Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. I don't agree that this is a valid justification. I pay taxes that go to funding the department of education despite never "participating" in any direct department of education activity. We don't make parents "offset" that cost when they send kids to public school (no, we make the teachers do that by forcing them to use their own money to buy chalk), why should we make a prisoner suddenly be more responsible for a tax burden carried by all of society? This is creating a "separate tax class," in my mind, which defeats the purpose entirely. We all pay in, we all benefit, we all use what we can/need/want of the system (minus the glaring deficiencies). > They're prisoners. Society has already devalued them. We agree. I think that it's bad to devalue them.
- fiter 7y ago
  > I don't agree that this is a valid justification. I pay taxes that go to funding the department of education despite never "participating" in any direct department of education activity. We don't make parents "offset" that cost when they send kids to public school (no, we make the teachers do that by forcing them to use their own money to buy chalk), why should we make a prisoner suddenly be more responsible for a tax burden carried by all of society? This is creating a "separate tax class," in my mind, which defeats the purpose entirely. We all pay in, we all benefit, we all use what we can/need/want of the system (minus the glaring deficiencies). There are a number of separate tax classes as well as fees. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, registration fees, etc. We implement these for policy reasons. I'm guessing that the previous poster believes it's good policy to have the incarcerated pay for themselves where you do not. I think the idea of "separate tax classes" being bad on its own is pretty thoroughly disagreed with in most countries.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  I think of it as simply charging them for room-and-board. Perhaps it would appear less egregious if we paid them a fair wage and then immediately made them pay most of it back? > We agree. I think that it's bad to devalue them. I never stated my opinion on that devaluation, and I don't believe we do agree.
  - komali2 7y ago
    And if they refuse to work, and pay? Does a jail in California require a greater rent than one in Alabama? What if the minimum wage doesn't match, do we make the prisoner go into debt to continue uh, their "lease?" Do they get better conditions if they pay more? Can they just not work and leverage their pre-incarceration assets to pay? Now that they're renters, do they get renter's protection under law? Via what mechanism - who enforces? What if there's cockroaches, they're paying, do they get to Lodge a complaint? Who decides the rent? What's to stop a prison setting a rent price that requires 18 hours hard labor to match? Why do you think it's acceptable to devalue a human? What measures do you apply to that devaluing algorithm? In your mind, who is the most "valuable," and least "valuable" human?
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > And if they refuse to work, and pay? They find themselves without spare income and a constructive usage of their time. I do believe some prison systems, I want to say Angola has something along these lines, use work-history as a test for certain privileges and or use punitive measures. These are probably not quite productive, particularly the punitive, but at the same time I think finding a way to incentive work is a good thing. To be honest, I can't quite understand why something as benign a wage garnishment (tax?) against convicted criminals income is a controversial subject. Is the current system optimal? No, prisoners could probably use a bit of an increase in earnings such that they could establish a reasonable "nest egg" for their return to the real world. I'm sorry that I don't see this as a moralistic boolean as you appear to, but levying penalties on a criminal is not wrong. Doing so in an overly punitive manner that doesn't serve society's best interest is another matter.
crooked-v 7y ago
> Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. Prisoners should be a tax burden. That way, there's no incentive to conveniently round up more prisoners every time the local town needs more free labor. http://theconversation.com/exploiting-black-labor-after-the-abolition-of-slavery-72482 http://theconversation.com/exploiting-black-labor-after-the-... > The living conditions of leased convicts are documented in dozens of detailed, firsthand reports spanning decades and covering many states. In 1883, Blackmon writes, Alabama prison inspector Reginald Dawson described leased convicts in one mine being held on trivial charges, in “desperate,” “miserable” conditions, poorly fed, clothed, and “unnecessarily chained and shackled.” He described the “appalling number of deaths” and “appalling numbers of maimed and disabled men” held by various forced-labor entrepreneurs spanning the entire state.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Well they still are a tax-burden. It's just offsetting that burden, so your criteria is still satisfied :) > In 1883, I'm not saying the modern penal system isn't without need for reform, but using an example from the 18th Century isn't helping your argument here.

komali2 7y ago

> Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. I don't agree that this is a valid justification. I pay taxes that go to funding the department of education despite never "participating" in any direct department of education activity. We don't make parents "offset" that cost when they send kids to public school (no, we make the teachers do that by forcing them to use their own money to buy chalk), why should we make a prisoner suddenly be more responsible for a tax burden carried by all of society? This is creating a "separate tax class," in my mind, which defeats the purpose entirely. We all pay in, we all benefit, we all use what we can/need/want of the system (minus the glaring deficiencies). > They're prisoners. Society has already devalued them. We agree. I think that it's bad to devalue them.

fiter 7y ago
> I don't agree that this is a valid justification. I pay taxes that go to funding the department of education despite never "participating" in any direct department of education activity. We don't make parents "offset" that cost when they send kids to public school (no, we make the teachers do that by forcing them to use their own money to buy chalk), why should we make a prisoner suddenly be more responsible for a tax burden carried by all of society? This is creating a "separate tax class," in my mind, which defeats the purpose entirely. We all pay in, we all benefit, we all use what we can/need/want of the system (minus the glaring deficiencies). There are a number of separate tax classes as well as fees. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, registration fees, etc. We implement these for policy reasons. I'm guessing that the previous poster believes it's good policy to have the incarcerated pay for themselves where you do not. I think the idea of "separate tax classes" being bad on its own is pretty thoroughly disagreed with in most countries.
mieseratte 7y ago
I think of it as simply charging them for room-and-board. Perhaps it would appear less egregious if we paid them a fair wage and then immediately made them pay most of it back? > We agree. I think that it's bad to devalue them. I never stated my opinion on that devaluation, and I don't believe we do agree.
- komali2 7y ago
  And if they refuse to work, and pay? Does a jail in California require a greater rent than one in Alabama? What if the minimum wage doesn't match, do we make the prisoner go into debt to continue uh, their "lease?" Do they get better conditions if they pay more? Can they just not work and leverage their pre-incarceration assets to pay? Now that they're renters, do they get renter's protection under law? Via what mechanism - who enforces? What if there's cockroaches, they're paying, do they get to Lodge a complaint? Who decides the rent? What's to stop a prison setting a rent price that requires 18 hours hard labor to match? Why do you think it's acceptable to devalue a human? What measures do you apply to that devaluing algorithm? In your mind, who is the most "valuable," and least "valuable" human?
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > And if they refuse to work, and pay? They find themselves without spare income and a constructive usage of their time. I do believe some prison systems, I want to say Angola has something along these lines, use work-history as a test for certain privileges and or use punitive measures. These are probably not quite productive, particularly the punitive, but at the same time I think finding a way to incentive work is a good thing. To be honest, I can't quite understand why something as benign a wage garnishment (tax?) against convicted criminals income is a controversial subject. Is the current system optimal? No, prisoners could probably use a bit of an increase in earnings such that they could establish a reasonable "nest egg" for their return to the real world. I'm sorry that I don't see this as a moralistic boolean as you appear to, but levying penalties on a criminal is not wrong. Doing so in an overly punitive manner that doesn't serve society's best interest is another matter.

crooked-v 7y ago

> Offset tax-burden incurred by their incarceration. Prisoners should be a tax burden. That way, there's no incentive to conveniently round up more prisoners every time the local town needs more free labor. http://theconversation.com/exploiting-black-labor-after-the-abolition-of-slavery-72482 http://theconversation.com/exploiting-black-labor-after-the-... > The living conditions of leased convicts are documented in dozens of detailed, firsthand reports spanning decades and covering many states. In 1883, Blackmon writes, Alabama prison inspector Reginald Dawson described leased convicts in one mine being held on trivial charges, in “desperate,” “miserable” conditions, poorly fed, clothed, and “unnecessarily chained and shackled.” He described the “appalling number of deaths” and “appalling numbers of maimed and disabled men” held by various forced-labor entrepreneurs spanning the entire state.

mieseratte 7y ago
Well they still are a tax-burden. It's just offsetting that burden, so your criteria is still satisfied :) > In 1883, I'm not saying the modern penal system isn't without need for reform, but using an example from the 18th Century isn't helping your argument here.