3 ms·

> 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 educati

> 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
      > levying penalties on a criminal is not wrong The penalties levied on the criminal are encapsulated in the prison sentence itself. Anything beyond that has been added at the whim of the state, not by the legal actions of a judge or jury.

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
    > levying penalties on a criminal is not wrong The penalties levied on the criminal are encapsulated in the prison sentence itself. Anything beyond that has been added at the whim of the state, not by the legal actions of a judge or jury.