10 ms·

I'm not sure why you think that article proves your point. Of course poor people will get more parking tickets, they're often the ones who don't have proper par

by skulk 4y ago

I'm not sure why you think that article proves your point. Of course poor people will get more parking tickets, they're often the ones who don't have proper parking arrangements. Do you think I was saying that wealthy people are responsible for the majority of illegal parking? In any case, here's an example of a high profile wealthy person paying parking tickets like they're just a normal cost: https://dailytargum.com/article/2020/02/jeff-bezos-parking-ticket-fines-displays-wealth-inequality https://dailytargum.com/article/2020/02/jeff-bezos-parking-t... This isn't something I made up, it happens.

bko 4y ago
You still don't get it. I reject all of that. My point is that varying fees based on "deterrence" wouldn't necessarily lead you to charging rich people more. It could end up hurting poor people if someone makes the argument that they need more "deterrence". That's why its wrong and we should apply the law equally to everyone
- skulk 4y ago
  > we should apply the law equally to everyone What is the law, and what is equal? There's a law saying you have to pay taxes, so do you object to the fact that this law is applied unequally to rich people who have to pay more? And the crime of not paying taxes is also punished with a fine that is proportional to the amount unpaid. Your viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, so yes. I don't get it. Arguing against proportional measures for deterrance is equivalent to saying you're okay with rich people committing crimes and paying a minuscule fine for it (unless you have a totally different framework of punishment in mind).