The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXXI

[warpus]

So where are you going from HK?

Flying to Kathmandu Nepal, and then a couple days later Lukla, Nepal, where I'll be hiking to Mt. Everest Basecamp with a friend over a period of 16 days. (Google Everest basecamp via Gokyo to get a sense of what kinda hike it is. I posted a video about it somewhere on here but don't have it handy now)

All the flights I've found from Toronto (and nearby) to Kathmandu that were decently priced have had.. stupid connections. Long layovers, weird airlines, too many layovers, etc.. One flight that caught my eye stops in Hong Kong for 30 hours and is otherwise very cheap, uses airlines I trust, and even gets me back home right to my little town here in southwestern Ontario. Plus it would mean we'd actually fly all the way around the world, instead of just over the pacific and then back. Which is kind of neat.

It's still early, but we are probably booking that flight. I keep searching and there's really nothing out there that's good, Nepal is just a pain to get to. Hong Kong has been on my list of places to visit for a while, but up until a couple days ago I didn't really know much about it. Now after doing research it's clear we are going to have enough time to get a real good look at the city and see some of the best parts of it while we de-jetlag. The more I read and look for other flights, the more I realize that this is probably going to be our flight.

I'm also in contact with a company through which we are probably going to hire a guide for our hike in Kathmandu. I'd like to arrange that part of the trip asap so that it is out of the way, but the flight has to be booked first.

 

[Mouthwash]

Are there any actual arguments for having flat fees and fines (instead of scaling them to wealth) or does everybody just ignore how little sense it makes? Serious question, because I can't find any.

 

[Camikaze]

The cost of a court investigating the appropriate quantum would in most cases far outstrip the value of the fine itself.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Are there any actual arguments for having flat fees and fines (instead of having them scaled to wealth) or does everybody just ignore how little sense it makes? Serious question, because I can't find any.

if you're rich it's beneficial for you

 

[Broken_Erika]

Are there any actual arguments for having flat fees and fines (instead of having them scaled to wealth) or does everybody just ignore how little sense it makes? Serious question, because I can't find any.

Many Rich people can't stand the thought of their hard-earned tax money being used to help the poor.(Eeeew! Poor People!). How can they be Super-rich if they keep getting taxed?

 

[warpus]

Are there any actual arguments for having flat fees and fines (instead of having them scaled to wealth) or does everybody just ignore how little sense it makes? Serious question, because I can't find any.

Imagine a student with a negative net worth being fined.. a negative amount? You do need some sort of a minimum flat free.

 

[Snerk]

Are you suggesting we shouldn't pay students who get fined??

 

[Mouthwash]

The cost of a court investigating the appropriate quantum would in most cases far outstrip the value of the fine itself.

1. The very rich would offset this somewhat.

2. The point of the justice system isn't to make money.

3. The government already keeps track of people's wealth, correct? It's hard to see how taxation could be done otherwise.

 

[Synobun]

3. The government already keeps track of people's wealth, correct? It's hard to see how taxation could be done otherwise.

Through a person's tax submissions from the year prior. You could base the fine off of last year's income but you will run into a lot of issues there with people who have temporary increases in income, win lotteries, sell stock, etc.

While a justice system isn't explicitly for-profit, you want to reduce how much money gets wasted in that system. Easier with less people (as in Finland), but in a society like the United States' it would likely bloat with everyone contesting how much they're paying because of x, y, z reasons. Contesting a ticket is a lot easier within the current system. Contesting a ticket with a percentage-income based structure would likely require accountants and lawyers.

 

[warpus]

Are you suggesting we shouldn't pay students who get fined??

If we pay students when they break the law, there would be large bands of youth roaming the streets destroying everything in their path. Adults would probably organize counter groups and face them in chaotic and violent battles. It would probably be the end of civilization. So I am against it

 

[Camikaze]

1. Rich people would offset this a bit by paying a lot.

2. The point of the justice system isn't to make money.

3. The government already keeps track of people's wealth, correct? It's hard to see how taxation could be done otherwise.

I think you're underestimating the cost involved, and assuming it the government would bear it all. If you were issued a fine for travelling on a train without a ticket, then how would the quantum of the fine be determined? The ticket inspectors would at the very least have to consult your tax return (if you actually had one, which isn't a given). That in itself would likely cost more than the $50 a flat fine would normally be. But then what if you want to contest that administrative finding? Certainly when you present evidence to a court (or some preliminary administrative decision-maker), the court will have to expend significantly more resources in allocating hearing time and reaching a decision, but the primary cost of that process would be borne by you, the accused. If you didn't have a tax return from which some estimate of your real income could be derived, then a lot more of the cost would fall on the prosecution. We aren't talking $100 or $200 in costs here, we're talking in the thousands, for each and every fine if it is to accord with judicial standards.

Criminal sentencing involves a number of principles, one of which is compensation. Fines are, to some extent, meant to ameliorate the damage caused by the criminal action.

The government typically keeps track of people's taxable income, which is quite a different thing to wealth. There are many ways to reduce a taxable income that do not involve a reduction in real wealth.

 

[Mouthwash]

I can't believe there's no alternative to making these punishments meaningless for some people and devastating for others. Couldn't the government, I don't know, include the fine in the offender's taxes?

 

[Ajidica]

Any advice for apartment hunting? Specifically in the "find a place" phase.

 

[Zelig]

2. The point of the justice system isn't to make money.

The point of fines isn't justice.

I've had every fine levied on me dropped by just fighting it out in court to the point where it doesn't make financial sense for the government to carry through with it.

 

[Mouthwash]

The point of fines isn't justice.

But it is used in a judicial manner. Should it not be?

I've had every fine levied on me dropped by just fighting it out in court to the point where it doesn't make financial sense for the government to carry through with it.

I didn't realize the courts operated for free.

 

[Camikaze]

I can't believe there's no alternative to making these punishments meaningless for some people and devastating for others. Couldn't the government, I don't know, include the fine in the offender's taxes?

I'm not saying there's no alternative. I'm just answering your question, about whether there are any arguments in favour of flat fines.

Tying it to taxes is problematic, is one of my points. For example, if a small business is run through a corporation or discretionary trust, then the business 'owner' might be able to greatly reduce their taxable income, whilst still having access to significant financial resources and being considered rich/wealthy. Lots of the wealth of wealthy people will be in the form of capital gains, which don't amount to income for a particular tax year unless they're realised within that tax year (subject to local tax law variations).

So if tying a fine to taxable income is problematic, you're looking at more expensive options. In other contexts (such as property settlement following divorce), court cases costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars are conducted to substantiate how much someone is actually worth or should be required to pay.

I would also add that fines with a flat limit often are scaled in their application. e.g. the maximum penalty for corporations for certain breaches of the Australian Consumer Law is, from memory, $1.1 million. So when Valve breached the ACL last year, they were fined a few million, for a few breaches. It was determined that this was an appropriate fine to deter companies of the size of Valve from repeating their behaviour. But if a small business had committed similar breaches, the fine would not have been nearly as high (or if the fine had been as high, it would never have been paid, as a small business would not have the assets to satisfy such a judgment).

 

[Takhisis]

Any advice for apartment hunting? Specifically in the "find a place" phase.

Check the utilities, try to get informed about neighbours, and look in all closets, cupboards, etc. Behind every door and/or partition. Otherwise you might find yourself with just that little leak that, yes, was -actually- fixed but the fungal growth it caused was not cleaned out (this happened to me once).
So try to factor in all those little inconveniences to see whether you're paying too much or too little. The opinions of neighbours on your seller are often worth hearing.

Do they all drift towards the mean? Do they stay the same? What does the wealth distribution look like after a googol years?

You cannot predict it unless the coins are biased - otherwise it's fully random.

 

[Mouthwash]

You cannot predict it unless the coins are biased - otherwise it's fully random.

Yeah, I just realized this (that's why I deleted the post).

 

[Takhisis]

Wow, I gained a level of ninja without noticing it. As is proper.

I can now answer posts that aren't there.

 

[Mouthwash]

Another question (the Black Swan is giving me a lot of food for thought): why can't people ask lottery ticket buyers to sign a contract that makes them, if they win, give their winnings to that person- but everyone who signed would receive a small percentage of the money? This would kind of defeat the point of the lottery and there's a problem of who gets to be the distributor, but has anyone tried something like this? Or is it illegal?