Weather or not people can afford to pay the initial citation isn't the point, when you get a citation you have to either pay the fine or pay the fine + additional fee's and penalties and if it goes to long surrender your license. That's how the citation works regardless of a private or public company being involved.

 

 

 

I'm not at all trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to point out one making a profit isn't different from the other making a profit, profit is neither evil nor good.

Oh for pete's sake man. You are stuck in a corner on this and making no sense. 

 

This is a public penalty for a violation of a law. WHY SHOULD A PRIVATE ENTITY MAKE PROFIT OFF THAT?!?!?!? If their are fees for not being pad upfront than those should not go into someone's pocket. How is it possible you think this is even remotely right? It's insane and one of those times the Libertarian views go off the reservation. 

---

Oh for pete's sake man. You are stuck in a corner on this and making no sense. 

 

This is a public penalty for a violation of a law. WHY SHOULD A PRIVATE ENTITY MAKE PROFIT OFF THAT?!?!?!? If their are fees for not being pad upfront than those should not go into someone's pocket. How is it possible you think this is even remotely right? It's insane and one of those times the Libertarian views go off the reservation. 

 

The Private Entity is making a profit off managing the people that do not pay the fine. That's not the same as a private company making money on the fine's themselves. 

---

Answer this what happens when someone can not pay the fine from a citation and there is no private company involved, they rack up more fines and face a suspended license and or prison time if they drive on a suspended license correct?

---

The Private Entity is making a profit off managing the people that do not pay the fine. That's not the same as a private company making money on the fine's themselves. 

 

The private entity also stands to profit from lobbying politicians to pass higher fines and increased citations.

---

Answer this what happens when someone can not pay the fine from a citation and there is no private company involved, they rack up more fines and face a suspended license and or prison time if they drive on a suspended license correct?

 

When there's no private company involved, they rack up fees.  Those fees should not rack up in the first place -- unless a person is proven to be willfully not paying their fines.  It's essentially saying "Well, you're too poor, so we're going to charge you more."  (When if someone were to propose higher costs for fines for those who are rich, it'd be crazy)

 

And it certainly shouldn't be handed off to private companies so they can make profit off of it by charging outrageous fees to not only avoid losing their license, but avoid going to jail as well. 

 

This is why I can't support Libertarianism.  They think it's perfectly fine for businesses to take advantage of people.  Because usually it'll only affect the poor, and who cares about poor people?  Your worth to society is only your net worth.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The private entity also stands to profit from lobbying politicians to pass higher fines and increased citations.

 

That would be corruption and I'd have a problem with that.

---

When there's no private company involved, they rack up fees.  Those fees should not rack up in the first place -- unless a person is proven to be willfully not paying their fines.  It's essentially saying "Well, you're too poor, so we're going to charge you more."  (When if someone were to propose higher costs for fines for those who are rich, it'd be crazy)

 

And it certainly shouldn't be handed off to private companies so they can make profit off of it by charging outrageous fees to not only avoid losing their license, but avoid going to jail as well. 

 

This is why I can't support Libertarianism.  They think it's perfectly fine for businesses to take advantage of people.  Because usually it'll only affect the poor, and who cares about poor people?  Your worth to society is only your net worth.

 

I think this is where I've been trying to get at it the whole conversation. What do you propose as the solution when someone does not pay a fine owed for a citation?

---

I think this is where I've been trying to get at it the whole conversation. What do you propose as the solution when someone does not pay a fine owed for a citation?

They lose their license or they pay the fees to the agency involved (DMV? not sure). Whichever is the policy of the state. 

 

The problem we are having with this is that a private agency manages this and automatically charges monthly fees during the process artificially increasing the fines and fees above what the penalty initially called for. It leads in many cases to the same cyclical problems that pay day cash advance places get people into.  

---

That would be corruption and I'd have a problem with that.

 

Well then you should have a problem with it. Like any other "privatization" of public service (red light cameras, prisons, military security), it is full of corruption. The private companies donate money to politicians that help get them contracts. The politicians make money, the private companies make money. Guess who loses.

---

 

<div>

<div>
I think this is where I've been trying to get at it the whole conversation. What do you propose as the solution when someone does not pay a fine owed for a citation?

 

If someone cannot afford it -- the payment would be postponed.  Or they can work a payment plan out with the court, at no additional cost.

 

Why no additional cost?  I mean this would cost some money, right?  Probably less than putting a man in jail for some 60 odd days racking up crazy costs to collect $200 tbh (and additional 1000's of dollars to a private company)  A lot less in fact.

 

Now if someone can afford it, and is willfully not paying, then fees would rack up.  But if you can prove to the court that it'd cause an economic hardship, then you could either postpone or create a payment plan.  


Why should someone pay more, because they can't afford it?  It'd be like saying "Oil Change, $40.00.  Unless you can't afford it, and then you can make monthly payments of $20.00 until you pay us an additional $40.00  plus a fee of $15.00 for a device we will put on your car to make sure we can find you.  So if you can't pay us for ten months, don't worry about it!  It'll only be $255!  Oh and we've put an anchor on your car.  If you want to drive it home, you have to get an oil change."


In fact this system incentivizes police going after poor people.  Because they get more money out of them.  Why write tickets to Mr. Rich guy who'll pay you $200.00 for speeding, when Mr. Poor guy will end up paying $400 for that same ticket.  Go for poor neighborhoods.  You'll make more money!


It's like Civil Forfeiture (which John Oliver also talked about) where they can take money if they suspect it's going to be used for a crime.  They don't have to have proof, or even arrest you.  They just take the money.  And then it belongs to the police department.  Why wouldn't they stop people and look to see if they have any money.  "Oh, you have $500 in your glove compartment?  I bet that's going to be used for drugs, so I'm going to have to seize it."

</div>
</div>

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

 

<div> 

<div>
 

If someone cannot afford it -- the payment would be postponed.  Or they can work a payment plan out with the court, at no additional cost.

 

Why no additional cost?  I mean this would cost some money, right?  Probably less than putting a man in jail for some 60 odd days racking up crazy costs to collect $200 tbh (and additional 1000's of dollars to a private company)  A lot less in fact.

 

Now if someone can afford it, and is willfully not paying, then fees would rack up.  But if you can prove to the court that it'd cause an economic hardship, then you could either postpone or create a payment plan.  


Why should someone pay more, because they can't afford it?  It'd be like saying "Oil Change, $40.00.  Unless you can't afford it, and then you can make monthly payments of $20.00 until you pay us an additional $40.00  plus a fee of $15.00 for a device we will put on your car to make sure we can find you.  So if you can't pay us for ten months, don't worry about it!  It'll only be $255!  Oh and we've put an anchor on your car.  If you want to drive it home, you have to get an oil change."


In fact this system incentivizes police going after poor people.  Because they get more money out of them.  Why write tickets to Mr. Rich guy who'll pay you $200.00 for speeding, when Mr. Poor guy will end up paying $400 for that same ticket.  Go for poor neighborhoods.  You'll make more money!


It's like Civil Forfeiture (which John Oliver also talked about) where they can take money if they suspect it's going to be used for a crime.  They don't have to have proof, or even arrest you.  They just take the money.  And then it belongs to the police department.  Why wouldn't they stop people and look to see if they have any money.  "Oh, you have $500 in your glove compartment?  I bet that's going to be used for drugs, so I'm going to have to seize it."


</div>
 

</div>

 

You're all over the place, I have a problem with Civil Forfeiture but that's a completely different topic.

 

What you're saying is if people can't afford to pay the fine, then they should be given an extension at no cost to them (there is always cost associated, so really what you're saying is at the cost of the tax payers because they fund the state). However if they can't prove it's a financial hardship then it's ok to rack up more fee's.

 

The whole anchor and oil change analogy doesn't really work, getting a citation is a result of personal irresponsibility, albeit I'd agree many of the times the reasons for citations are ludicrous but again that's a different discussion. So when someone gets a citation why is it the rest of societies responsibility to finance there needing to prolong repayment? The additional cost might be minimum sure but why is it the rest of societies responsibility? That's why I don't have a problem with private companies paying the bill and then holding the individuals who received the citation responsible.

 

Really it's as simple as you stated in the op, can't pay the fine don't get citations.

---

You're all over the place, I have a problem with Civil Forfeiture but that's a completely different topic.

 

What you're saying is if people can't afford to pay the fine, then they should be given an extension at no cost to them (there is always cost associated, so really what you're saying is at the cost of the tax payers because they fund the state). However if they can't prove it's a financial hardship then it's ok to rack up more fee's.

 

The whole anchor and oil change analogy doesn't really work, getting a citation is a result of personal irresponsibility, albeit I'd agree many of the times the reasons for citations are ludicrous but again that's a different discussion. So when someone gets a citation why is it the rest of societies responsibility to finance there needing to prolong repayment? The additional cost might be minimum sure but why is it the rest of societies responsibility? That's why I don't have a problem with private companies paying the bill and then holding the individuals who received the citation responsible.

 

Really it's as simple as you stated in the op, can't pay the fine don't get citations.

 

So you'd rather they cost the tax payers... thousands of dollars to keep someone in jail for 60 days, then an administrative fees that would be used to postpone a payment"


No, it's not as simple as "Can't pay the fine, don't get citations"


I mean otherwise that argument would also go toward "Fines should be based on how much you make."


You make $200,000/year, and don't want to pay a high fine?  Do the speed limit!  It's that simple.


The fact is the system we have gives police incentives to go after poor people (and particularly black people)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You're all over the place, I have a problem with Civil Forfeiture but that's a completely different topic.

 

What you're saying is if people can't afford to pay the fine, then they should be given an extension at no cost to them (there is always cost associated, so really what you're saying is at the cost of the tax payers because they fund the state). However if they can't prove it's a financial hardship then it's ok to rack up more fee's.

 

The whole anchor and oil change analogy doesn't really work, getting a citation is a result of personal irresponsibility, albeit I'd agree many of the times the reasons for citations are ludicrous but again that's a different discussion. So when someone gets a citation why is it the rest of societies responsibility to finance there needing to prolong repayment? The additional cost might be minimum sure but why is it the rest of societies responsibility? That's why I don't have a problem with private companies paying the bill and then holding the individuals who received the citation responsible.

 

Really it's as simple as you stated in the op, can't pay the fine don't get citations.

Really it's as simple as stop privatizing things that ought not be privatized. It costs people more money that they already can't afford. But on the other hand it does make someone a whole ton of money at the expense of average people making mistakes so sure that's great. 

---

Oh, the poor criminals...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So you'd rather they cost the tax payers... thousands of dollars to keep someone in jail for 60 days, then an administrative fees that would be used to postpone a payment"


No, it's not as simple as "Can't pay the fine, don't get citations"


I mean otherwise that argument would also go toward "Fines should be based on how much you make."


You make $200,000/year, and don't want to pay a high fine?  Do the speed limit!  It's that simple.


The fact is the system we have gives police incentives to go after poor people (and particularly black people)

 

You avoided my questions, why is it the rest of the tax payers responsibility to cover the cost of either extending the due date on their citation/forgiving the citation or financing the citation? I'm not advocating jail time, I'm saying that's the alternative to not having a third party manage the people that don't pay the fines.

 

I don't think a company is evil for being the third party, of course it's for profit, everything is for profit. Even when government does it, it's for profit, but you're arguing that charging late fee's is the equivalent to income scaled penalties and it's not. What you're advocating is a graduated penalty to spread out the burden of citations equally.

---

Really it's as simple as stop privatizing things that ought not be privatized. It costs people more money that they already can't afford. But on the other hand it does make someone a whole ton of money at the expense of average people making mistakes so sure that's great. 

 

But all income is made at the expense of someone else, that's the nature of capitalism. Trying to create conditions for when it's moral and immoral is my issue, you could argue in some cases we as a society should subsidize it, but to say someone making a profit on it is being immoral is trying to assign good and evil to something that is neither good nor evil, it just simply is.

---

But all income is made at the expense of someone else, that's the nature of capitalism. Trying to create conditions for when it's moral and immoral is my issue, you could argue in some cases we as a society should subsidize it, but to say someone making a profit on it is being immoral is trying to assign good and evil to something that is neither good nor evil, it just simply is.

And you are trying to justifying taking the criminal justice system and privatize it so somebody somewhere can make money of other people's mistakes after you have already stated the corruption in the privatized jail system but are somehow ok with this presumably because it makes someone money? 

---

You avoided my questions, why is it the rest of the tax payers responsibility to cover the cost of either extending the due date on their citation/forgiving the citation or financing the citation? I'm not advocating jail time, I'm saying that's the alternative to not having a third party manage the people that don't pay the fines.

 

I don't think a company is evil for being the third party, of course it's for profit, everything is for profit. Even when government does it, it's for profit, but you're arguing that charging late fee's is the equivalent to income scaled penalties and it's not. What you're advocating is a graduated penalty to spread out the burden of citations equally.

 

 

I didn't say you're advocating jail time.  I'm saying THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.  The man who stole the $2.00 beer?  He got 60 days of jail time because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracking device.  Surely that cost the taxpayers more than the $200 in fines that he paid.  Not to mention more than the administrative costs.

 

A graduated penalty makes more sense than the system we have.  Because the system we have right now is costing those who don't have the money more.

 

Oh, the poor criminals...

So you've never sped?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I didn't say you're advocating jail time.  I'm saying THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.  The man who stole the $2.00 beer?  He got 60 days of jail time because he couldn't pay the $75 fee for the tracking device.  Surely that cost the taxpayers more than the $200 in fines that he paid.  Not to mention more than the administrative costs.

 

A graduated penalty makes more sense than the system we have.  Because the system we have right now is costing those who don't have the money more.

 

So you've never sped?


 

Well you see, he's not poor so the discussion is not relevant. Snark, though is always relevant. 

---

Well you see, he's not poor so the discussion is not relevant. Snark, though is always relevant.

+1

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato