Yeah. It’s kind of ignorant to expect the same fine for say a disabled person unable to work who scrapes by on 900 euros a month vs a super wealthy person on 500k euros a year.
Fines shouldn’t really exist anyways. When for one person they’re a random expense that doesn’t even bat an eye vs for another person it means no food for a week.
Even progressive fines are unfair. In that for someone who barely affords food every week losing 2% of your monthly income is devastating. While for a rich person they won’t even notice losing 2% of their income.
What would be the alternative though? Jail would be a bit harsh for a parking violation, and all other punishments I can think of would also be unfair to some people.
Community work discriminates against the single parent, favoring the childless unemployed.
Losing the drivers license for a month discriminates against the rural population while city folks can use the bus to get to work. Or even a cab if they’re rich enough.
Even in jail you would be better off if you are rich, as you can bribe the guards or buy some level of comfort.
Until we get rid of the rich, any punishment will be somewhat biased. But not punishing misdemeanors at all would not really be an option either.
Multiple time offenders should see harsher penalties regardless of what their income is.
Take away their license. If they drive without a license, then they should go to jail.
Being a parent or being disabled is no excuse for multiple parking violations. If you don’t know the law or aren’t patient enough to follow them, then don’t drive. Driving is a privileged, not a right.
Not even progressively larger fines, up to jail time and having your driving licence and car forefeited are proportionate - this still disproportionately affects those less well-off.
Perhaps civil asset and “rights” forefeiture for the rich could be a better solution. With rights I don’t mean human rights, but stuff like being allowed to ride in a car at all (since being rich enough you can hire a chauffeur, even losing your licence isn’t a big deal and you can always rent a car or buy a new one multiplr times over). How this would be implemented (enforced) I don’t know, but it should work. If course it should only be applied to people blatantly disregarding basic civility in traffic and those who don’'t need the car
Losing the drivers license for a month discriminates against the rural population while city folks can use the bus to get to work. Or even a cab if they’re rich enough.
Rural people got around fine before the automobile. They walked or rode a horse. Nobody needs a car.
You don’t need to live 50km away from where you work. People from before cars would never dream of such an outrageous lifestyle.
That kind of decadence, traveling 50km twice every day, was enabled by unsustainable technology which is killing the biosphere. We need to stop this kind of wasteful excess, or climate collapse will stop it for us. We can have people living 50km away from work, but that 50km needs to be 50km of railway line. It can’t be an asphalt road, that’s too expensive to the world. The debt is coming due.
My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.
I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.
Even though city-dwellers may not see a starry night for a long time, rural residents still emit more carbon emissions than their slick city counterparts.
The BBC article agrees. When carbon emissions are compared between residents of rural and urban areas, the former appear to have a higher carbon footprint.
Homes in large towns or apartments in cities tend to be smaller and denser, thus easier to heat. People in cities drive short distances to work or may even commute to work, but residents in rural areas tend to drive long distances for work or leisure.
Your link refers to a BBC article which I read. It compares cities with other cities, making the argument that the bigger cities produce less carbon dioxide emissions than smaller cities. The source of data here is a bit mixed but mainly it relies on governmental data for cities of 135,000 people or more. It’s hardly rural when there are high-rises. It’s also a bit unclear on how emissions are calculated. It includes industrial emissions for the place where the goods are produced, not where the goods are consumed. Generally, consumption is equal to emissions. If a millionaire flies in a private jet, the emissions shouldn’t be attributed to those who make the plane or pump oil out of the ground. It’s the millionaire who is consuming the plane and fuel that is the polluter.
The BBC article isn’t written by a journalist. Its written by a Paul Swinney who “is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, a think tank dedicated to improving the performance of UK city economies”. The article should be viewed as an opinion piece.
In the other source, WNYC Studios, there’s a professor Cindy Eisenhower who’s being interviewed. She says, and I quote, that “in reality we’re finding that – many studies emerging that would suggest that if we account for all the things that people buy, uhm, that cities oftentimes have higher footprints despite the efficiency gains that relates to living in really dense settlements.” Listen to the interview that your source links to at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/urban-versus-rural-carbon-emissions
This is a great example of why secondary sources shouldn’t be trusted without verifying what they say. The author of the article you linked clearly misunderstood the interview. What the professor is saying is exactly what my municipality found: that even if people living in rural areas have higher transport emissions in their day-to-day life, a single trip abroad by plane may produce as much emissions as a full year of traveling to work by car. The direct transportation emissions in rural areas are completely offset by higher consumption and overhead emissions in cities.
It should be income adjusted up to a certain income amount where it becomes net worth adjusted. This way stocks, land, properties and possessions can be calculated in to make the fines more impactful for the ultra wealthy.
Along with adjustments for not changing behaviors after previous fines.
Adjusted to the initial sale value of the car - Less easy to cheat by not declaring income, and bigger cars (likely more expensive) that take up more space, pay more.
This fails to scale into the millionaire level of wealth. Someone worth 10 or 100 million should be fined 10-100 times the amount of someone that has “just” 1 Million.
Liturgies could consist of, for instance, the maintenance of a trireme, a chorus during a theatre festival, or a gymnasium. In some cases, the prestige of the undertaking attracted volunteers (analogous in modern terminology to endowment, sponsorship, or donation). Such was the case for the choragus, who organized and financed choruses for a drama festival. In other instances, like the burden of outfitting and commanding a trireme, the liturgy functioned more like a mandatory donation (what we would today call a one-time tax), with the prestige of such a position and other elites’ social pressure reducing noncompliance.
As all fines, it should be income adjusted. I wanna see a 5000€ fine when some rich asshole does this.
Yeah. It’s kind of ignorant to expect the same fine for say a disabled person unable to work who scrapes by on 900 euros a month vs a super wealthy person on 500k euros a year.
Fines shouldn’t really exist anyways. When for one person they’re a random expense that doesn’t even bat an eye vs for another person it means no food for a week.
Even progressive fines are unfair. In that for someone who barely affords food every week losing 2% of your monthly income is devastating. While for a rich person they won’t even notice losing 2% of their income.
What would be the alternative though? Jail would be a bit harsh for a parking violation, and all other punishments I can think of would also be unfair to some people.
Until we get rid of the rich, any punishment will be somewhat biased. But not punishing misdemeanors at all would not really be an option either.
Multiple time offenders should see harsher penalties regardless of what their income is.
Take away their license. If they drive without a license, then they should go to jail.
Being a parent or being disabled is no excuse for multiple parking violations. If you don’t know the law or aren’t patient enough to follow them, then don’t drive. Driving is a privileged, not a right.
Not even progressively larger fines, up to jail time and having your driving licence and car forefeited are proportionate - this still disproportionately affects those less well-off.
Perhaps civil asset and “rights” forefeiture for the rich could be a better solution. With rights I don’t mean human rights, but stuff like being allowed to ride in a car at all (since being rich enough you can hire a chauffeur, even losing your licence isn’t a big deal and you can always rent a car or buy a new one multiplr times over). How this would be implemented (enforced) I don’t know, but it should work. If course it should only be applied to people blatantly disregarding basic civility in traffic and those who don’'t need the car
Rural people got around fine before the automobile. They walked or rode a horse. Nobody needs a car.
I’ve got a horse but there’s no stables outside my workplace. Walking 50 km to work would take the whole day.
You don’t need to live 50km away from where you work. People from before cars would never dream of such an outrageous lifestyle.
That kind of decadence, traveling 50km twice every day, was enabled by unsustainable technology which is killing the biosphere. We need to stop this kind of wasteful excess, or climate collapse will stop it for us. We can have people living 50km away from work, but that 50km needs to be 50km of railway line. It can’t be an asphalt road, that’s too expensive to the world. The debt is coming due.
My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.
I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/
Your link refers to a BBC article which I read. It compares cities with other cities, making the argument that the bigger cities produce less carbon dioxide emissions than smaller cities. The source of data here is a bit mixed but mainly it relies on governmental data for cities of 135,000 people or more. It’s hardly rural when there are high-rises. It’s also a bit unclear on how emissions are calculated. It includes industrial emissions for the place where the goods are produced, not where the goods are consumed. Generally, consumption is equal to emissions. If a millionaire flies in a private jet, the emissions shouldn’t be attributed to those who make the plane or pump oil out of the ground. It’s the millionaire who is consuming the plane and fuel that is the polluter.
The BBC article isn’t written by a journalist. Its written by a Paul Swinney who “is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, a think tank dedicated to improving the performance of UK city economies”. The article should be viewed as an opinion piece.
In the other source, WNYC Studios, there’s a professor Cindy Eisenhower who’s being interviewed. She says, and I quote, that “in reality we’re finding that – many studies emerging that would suggest that if we account for all the things that people buy, uhm, that cities oftentimes have higher footprints despite the efficiency gains that relates to living in really dense settlements.” Listen to the interview that your source links to at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/urban-versus-rural-carbon-emissions
This is a great example of why secondary sources shouldn’t be trusted without verifying what they say. The author of the article you linked clearly misunderstood the interview. What the professor is saying is exactly what my municipality found: that even if people living in rural areas have higher transport emissions in their day-to-day life, a single trip abroad by plane may produce as much emissions as a full year of traveling to work by car. The direct transportation emissions in rural areas are completely offset by higher consumption and overhead emissions in cities.
“We” feels like cheating. Have you considered saying “others and drag”?
Groups containing individuals have different pronouns than the people inside.
The rich stay rich by not spending money. They’ll be devastated losing 2% of their income on a fine.
It should be income adjusted up to a certain income amount where it becomes net worth adjusted. This way stocks, land, properties and possessions can be calculated in to make the fines more impactful for the ultra wealthy.
Along with adjustments for not changing behaviors after previous fines.
Adjusted to the initial sale value of the car - Less easy to cheat by not declaring income, and bigger cars (likely more expensive) that take up more space, pay more.
This fails to scale into the millionaire level of wealth. Someone worth 10 or 100 million should be fined 10-100 times the amount of someone that has “just” 1 Million.
Also, realistically there is a cap to the value of a car that someone is gonna just leave parked in a bus lane.
Nobody is going to leave a $40 million Ferrari 250 just sitting somewhere after all
Yeah thats what i meant. A billionaire might drive a sub 100k car.
Fuck a fine. Take their licence and impound their car until they’ve passed a written test.
Not very capitalism of you to be so eager to punish success
Nono, you see i am rewarding these leeches with the ability to gain glory and prestige by giving away their excess wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_ancient_Greece#Taxation
I agree with that, but can immediately see a loophole in it - that some rich folks are not reporting actual income.
What if we had a tax agency that could investigate that and make sure they did?
Bit of a wishful thinking to have that working in practice.
Crushing the car into a 1-metre cube will equalise the pain.
Remember this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm