Be sure to tell us when you do

I agree on the heavy fines for richer incomes too. Fines should hurt, and if you're rich small fines don't come near hurting

Mm, i was wondering: the US is is anything but densily populated, and most roads are apparently rather broad (or so i have been told by ppl that have a daughter living there), compared to those over here.

While Belgium has an enormous population density, less big roads and, on top of that, a higher speed limit.

So, maybe speeding is regarded more like a "personal freedom" to some extent in the US, as you'll have more chance of hurting yourself(ves) more than anyone else. But if you drive too fast over here there's a fat chance you'll be hitting ppl, kids or houses along the way. Blah.

Ironically; the party that is mostly opposed to speeding fines and such is the liberal party lol.

So, we get these fat senators (JM Dedecker anyone?) who come on national television and literally say that they are "important" and "should have the right to exceed speeding limts if they want to". And thus are very much against fines based on their income, cos they'd actually feel a pain in their fat arses, instead of paying (to them) a small fee.

Obviously there should be a minimum fine lvl that is to be regarded for most "ordinary" incomes, office jobs, worksppl, etc. that doesn't rise or drop with income. But for the rich and super-rich it's damn well necessary. I don't feel like getting hit by a speeding mercedes just cos someone deemed him- or herself "important" enough to exceed speeding limits, and i don't think anyone here does.

So: what is "fairer" to you? The fact that someone rich can easily shake of a speeding fine, while someone normal can't? Or that they DO feel the fine, just as anyone else would? The former would be totally past the point of fining, not to mention "unfair" to the normal ppl.

It's a matter of perspective in some ways, but i don't know how this measure is unfair.

O please. Dont want to pay a fine, dont break the law. I bet you think the rich should pay more taxes to..right?

I think your perspective is slightly affected by the fact that you're not rich. Well, I'm not rich either. However, I think it's screwed up to legislate laws based on someone's income. To me it's the same thing as legislating based on skin color, sex, national heritage, religious predisposition, etc etc. A person is a person is a person, and they should all be treated equally regardless of any outside influence. I mean, just because more hispanics steal cars in Dallas than white people, hispanics shouldn't have to pay a 'stolen car' tax, right?

Anyway, it's a matter of perspective, I agree. Something tells me we're not convincing one-another of anything.

FFS, when i finally manage to pull myself outta bed i arrive here on 8.52AM and only then do i learn that it's actually 8.30 that class started, NOT 9. BIG bah, so much for trying to attend morning classes this season, screw that et. (insert other anger-based drivel)


Anyways, back on topic here. We don't have to fundamentally agree imo, it's good to have a civilized (in as far we can be ) convo about this and hear other views etc. I prolly am being prejudicious (sp?), heh. Idd, i think both our points are valid to some extent, and i'm inclined to more or less agree with your pov in the end, but that leaves the problem open that rich ppl can shake off financial punishment with greater ease than others. Which then at its turn poses a question on the same equality of treatment that you talked about.

Feel free to consider this discussion ended or going nowhere if you like.

Fuck Yeah! None of that 'I'm rich by merit stuff' pay more distribute more evenly! Way to go.

So with that thinking, if one man is fat and the other is skinny we should suck the fat off the fat man and put it on the skinny guy...?

Kindly explain how we got from social engineering to slimming contests? Surely you see the inapplicability of that example. I'm not forcing my view on you (not this time at least) I'm just expressing what seems fair to me.

There are a number of reason why people have money. No matter how a person gets it, besides stealing, it still is theirs and not yours, not mine, not someone elses. It's their right to keep it.

Being fair has nothing to do with it.

So the more you make the more you should be penalized, Lacessit? So if I work my fucking ass off, and make a lot of money, I should have more of it taken away and given to the lazy asses around me that didn't work as hard as me? You are one sick fucker.

AND FAIR! FAIR! IT'S FAIR TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE HARD WORKER, AND GIVE IT TO THE LAZY?! YOU THINK IT'S FAIR WHERE THE HARDEST WORKERS GET PENALIZED THE MOST, AND THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE GET THE BIGGEST BONUS!?

Thank god you are in a different country than me.

No-one is implying that taxes should take away /all/ of your surplus money. But you are better off, therefore you can proportionally (this being the bleeding operative word) give more to make the community a better place. It kinda seems to work fine over here.
Why don't any of your welfare systems work? Why are there such dramatic differences between rich and poor in your land of the free? Those seem legitimate questions to me. Still, I'm only a sick fuck, so what do I know.



The unemployed are lazy? That's your point right? Nothing to do with job availability, nothing to do with global economics? Of course not. Silly Europeans that we are

Think before shouting fucker. If even 11b can be civilised to me about this, you'd better try too.

What's the difference between cutting a little and cutting a lot? Bad is bad, no matter the degree. So just because the rich can afford to be hit harder, they should be?!? Show me the logic in that! That makes no sense. That's a convenient justification. Show me a shread of logic to that arguement.

Yes, the unemployed are lazy. There are no lack of jobs here. Only a lack of people willing to work. There are plenty of jobs, but people are either too lazy, or not willing to lower their standards. They aren't willing to take a low paying job, or a job that has a social stigma. Global economics my ass. In America, there are plenty of jobs for those willing to do what it takes. Our welfare system works just fine by my standards: fuck the useless and the lazy.

The reason there is the greatest disparity is because we are not socialist. We give our people the greatest opportunities to succeed, but it is up to them to succeed. If they are not willing to go after their goals, then we do not sack those who were more ambitious, so that they can have their laziness subsidized (sp?). That is a perfect system in my view.

Give me a logical arguement, and maybe I could respect your view. All I have seen is bullshit rhetoric without any actual backing. Maybe you are altruistic. In my opinion that is fucked up too.

There is perfect logic to my arguments. Logic which just doens't fit in your plan for the world.

Actually, I don't think I'll be coming back to clankiller.com . Life is too short to be shortened by high blood-pressure given to me by some hillbilly's egoistical, selfcentred navelstaring life-view. And I sincerely hope you or your family never fall seriously ill Pig, you'd see how well that system works.

You have shown no logic. You have stated the conclusion, not the explanation. If you can't back up your points, then shut up.