[andyt]

raydan raydan:

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

756 prisoners per 100,000, the only other country even close is Russia at 611.

Yes, but that is what makes the US and Russia such safe countries. Their criminal justice systems are just more efficient than other countries, keeping the general population safe.

...and they haven't started locking up those damn homosexuals yet.

Coming to a neighborhood near you real soon, if the Republicons keep inviting preachers who advocate it to Congress.

[Lemmy]

There's an easy solution to the prison sytem's funding problems: make the prisoners pay. Why the fuck should they get their food and utilities and clothing paid for just because they're in prison? If you want to fix the economics of the penal system, make the inmates pay for it.

And Bart: I was just wondering if you knew if they were having similar problems with "Three Strikes" in Washington. I know they passed a similar law around the same time, maybe even before California.

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Prop 13 is a control on taxes that allows senior citizens to stay in their homes. I take it you're okay with the idea of old people having to sell their homes when the tax man raises the property tax on them?

Because that's what was happening when Prop 13 was implemented.

My cousin Brendan was a beneficiary of this law. In the late 1960's he bought a modest 3/2 house for $10,000 in what was then a rural community called 'Montecito'. That area became fashionable and by 1977 he was being assessed on a value of near $1,000,000 and Prop 13 saved him from losing his home to the tax man.

Right now we have Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome (whom I'm sure you'd love) who wants Prop 13 repealed so the property tax on all homeowners can be raised to a 'more fair' rate of 10% annually.

10%.

For me that means paying more money in taxes than I used to pay for mortgage payments.

Sorry, no.

On Three Strikes - that would not have happened absent the fact of the revolving door that was going on for career criminals.

I'm okay with ending 3 strikes so long as you're okay with criminals getting shot - because that's where this is going to go.

I've got to agree with Bart on this one. Progressive taxes on properties is punitive. According to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the value of something is the value for which it is purchased. So, in Bart's case, if his cousin bought a $10,000 house, the government should only ever be able to levy taxes on it at a value of $10,000, not some mythical "assessed value" which doesn't actually exist.

Are a few homes going to be transfered between generations to avoid re-assessment? Sure...deal with it. That certainly beats seeing retirees who made shrewd real-estate purchases years ago get fucked out of their homes.

If that means there's a tax shortfall generated by it (and c'mon, it was in the 1970's that it was enacted, can't you have learned to live with it?), tax people in other ways. Jack up land-transfer taxes on million dollar plus homes or jack up other luxury taxes to get the rich, those that can afford to pay more, than the poor. Otherwise, you get user fees on basic amenities that hit poor people.

[andyt]

Dayseed Dayseed:

I've got to agree with Bart on this one....

Jack up land-transfer taxes on million dollar plus homes or jack up other luxury taxes to get the rich, those that can afford to pay more, than the poor. Otherwise, you get user fees on basic amenities that hit poor people.

I don't think you have that much agreement with Bart after all. I was using prop 13 as an example of tax madness - they've had lots of problems because of it. In Vancouver I think seniors get a property tax reduction. You could do something like that to alleviate problems. Or boost capital gains taxes when houses are sold or transferred. That way the senior is not affected, but his inheritors are.

I don't think Lemmy's idea will work. Most criminals have not assets that could be used to pay for their incarceration. Won't amount to a hill of beans.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

I don't think Lemmy's idea will work. Most criminals have not assets that could be used to pay for their incarceration.

Then you let them out to work or to work from inside the prison. If they haven't enough money to pay for their food then I guess they don't get to eat, same as it is for me. And if they owe money when they leave, hand them a bill and garnish their wages into their parole/ex-con days. If that seems too harsh then obey the fucking laws and you've got nothing to worry about.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

I don't think Lemmy's idea will work. Most criminals have not assets that could be used to pay for their incarceration.

Then you let them out to work or to work from inside the prison. If they haven't enough money to pay for their food then I guess they don't get to eat, same as it is for me. And if they owe money when they leave, hand them a bill and garnish their wages into their parole/ex-con days. If that seems to harsh then obey the fucking laws and you've got nothing to worry about.

Having them work is a good idea. Probably cost a lot for supervision and skills training tho. It costs what $75,000 to house a prisoner in Canada. Doubt those prisoners can earn anywhere near that. They'd be competing for work with all the illegals, making next to nothing.

If the Supreme court says it's not constitutional to overcrowd the prisoners, I bet it would have a nasty thing or two to say about starving them to death as well.

What wages when they are released? Most of them will be unable to get a decent job. Many will just go back to the crime life they started out with, because of that. Hard to garnish illegal income.

[Zipperfish]

We need to take these excess prisoners, atomize them and shoot them into the atmosphere to stop global warming.

[CommanderSock]

Teach them basic trades so they have real skills and let them back into the wild.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

I don't think Lemmy's idea will work. Most criminals have not assets that could be used to pay for their incarceration.

Then you let them out to work or to work from inside the prison. If they haven't enough money to pay for their food then I guess they don't get to eat, same as it is for me. And if they owe money when they leave, hand them a bill and garnish their wages into their parole/ex-con days. If that seems too harsh then obey the fucking laws and you've got nothing to worry about.

The best solution is not to create prisoners in the first place. Legalizing drugs will greatly reduce a huge stream of prisoners and bring in extra revenue to the state as well. Poverty alleviation measures will also reduce crime/save money.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

The best solution is not to create prisoners in the first place. Legalizing drugs will greatly reduce a huge stream of prisoners and bring in extra revenue to the state as well. Poverty alleviation measures will also reduce crime/save money.

Andy, you are quite simply wrong. Now please change your opinion on the subject. You have 10 seconds to comply.

[Pseudonym]

Lemmy Lemmy:

There's an easy solution to the prison sytem's funding problems: make the prisoners pay. Why the fuck should they get their food and utilities and clothing paid for just because they're in prison? If you want to fix the economics of the penal system, make the inmates pay for it.

And Bart: I was just wondering if you knew if they were having similar problems with "Three Strikes" in Washington. I know they passed a similar law around the same time, maybe even before California.

Also maybe take away some of their amenities and bring prison guard compensation a bit more in line with reason. Not that I mind paying the guards a bit extra, but the ability to draw 6 figures with a GED is pretty sweet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 30398.html

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

The best solution is not to create prisoners in the first place. Legalizing drugs will greatly reduce a huge stream of prisoners and bring in extra revenue to the state as well. Poverty alleviation measures will also reduce crime/save money.

Why don't we just legalize every thing that is illegal now and make everything free? Then there is no reason to steal, everybody is equal, AND there are no criminals anymore.

Damn, I'm good

[Yogi]

Lemmy Lemmy:

There's an easy solution to the prison sytem's funding problems: make the prisoners pay. Why the fuck should they get their food and utilities and clothing paid for just because they're in prison? If you want to fix the economics of the penal system, make the inmates pay for it.
And Bart: I was just wondering if you knew if they were having similar problems with "Three Strikes" in Washington. I know they passed a similar law around the same time, maybe even before California.

Many prisons have been like this for years already.

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

Many prisons have been like this for years already.

Not on the scale I'm suggesting. The prison system shouldn't cost taxpayers a nickel. The inmates should pay for the whole shebang.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

Many prisons have been like this for years already.

Not on the scale I'm suggesting. The prison system shouldn't cost taxpayers a nickel. The inmates should pay for the whole shebang.

Well good luck with that idea. You should write a paper on it, put some real numbers to it, show how a group of mostly poorly educated, low skill, high risk people could generate the kind of money that would pay for the prison system. It'd be like discovering economic perpetual motion.