[Accepted] Fine Time

[West Barack and East Obama]

[title] Fine Time (alt: @@NAME@@'s Richest Having a Fine Time if it's too subtle)

[validity] has capitalism

[description] After drunkenly lighting several trees on fire in a zone of @@NAME@@ National Park that he had illegally camped in, threatening some nearby children with violence if they "told on him", declaring that zone of the park an independent tax haven and branding you as a "fascist dictator", local billionaire Jellon Mezos incurred a massive fine. The problem -- Mr Mezos earns so much money, he regained the amount he lost due to the fine within a matter of minutes.

[option] "This is absolutely preposterous!" yells your bad-tempered Minister of Justice as he throws darts at a printed out photo of Mr Mezos' face. "A working class @@DEMONYM@@ who committed the same crime would have had to take out a second mortgage just to pay that fine! These fines don't affect these rich fat cats at all! I propose we make fines proportional to the income of the offender. Maybe then Mr Mezos and others would think twice before flagrantly violating our laws."
[effect] parking citations for millionaires make up the majority of the government’s revenue

[option] "Hey, woah, woah, let's calm down a little. None of this is a big deal!" says Mr Mezos, who bribed your receptionist in order to be able to attend this meeting. "So what if I'm loaded with cash. My factory workers made it for me fair and square! Fining me more money just because I'm not a peasant living paycheck-to-paycheck is literally discrimination! While you're at it, you should introduce a flat tax rate so that everyone, regardless of economic status, pay the same in taxes as well. You wouldn't want everyone seeing you as a prejudiced leader, would you?"
[effect] tax cuts are being rewarded to the rich for their taxing jobs

[option] "The real question here is: how could such a heinous crime be punished only by forking over a pathetic sum of cash?" inquires Judge @@RANDOMNAME@@, who suspiciously looks very similar to the CEO of the largest private prison corporation in the United Federation. "The despicable deed of... uh... being publicly intoxicated in our national park is unpatriotic! It's disgraceful, as are other crimes such as public urination, which are only punished by fines at the moment. We should get rid of fining people and instead send them all to a vacation at my- I mean our prisons, and maybe then we can actually get some law and order for once."
[effect] serial killers share cells with serial jaywalkers

Hey all! This is my second issue, so feedback would be appreciated! Inspired by Jeff Bezos reveiving $16k in parking tickets.

[SherpDaWerp]

#566.2 touches on making fines proportional; although it's a much more general complaint about people not paying parking fines. It could be more interesting to write this as a reversal to that decision, arguing for re-instituting standard fines.

[West Barack and East Obama]

#566.2 touches on making fines proportional; although it's a much more general complaint about people not paying parking fines. It could be more interesting to write this as a reversal to that decision, arguing for re-instituting standard fines.

Hmm. Though that issue's focus is on parking tickets and for option only, while this takes on the whole issue more broadly. Is the overlap potentially too much? I could easily rework the premise so not too big of a problem, but just checking. I don't really want to restrict the issue to those who only answered that option on that one issue though.

[New Galactic States]

I like this Issue!, I say it’s very good!

[SherpDaWerp]

#566.2 touches on making fines proportional; although it's a much more general complaint about people not paying parking fines. It could be more interesting to write this as a reversal to that decision, arguing for re-instituting standard fines.

Hmm. Though that issue's focus is on parking tickets and for option only, while this takes on the whole issue more broadly. Is the overlap potentially too much? I could easily rework the premise so not too big of a problem, but just checking. I don't really want to restrict the issue to those who only answered that option on that one issue though.

I don't think it's a hard overlap concern, but in my opinion, that option leaves a bit of a shadow over the issue that may be inescapable.

Incredibly specific issues can be fun, and (from a position of complete ignorance) that option seems like it'd be picked a fair amount of the time by anyone who has cars; but if you're happy to continue with this draft then don't let me stop you.

[Trotterdam]

#351 is about the rich using their wealth to get away with much more serious crimes.

[Catalonia 2070 RP]

I love the name. One of the make it or break it things about issues is the names.

[Electrum]

Well done on this issue, it's looking pretty good. I think it's fine to have a standalone issue on proportional fines, and the overlap is not severe.

I think Option 2 needs a reword. I really don't like everyone "pay the same amount of taxes" that is tacked on to the end. I understand that each option needs to involve some kind of a positive choice but that's not a realistic solution. If you mean a flat tax system then you should say it.

Another criticism is that I think the effect lines need some work.

Effect 1 -- If you're making the fines proportional then it's difficult to see how they can cause bankruptcy in both poor and rich people. Although you're recovering the same amount of money proportionally from a rich person, they've still got more than enough disposable money to live. They're still going to be rich even with the fines and they're still going to live comfortably.

Effects 2 and 3-- I don't understand how the effect lines follow from the option text.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thank you Electrum - I’ve edited my draft accordingly. The effect lines are still not so great but hopefully a little bit better

[Australian rePublic]

Some countries don't allow dogs in national parks

[Electrum]

Some countries don't allow dogs in national parks

This really isn't a helpful comment.

[Australian rePublic]

Some countries don't allow dogs in national parks

This really isn't a helpful comment.

Instead of taking the dog to a national park, how about taking it to a regular park?

[West Barack and East Obama]

Some countries don't allow dogs in national parks

Then the fine being exorbitant would make even more sense

Do you have any substantial comments on this though? Does anyone?

This really isn't a helpful comment.

Instead of taking the dog to a national park, how about taking it to a regular park?

This guy is a billionaire. Random parks don't exactly have the... prestige.

[West Barack and East Obama]

I hereby bump this

[North Korea Choson]

Nice Issue!

[West Barack and East Obama]

Nice Issue!

Thank you

[Verdant Haven]

There seems to be a minor disconnect in the first option. If the fine was so huge that an ordinary person would have had to take out a second mortgage, it seems like the fines must already scale with income in some way. It seems doubtful that fines for not cleaning up some dog poop would actually be the many thousands of dollars (or whatever currency) that seems to be implied unless that was the case. I would either up the scale of the offense, to justify both the size of the fine and the outrage about him easily paying it (eg, drunkenly lighting fires in an endangered animal habitat that happens to be a school zone whilst threatening small children and denouncing you as a fascist), or I would adjust the language to explain a little differently about how the fine is big enough to deter most folks but not the super-wealthy (even a couple hundred bucks is a financial catastrophe for much of the population). I'd probably incline towards the former if you feel like the word count will support it, since that's more likely to make the news than something more routine, and would make the final speaker all the more entertaining when they compare something like public urination to what was done.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thanks for the excellent suggestion, I’ve more or less implemented it.

[West Barack and East Obama]

It's been a while, so bump.

[Verdant Haven]

Looking really good!

I only have two quick suggestions -

1) For the first speaker, I would probably say something like "income" or "net worth" instead of "salary" - lots of execs take a $1 salary while making millions from stock options and investments.

2) For the second speaker, the final line ("You wouldn't want to...") is a little weak, and feels non-specific for what should be the final punch. I think your idea of presenting the argument as being about discrimination is solid - that's a word that is hard to ignore. I'd probably focus the speaker's emphasis on that or a closely related concept to try and get their way.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Looking really good!

I only have two quick suggestions -

1) For the first speaker, I would probably say something like "income" or "net worth" instead of "salary" - lots of execs take a $1 salary while making millions from stock options and investments.

2) For the second speaker, the final line ("You wouldn't want to...") is a little weak, and feels non-specific for what should be the final punch. I think your idea of presenting the argument as being about discrimination is solid - that's a word that is hard to ignore. I'd probably focus the speaker's emphasis on that or a closely related concept to try and get their way.

Not sure if it did the trick, but I've made some edits.

[Verdant Haven]

You probably want the word "prejudiced" rather than "prejudicial," but other than that, I don't think I have any remaining useful feedback. This looks pretty good to me.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thank you for the help you've provided me Verdant Haven - I'll just leave this draft up for a few days before submitting.

Also, I've changed the third option's speaker nation of origin.

[Lodestara]

Interesting, i just got this issue

[Australian rePublic]

Yeay You!!!