|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:18 am Post subject: Rolly eyes times a million. |
 |
|
http://www.wftv.com/news/23062671/detail.html
This stuff never happens in private business because of the profit motive. Profit seeking individuals know that chasing after 1cent will cost more than 1cent. I've had businesses write off hundreds of dollars of accounts saying stuff like "Forget about it mate, we know you'll be back" or "Your old man puts that through here in a week".
Of course bureaucracy doesn't have to worry about providing a service or pleasing the customer because you don't have a choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Right, that kind of stuff could never happen with a private business, because of course private businesses use kinder, gentler, more intelligent computers. So for example a credit card company would never charge you a $39 late fee because you were 1 cent short on you minimum payment. It couldn't happen. Not only are their computers more intelligent,but with private companies, each computer generated statement is read , verified and signed by a real human before it is sent out. And of course the people working for a private company could never make a mistake. It simply doesn't happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: Rolly eyes times a million. |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
http://www.wftv.com/news/23062671/detail.html
This stuff never happens in private business because of the profit motive. Profit seeking individuals know that chasing after 1cent will cost more than 1cent. I've had businesses write off hundreds of dollars of accounts saying stuff like "Forget about it mate, we know you'll be back" or "Your old man puts that through here in a week".
Of course bureaucracy doesn't have to worry about providing a service or pleasing the customer because you don't have a choice. |
This was a fine for violating the law, not payment for services rendered. Do you really think the government should say, "Forget about it mate, we know you'll illegally park and get fined again," in response to his failure to pay in full? I do disagree with unpaid parking tickets ever escallating to the point where it ends in jail time, but of course the government should demand payment of fines in full.
With regards to private business, jaykimf is right; a private business often won't pursue you over a cent, but rather they'll tack on an additional penalty (which can be immensely disproportionate to the original amount owed; a 1 cent overdraft resulting in a $30 overdraft fee is a 3000 fold increase). If you don't pay up, they'll report it to the credit bureau and shift your debt to a collection agency, which will endlessly harass you. I'd rather owe 1 cent to the government like this guy did than overdraft a bank account by 1 cent.
Oh, and by the way, my internet company sent me a bill three months ago telling me I owed them 20 원. I had substantially overpaid the previous month (due to them sending me a copy of the same bill twice and my girlfriend paying both without thinking about it). 20 원 is admittedly more than 1 cent, but not by much. I didn't pay it, so next month I got a penalty on the 20 원 (which, fortunately, was a percentage of the unpaid amount rather than some flat fine). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Right, that kind of stuff could never happen with a private business, because of course private businesses use kinder, gentler, more intelligent computers. So for example a credit card company would never charge you a $39 late fee because you were 1 cent short on you minimum payment. It couldn't happen. Not only are their computers more intelligent,but with private companies, each computer generated statement is read , verified and signed by a real human before it is sent out. And of course the people working for a private company could never make a mistake. It simply doesn't happen. |
You know the penalties going in, when you sign up for a C.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: Rolly eyes times a million. |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
http://www.wftv.com/news/23062671/detail.html
This stuff never happens in private business because of the profit motive. Profit seeking individuals know that chasing after 1cent will cost more than 1cent. I've had businesses write off hundreds of dollars of accounts saying stuff like "Forget about it mate, we know you'll be back" or "Your old man puts that through here in a week".
Of course bureaucracy doesn't have to worry about providing a service or pleasing the customer because you don't have a choice. |
This was a fine for violating the law, not payment for services rendered. Do you really think the government should say, "Forget about it mate, we know you'll illegally park and get fined again," in response to his failure to pay in full? I do disagree with unpaid parking tickets ever escallating to the point where it ends in jail time, but of course the government should demand payment of fines in full. |
Why is it proper for the govt to act irrationally? It costs far more than one cent to recover that one cent. I guess it's analogous to advocating raising taxes for the rich, even though higher taxes on the rich don't increase tax revenue.
| Quote: |
With regards to private business, jaykimf is right; a private business often won't pursue you over a cent, but rather they'll tack on an additional penalty (which can be immensely disproportionate to the original amount owed; a 1 cent overdraft resulting in a $30 overdraft fee is a 3000 fold increase). If you don't pay up, they'll report it to the credit bureau and shift your debt to a collection agency, which will endlessly harass you. I'd rather owe 1 cent to the government like this guy did than overdraft a bank account by 1 cent. |
How often does this really happen? You know the consequences of defaulting on loans from your bank. Owing one cent to the govt can leave you in a far more unpredictable situation.
Banks are a business too. Therefore it's irrational for them to act punitively towards their customers, lest they switch banks. If the banks that indulged in this behavior were allowed to go out of business, as they assuredly would if they did this to too many of their customers, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead we have the propping up and baling out (read endorsement) of these firms.
| Quote: |
| Oh, and by the way, my internet company sent me a bill three months ago telling me I owed them 20 원. I had substantially overpaid the previous month (due to them sending me a copy of the same bill twice and my girlfriend paying both without thinking about it). 20 원 is admittedly more than 1 cent, but not by much. I didn't pay it, so next month I got a penalty on the 20 원 (which, fortunately, was a percentage of the unpaid amount rather than some flat fine). |
Often it's just a matter of ringing up the business and pointing out the situation. Often they oblige.
While we're throwing personal anecdotes around, I might as well add mine.
Last year I went home and whilst waiting at the air port paid to use a wifi service. I used it for a while on my notebook, but the batt. ran out so I switched to my ipod touch. Later when I received the bill, they had charged me twice. Obviously I was outraged thinking they had scammed me. It turns out using the wifi on two devices counts as two charges. I would have known this if I had bothered to read the terms and conditions.
I fired off an email, and they reversed the charge even though they didn't have to. There would have been nothing I could do, except not use the service again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Right, that kind of stuff could never happen with a private business, because of course private businesses use kinder, gentler, more intelligent computers. So for example a credit card company would never charge you a $39 late fee because you were 1 cent short on you minimum payment. It couldn't happen. Not only are their computers more intelligent,but with private companies, each computer generated statement is read , verified and signed by a real human before it is sent out. And of course the people working for a private company could never make a mistake. It simply doesn't happen. |
You know the penalties going in, when you sign up for a C.C. |
You know the penalties when parking illegally |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares?
The man wasn't arrested, was he?
Plus, the title of this thread is really silly. It tells me nothing about the contents of the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: Re: Rolly eyes times a million. |
|
|
I'm going to focus on the government here, since I don't think any attempt by me to get you to change your rosy views about the behavior of private businesses.
| Senior wrote: |
| Why is it proper for the govt to act irrationally? It costs far more than one cent to recover that one cent. |
Because at its core, the fine isn't about earning money, it's about fining someone for criminal behavior. The reason you're incorrectly seeing irrationality here is because you're only thinking in terms of profit. Although fines can, at times, be a positive source of income for police stations, that isn't and shouldn't be their primary purpose.
| Senior wrote: |
| I guess it's analogous to advocating raising taxes for the rich, even though higher taxes on the rich don't increase tax revenue. |
No it's not. The sole purpose of a tax is to raise income, and as such, the best route is the one that most effectively brings in income. On the other hand, fines exist to serve as disincentives to certain types of behavior; that's why they're handed out in response to illegal activity.
If moderately higher tax rates on the rich really do reduce tax revenue (I'm not taking a position on this, since frankly there's too many fanatics spouting propaganda on either side of that argument for me to feel certain), then it's a bad choice. Fining someone for a parking ticket, on the other hand, is about preventing people from breaking parking laws; any revenue raised is just a nice secondary effect. As such, there's nothing irrational about pursuing every cent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Rolly eyes times a million. |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I'm going to focus on the government here, since I don't think any attempt by me to get you to change your rosy views about the behavior of private businesses. |
Businesses do bad stuff all the time. Generally the market punishes them, but sometimes the market is prevented from working properly.
| Quote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Why is it proper for the govt to act irrationally? It costs far more than one cent to recover that one cent. |
Because at its core, the fine isn't about earning money, it's about fining someone for criminal behavior. The reason you're incorrectly seeing irrationality here is because you're only thinking in terms of profit. Although fines can, at times, be a positive source of income for police stations, that isn't and shouldn't be their primary purpose. |
Unfortunately fines have become, in many areas, a form of tax first.
| Quote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| I guess it's analogous to advocating raising taxes for the rich, even though higher taxes on the rich don't increase tax revenue. |
No it's not. The sole purpose of a tax is to raise income, and as such, the best route is the one that most effectively brings in income. On the other hand, fines exist to serve as disincentives to certain types of behavior; that's why they're handed out in response to illegal activity. |
As I said earlier. Parking fines are becoming more and more about revenue. Some areas have quotas on parking fines. Even some police depts have secret quotas on fines. Some even wontonly seize property as the proceeds will go into police coffers.
| Quote: |
| If moderately higher tax rates on the rich really do reduce tax revenue (I'm not taking a position on this, since frankly there's too many fanatics spouting propaganda on either side of that argument for me to feel certain), then it's a bad choice. Fining someone for a parking ticket, on the other hand, is about preventing people from breaking parking laws; any revenue raised is just a nice secondary effect. As such, there's nothing irrational about pursuing every cent. |
Moderate tax increases will raise revenues but at ever decreasing returns to scale. Large tax increases do lower tax income. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Fox on this, in the sense that the government was not exacting each and every fine no matter the size because it sought to make a profit, but because it is required to do so under color of law.
That said, Senior has it right: Sometimes a little pragmatism goes a long, long way. The money saved on pursuing that paltry sum could have been better used for other purposes, and therefore fudging the law a tad would be generally agreed upon as wise.
But it is difficult to recommend such a thing. A fudge here, a fudge there, and an institution of fudging is created.
It is better to amend the law for worthy exceptions than to modify the sincerity justly allotted to the enforcement of all laws. That way lies (more) corruption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
I have to agree with Fox on this, in the sense that the government was not exacting each and every fine no matter the size because it sought to make a profit, but because it is required to do so under color of law.
That said, Senior has it right: Sometimes a little pragmatism goes a long, long way. The money saved on pursuing that paltry sum could have been better used for other purposes, and therefore fudging the law a tad would be generally agreed upon as wise.
But it is difficult to recommend such a thing. A fudge here, a fudge there, and an institution of fudging is created.
It is better to amend the law for worthy exceptions than to modify the sincerity justly allotted to the enforcement of all laws. That way lies (more) corruption. |
Haha, "...an institution of fudging", I got a kick out of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: Re: Rolly eyes times a million. |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| As I said earlier. Parking fines are becoming more and more about revenue. Some areas have quotas on parking fines. Even some police depts have secret quotas on fines. Some even wontonly seize property as the proceeds will go into police coffers. |
At least in New York, we are a little more reasonable about such things. It was only when the total owed by UPS to the Parking Violations Bureau reached $1 million that Mayor Giuliani's office sent a city marshall to JFK Airport to impound one of their planes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
I have to agree with Fox on this, in the sense that the government was not exacting each and every fine no matter the size because it sought to make a profit, but because it is required to do so under color of law.
That said, Senior has it right: Sometimes a little pragmatism goes a long, long way. The money saved on pursuing that paltry sum could have been better used for other purposes, and therefore fudging the law a tad would be generally agreed upon as wise.
But it is difficult to recommend such a thing. A fudge here, a fudge there, and an institution of fudging is created.
It is better to amend the law for worthy exceptions than to modify the sincerity justly allotted to the enforcement of all laws. That way lies (more) corruption. |
Haha, "...an institution of fudging", I got a kick out of that. |
Money saved? Did the concept of sunk cost just get thrown out the window?
The officers, the clerk at the court office, the parking ticket guy are all getting paid regardless if they arrest the guy or not. What money saved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
But it is difficult to recommend such a thing. A fudge here, a fudge there, and an institution of fudging is created.
It is better to amend the law for worthy exceptions than to modify the sincerity justly allotted to the enforcement of all laws. That way lies (more) corruption. |
No, no, no. Its called judicial discretion. That's when the judge steps in to keep rigid adherence to the law from leading to a perverse result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
