Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So unemployed will be allowed to break all the traffic rules they want?
Given our system, they will likely pay a stipend to you for speeding if you are poor enough, just like taxes. "I Cannot afford a fine" "Ok here is $150"
However barring that it makes sense to charge people based on their wherewithal. They do the same thing for punitive damages in civil matters. To a millionaire, $250 fine is a joke. To someone making $10 an hour it is absolutely devastating. There will have to be a minimum and a maximum. (Donald trump speeding ticket $14 million?) , but the concept makes sense.
- a $500 fine is nothing to someone making $250k a year...
This assumption is untrue.
However the general concept is correct, a $500 fine is much more of a deterrent to someone making $15K a year than to someone making $250K, but it is not nothing to either person. Actually the person making $15K may have less of a deterrent because they just wont pay it.
When I was broke, I got a hospital bill for one of my children for $380,000. I thought it was funny. I called and offered them half of my net worth - they now owe $1400 a month. Now, a $380,000 hospital bill woudl freak me out. I would not laugh at all.
There is a lot of freedom in being judgment proof.
I can afford those fines, but you know what? I STILL don't want to pay them so I don't do those things! I try not to do things that I could be fined for. That's what normal people do.
How is this nonsensical idea any different than forcing someone in a higher income bracket to pay $25.00 for a pound of steak and another person getting the same steak for $3.00 because they fall below a certain income category?
There are enough broken systems in this country already without piling on yet another one. I’d be happy for now if someone could just come up with a way to ensure 100% compliance with mandatory licensing and insurance requirements for operating a motor vehicle.
I do understand the concept. For some people, a $1k fine might mean a choice between losing their apartment and not eating for a month or going to jail for non-payment. For someone else, that's their wine tab 3-4 nights per week. Conceptually, it's like saying everyone owes $10k in income taxes regardless of income.
"For a justice system committed to treating like offenders alike, scaling fines to income is a matter of basic fairness. Making everyone pay the same sticker price is evenhanded on the surface, but only if you ignore the consequences of a fine on the life of the person paying. The flat fine threatens poor people with financial ruin while letting rich people break the law without meaningful repercussions. Equity requires punishment that is equally felt."
I completely agree, but the problem would come from being able to determine what the person's actual income was, and doing so would mean more paperwork and more cost to the taxpayers.
I also think that, in fairness, the amount of ANY fine for rule-breaking that does not severely injure or kill another person should also be based on income -- this would be for such things as littering. contempt of court, or shoplifting. Too many times, if a person is wealthy, s/he just pays the fine and thinks nothing of it. A $100 fine for a minimum wage single parent might mean the difference between paying the gas bill or having the heat shut off, whereas a $100 fine for someone making six figures is usually not much more than an inconvenience -- so, in short, I agree with j7r6s.
Last edited by katharsis; 03-19-2018 at 06:53 PM..
How is property tax proportional to anything? Its a totally arbitrary fee that is not in any relationship, mathematical or otherwise, to wealth or income or anything else really. Not so sure about child support - think its based on the needs of the child, not the income of the parent. You can't just scale up child support payments in excess of what it actually costs to support the child just because Dad is rich.
As for income tax, you're correct, but its unconstitutional because its supposed to be apportioned. But that's why the 16A had to be foisted off on the American people despite never having been properly ratified...so the greedy grabbers in government could end-run the Constitution by completely overturning a fundamental founding principle of the country.
Equal means the law is not applied more or less forcefully to one person than to another. That's what it means. In this case, it would be a clear violation of that principle.
There isn't any difference between saying one kind of person has to do 10 days in jail for some offense, but some other person must do 30 days for the same offense. You can't have that kind of thing under the Constitution.
But people are given different sentences all the time for supposed extenuating circumstances...judges have a lot of discretion...let's not pretend justice is at equal or fair in this country. It is an ideal that is given lip service but is not met.
I get the point you are trying to make. However it is a fact that wealthier people often have the support systems necessary to satisfy the judge that they won't get into trouble again and will appear for trial. Also they more often have verifiable residences and employment. Poorer people often have none of these. That doesn't give much comfort that the average shakedown artist will show up for trial or be locate-able when the time comes.
EVERYONE has the choice to commit a crime or not. Rich, poor and in between.
I made a very specific point about likelihood to show up for trial. I'd like to hear or read your response.
I find it hilarious hat so many are against this. I guess people like o believe in the ideal of equality and fair punishment for all, despite all the evidence to the contrary that exist in the American justice system for serious crimes, like drunk driver ng, child molestation, and first degree murder. Money buys you justice in America more than anything else. Or if that sounds too harsh, I suppose you can say money buys you the opportunity to alter your justice. In any event, I think car fines could be based on a small percentage of the cars value. So, if you own a hummer and break the law compared to someone who owns a house da civic, you pay more for paying the bro that more expensive automobile. Kinda like insurance...
If we are intellectually honest and admit that traffic fines are taxation by another name I guess it's OK, that is, if you can work out verification of income. If you consider the laws to be purely for purposes of safety it makes no sense.
I can afford those fines, but you know what? I STILL don't want to pay them so I don't do those things! I try not to do things that I could be fined for. That's what normal people do.
I highly doubt you keep to 55 on superhighways or 30 on secondary roads. Unless you don't drive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I try not to do things that I could be fined for. That's what normal people do.
