Traffic ticket fines based on income level?

[poolerboy0077]

The question is whether traffic ticket fines should be based on one's income rather than as a fix number.


The idea behind it is to make the person who committed the infraction "feel" the punishment as a way to deter their behavior. A person who is middle class or under that incurs a fine for $400 or more for speeding is not felt the same by someone who makes, say, a million or more per year.

One argument against it that I find unpersuasive is that everyone should get the same punishment. Formally, yes, everyone is getting the same outcome (nominally), but if the punishment is meant to be "felt" by the person stopped and deterred, we should focus on the substantive elements of said penalties. Think of how income tax works.

An argument that I do find persuasive, however, is that it might make police focus more on stopping the expensive cars over the cheaper ones. This rests on the assumption that police departments are motivated to increase revenue for the city from such stops. If so, this could potentially create a disparity in stops based on the perverse incentive unintentionally created by the policy change.


Thoughts?

 

[LionL]

To a man who earns £200 a week a £100 fine would be a heck of a lot. To his boss who earns £2,000 a week the same sum would be as nothing. This sounds like a great idea to increase the fairness of the punishment.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The question is whether traffic ticket fines should be based on one's income rather than as a fix number.


The idea behind it is to make the person who committed the infraction "feel" the punishment as a way to deter their behavior. A person who is middle class or under that incurs a fine for $400 or more for speeding is not felt the same by someone who makes, say, a million or more per year.

One argument against it that I find unpersuasive is that everyone should get the same punishment. Formally, yes, everyone is getting the same outcome (nominally), but if the punishment is meant to be "felt" by the person stopped and deterred, we should focus on the substantive elements of said penalties. Think of how income tax works.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

An argument that I do find persuasive, however, is that it might make police focus more on stopping the expensive cars over the cheaper ones. This rests on the assumption that police departments are motivated to increase revenue for the city from such stops. If so, this could potentially create a disparity in stops based on the perverse incentive unintentionally created by the policy change.


Thoughts?

With regards to this concern, it doesn't really bother me. The number of times I've seen a flashy car bombing past me at 140 km/h+ on the highway is enough to warrant it. Meanwhile, me in my little beater 1999 Civic gets caught rolling a stop at a 4-way with no traffic in sight...

 

[Chesterton]

One argument against it that I find unpersuasive is that everyone should get the same punishment. Formally, yes, everyone is getting the same outcome (nominally), but if the punishment is meant to be "felt" by the person stopped and deterred, we should focus on the substantive elements of said penalties. Think of how income tax works.

The punishment is not meant to be felt. Spoiler alert: government doesn't really care about that, they just want your money.

An argument that I do find persuasive, however, is that it might make police focus more on stopping the expensive cars over the cheaper ones. This rests on the assumption that police departments are motivated to increase revenue for the city from such stops. If so, this could potentially create a disparity in stops based on the perverse incentive unintentionally created by the policy change.

Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure police already like stopping expensive cars more, even if they're paying the same.

 

[KCfromNC]

The punishment is not meant to be felt. Spoiler alert: government doesn't really care about that, they just want your money.

Yep. The goal is to generate revenue from a victimless made-up crime while keeping the fines below the annoying level lest anyone get voted out of office over the issue. Targeting local business leaders and other rich people who contribute to those people's campaigns isn't going to be such a great idea.

 

[True Scotsman]

The question is whether traffic ticket fines should be based on one's income rather than as a fix number.


The idea behind it is to make the person who committed the infraction "feel" the punishment as a way to deter their behavior. A person who is middle class or under that incurs a fine for $400 or more for speeding is not felt the same by someone who makes, say, a million or more per year.

One argument against it that I find unpersuasive is that everyone should get the same punishment. Formally, yes, everyone is getting the same outcome (nominally), but if the punishment is meant to be "felt" by the person stopped and deterred, we should focus on the substantive elements of said penalties. Think of how income tax works.

An argument that I do find persuasive, however, is that it might make police focus more on stopping the expensive cars over the cheaper ones. This rests on the assumption that police departments are motivated to increase revenue for the city from such stops. If so, this could potentially create a disparity in stops based on the perverse incentive unintentionally created by the policy change.


Thoughts?

Everyone should be equal before the law. Punishing someone more because they earn more is punishing success and has as its root hatred of the good for being the good.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Everyone should be equal before the law. Punishing someone more because they earn more is punishing success and has as its root hatred of the good for being the good.

You're focused too much on the number. Proportionally they're punished equally.

 

[keith99]

Let's bring back flogging instead.

And to be fair, so those with a higher pain tolerance do not get off lightly let's flog everyone until they pass out!

 

[Resha Caner]

Isn't part of the reason for our convoluted tax law the game between the IRS and taxpayers as to what "income" actually is? Don't you think the rich guy's lawyers will be better at helping him hide his income from the courts than the poor guy? The poor guy may end up paying more.

And who wants their income to become part of the public record? If people know the fine you paid, they would know what income you were forced to report to the courts.

Seems like a potential swamp to me.

So, I'll vote for Keith's solution: bring back flogging.

 

[Inkfingers]

I've no interest in seeing the State expanded in any way, but I've long thought it unjust to fine people a fixed amount. To someone one minimum wage, £100 is a heck of a lot of money. To someone on £40k, its a meal out.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Let's bring back flogging instead.

And to be fair, so those with a higher pain tolerance do not get off lightly let's flog everyone until they pass out!

I'm sure most civilized people would object to flogging in itself, and the least salient factor would be the variation of the infliction based on individual tolerance.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're focused too much on the number. Proportionally they're punished equally.

By the same logic, younger criminals should get the longest sentences, so that proportionally they spend the same percent of the remainder of their life in prison as older criminals. Seem fair?

 

[Inkfingers]

By the same logic, younger criminals should get the longest sentences, so that proportionally they spend the same percent of the remainder of their life in prison as older criminals. Seem fair?

No, that's silly.

A year is the same proportion of one man's life as anothers (counting all getting three score and ten).

You cannot compare money in the bank with years of life.

 

[quatona]

The question is whether traffic ticket fines should be based on one's income rather than as a fix number.


The idea behind it is to make the person who committed the infraction "feel" the punishment as a way to deter their behavior. A person who is middle class or under that incurs a fine for $400 or more for speeding is not felt the same by someone who makes, say, a million or more per year.

One argument against it that I find unpersuasive is that everyone should get the same punishment. Formally, yes, everyone is getting the same outcome (nominally), but if the punishment is meant to be "felt" by the person stopped and deterred, we should focus on the substantive elements of said penalties. Think of how income tax works.

An argument that I do find persuasive, however, is that it might make police focus more on stopping the expensive cars over the cheaper ones. This rests on the assumption that police departments are motivated to increase revenue for the city from such stops. If so, this could potentially create a disparity in stops based on the perverse incentive unintentionally created by the policy change.


Thoughts?

Here in Germany we already have that as part of our legal system:
With minor crimes you either go to jail for a certain amount of time, or you pay a certain fine per day (which is calculated depending on your income).
I think, ideally it would be a good idea to have that principle adopted when it comes to traffic ticket fines - but then again I consider it unrealistic due to the hugely increased bureaucratic effort.

 

[Albion]

By the same logic, younger criminals should get the longest sentences, so that proportionally they spend the same percent of the remainder of their life in prison as older criminals. Seem fair?

I think you're right. That is to say, this is unworkable. For one thing, it would be almost impossible to find a formula that would fairly put the concept into practice.

You'd have to assess the financial obligations of the offender, not just his wealth. And what if the offender's spouse were a millionaire but the driver himself were not employed (because he didn't need to work)? There are a dozen glitches in the plan, and it doesn't compare to the tax system at all.

Besides, with few exceptions, we punish disproportionately based upon the severity of the crime, not on how much it will punish the offender. To do otherwise would be grotesque.

 

[True Scotsman]

You're focused too much on the number. Proportionally they're punished equally.

I am not concerned with the number. I am concerned with the principle of equality before the law. But that horse left the stall a long time ago and there is no getting it back. This would be a powerful incentive to pull over people who have more expensive cars. It would punish people for their success in life which is already rampant in our society. I don't know how much longer we will continue as a society when we punish success and reward failure but it won't be much longer.

 

[mafwons]

Let's just cease punishing victimless crimes to generate income for the state. If an accident is had then fine someone.

 

[LionL]

Let's just cease punishing victimless crimes to generate income for the state. If an accident is had then fine someone.

By 'victimless crimes' I assume you mean speeding, which by it's very nature puts people's lives at risk. Would you also cease punishing drunk drivers?

 

[mafwons]

By 'victimless crimes' I assume you mean speeding, which by it's very nature puts people's lives at risk. Would you also cease punishing drunk drivers?

Not if they cause an accident. Speed limits as well as blood alchol limits are arbitrary mesures made up by the whims of politicians. I can remember when it was unsafe to drive faster than 55 in my state, w we now have the same roads and 70 is the top safe speed makes no sense just whims of politicians.

 

[LionL]

Not if they cause an accident.

But if they don't cause an accident they can drive as drunk as they like?