Fines based on income

[Jumpah 0]

I'm sure there is a minimum fine that goes along with it.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Someone told me that in Calif the license tag fee
is a percentage of the value of the vehicle.
So, a new Ferarri pays more than a used dump truck.

This is both true and (in my estimation) fair. Think of it as a "flat tax."

Fair using what measure?

It is not a "flat tax". It is a graduated tax based
on the product price, not road usage.
A flat tax would be when everyone pays the same.

Large trucks pay higher tolls on toll roads than cars.

Usage of the road should be defined by vehicle weight because that is what causes the most wear.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

How about waterboarding? Righties tell us it's not torture...

"Righties" like the latest Republican presidential nominee?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

How about waterboarding? Righties tell us it's not torture...

"Righties" like the latest Republican presidential nominee?

Funny, I kept hearing how he was too moderate for the righties in the GOP.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Absolute income and disposable income are completely disconnected. I had more left before housing and family obligations with a salary a third of what I make now. That wouldn't be fair.

Applying technology to the problem would be a much better idea, especially since we have strong legal precedent for prior restraint in other areas. For example, we should make it illegal to sell new cars which can go faster than the highest speed limit (75 MPH) and which don't have a breathalyzer interlock on the ignition.

Similar laws worked great for firearms - the 1986 prohibition on new machine gun registrations reduced decades worth of deaths from legally owned machine guns from one in decades to zero. That's an infinite percent increase.

Starting with 15,000+ annual motor vehicle fatalities involving alcohol a year our percentage won't be as impressive but the lives saved will be more numerous without any need for locking people up or fining them unfairly.

With the government able to decide whether the American automobile industry goes bankrupt or not now is a perfect time to start. In two years there shouldn't be a Chevy or Chrysler sold which doesn't have an alcohol interlock and GPS speed governor.

We'll all be able to buy cars which don't impede our freedom in any way, they'll just cost 10X more although that won't necessarily be a bad thing. Although real-estate isn't a stable wealth store, Ford Mustangs worth 10X what they cost before at $200,000 a pop will be.

I'm surprised no one else has thought of this way to save lives and the economy at the same time. I'll write my president tomorrow!

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Fines based on income

complete and absolute bs...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How about waterboarding? Righties tell us it's not torture, and the rich would dislike it every bit as much as the poor.

Start your own thread. This one is about traffic fines. Try and stay on-topic.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

When I lived in Holland (AKA the Netherlands) I was told that the penalties for DUI included confiscation of your vehicle. You'd get it back after a while, but in the meantime it had had a date with a press, so it generally resembled a 3' x 3' x 3' cube. The logic was supposedly that most people spend for a car in some proportion to their wealth, so someone of modest means might drive a Fiat (or worse a Citroen), and the wealthy a Porsch. Either way, the sting would be roughly the same. No slack would be cut if you were driving your parents car, or your friends. Imagine explaining to your parents that their car had been cubed because of your DUI. Just as bad, imagine if you're still making payments; now your car is gone, and you still have to pay back the loan. Since most people spend a bit more than they really need to on a car, you'd probably not be able to afford another until the loan was paid back, so you'd be looking at a few years of public transit. I don't know if things are still done that way, or if I got the story straight, but it does seem like an interesting approach to the problem. Maybe not for the first DUI, but certainly for a second (or third, and so on) conviction.

Don

Sounds like a great idea for at least a 3rd DUI conviction and so on. People who continue to drink and drive after the first or second conviction will never learn their lesson, until drastic measures are taken. If it's a prized Porsche or BMW, too bad.

JMHO

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Go the other way. Do you think that if someone that reports zero or negative income should be paid to break the law?

it's nuts, same crime, same punishment makes sense

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

When I lived in Holland (AKA the Netherlands) I was told that the penalties for DUI included confiscation of your vehicle. You'd get it back after a while, but in the meantime it had had a date with a press, so it generally resembled a 3' x 3' x 3' cube. The logic was supposedly that most people spend for a car in some proportion to their wealth, so someone of modest means might drive a Fiat (or worse a Citroen), and the wealthy a Porsch. Either way, the sting would be roughly the same. No slack would be cut if you were driving your parents car, or your friends. Imagine explaining to your parents that their car had been cubed because of your DUI. Just as bad, imagine if you're still making payments; now your car is gone, and you still have to pay back the loan. Since most people spend a bit more than they really need to on a car, you'd probably not be able to afford another until the loan was paid back, so you'd be looking at a few years of public transit. I don't know if things are still done that way, or if I got the story straight, but it does seem like an interesting approach to the problem. Maybe not for the first DUI, but certainly for a second (or third, and so on) conviction.

Don

Sounds like a great idea for at least a 3rd DUI conviction and so on. People who continue to drink and drive after the first or second conviction will never learn their lesson, until drastic measures are taken. If it's a prized Porsche or BMW, too bad.

JMHO

Quote

Illinois can and does take cars after a few offences. I know of one person that this has happened to.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Someone told me that in Calif the license tag fee
is a percentage of the value of the vehicle.
So, a new Ferarri pays more than a used dump truck.

This is both true and (in my estimation) fair. Think of it as a "flat tax."

that's idiotic -

it only makes sense if one is hiding a progressive tax in that fee for money which is expected to be diverted to a general fund rather than for road maintenance (typical claim for license tags). Just another hidden progressive tax.

Seems the sales tax percentage when the vehicle is bought covers any 'progressive' taxing strategies in a more 'fair' way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How about waterboarding? Righties tell us it's not torture...

"Righties" like the latest Republican presidential nominee?

Funny, I kept hearing how he was too moderate for the righties in the GOP.

Hearing from who? Because the average Republican primary voter appears to have supported him, as did the general party leadership in most cases.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

When I lived in Holland (AKA the Netherlands) I was told that the penalties for DUI included confiscation of your vehicle. You'd get it back after a while, but in the meantime it had had a date with a press, so it generally resembled a 3' x 3' x 3' cube. The logic was supposedly that most people spend for a car in some proportion to their wealth, so someone of modest means might drive a Fiat (or worse a Citroen), and the wealthy a Porsch. Either way, the sting would be roughly the same. No slack would be cut if you were driving your parents car, or your friends. Imagine explaining to your parents that their car had been cubed because of your DUI. Just as bad, imagine if you're still making payments; now your car is gone, and you still have to pay back the loan. Since most people spend a bit more than they really need to on a car, you'd probably not be able to afford another until the loan was paid back, so you'd be looking at a few years of public transit. I don't know if things are still done that way, or if I got the story straight, but it does seem like an interesting approach to the problem. Maybe not for the first DUI, but certainly for a second (or third, and so on) conviction.

Don

Sounds like a great idea for at least a 3rd DUI conviction and so on. People who continue to drink and drive after the first or second conviction will never learn their lesson, until drastic measures are taken. If it's a prized Porsche or BMW, too bad.

I think the finance companies have a problem with that.

JMHO

I think the finance companies have a problem with that.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

So the college kid racing the Porsche daddy bought for him will pay $50.00 while the secretary driving 42 in a 35 will pay $100.00. Nice.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Fines based on income

complete and absolute bs...

Why?

If one sees a fine as punishment for drunk driving and equality is the goal then perhaps, yes.

If one sees a fine as a mechanism for deterrence to prevent additional drunking driving, then perhaps not, eh? Consequences, in order to have a deterrent value, have to have metaphorical 'teeth.'

For me, the risk associated with a $10,000 fine is very different than the risk of a $10 fine. But that's just me - a single data point. And if one looks at sentencing and results over statistically significant numbers of criminals, the correlation is not robust. The harder variable to test is deterrence of those who weren't convicted. I.e., need to see decrease in incidence.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think fines that progressively increase based on your income are more fair or less fair?

Go the other way. Do you think that if someone that reports zero or negative income should be paid to break the law?

Since this is policy not physics, there doesn't inherantly have to be an inverse vector. (Actually doesn't have to be in some physics either.) We can set artificial boundary conditions, i.e., income must be greater than zero or other something else applies.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm sure there is a minimum fine that goes along with it.

Naw, they're sent to Svalbard with only a battle axe and flagon of mead to battle polar bears for the remainder of their days. It’s an old Norse law from the Viking days that remained.

(Honestly, I have no idea what modern Norwegian law does in the case of unemployed drunk drivers; somehow I doubt that the notional scenario suggested: "when I am unemployed, can I drive as fast as I want and not pay a fine," is any more likely than exile to Svalbard.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 3]

Quote

Naw, they're sent to Svalbard with only a battle axe and flagon of mead to battle polar bears for the remainder of their days.

Iorek Byrnison is gonna kick their ass!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

flagon of mead

I thought they should be punished?


My opinion - both sides have valid points. A fine for a drunk driver who is a 21 year old kid making minimum wage would be much harder to deal with than the 50 year old guy making $90k per year (assuming, of course, that the $90k earner is not putting out $89k per year in housing, kids, etc.)

For many, there is an option of community service, as well. If I was ordered to pay a $5k fine or do 100 hours of community service I'd find it cheaper to pay the fine - I make more hourly.

However - the private market gets the wealthy guy, too. Say I'm caught driving drunk in my Mercedes SUV. It costs a bit more to insure than the Honda Accord. A 30% increase in insurance for that SUV is gonna freaking hurt!

For me, my own career could be threatened by it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterblaster72 0]

Man fined $290,000 by a court for speeding in his Ferrari

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Man fined $290,000 by a court for speeding in his Ferrari

Socialism at its worst. In this case it should be noted that although it was "in a village" it was in an 80km/h zone. Around here anything less than 2x the limit is not considered serious. 3x is really bad.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Who knows. Possibly there have been citizen complaints.

I have been told by police officers that there are not "quotas", but that they are expected to issue a certain amount of citations. There is no fixed published number, but issue too few and he said you will have to explain why you had so few.

So while it may not be a "quota" according to them you still have to make "X" number to stay out of trouble. Now, that may not apply to your department, but for the departments around Dallas, they all seem to agree there is an "unofficial" quota.

Quote

Why don't you call the department and ask?

If you called me and asked me a company question on an unofficial subject.... I would also give you the "official" answer even if it is not actually practice.

Quote

Never heard of it. In Texas you can take a defensive driving class to keep the points off. I think its a great tool, honestly, an eight hour class to remind people how to be good drivers.

I got a ticket in the Dallas area. I was coming off the interstate onto the service road and had not slowed down enough. I asked if he could reduce the speed on the ticket so it would cost less... He said, "It would not matter." After I looked at the methods to pay the ticket:

1. Pay the ticket and get the points on my License 180ish. It didn't matter if I was 1MPH over, or 25 MPH over.

2. Take differed adjudication for 125ish. I just had to not get a ticket for the next 6 mths. No points

3. Take a driving class for 140ish. No points.

4. Take it to court and pay 200ish in court costs.

Which do you think I and almost everyone else does?

After looking at that... How can you NOT see it as a revenue generation system?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohanW 0]

Quote

1. Pay the ticket and get the points on my License 180ish. It didn't matter if I was 1MPH over, or 25 MPH over.

2. Take differed adjudication for 125ish. I just had to not get a ticket for the next 6 mths. No points

3. Take a driving class for 140ish. No points.

4. Take it to court and pay 200ish in court costs.

Which do you think I and almost everyone else does?

After looking at that... How can you NOT see it as a revenue generation system?

So you took option 2 and were careful not to speed for 6 months?

I'd say it works. For 6 months. So maybe they should make it a year instead of 6 months.
(Assuming you mean deferred, not differed.)

Johan.
I am. I think.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's a crazy idea. Don't make the punishment a monetary fine. Make the punishment time in jail. That way, someone's wealth is irrelevant. The drunk-driving millionaire can sit in jail side-by-side with the drunk-driving vagabond. That's equal punishment for equal crimes.

Some people say time is money. If that's even remotely true, doesn't a "rich man" pay more for being in jail for one day than a "poor man"?

Seems to me that for some crimes, increased fines for "the rich" actually does make sense. $100 to a millionaire is nothing. To a guy on minimum wage it's a hell of a lot.

To me that's like saying that it's unfair that a rich guy waiting to pay a toll is actually paying more than the poorer guy waiting the same amount of time because time is money.

In my mind there's a distinction between actively TAKING something from someone and denying them the possibility to get it in the first place.

To me, a penalty where the actual loss is the same (not potential gain) is the fairest.

So maybe a fine is not optimal because to a rich guy a $100 fine is nothing whereas to the minimum wage earner it's a lot - but it's fair. The punishment is objectively fitting the crime for all.

Since that is not really a deterrent to some as much as others then doing things like revoking licenses or jail time may help approach the goal of the law more than a fine and remain fair. 2 hrs for a rich guy = 2 hrs for a poor guy in terms of time.

Plus, it's easier to tell EVERYONE - you get a DUI or speed or whatever, and this is the punishment FOR ALL.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Man fined $290,000 by a court for speeding in his Ferrari

Ouch ... 137km/h is fast, but not that fast.
But it is fast when you are driving on a village road.

Note to self: choose your moments to drive fast on the public roads very carefully. I know in some people's eyes the mid-life crisis toy I purchased last year does take away a lot of potential skydives. But I don't care I have wanted a Porsche 911 for years and last year (as the world was coming to an end as some claimed) I picked up this semi-collectors 1997 Porsche 911 993 car for a decent price. For the most part I don't speed on busy public streets in the city, but I have taken it out on some country roads and stretched her legs a bit. However I also did the right thing and when I want to really try and find the performance limits of this car, I attend "track day" sessions at my local race track. You just can't drive a Porsche on the public roads like it can be driven in the controlled confines of a race course. I still don't know exactly how fast my car can go yet (I should visit the Salt Flats), since the main straight on this race track is not long enough. I get a few clicks above 200 km/hr (125 mph) before I have to brake hard and make turn #1. Haha ... all good fun, but I wish I could afford a Porsche 997 GT3 RS.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over