• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Income adjusted traffic violation fines

Such a system might create an incentive for traffic cops to let busted-up poor-looking cars get away with violations while overzealously pursuing expensive-looking cars. If, as in many places in the US are, the police department's --and town's-- funding is directly tied to the traffic tickets they issue. I think the ideal is to treat everyone equally, so a demerit points systems seems to be the most fair.
 
acbytesla said:
Anecdotes don't constitute evidence. Are you suggesting they don't issue thousands, even hundreds of thousands of tickets?
Click to expand...
That thousands, even hundreds of thousands of tickets are issued annually is testament to the fact that people cannot be trusted to use the public roads in a responsible manner. It's a privilege to be allowed to drive your two tonne metal box on roads built and paid for by the government, not a right. Too many people die as a result of collisions with cars to worry about anybody's "surveillance state" sensibilities. Don't like it? Don't drive on the public roads.
 
Trausti said:
No. Taxes are private information.
Click to expand...
That the government knows.

Trausti said:
And in my state, there isn't even an income tax. There's no way for the cop to know my income.
Click to expand...

The police officer shouldn't be setting the fine. That's a matter for the courts and legislation.

Trausti said:
It doesn't punish you for being poor. You're punished for what you did.
Click to expand...

If you want to punish people equally for the same offence, you need to fine rich people more because any fixed fine impacts people more if they are poor.

This is basic stuff. Try to understand.

Trausti said:
Don't excuse bad behavior because someone, by your definition, is "poor."
Click to expand...
You are the one excusing rich people for behaviour because a $250 fine doesn't really mean anything to them.
 
I should point out that even demerit points punish poor people more than rich people. Rich people can afford to pay other people to drive them about. If a poor person loses their right to drive a car and they live somewhere with bad public transport, they are royally ◊◊◊◊◊◊.
 
jeremyp said:
The police officer shouldn't be setting the fine. That's a matter for the courts and legislation.
Click to expand...

To gain access to someone's tax records, you need either permission from the taxpayer or a subpoena/court order.

jeremyp said:
If you want to punish people equally for the same offence, you need to fine rich people more because any fixed fine impacts people more if they are poor.
Click to expand...

As already pointed out, a points system works best for everyone. No need for moralizing or malicious envy.

jeremyp said:
You are the one excusing rich people for behaviour because a $250 fine doesn't really mean anything to them.
Click to expand...
Let's just drop the fines entirely, and use the points. I think every US state has a point system already.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
It's not malicious envy. You argued these people's wealth made them successful. As if their station in life was necessarily meritorious. Which is a patent absurdity.
Click to expand...
How do you know that about anyone? What witchcraft are you casting to determine who is meritoriously wealthy or not? Stop with the malicious envy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Such a system might create an incentive for traffic cops to let busted-up poor-looking cars get away with violations while overzealously pursuing expensive-looking cars. If, as in many places in the US are, the police department's --and town's-- funding is directly tied to the traffic tickets they issue. I think the ideal is to treat everyone equally, so a demerit points systems seems to be the most fair.
Click to expand...
It might. But that probably barely evens things out. The poor on average receive significantly more scrutiny by the police.
 
dirtywick said:
presumably these demerits also apply to the poor?
Click to expand...
Of course.

But really, it’s trivially easy to comply with road laws. My job involved driving about 1000km a week for over 20 years and only picked up two low level speeding fines. People who complain about not being able to afford fines don’t impress me at all. Don’t want the fine? Don’t break the road laws.
 
jeremyp said:
I should point out that even demerit points punish poor people more than rich people. Rich people can afford to pay other people to drive them about. If a poor person loses their right to drive a car and they live somewhere with bad public transport, they are royally ◊◊◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...
So if you're "poor" you get to violate more? Good heavens.
 
Trausti said:
How do you know that about anyone? What witchcraft are you casting to determine who is meritoriously wealthy or not? Stop with the malicious envy.
Click to expand...
I DON'T! You're the one that described someone with more money more successful.
 
acbytesla said:
It might. But that probably barely evens things out. The poor on average receive significantly more scrutiny by the police.
Click to expand...
True, but we can't have policy that's unfair the other way "to balance things out". Two wrongs something something, I forget how it goes.
 
lionking said:
Of course.
Click to expand...

hey, just wondering. so if that's what works universally as i would assume a demerit would also be bad for the poor, and not the fines who seem to only be a punishment to the poor, then the fines are kind of just an extra punishment for the poor? seems like a fair statement to me

lionking said:
But really, it’s trivially easy to comply with road laws. My job involved driving about 1000km a week for over 20 years and only picked up two low level speeding fines. People who complain about not being able to afford fines don’t impress me at all. Don’t want the fine? Don’t break the road laws.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's not hard to drive normally. but, as they say maybe should say in australia, don't want the demerit, don't break the road laws.
 
Trausti said:
To gain access to someone's tax records, you need either permission from the taxpayer or a subpoena/court order.
Click to expand...

The point i that exist and the government has them. Your concern was that you didn't want the government to have access to your income details, well, in most cases it already does. So your point is invalid.

Trausti said:
As already pointed out, a points system works best for everyone. No need for moralizing or malicious envy.
Click to expand...

I agree that the threat of losing your licence is more of a deterrent for most people than the fine. Here in the UK, the fine for a speeding offence (when I last got caught for one) was £90 I think. This is about the same in this country as one tank of petrol i.e. for anybody who can afford to run a car, it is quite trivial. OTOH you also get three points which is a quarter of the way to losing your licence.
 
Norman Alexander said:
There is an easy method: add it to the next vehicle registration cost.
Click to expand...
In most US jurisdictions, traffic infractions are minor issues, usually handled with a single informal hearing. Standards of evidence are relaxed for all parties, court rules are relaxed, and no criminal penalties attach.

Basing the fine amount on the person's wealth would require additional hearings to determine the amount of wealth involved. It's not worth it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
True, but we can't have policy that's unfair the other way "to balance things out". Two wrongs something something, I forget how it goes.
Click to expand...

i like the demerit thing. nobody starts with a bigger pool of merits, which is nice and fair, and everyone gets an equal demerit for the same offenses.

i think it's great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom