• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should traffic fines and other fines be based on the income the offender makes?

Should traffic fines and other fines be based on the income one makes?


  • Total voters
    76

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should traffic fines and other fines be based on the income the offender makes?

Yes, no ,maybe?

Europe slapping rich with massive traffic fines


European countries are increasingly pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy scofflaws who would otherwise ignore tickets.

Advocates say a $290,000 (euro203,180.83) speeding ticket slapped on a millionaire Ferrari driver in Switzerland was a fair and well-deserved example of the trend.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland. Only Finland regularly hands out similarly hefty fine to speeding drivers, with the current record believed to be a euro170,000 (then about $190,000) ticket in 2004.

The Swiss court appeared to set a world record when it levied the fine in November on a man identified in the Swiss media only as "Roland S." Judges in the eastern canton of St. Gallen described him as a "traffic thug" in their verdict, which only recently came to light.

"As far as we're concerned this is very good," Sabine Jurisch, a road safety campaigner with the Swiss group Road Cross.
 
Last edited:
Should a punishment for murder depend on how much money I make? Should the punishment for theft depend on how much money I make? Why should this be any different?
 
Should a punishment for murder depend on how much money I make? Should the punishment for theft depend on how much money I make? Why should this be any different?

Thank you!

And I would apply this same line of questioning to my tax burden.

Why is our tax burdens (in the U.S.) proportionate to our income rather than our useage?

If Ross Perot or Bill Gates were in line at the grocery with you,.... and you and he were both buying a gallon of milk,... would he be expected to pay more for the milk than you are,... just because he has billions of dollars at his disposal?
 
I got a $320 fine for speeding in the US, at the time there was 2$ to the £, the cop was a good guy, I enjoyed the experience.

The Mustang I was driving was good fun but very crude in comparison to the Ferrari I had then:rofl
 
yes it should depend on how much you make, because the fines effect rich people less and the point of a speeding ticket is to stop you from speeding

the system we have now hurts poor people more than rich people, it should be an equal percentage.
 
yes it should depend on how much you make, because the fines effect rich people less and the point of a speeding ticket is to stop you from speeding

the system we have now hurts poor people more than rich people, it should be an equal percentage.

Affect.

At least they can still afford grammar lessons.

:doh
 
yes it should depend on how much you make, because the fines effect rich people less and the point of a speeding ticket is to stop you from speeding

the system we have now hurts poor people more than rich people, it should be an equal percentage.

The economy we have now hurts poor people more than rich people, it should be an equal percentage. I pay .00001% of my income for milk and so should you. :roll:
 
How about not speeding and then a person wouldn't have to worry about it.

I know, I know... silly rules follower! :3oops:
 
The problem with fines is that for those with enough money to ignore them, they fail to act as a deterrent. However, speeding tickets also lead to license suspension, so I would say that income based fines aren't required.
 
I like the idea myself. Fines are suppose to be a deterrent towards breaking the law. If some billionaire receives a $200 fine do you really think he/she cares? Not much a a deterrent there is it?

The examples that have been given in this thread from those who are against it is outlandish really. I mean come on...milk? It's like comparing apples to steak....not even in the same hemisphere much less the same food group. :roll:
 
The problem with fines is that for those with enough money to ignore them, they fail to act as a deterrent. However, speeding tickets also lead to license suspension, so I would say that income based fines aren't required.

I don't think that a suspension of a license is that much a detterent towards billionaires either. All they have to do is hire someone to drive them around.
 
Should traffic fines and other fines be based on the income the offender makes?

Yes, no ,maybe?

Europe slapping rich with massive traffic fines


European countries are increasingly pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy scofflaws who would otherwise ignore tickets.

Advocates say a $290,000 (euro203,180.83) speeding ticket slapped on a millionaire Ferrari driver in Switzerland was a fair and well-deserved example of the trend.

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person's wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as $16 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland. Only Finland regularly hands out similarly hefty fine to speeding drivers, with the current record believed to be a euro170,000 (then about $190,000) ticket in 2004.

The Swiss court appeared to set a world record when it levied the fine in November on a man identified in the Swiss media only as "Roland S." Judges in the eastern canton of St. Gallen described him as a "traffic thug" in their verdict, which only recently came to light.

"As far as we're concerned this is very good," Sabine Jurisch, a road safety campaigner with the Swiss group Road Cross.

From a constitutional/legal perspective, such a law would never hold up in this country. It would violate the idea of everyone being treated the same under the law.

But from an economic perspective, what the Europeans are doing actually makes a lot of sense. A millionaire is just not going to be deterred by a $100 ticket in the same way that a poor or middle-class person will be. If the goal is to reduce traffic violations, the rich person will need a much larger fine to have the same deterrent effect.
 
From a constitutional/legal perspective, such a law would never hold up in this country. It would violate the idea of everyone being treated the same under the law.

But from an economic perspective, what the Europeans are doing actually makes a lot of sense. A millionaire is just not going to be deterred by a $100 ticket in the same way that a poor or middle-class person will be. If the goal is to reduce traffic violations, the rich person will need a much larger fine to have the same deterrent effect.

Yeah ok,... and we all know the cops who write these tickets are going to enforce the laws equally under a system where "writing a ticket on a rich guy nets them more money than writing one or a poor one."

We have problems enough with 'selective enforcement' as it is.

Don't we?
 
Yeah ok,... and we all know the cops who write these tickets are going to enforce the laws equally under a system where "writing a ticket on a rich guy nets them more money than writing one or a poor one."

We have problems enough with 'selective enforcement' as it is.

Don't we?

As long as the cop who writes the ticket isn't the one who determined the fine, and isn't rewarded based on the amount of revenue he brings in, I don't see this being a problem. The cop would just issue the ticket and that would be the end of his involvement (assuming the driver doesn't contest it), much as it is now. The cop would have no particular incentive to write tickets for rich guys as opposed to the poor.
 
As long as the cop who writes the ticket isn't the one who determined the fine, and isn't rewarded based on the amount of revenue he brings in, I don't see this being a problem. The cop would just issue the ticket and that would be the end of his involvement (assuming the driver doesn't contest it), much as it is now. The cop would have no particular incentive to write tickets for rich guys as opposed to the poor.

Those of us who have cops in our familiers or who have close relationships with them,.. know very well about "non quota,... quotas."

Consider drug confiscation laws and many departments get to "keep" all the money and toys they find (and confiscate.)

Should it be that way? No.

But you can't deny the reality that the temptation is there.
 
Those of us who have cops in our familiers or who have close relationships with them,.. know very well about "non quota,... quotas."

Consider drug confiscation laws and many departments get to "keep" all the money and toys they find (and confiscate.)

Should it be that way? No.

But you can't deny the reality that the temptation is there.

Perhaps. That sort of temptation would certainly skew the economics of it. Maybe the countries that are implementing these laws don't have the same sort of problems with police quotas that many US states do. But assuming they don't, then I think these policies might be a good idea.
 
Perhaps. That sort of temptation would certainly skew the economics of it. Maybe the countries that are implementing these laws don't have the same sort of problems with police quotas that many US states do. But assuming they don't, then I think these policies might be a good idea.

Maybe.

But economic hard times and corruption being what it is,...

I don't see how it wouldn't lead to abuse (selective enforcment).

That's all.
 
Those of us who have cops in our familiers or who have close relationships with them,.. know very well about "non quota,... quotas."

Consider drug confiscation laws and many departments get to "keep" all the money and toys they find (and confiscate.)

Should it be that way? No.

But you can't deny the reality that the temptation is there.

Fun tidbit - many states have rules that money seized in drug busts and handled through the state courts goes to the general state treasury. Because the federal government has a rule that splits the money with state police departments if the case is resolved through federal courts, some state police units deliberately bring big money cases to federal prosecutors in order to get their hands on a chunk of that money. :lol:
 
Fun tidbit - many states have rules that money seized in drug busts and handled through the state courts goes to the general state treasury. Because the federal government has a rule that splits the money with state police departments if the case is resolved through federal courts, some state police units deliberately bring big money cases to federal prosecutors in order to get their hands on a chunk of that money. :lol:

Yes,... I work in the field with these realities on many days.

In addition, I hear our local chief brag about how the druggies are helping fund his department (and relieving the taxpayers burdens) all the time.
 
Fun tidbit - many states have rules that money seized in drug busts and handled through the state courts goes to the general state treasury. Because the federal government has a rule that splits the money with state police departments if the case is resolved through federal courts, some state police units deliberately bring big money cases to federal prosecutors in order to get their hands on a chunk of that money. :lol:
we have a law that means the convicted person has to prove his assets are not ill gotten gains, if he cant they are seized and sold, trials are very costly, why should the taxpayer foot all the cost.
 
From a constitutional/legal perspective, such a law would never hold up in this country. It would violate the idea of everyone being treated the same under the law.

I actually don't see how this is everyone being 'treated the same under the law'. Oh to be sure, the letter of the law, everyone is being treated the same. But, the spirit of the law? Anyone who thinks so is simply being stubborn.
 
I do think this is a problem. Perhaps the solution is to make everyone do community service work instead of pay fines. Everyone would do the same number of community service hours. Everyone draws their service assignment from a lottery. No one gets to pay to get out of it, and no one gets to pay someone else to do it for them. Everyone is treated 'equally' under the letter of the law.

Suddenly we would have a hue and cry about it being unfair to the disabled, the infirm, pregnant women, people who can't take time from their jobs etc. and so forth. Now, why would that happen, do you suppose? Would it be because GASP, it has a greater effect on some people as opposed to others? Well, by golly, we've just established our rationale for higher fines on the wealthy.

A rationale all of us knew was valid in the first place, but we're so brainwashed we often can't see it.
 
It is just a means to fleece as much money as possible, as usual......;)
The real solution should be no fine & some sort of mandatory commmunity service, that way everyone is treated equally & no one skates.....;)
Of course that wouldn't do anything to slake GUBMINT's insatiable thirst for revenue, so the liklyhood of that happening is nil........;)
Part of the problem is that the people making the laws are often insulated by their wealth or staus....:(
 
I think you guys are completely missing the point of traffic fines. Most of the time, you don’t get a speeding ticket because it makes it safer to drive down the road, you get a speeding ticket because it’s the end of the month and the cops have quotas to fill.

In many cities, speed limits are artificially reduced specifically to increase the number of speeders they can pull over. There are studies that show it is more dangerous to drive on these roads because it increases the variance between the what people feel is the appropriate speed (which 70% will follow) and the posted limit (which 30% will abide by when there isn’t a cop or camera around).

I strongly advocate making this practice illegal (increasing police revenues by reducing public safety), which would be more palatable to the public if we didn’t reduce overall police funding. Letting the doughnut squad extort a larger portion of their monthly quota from rich people to accomplish this is fine by me.
 
Yes, it seems like a good idea. Speeding tickets would then be a more effective deterrent to the rich.
 
Back
Top Bottom