• 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
Kal'Stang said:
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:
Click to expand...

Why does everyone seem to want to punish those who have accumulated wealth? It's as if it's a crime to get educated and to strive to get ahead in life. More and more Americans seem to think it is their right to steal from the rich. They somehow feel entitled to other people's property.
It's those with money who provide jobs, vacations, raises, promotions and healthcare to people with their own money. The rich are the ones that spend money on things like cars, boats, planes, vacations, dining out, fancy clothes etc. that keep people working.
This administration wants to destroy the economy so more and more people will depend on entitlements and will continue to vote them in. The problem is, any so called "right" the govt. gives, can also be taken away. They WANT us to hate the rich, so they will gain more and more power over our lives.
The rich are taxed enough and now you want to punish them even more for a speeding ticket??? Sounds pretty unfair to me.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if you charged the same percentage. For example you make speeding 1% of income,so someone making 20,000 pays $200 and someone making $2,000,000 pays $20,000. We live in a country that has a graduated income tax system and as far as I know no judge has struck it down, so surely a flat percentage fine would be deemed constitutional even if some liberal jacked it up to a graduated percentage system.
 
phattonez said:
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?
Click to expand...

The difference is, theft and murder are not punishable by fines.

As things stand, poor people are more heavily punished by fines in general than rich people for the same offenses.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Income taxes are unconstitutional/illegal?
 
phattonez said:
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?
Click to expand...
Those crimes are not punishable with fines and those punishments apply regardless of the income one makes and have the same effect regardless of the income one makes. Speeding and other traffic violations are punishable with fines as a form of punishment. So it is not the same. If speeding,other traffic violations and other fineable offenses were only punishable with jail or prison time instead of fines then you would have a point.
 
jamesrage said:
Those crimes are not punishable with fines and those punishments apply regardless of the income one makes and have the same effect regardless of the income one makes.
Click to expand...

Well to some extent one accused of murder who can afford better representation has a better odd of getting off.
 
jamesrage said:
Not if you charged the same percentage. For example you make speeding 1% of income,so someone making 20,000 pays $200 and someone making $2,000,000 pays $20,000. We live in a country that has a graduated income tax system and as far as I know no judge has struck it down, so surely a flat percentage fine would be deemed constitutional even if some liberal jacked it up to a graduated percentage system.
Click to expand...

Doesn't anyone see that when the rich are treated unfairly it hurts employees and consumers? That $20,000 you want to charge for a speeding ticket is $20,000 that will be passed on to employees (no bonuses, raises etc.) The consumer (raise prices to recoup the loss) doesn't go on vacation (hurts, hotel staff, travel agents etc.) Doesn't buy a new car (hurts auto workers) Believe me, he won't say "oh well I guess I'm just $20,000 poorer. He will cut back somewhere.
I've never worked for a poor person. If people really want to be put back to work, we need to stop demonizing and stealing from the people who pay the wages and the ones who spend money on luxeries.
By the way, I am poor, but I believe in freedom and the right to pursue happiness. I don't begrudge others money they have worked for.
 
Fines for breaking the law (like speeding) AREN'T suppose to be affordable - it's the extreme sharp cost of them that's suppose to be a preventative and keep people from doing it.

If people are shelling out hundreds at a pop - over and over - then obviously they aren't learning their lesson and the fines need to go UP for repeat offenders.

But, yes, I think - since sharp fines SHOULD be a deterrent - then it should be based loosely on income.

Starting at an uncomfortable rate for those who are poor - where it would be a possible deterrent (where it is now is probably fine, honestly) - and going UP.

As long as things aren't adjusted DOWN for anyone then I think it's fine.
 
If our system is designed where punishments are supposed to act as a detterent, then yes, the fines should be a set % of income.

If everyone receives the same percentage of fine, then everyone is being treated equally under the law, regardless of the actual monetary amount.

A person making 20 K a year gets a fine of 0.5% of their income, and the monetary value of this fine is $100. A person making 200 K a year gets the same fine of 0.5% and the monetary amount is $1000. They both received the same punishment.

However, if both people are fined $100, one is getting fined 0.5% of his income while the other is getting fined 0.05% of his income. Obviously the person being fined 0.5% of his income had a harsher penalty than the person being fined 0.05% of his income.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to start handing out equal punishments.
 
Barbbtx said:
Doesn't anyone see that when the rich are treated unfairly
Click to expand...

treated unfairly? If 10% of a poor persons income has to go to a fine why shouldn't 10% of a wealthy persons income go to a fine?
 
The honest truth is that our punitive fining system is a graduated system that has an inverse relationship to income.

It's the exact opposite of tax rates. Poor people receive harsher fines than rich people do. Anyone who supports a flat tax should also support a flat fining system.
 
jamesrage said:
Should traffic fines and other fines be based on the income the offender makes?

Yes, no ,maybe?
Click to expand...

Yes. A $50 fine won't deter a millionaire.
 
winston53660 said:
Well to some extent one accused of murder who can afford better representation has a better odd of getting off.
Click to expand...

Is a rich person who sentence to life in prison for murder treated any different than a poor person who is sentence to life in prison?
 
Tucker Case said:
If our system is designed where punishments are supposed to act as a detterent, then yes, the fines should be a set % of income.

If everyone receives the same percentage of fine, then everyone is being treated equally under the law, regardless of the actual monetary amount.

A person making 20 K a year gets a fine of 0.5% of their income, and the monetary value of this fine is $100. A person making 200 K a year gets the same fine of 0.5% and the monetary amount is $1000. They both received the same punishment.

However, if both people are fined $100, one is getting fined 0.5% of his income while the other is getting fined 0.05% of his income.Obviously the person being fined 0.5% of his income had a harsher penalty than the person being fined 0.05% of his income.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to start handing out equal punishments.
Click to expand...

You messed that part up.
 
jamesrage said:
Is a rich person who sentence to life in prison for murder treated any different than a poor person who is sentence to life in prison?
Click to expand...

Does a wealthy person have better odds of getting off on appeal?
 
Barbbtx said:
Doesn't anyone see that when the rich are treated unfairly it hurts employees and consumers? That $20,000 you want to charge for a speeding ticket is $20,000 that will be passed on to employees (no bonuses, raises etc.) The consumer (raise prices to recoup the loss) doesn't go on vacation (hurts, hotel staff, travel agents etc.) Doesn't buy a new car (hurts auto workers) Believe me, he won't say "oh well I guess I'm just $20,000 poorer. He will cut back somewhere.


I've never worked for a poor person. If people really want to be put back to work, we need to stop demonizing and stealing from the people who pay the wages and the ones who spend money on luxeries.
By the way, I am poor, but I believe in freedom and the right to pursue happiness. I don't begrudge others money they have worked for.
Click to expand...

That poor person who is fined $200 will not be able to buy clothes,food or any thing else or anything else he considers to be luxuries to him and that is $200 a shop owner will not be able to see. I can use that argument too. The trickle down effect is irrelevant.
 
winston53660 said:
Does a wealthy person have better odds of getting off on appeal?
Click to expand...

Was Stanly "Tookie" Williams rich when he spent 26 years on death row trying to weasel out of sentence?
 
The $6.00 speeding ticket my girlfriend's rich cousin in Costa Rica got meant nothing to him but a good laugh. It sure didn't slow him down!
 
jamesrage said:
Was Stanly "Tookie" Williams rich when he spent 26 years on death row trying to weasel out of sentence?
Click to expand...

I dunna know don't care. One case does not make an argument. On average would you say a wealthy person has better odds of winning on appeal?
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...
not a bad idea, actually. i've never thought about this, but if the intent is to deter future offenses, this makes perfect sense.
 
Tucker Case said:
:confused:

100/200,000 =.0005

.0005 *100 = .05%

Where did I mess up?
Click to expand...

"one is getting fined 0.5% of his income while the other is getting fined 0.05% of his income.Obviously the person being fined 0.5% of his income had a harsher penalty than the person being fined 0.05% of his income. "
 
winston53660 said:
I dunna know don't care. One case does not make an argument. On average would you say a wealthy person has better odds of winning on appeal?
Click to expand...

I do not know if rich people get more appeals or not. Is there any statistics?
 
jamesrage said:
I do not know if rich people get more appeals or not. Is there any statistics?
Click to expand...

That's not quite my argument. My argument is that on a murder wrap life in prison a wealthy person can afford better representation increasing the odds of either beating the murder charge or winning on an appeal.
 
winston53660 said:
That's not quite my argument. My argument is that on a murder wrap life in prison a wealthy person can afford better representation increasing the odds of either beating the murder charge or winning on an appeal.
Click to expand...

If there is no evidence to back up that claim then how can you claim that a person's wealth effects the the appeals they get?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom