14MPH over the limit...$60K ticket

[Eug]

I actually like this system too. Sure the rich pay more, but its not about how much you pay but how much hardship it causes, which should reduce you from doing it again.

Another reason this is stupid is if you're rich, you can structure your income to be low (or at least moderate), at least in certain fields and locales.

In my workplace there are people with the exact same job who are paid the same, roughly $350000, but one guy declares an income of $80000, and runs the rest of it through his company. The next guy gets paid $350000 income. The income tax return for these people show $80000 and $350000 respectively. This is a real world example and is perfectly legal. Yeah, the company also pays taxes, but the company's tax return is not his tax return.

But the main reason this is stupid is because it just is. 14 mph over the speed limit doesn't warrant a $60000 fine for anyone. It's just a tax grab on the rich.

 

[angminas]

But the main reason this is stupid is because it just is. 14 mph over the speed limit doesn't warrant a $60000 fine for anyone. It's just a tax grab on the rich.

I take it you've never had a loved one killed by a speeder.

 

[Eug]

I take it you've never had a loved one killed by a speeder.

No. I have not.

However, why for example should a unemployed low life dude who doesn't give a chit about anything and doesn't contribute to society get away with a pittance of a fine for the same thing?

This law is stupid, and I agree with that speeder. He is being penalized extremely harshly, for being successful.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

you think speeding should be a $500 penalty for a family making $50,000?

does that hurt a single guy making $50k in south dakota the same as a single mother of 3 making $50k in NYC?

It's a hell of a lot better than a system that fines a single mother of 3 making $50k in NYC the same amount as a hedge fund guy making $50 million in NYC.

 

[Strk]

why do you say that?

It just says income, and they both have the same income

I suppose it would depend if it is based on taxable income vs actual income. If it is taxable, the mother of 3 would pay less

 

[jlee]

I take it you've never had a loved one killed by a speeder.

Barring other circumstances (such as impairment, running red lights, or other preventable factors such as unsafe tires), relatively few accidents are caused by speed. I don't recall seeing any firsthand.

 

[Eug]

It's a hell of a lot better than a system that fines a single mother of 3 making $50k in NYC the same amount as a hedge fund guy making $50 million in NYC.

Using this ludicrous rule, perhaps restaurants should charge lower income customers $50, and uber high income customers $30000, for the exact same meal.

I suppose could buy a tiered system. eg. Low income pays $100. High income $500. But $60000? That's just ludicrous. There is absolutely no common sense to a $60000 fine for being 14 mph over.

And by the way, I've been typically left of centre for Canada in the political spectrum, and that practically makes me a communist by US standards.

 

[master_shake_]

32 posts in and i have to post it...

atot is getting slow.

 

[JTsyo]

you think speeding should be a $500 penalty for a family making $50,000?

does that hurt a single guy making $50k in south dakota the same as a single mother of 3 making $50k in NYC?

if the penalties are so high, should they then eliminate the subsequent bump in insurance rate?

of course 14 over isn't really speeding in the first place . . .

Well when you convert to kph it sounds worse.

 

[tynopik]

Well when you convert to kph it sounds worse.

yet another reason imperial > metric

 

[Eug]

Well when you convert to kph it sounds worse.

Well, 14 mph = 22.5 km/hr. In Ontario, this is what our legal system does to classify these speed categories:

0 – 15 km/hr over = 0 points (minor infraction)
16 – 29km/hr over = 3 points (minor infraction)
30 – 49 km/hr over = 4 points (major infraction)
50+ km/hr over = 6 points + 30 day license
50+km/hr over (Stunt Driving/Speed Racing) = 6 points + immediate 7 day licence suspension and car impoundment + up to 2 year additional licence suspension upon conviction.

This seems like a much more reasonable approach than a $60000 fine.

 

[Drako]

Yeah, another socialist paradise.

 

[Smoblikat]

Seems a bit excessive for a victimless non violent crime.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I like it.

In the United States, however, here's how that would work: Millionaire and billionaire conservatives would make this a cause celeb and enlist the usual cadre of talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. - all multi-millionaires themselves) to rouse the rank-and-file Republican voters living paycheck to paycheck. And there would be such an outcry of poor right-wing imbeciles about the fines that their billionaires would receive, that it wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Here's what I would be curious to know - does this deterrent work? Or is the government raking it in from consistent income as a result of these laws (because the rich still speed)?

 

[CPA]

Actually, this is a pretty good system. It makes the punishment hurt everyone equally.

If you are poor, $20 could be a pretty big deal, where if you make six figures it may take $200 to make the fine hurt as much as it did for the poor person.

There's a flaw in that type of system, however: it would make more fiscal sense to pull over wealthier types than those who are not. So, now, you're on a hit list because you have money.

 

[Blanky]

I like it.

In the United States, however, here's how that would work: Millionaire and billionaire conservatives would make this a cause celeb and enlist the usual cadre of talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. - all multi-millionaires themselves) to rouse the rank-and-file Republican voters living paycheck to paycheck. And there would be such an outcry of poor right-wing imbeciles about the fines that their billionaires would receive, that it wouldn't stand a chance.

You nailed the fuck out of it with this post.

Finland has this law for obvious reasons and it is a good law. In the US poor people who get a ticket or most middle class have a point penalty and a financial one. However rich have only a point because the financial penalty is so inconsequential as to be utterly irrelevant to them. The fine serves no purpose as a deterrent, which means rich are penalized less than the poor.

 

[angminas]

Seems a bit excessive for a victimless non violent crime.

It's about risk. If you fire a gun into the air, it's probably not going to kill anyone, even in a city.

 

[tynopik]

The fine serves no purpose as a deterrent, which means rich are penalized less than the poor.

But do rich people speed more than poor people?

Are you trying to solve a non-existent problem?

 

[Humpy]

There's a flaw in that type of system, however: it would make more fiscal sense to pull over wealthier types than those who are not. So, now, you're on a hit list because you have money.

The actual flaw would be law enforcement having a financial incentive for anything they do.

 

[lupi]

Such a stupid law. Punishment should be equivalent to the action.

 

[Jeff7]

Actually, this is a pretty good system. It makes the punishment hurt everyone equally.

If you are poor, $20 could be a pretty big deal, where if you make six figures it may take $200 to make the fine hurt as much as it did for the poor person.

I knew a company owner who would speed constantly.
1) Getting caught isn't definite.
2) The fines were small enough versus his income that he thought of them as occasional tolls.


Same with some companies: You can save $2M a year doing something illegal, when the penalties might cost the company $25k.
:hmm:
Gee, I wonder what they might decide to do.



I've seen fines for nearly $400 for violating some laws, like the carpool lane here in CA. $400 is more than a week's take-home pay for someone not making much money, and if they're paycheck-to-paycheck, that could sink them on the spot.
Or it might be 1-2hrs of pay for a high-level executive.

One person faces a threat of serious hardship.
The other faces what is really a mild annoyance.

 

[cabri]

Seems a bit excessive for a victimless non violent crime.

The problem is that it can easily become a victim violent crime in a blink of an eye. The fine is intended to deter such behavior.

Make the driver realize that it is dangerous to ones financial health as well as others. Those that speed apparently do not consider that they might endanger someone else or property due to circumstances that they are unable to anticipate.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Using this ludicrous rule, perhaps restaurants should charge lower income customers $50, and uber high income customers $30000, for the exact same meal.

I suppose could buy a tiered system. eg. Low income pays $100. High income $500. But $60000? That's just ludicrous. There is absolutely no common sense to a $60000 fine for being 14 mph over.

And by the way, I've been typically left of centre for Canada in the political spectrum, and that practically makes me a communist by US standards.

Yeah, because fines and discretionary luxury spending are exactly the same thing. Try to think things through, I'm sure in your head that sounded like some brilliant thread-ending coup, but it just makes you look foolish.

What is the purpose of fines? Some would say they're a deterrent, some would say they're a way to raise money, most would accept that they're both. Either way, fining based on income level works. Again, this might require some thinking and it might be hard for you, but try to follow along. I'll go slowly.

If you fine as a deterrent a sliding scale is the only way that works. That is not even slightly debatable. Any fine that would make a single mother making $50k a year think "man, I better follow the law" is not going to make a Wall Street guy flinch for a single second. $500? $1000? That's pocket change. Even a $50,000 fine would be the cost of a decent bottle of wine for some people and the prospect of losing it would not force them to obey the law. It's only a deterrent if it hurts and the only way to hurt the rich and the poor is to fine them at different levels. Can you dispute a single word of that?

Now, if you think that fines are mostly a way to raise money, then by fining rich people more you make more money. And if they're willing to speed and willing to pay that much for the privilege of speeding (which they clearly are if they're speeding) then it would be stupid to not squeeze some extra cash out of them.

So either way, it's win win for the government entity doing the fining. They make more cash and it's a better deterrent.

And here's something else that requires some thought, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you can grasp the concept. Spending on pretty much everything works on a sliding scale. Rich people pay more for houses, they pay more for cars, they buy more expensive clothes and jewelry and take vacations in nicer places. Heck, they even spend more when they eat out. Why not expect them to pay more for fines. If they find the money lost to be onerous and decide to not speed so they don't get screwed, THAT'S THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, because fines and discretionary luxury spending are exactly the same thing. Try to think things through, I'm sure in your head that sounded like some brilliant thread-ending coup, but it just makes you look foolish.

Not the same thing, but equally stupid.

What is the purpose of fines? Some would say they're a deterrent, some would say they're a way to raise money, most would accept that they're both. Either way, fining based on income level works. Again, this might require some thinking and it might be hard for you, but try to follow along. I'll go slowly.

If you fine as a deterrent a sliding scale is the only way that works. That is not even slightly debatable. Any fine that would make a single mother making $50k a year think "man, I better follow the law" is not going to make a Wall Street guy flinch for a single second. $500? $1000? That's pocket change. Even a $50,000 fine would be the cost of a decent bottle of wine for some people and the prospect of losing it would not force them to obey the law. It's only a deterrent if it hurts and the only way to hurt the rich and the poor is to fine them at different levels. Can you dispute a single word of that?

Now, if you think that fines are mostly a way to raise money, then by fining rich people more you make more money. And if they're willing to speed and willing to pay that much for the privilege of speeding (which they clearly are if they're speeding) then it would be stupid to not squeeze some extra cash out of them.

So either way, it's win win for the government entity doing the fining. They make more cash and it's a better deterrent.

And here's something else that requires some thought, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you can grasp the concept. Spending on pretty much everything works on a sliding scale. Rich people pay more for houses, they pay more for cars, they buy more expensive clothes and jewelry and take vacations in nicer places. Heck, they even spend more when they eat out. Why not expect them to pay more for fines. If they find the money lost to be onerous and decide to not speed so they don't get screwed, THAT'S THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT.

What is far, far more appropriate is punishment like demerit points for repeated and/or severe infractions.

Ontario classifies this as a minor infraction for a reason. However, if you get caught for these many times over and lose those demerit points, you eventually should have your licence taken away. That impacts a wealthy person significantly. Sure, s/he could take a taxi, but it's a major PITA to have to depend on that.

Or, if you have a really severe infraction even once, you should also have your licence taken away.

This is a reasonable approach.

Fining someone $60000 for a minor infraction is just stupid tax grabbing with a bit of feel good politics thrown in, but with no basis in reality. It's just because some people have a screw-the-rich type of mentality.

BTW, I can guarantee you that $1000 will make a Wall Street guy flinch (or in our country Bay Street guy), but a wad of demerit points taken off will make him flinch even more.