http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSWeirdNews0204/14_speeding-ap.html This is an interesting idea. What's the purpose of a speeding ticket? It's a deterrent right? It's kind of like punitive damages. But it isn't a deterrent if the amount is insignificant to the offender. So, like punitive damages in civil suits, perhaps the amount of the fine should vary according to the income of the offender. What do you think? I don't think the original amount in this case was fair, but the idea of a sliding scale in interesting, and has precedent in American law.
For the life of me I can't think of any suitable ethical or legal reason to base speeding ticket fines of personal income. It just seems real dumb to me.
If you were a millionaire, you'd be less likely to obey the speed limit if the fine was only .00025% of your yearly salary. Meanwhile, if a speeding ticket cost you .005% of your $50,000 salary, you may watch yourself after the first one. Don't take that has my advocation of the plan, however-I can see the logic though. Of course, the cops would then just start targeting those who they assume are wealthy based on the type of car they drive, and that wouldn't be right.
What you have to do is change the punishment. Give something that nobody likes and that embarasses people. Prison time usually does the trick. Once you've done some time you won't want to do it again. You can always tag on a fine so that the budget doesn't suffer.
Of course, one unintended side-effect could be that wealthier people then are more willing to contest the tickets and the fines thereby clogging up the court system and pulling cops off the streets in order to testify about speeding tickets and pulling prosectors and tax money away from potentially more important matters.
I think that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Does that mean some unemployed kid with almost no money could get like a $5 fine?
If it was a flat %, how would it be unfair? If it was .0020% of everyone's salary, then how would that be a different set of rules?
Well, it is aftertax income, or pretax income? Is it based on joint earnings or only earnings of one spouse? Is it current earnings or past earnings? Will the city/county/state have a right to audit the finances of speeders? Can a person retroactively have their fine reduced if they lose their job within the calendar year (it's based on annual earnings, is it not?) Are things like stock options included in these calculations? Would a tax increase be necessary to hire all the extra accountants and staffers to verify incomes in order to set fines, as well as extra staffers necessary to adjudicate the cases assuming an increase in the number of challeged cases? Would the fines survive the Equal Protection challenges? Could many of these small-town speed traps afford to set up such a system and maintain it through all the legal challenges? Could you even get income information in a timely manner.. or at all? And so on..... The costs in money and time just to implement and maintain such a system in the US could be astronomical. I think we have enough stuff clogging up the courts and costing tax payers money as it is.
I think everything should be on a sliding scale so in the end, we all end up with the same number of dollars in our pocket. Grocery Stores should require audited financial data before determining what prices to charge. Drivers should have to outwardly identify how much money they make so the tollroads can charge accordingly. Wal-Mart greeters should be replaced with CPAs ready to tell you what price differential you'll pay after they see your paystubs and receipts. That's really the only fair way to do it.
You're right mrpaige, even though you missed that eariler, it would be a nightmare and nearly impossible to implement. However, if we could, you could hardly call it unfair or saying it's different rules for everyone.
Well, I think it would end up being unfair because wealthy people could afford to get out of it and potentially end up paying nothing, especially if the basis is "salary" rather than "income". And if it's income, some people could end up paying a higher amount based on non-cash income. So I think it could be unfair. But I also think having different punishments for the same thing based on unrelated factors is unfair.
Except that the end result would be a different punishment. We could hand out criminal punishments the same way. Every punishment is a percentage of the number of expected years left of the convicted person's life. The percentage is always the same, but the young have longer sentences. That would be fair, right? Because it's the same percentage across the board.
No, the degree is different. Jail time, no matter how long, should be a deterrent to anyone committing a crime. As it stands now, the wealthy have no reason other than safety to obey the speed limits.
edit: This is not a new idea guys. Think punitive damages. The same principles are involved. The question in my mind is whether it can be sensibly implemented. Some of this could be dealt with fairly easily, but the administration of it would be a significant problem, you're right. To run through your questions: -basing it on after tax income seems fairer -individual earnings with certain minimum and maximum amounts -basing it on the last tax year with room for appeal if current tax year income is lower -if it's not at least revenue neutral then I would see that as a major problem, but if it's just based on information taken from past tax returns it shouldn't be too labour intensive. A "fine code" could even be generated with you tax return so you would know in advance what you may have to pay. -if punitive damage awards have survived Equal Protection challenges, I would think this would too since it is based on essentially the same principle -it could be structured in such a way that there would be a number of different levels based on your last tax year. If you are level C, for example, you would pay one amount, for level D you would pay another. The main problems with this as I see it (at this moment anyway) are that it would require a new kind of cooperation between local jurisdictions that set speeding fines and Revenue Canada (and the IRS in the US) and the privacy issue. Information about your income level would be more widely available. Ok, now you're confusing me. You're missing the point pretty badly here. We're not talking about buying goods. We're talking about punitive damages, penalties. Think also in terms of effective deterrence, which does not occur in the present system. This seems to be a point of confusion. I found this definition which may be helpful. It explains punitive damages as they function in civil suits. Punitive damages have been historically awarded to discourage intentional wrongdoing, wanton and reckless misconduct and outrageous behavior. The majority of courts in the United States, including those of New York hold that punitive damages are not compensation for injury, but, instead, are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence. Traditionally, the level of punitive damages sought by plaintiffs and awarded in civil actions was based upon the severity of a defendant's acts. However, with increasing frequency, the plaintiff's attorneys contend that for punitive damages to act both as an adequate punishment for wanton/willful conduct, and an effective deterrent against future conduct, the level of punitive damages awarded should bear some relation to the relative wealth of the defendant. Simply stated, it is often the wealth of the defendant and not the nature of his acts which dictate the level of punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs. http://www.pd-insurance.com/definition.html
The best way to deter people from speeding would be to do away with defensive driving and other options to dismiss the ticket. If you get caught speeding, you get a fine, it gets reported to your insurance company, and you get a ticket. Whenever I've taken defensive driving for a ticket, I'm sure to watch my speed for the next year. However, when I'm past that year, I can go 90 on I-35 and not even bat an eye.
