Would you support higher fine for rich people who breaks the same rule like poor people?

[Joel thakkar]

A motorist was handed an eye-watering £80,000 (80k euro) fine for speeding by police - because he is rich.

Swedish businessman Anders Wiklof was caught doing 77kph in a 50kph zone while driving in Finland.

And the Scandinavian country penalises speeding motorists by fining them based on their wealth, meaning multi-millionaire Wiklof was hit with a hefty free.

If in the same case, it was a poor man, fine would be much less.

Do you support this type of fine?

[hobbit709]

1. I would settle for equal application of the law.

[Scootaloo]

2. Pretty much this.

It's kind of putting the cart before the horse, to talk about basing fines and penalties on personal wealth, when we're in a nation where being poor is a crime in itself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. There's an argument to be made that this is an equal application of the law

The penalty (as deterrent) is the same when it is indexed to wealth. When it is not indexed to wealth, the fine levied against the very wealthy man would be a fraction of a fraction compared to the effect of the same fine on the poorer man.

[hobbit709]

6. how many times does a rich person skate as opposed to a poor person?

[City Lights]

16. Same here.

Unfortunately, it's not even close to that now.

[stevenleser]

3. Interesting. I have to think about it more. Here in the US...

most moving violations are a joke for the wealthy. Not sure if most people know this, but if you hire a local lawyer to go to traffic court, you can make most of them go away. Obviously, this does not include the most severe like DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc.

[rucky]

5. Seems fair - if you look at the amount of a penalty as a percentage of income

$500 fine hurts way more if you earn minimum wage. There could be a floor and a ceiling attached to the fine, as a % of income. Then the punishment would better fit the crime.

But fines aren't really intended as a punishment as much as a deterrent and moneymaker.

[eridani]

7. I think it's a percentage of your wealth and/or income

Why not?

[unblock]

8. i've known several people who say "i've got a good lawyer" or "big deal, i'll pay the fine".

if you're rich, you can get out of traffic tickets a lot easier.
if you're rich, you can violate traffic laws and just pay the fine.

if you're rich enough to see violating traffic laws as a convenience service you can simply purchase, then the law if ineffective and something needs to be done. i agree with post #1 that the biggest issue is making sure that rich people don't have an advantage in weaseling out of tickets, but even if the laws were enforced evenly, if the fines are financially meaningless then they need to be increased proportionally.

[Schema Thing]

9. I do support that, or at least some structure that

gives relief to poorer people.

Let's be honest, traffic tickets are a revenue source for state and local governments.

As such, traffic tickets are horribly regressive taxation.

As are tolls.

When you are poor, a ticket for a broken turn-signal is probably equal to your food cost for a month.

Was someone speeding to get better parking to attend a luxury suite party at a football game, or was someone speeding to make it to their second job serving hor dourves at that same luxury suite?

[Enrique]

10. yes n/t

[FreeJoe]

11. Yes...or maybe

I do think that fines as punishment are inequitable. My concern with this approach is that it would encourage a different sort of profiling. Unfortunately, law enforcement responds to financial incentives and fine collection is one of those. If it became extremely profitable to fine some people, they would be discriminated against by law enforcement. Then again, maybe having the cops go after people in expensive cars wouldn't be a bad thing.

In the end, I'd like some other form of punishment other than fines. Require more community service as a penalty. Doing that would take away the incentive of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws for the sake of profit rather than public safety.

[treestar]

17. For once the rich would be profiled

Though it may be that they already are; if you're a cop and you see that Mercedes, they are more likely to pay the fine.

[pipi_k]

12. I guess the usual question here

would be...

how would one define "rich"?

No doubt it's always, in our own minds, anyway, someone with more money than ourselves.

But how much more?

Is someone with a yearly income of $1,000,000 richer than someone whose income is "only" $999,999.99?

How about $50,000.01 compared with $50,000?

In a bit of irony, I've heard that even some of the poorest of us in First World nations are richer by far than so many people in Third World countries.

Where is the line drawn, and how can it ever be fair?

[Joel thakkar]

13. well there must be a way

through which finland has defined "rich"...we need to study that first.

[treestar]

15. The IRS manages to have a formula

It would be easy to make fines a percentage.

[pipi_k]

23. Yes, the IRS

does have a formula, and in some cases it involves people not having to pay taxes at all.

Often some people will even get very large tax rebates above and beyond what they paid. In effect, the government is paying THEM.

Would that be fair? People without income being given money instead of having to pay a fine?

Also, with regards to the IRS having a formula, how many people try to circumvent the formula via various means? The only reason I can see for people to do that is if they feel the formula is not fair.

To them.

I don't know what the answer is here, but I do know that people are going to wretch and complain about inequities being applied to them only because of what group they happen to belong to.

[treestar]

26. That's due to complication

For the auto fines, no such complication would enter in. There's no behavior to encourage via deductions. The only behavior to encourage is drive safely.

[treestar]

14. I've thought about that

You'll hear stories of the rich guy who speeds in his Porsche and doesn't care because he can afford the ticket. The punishment of a fine is not the same if the fine is the same amount for everyone.

Though at the same time, most states will suspend the driver's license eventually, so even the rich guy can only get away with so much. But is still bound to put people in danger more than necessary.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Yes, because what's punitive for someone making $50k a year isn't for someone making $500k a year

(n/t)

[etherealtruth]

19. Perhaps a fine that is determined by a percentage of one's wealth

a parking fine $25 could be disastrous for some ... and might simply be so insignificant to others, that it can be viewed as a tiny cost for their activity.

[gopiscrap]

20. yes

[arely staircase]

21. yes

100 dollars is a greater punishment for me than a rich man. why should I be punished more for the same thing?

[former9thward]

22. No.

It would mean the law is there to simply raise revenue not correct behavior. It would also mean poor people could operate irresponsibly with no real penalty.

[Joel thakkar]

25. Yes but tell me

a guy earning $10M paying $25 in fine is going to learn correct behavior fast

or

a guy earning $10M paying $78,567 in fine is going to learn correct behavior fast.

[former9thward]

27. Neither will happen.

Witness professional athletes who are fined by their Leagues for issues. They get huge fines and they don't care. And it does not stop others from doing the same thing.

[starroute]

36. Then you put a floor in place

Minimum of $50, say, even if you're poor and unemployed. That would be more than enough deterrent for someone who needs that money to eat for a week.

[gulliver]

24. Yup. The fine level should be adjusted to create equal pain.

These fines are there to punish people. If the wealthy are immune to the punishment, they are immune to the law. That's bad for everyone, including the wealthy.

[valerief]

29. Well stated. nt

[on point]

28. Yes, law and penalties are supposed to dissuade behavior. Low fine on rich doesn't

[X_Digger]

30. No, it goes against the principle that the punishment is proportional to harm created by the crime.

Was Wiklof's crime 80x more harm than a theoretical person speeding in the next lane over, who makes 1/80th the income?

[hughee99]

31. Completely agree. n/t

[sammythecat]

37. The answer to your question is no. Of course not.

However, the fine being proportional to the harm created by the crime sounds reasonable at first, but in order for that fine to be considered a punishment and a deterrent, it has to vary. A $100 fine would serve to punish and deter me but to someone making $800,000 it would only be a very slight annoyance. The fine would fail completely as a punishment or deterrence with that person. This seems to me to be just common sense.

[X_Digger]

43. It's not just 'reasonable', it's the foundation of our system.

It's called 'retributive' justice. A crime is a harm against society, whether there is an individual victim or not. The retribution for the harm is levied based on the crime, not the perpetrator.

That's fundamental to our justice system.

[sammythecat]

44. I've already agreed with you on that point.

There is also, as you know, the punishment and deterrence part. Are you saying that you really can't understand how a hundred dollar fine might be a real hardship (punishment) and a real deterrent to a poor person but a petty annoyance to a millionaire? You can' see that? Is it not just common sense?

The law isn't going to change. I know that. In an ideal world it would, but in the real world it's just too complex (I guess) to calculate someone's finances every time a fine is levied.

[X_Digger]

49. What is this recent fascination with 'punishment'? That tips over into vengeance rather than justice

Deprivation of liberty (incarceration) or fines are both predicated on the crime itself, not the perpetrator.

What, should an old man who commits murder get less time than a young man because the old man values his years more?

[KansDem]

32. A can of beans costs the same whether you're wealthy or poor...

I say leave fines the same but raise the top tax rate.

[sammythecat]

41. Two completely different things there.

The bean seller wants to maximize sales with a low as possible, but still profitable, price.
The law is interested in lowering "sales" with a punishing "price" that also serves as a deterrent to future "sales".

[MillennialDem]

33. Yes in principal but do you tax wealth or income and how do you define it?

Easy for wealthy people to hide their wealth (and income, to an extent).

Also some cases seem a little dangerous, what if I was earning $65k/year then got laid off... would I still have a relatively huge fine?

[iandhr]

34. 80k for speeding is excessive

[MillennialDem]

35. Unrelated point but speeding tickets are also largely revenue generation not about safety

and excuses to harass minorities and young people.

Most speeding tickets are handed out right after a speed limit change and often a seemingly low speed limit for the type of road. In Milwaukee county most of the freeways (which are not under construction and are not particularly traffic heavy ala New York or Los Angeles) are 55mph and even 50mph. Often there is a cop right where it changes from 65 -> 55 or 50 -> 55 or 65 -> 50.

It would be much nicer if cops busted people for real unsafe driving, like the fact that 9 out of 10 people will easily blow right through an unprotected crosswalk, even if there are pedestrians waiting to cross....

[kestrel91316]

38. I think that's fine for Sweden. In a perfect world it would work that way in the US.

But I think we all know that's never going to happen. In the US, wealthy people always find a way to avoid paying for their crimes in any meaningful sense.

[ZombieHorde]

39. Yes, and I have advocated for this on DU before.

I think fines should be a percent of the person's income. So a speeding ticket might be 0.003% of one's annual income. If you're married, the percent would be taken from the combined income.

[kydo]

40. no - but I support rich people being charged with crimes like poor people.

[hunter]

42. Absolutely, YES.

A person living on the edge can lose their apartment or go hungry if they have to pay a $100 traffic fine.

For a wealthy person a $100 fine is a negligible amount of money. They can spend that much money for a breakfast or a neck tie without a second thought.

[Laelth]

45. In principle, yes. Same pain for the same crime.

I'd need to see the actual legislation, though, before I'd sign on to something like that in the US. Not everybody files taxes. How would you determine who's rich and who's not?

Here's a suggestion (% of blue market value of the car driven).



-Laelth

[karadax]

46. +1

I don't enjoy the idea of law enforcement knowing how much I make. Mixing tax info into yet more of our life is a bit much right now. Basing it off a percentage value of the vehicle you drove while committing the violation seems fair. 1.5% to start and it goes up with each additional infraction within a given time time frame. Makes it hurt that much more if you're showboating in your BMW.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. for fines yes, for prison sentences, no. nt

[On the Road]

48. No

Why would traffic fines get precedence over any other kind of cost?

[jmowreader]

50. I would prefer two things happen

First, I would prefer the tax structure be set so the cops can spend their time removing Menaces To Society from society rather than generating revenue.

And second, I would prefer the roads be engineered so as to cut down on the number of bullshit tickets. Exhibit A: the bridge over Raeford Road in Fayettenam, NC. The bridge connects a 45mph segment to a 55mph segment. If you're going from the fast to the slow, the new limit starts at the south end of the bridge and the bridge is a deceleration zone. If you're going slow to fast, the whole bridge is 45mph. Every fucking morning at 5 am, every cop in Fayettenam is lined up at the north end of that fucking bridge to pick off anyone who comes off the end of the bridge doing 55. Naturally almost all the people they arrest are soldiers. It's bad enough that a traffic ticket is a valid excuse for missing Physical Training in every unit on Fort Bragg. And this country is full of speed traps that are just as bad as this.

"Hey Joe, you can't see the No Left Turn sign!"
"Then let's stick a cop behind that cowshed to nail anyone who violates it!"

[dlwickham]

51. no

[Politicalboi]

52. As much as I would like the rich to pay more

I wouldn't want this out here. If that were to happen, the rich would make sure insurance companies raised their rates so no one but the rich can afford it. IMO, it's a slippery slope. So now cops only ticket expensive cars? Granted, I would rather see them profile the rich over the poor, but the rich will fight back and it will only cost us more.