Traffic fines and fees should be DIRECTLY proportional to income, amirite?

I don't make any money. Do I have to pay a fine??

by Linda83 1 week ago

To be a fine it had to be a punishment, so a non zero sum.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But punishment wouldn't have to mean money.

by Due-Peanut 1 week ago

If this became a thing I would assume there'd be a minimum

by zbernier 1 week ago

I agree but only because I want to see a fleet of NEETs and hobos traveling at 150 mph

by Anonymous 1 week ago

"A fine is just a price tag if you have enough money"..........

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This is what Finland does. This way wealthy people don't just pay a piddly fine and keep being reckless, and everyone else doesn't have to worry about going into debt over a fine.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Exactly. And the ONLY feeble defense is "oh noes communism/socialism/'sure thing commrade'!!!"

by Rhettsatterfiel 1 week ago

Yeah but you would be pissed if you had to pay more for a fine than someone else who did the exact same thing. People always switch up when it comes to them having to face consequences vs when it's someone else

by AgreeableWar 1 week ago

The punishment is still technically the same the percent of income is still the same.

by Awkward_Meeting 1 week ago

More fair of a punishment than the person living paycheck to paycheck getting 20% of their income and the rich person getting 0.02%

by Awkward_Meeting 1 week ago

Not arguing that, just stating that the financial impact still isnt equivalent by a long shot. Personally I'd love to see there always been optional community service instead of the fine.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You do make a fair point.

by Due-Peanut 1 week ago

But you did the same thing why should the punishment be more severe on them

by AgreeableWar 1 week ago

Depends on how you look at severity. $100 is way more severe to someone making 20k a year vs. 200k. Some people won't eat, other people won't even notice it being gone.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If it's equal in this manner, it is *not* more severe. It's of "equal value", even if the number of dollars differ. Kind of like how taxes (are supposed to) work. A percentage makes a level playing field, so to speak, if it's properly applied.

by Due-Peanut 1 week ago

If you seriously cant afford the fine there is options in court so I guess people dont understand how it works. Some just want to fix what isnt broken. They just dont know their options so they think the system is rigged or something??

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Kind of like how pedophilia offenses are less severe for women than they are for men?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This wouldn't hurt the super wealthy. They don't have income. They "loan" themselves money from their own entities and loans aren't taxable as they aren't income. Also, what about people with NO income?

by Standard-Jacket 1 week ago

So if you're broke, it's just a free for all

by Agreeable_Collar_863 1 week ago

Person 1: 4000$ monthly income, 0 other earnings and 0 wealth Person 2: 0$ monthly income, 10000$ earnings on investments, 5M$ wealth In my country there is a fine system based on income. The first person can get up to a 16000$ fine, the second one 0$

by Anonymous 1 week ago

What the frick are you guys doing on the roads of your country to get fined 4 times your monthly income?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

They do this in Finland! A wealthy businessman got a $100,00USD speeding ticket there once

by deondre65 1 week ago

But that would be saying the rich person comitted a worse crime when they didn't

by AgreeableWar 1 week ago

If that was the case I'd go over 100 mph over the speed limit at will. Broke would be absolutely advantageous for once.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

100 mph over the speed limit wouldn't get you a ticket, that'd land you in jail

by walshgrayson 1 week ago

yes but the jail is also proportional to my income and is made of cardboard as a result

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Or more likely to a coffin

by Anonymous 1 week ago

And a really big fine in court plus court costs as well.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

And what about the people who make more money but also have more dependents using that money, so it's not exactly disposable income. That is most families. Someone might make $50,000 more a year than you, but they have 4 kids or a sick mother they are supporting, etc.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

That's still more fair than the system we have more

by Quintonstoltenb 1 week ago

This actually shouldn't be difficult. If you think about it, you're already doing means testing, so these kinds of things would only make the form a little longer. I think the bigger issue is figuring out what to do with folks who don't have any income. None of this works if you have to multiply by zero. Maybe deferred fines or a community service scheme. It's just not at all straightforward.

by Outrageous-Rub8686 1 week ago

Yes, and? I don't drive and act like an asshole if that's what you're worried about.. What I'm trying to highlight, is that income ALONE isn't a very good indicator here, for paying a fine.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Income ALONE should be the only factor considered when creating a sliding scale for fines. Again, if you don't do something that you could be fined for (and this isn't just driving - there's plenty of stuff that can be fined), then you won't get a fine. The point op was making is that the current set-up just makes it a cost for the wealthy and a massive burden for those less well off. Your example of person A earning $50k more than person B, but having significantly more financial liabilities than person B is irrelevant when using this system. It's irrelevant using the current system too, since all fines can be avoided if one avoids doing the activity that could be fined.

by lindsey91 1 week ago

Seems like it's popular here but… it should be unpopular because it's a bad idea. The theoretical point is that the infraction is some "cost" to society— someone breaking the law by speeding is a net negative to society and (while I have no idea how they estimate that specific cost) it's completely irrelevant how rich the person is who's speeding.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

no. its meant to deter the individual. Speeding in itself is not a negative, its the increased risk of crashing thats the problem. But someone that gets fined for speeding HASNT crashed (probably) so there is no REALISED negative effect on society, so calculating that (as you mentioned) would not be possible.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I don't think you understand, fines, much like taxes, are for little people. How else are you supposed to keep them in their place?

by Outrageous-Rub8686 1 week ago

Craziest idea of them all… don't break the law and regardless of the fine amount, it won't be a concern. 🤯🤯🤯

by Big-Tap 1 week ago

Boot lick harder

by Emily65 1 week ago

Being cautious in a 2 ton death missile = boot licking 🫡🫡🫡

by Big-Tap 1 week ago

Sure thing comrade...⚒️

by True_Base 1 week ago

Care to elaborate?

by Outrageous-Rub8686 1 week ago

No, it's pretty self explanatory.

by True_Base 1 week ago

Indeed. It is at that, isn't it?

by Outrageous-Rub8686 1 week ago

Then how would wealthy people be able to "pay the tax" for speeding (or whatever the offense) and carry on?

by WriterComfortable 1 week ago

I agree, maybe if we had a points based system instead where they remove or suspend your license for.....oh wait

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Isn't that why the points system is in place? Too many points on your license and you get it suspended That means there are consequences for the people who can pay, too

by InvestmentWeird7073 1 week ago

No, proportional to wealth.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

If the fines were easy on everyone they wouldn't work. You gotta make it hurt for people to learn their lessons.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You have to request community service. I had trouble with paying a fine. I wrecked my car and it was my fault and I didnt have car insurance. Judge suspended half the fine and when I wasnt able to pay I just requested to do CS and they said I could. I didnt take the sr22 cause my car was totaled. I just had to complete CS and turn it into the clerk and one more court appearance. Only rule was I had to goto a full 503c. I went to a food pantry and worked there.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I don't think the Nissan Altima driving 100 in a 60 is a rich person, I think it's just an uncaring person.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I agree but there should also be a base rate. Base fine + an amount proportional to your income. That way people without income/ or some minimum wage teenager isn't breaking the law with little punishment.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Before you think this is a bullet proof idea, keep in mind that most of the ultra wealthy and CEOs get paid in stocks, not money. It's easy to claim an income of $75,000 while collecting $3 million in stock options

by Johanna50 1 week ago

How do you propose that would play out?

by Sporerarianna 1 week ago

What if you don't have an income but you're rich?

by Tricky-Nail 1 week ago

No, people shouldn't be treated differently for doing the same thing. I feel like it is the most basic principle possible.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

ALL fines should be this way.

by Interesting_March642 1 week ago

This is an unpopular opinion because getting a ticket is completely avoidable. So, the fact that you can't afford the ticket is your problem. Don't speed (or whatever) then. And yes, it really is that simple.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

0 tolerance. Get caught violating traffic law license revoked permanently. The rest of your life you ride the bus. Get caught driving without a license. 10 years in max. The problem will solve itself in 5 years or less The problem with having rules is you can become full totalitarian or watch them get broken repeatedly there is no inbetween.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you

by Anonymous 1 week ago

This is funny lol

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Make sense but you think they would

by gwendolyn93 1 week ago

What's the point of getting rich if you can't just buy your way out of trouble? /s

by Anonymous 1 week ago