Last week the Swiss newspaper Blick broke the story of a guy who was caught driving above the speed limit through the town of Mörschwil and given a speeding ticket for $290,000. No, that’s not a typo — two hundred and ninety thousand dollars.
What could possibly justify such a large fine? One simple reason: The guy was rich. And under a new scheme of “progressive pricing” that’s becoming more and more common across Europe, rich people must pay higher fees for things because they can afford it — and because, well, they’re rich, and therefore deserve extra punishment.
"Traffic thug Roland S. has five luxury cars in his garage."
Blick even featured a mugshot-like photo of the offender with the shocking caption, “Traffic thug Roland S. has five luxury cars in his garage.”
Horrors! Five fancy cars?!?! What an outrage. On that count alone we should condemn him. (A rough English translation of the Blick article can be read here.)
But wait — that’s not all! The British tabloid Express pointed out that the judges deciding on the size of his fine heard testimony that Roland S. was Facebook “friends” with Formula 1 stars Michael Schumacher and Felipe Massa. Unforgivable!
As to how the judges arrived at the reasonable sum of $290,000, the Express notes,
Under Swiss law he was fined for the offence, then had the sum multiplied by 130 to account for his fortune.
The penalty is the highest speeding fine handed out in Switzerland. He was ordered to pay half of it in cash immediately with two years for the rest.
He was stopped last month driving at 85mph through the town of Morschwil, where the speed limit is 50mph.
The few American papers which covered this story safely classified it as “Today’s Weird News” or “Oddly Enough!”, an anecdote presented solely for our amusement, nothing to think about too deeply.
Yet The Fine of Roland is no mere bagatelle. It may be a vision of our future. And you should care very deeply indeed.
More Than Just a Funny Story
On Sunday, AP published an article pointing out the significance of Roland’s fine: Far from being an isolated incident, it’s part of a growing trend in Europe to scale fines and fees to match the payer’s income level:
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,” [said] Sabine Jurisch, a road safety campaigner with the Swiss group Road Cross.
Turns out that such astronomical speeding tickets are commonplace in Europe now. Finland bases its fees on the payer’s income, including one infamous case in which the son of a wealthy sausage-making family had to pay 170,000 Euros for driving 50mph in a 25mph zone. The Norwegians take it even one step further, sentencing wealthy people to intentionally humiliating hard labor as well, such as the drunk driver who not only had to pay a $85,000 fine but also chop wood for 30 days.
The idea is catching on. Pundits in Wales want the same variable pricing scheme to be enacted in their country. And yes — inevitably — some writers have already suggested bringing similar laws to the U.S., making all fines and fees be not a fixed amount but rather a percentage of your annual income. The author of the linked essay, discussing the inherent unfairness of a $250 speeding fine, gives a good clear presentation of the basic argument for the progressive position:
To someone who makes minimum wage, $250 is a big deal. A person working for minimum wage makes about $10,000 per year. $250 is more than a week’s wages. $250 is 2.5% of your annual income — it is a serious amount of money. But to someone who makes $200,000 a year, $250 is meaningless. It is only 0.125% of your annual salary. The deterrent effect is minimal — it is 1/20th the impact of a person making minimum wage.
Whether a construction worker is killed by a rich guy speeding in his Porsche, or killed by a minimum-wage guy in his second-hand Ford Escort, the result is the same — either way it is a tragedy for the family of the construction worker. So the goal of deterring speeding is just as important for rich and poor drivers. But how do you make the speeding fine just as “painful” for a rich person, so that it has the same deterrent effect?
The obvious way is to scale the fine based on income. So the sign does not say, “$250 fine for speeding”. Instead it says, “2.5%AI fine for speeding,” where 2.5%AI means “2.5 percent of annual income.” If you make $200,000 per year, the fine would work out to $5,000. The financial impact of the speeding ticket would be just as strong for a rich person as it is for a poor person. That way, the deterrent effect of the fine would be the same for everyone.
How does that idea strike you?
Progressive pricing already exists in the US tax code. In the US, the richer you are the more you are taxed. The rich pay most of the share of the tax burden. The bottom pay nothing.
Our Resident has stated that the Constitution is sadly outmoded. To think that it will provide protection from our current pack of Progressive wolves is, sadly, a fantasy.
If this story reaches the white house I can just imagine Barry Obambi and his acolytes sitting around a conference table and literally slobbering at the fantastic idea of socking it to the wealthy while at the same time collecting more money for their socialist revolution. The reverse is almost as good. Not just smaller fines for the poor but actually NO fines, instead find a way of fining the auto maker for allowing the vehicle to go too fast.
There actually is a point to be made here. If fines are to actually have a deterent effect they must be high enough that the individual feels some pain.
Not only would Marx approve but so would Adam Smith:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Book Five: Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth. CHAPTER II: Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society. ARTICLE I: Taxes upon the Rent of House.
I’m not sure I can entirely agree with your argument. The point of taxes are to raise money for the government. The point of fines for criminal behavior are to discourage criminal behavior. Perhaps one can argue it’s a bit of both, but “discourage criminal behavior” is a major point of fines.
So, if you don’t like the idea of fining rich people more, how do you propose to discourage them from speeding? The only systems I can see that equally discourages both poor and rich, while having the same quantity of punishment, would be imprisonment and corporal punishment. Now, I’m all for beating speeders and jay walkers, but is anyone else?
Keep in mind, the rich guy also paid a much higher percent of the cost of building that road.
Rich people would probably hire poor as buyers for most items.
Progressive traffic fines are a great idea. The notion that progressive taxes and fines are a threat to the free market is laughable. I say bring on progressive fines. It’s about deterrence. Make the fine big enough to impact behavior by scaling it to income, and the law works better. Thanks for the suggestion!
Peace.
DS
And now we have the Bank Tax. Because of populist outrage over bonuses the Administration is considering taxing the banks that took TARP money. I have heard that the tax will be based on either profit (there is just too much in the opinion of bureaucrats) or on the level of risk taken by a bank (not that anyone in or out of banking has been able to measure risk as evidenced by events of the last few years).
Profits and risk taking. What could be more basic to capitalism? In the new order there will be a disincentive to pursue either/both. Get the message?
Somehow I don’t think the tax will be limited to just those banks that took TARP money.
In general, I agree with your argument – the fine should be based on the cost of the infraction on the community.
I believe one can make a case for the progressive fine in the case of speeding (and drunk driving), however, because the outcome can result in death for those not committing the crime. The intent should be to discourage the behavior, and a $200 file would not do that for the wealthy.
We could replace the fine with a lose of driving license to get a similar effect for repeat offenders, I think, and avoid the progressive fine. I’m not sure which would prove more effective.
While this is a novel approach, I think you’re overreacting to this. It would be “progressive” if the percentage of actual income increased as the person got wealthier: the fine is 2.5% of everything you make under $50K, 3.5% of everything you make between $50K and $100K, and 5% of everything you make over $100K. This is the progressive scheme of taxation that our current income tax system uses. A simple 2.5% of annual income is more like the flat tax proposals we’ve seen in recent years.
However, giving the IRS influence over even more of government (as would be required in order to determine “annual income”) is never a good idea. And so-called progressives would decry the idea that the wealthy weren’t being punished enough because they were able to hide some or all of their income with tax shelters.
mob rule. ..the inequality of equality.
if the progressives had morals then government largess should then dictate that the rich get better services when they apply for them. AND WE KNOW THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.
stealing from the rich is now fashionable
you must really have a perverted view of morality to think stealing is ok if the person is rich.
there is no honest or moral or equitable argument for disproportionate fine levies for the same infraction. (but I expect to see the trolls try to make some up anyhow)
Let’s take this the OTHER way…Say you’re found guilty of first degree murder. But you’re poor, and your family cannot bear the loss of your income. Logically, you should be allowed to go free so you can earn your low wages. But if you’re middle class or rich, and your family can survive financially without you (say you’re spouse works or you have savings)…too bad.
I would also take issue with the idea that a $100 fine isn’t meaningful to a person of means. The fact is that MOST people with decent or high incomes got there because they were CAREFUL about their money. I find it interesting that there always seems to be this presumption that the “rich” got there without effort. Mebbe that’s the case for progressive “trustafarians” but not so with the great majority of people who’ve made a decent life for themselves.
And one other point too, specifically on the matter of speeding: in most places if you speed well beyond posted limits, you aren’t just subjected to fines. “Serial” speeders have their licenses revoked and may be ordered to pick trash on the side of the road as “community service”. That’s a pretty strong deterrent.
On a side note: I’m enjoying the idea the monied oh-so-progressive class that voted in this nightmare of an administration against their own interests are finallly waking up to the idea that gee, a free-spending neo-socialist who believes in redistribution (it’s only fair!) of THEIR money may not have been such a cool idea after all. Watch the campaign spending reports out of Silicon Valley in this year’s elections and in 2012. Gonna be different next time around…
…the fact that the “rich” can afford it is one thing.
What progressives don’t understand is that poor people cannot.
Almost all punitive actions against “rich” people in open societies hurts poor people more then anyone else.
I think this idea doesn’t go far enough — people who have lots of political power and are in a position to distribute government goodies should also get king-size fines and penalties. After all, political ability, just like business ability, is not equally distributed in the population so in the name of fairness people who use the political ability nature gave them to achieve power over the rest of us must be disproportionately punished. Also, nowadays parents can often pass on their power to children and friends just like rich people can pass on their money. Why should accidents of birth or friendship determine who gets more of society’s perks? I say treat power and wealth on an equal footing when it comes to doling out properly progressive punishments!
Ok, great – so since I pay so much in income taxes and property taxes, when I call the cops I expect them to deploy a whole SWAT Team and a chopper. I expect to go to the front of the line at the DMV. If there is a natural disaster, I want to be rescued first.
Why not? Apparently my relationship with the state is now based entirely on the contents of my W-2, so why shouldn’t the state appreciate me like the tax-paying machine that I am and give me some concierge-type service.
Now that I can finally read the second part of your column I understand better your point.
The totalitarians could CERTAINLY transform the “progressive” fines in a Soviet nightmare by extending the concept to everything.
In a sense, the income tax is ALREADY this kind of commie law.
But we shouldn’t probably worry too much:
at the present pace, in another seven years we will ALL be poor, in a third world country, with a third class economy.
4. chad:
or is that short for hanging Chad ?
if the rent isn’t passed on to the renter then the landlord will not make homes available to rent due to bankruptcy or lack of motivation to lose money.
either way the poor still end up paying the tax which is higher due to the government trying to tax the “rich”.
the worst part of democracy is stupid people are allowed to vote.
another serious flaw in democracy is people without any skin in the game have the same vote as those that do.
To answer Brett’s concern, there already is a mechanism in place to deal with people — rich or not — who break traffic laws with impunity: If you get too many tickets, you can face stiffer even stiffer financial penalties or even lose your license. You may also be uninsurable (which not only creates financial risk for you, but prevents you from legally driving in most states). So forgive me if I’m not too worried about rich scofflaws zipping around town in their Ferraris with no worries about potential consequences.
There’s also this to consider. Bob makes $100k, but he has a family, responsibly saves a huge chunk of his income for retirement, gives away a lot of money to charity, and lives within his means. Frank makes $50k, but has no family, blows his salary on having fun, carries a lot of debt, and figures Uncle Sam or providence will take care of him when he retires. Now it could very well be that in terms of disposable income, Frank is actually better off than Bob due to life circumstances and the financial choices each makes. But when each man gets a speeding ticket, Bob will pay twice as much. How “fair” is that? And why should the government be in the business of deciding how much someone should be able to “afford” to pay?
“Progressive pricing already exists in the US tax code. In the US, the richer you are the more you are taxed. The rich pay most of the share of the tax burden. The bottom pay nothing.”
Yes, but as we’ve learned from Obama’s administration, Democrats don’t pay their taxes and hide their assets. No wonder socialists are all for it, being the hypocrites and tax cheats they are.
As the writer notes, present punitive trends increasingly reduce incentives to accumulate wealth.
Outside of emigration options (the range of good venues seems to be narrowing; I lean toward Poland…)one might choose to restrict output to a level that makes one reasonably comfortable, ie., finding a balance between productive burden and privation. Alternatively one might join the new aristocracy of rent-seeking government workers who are beneficiaries of confiscation.
What seems to be missing in the moral calculus is the question of how society is to value the creation of wealth.
Freedom
At least for now we are
able to ask for a trial by jury of our peers in the United States if a fine of
over $50. I am am a decent attorney would be able to select a jury panel of people
that would be more than happy to throw a case out that asked for some one to be
fined more than $50.00 for speeding regardless of income.
It might be me but I can not see most people deciding the fine for an infraction
of road rules to be more for someone just because of income. What if you don’t have a job
should you get to speed all you want with no penalty? This is insanity and should
not be tolerated in the United States or in England!
I forgot to include a thought about deterrence. In an earlier time one imagines that a fine sense of shame may have discouraged bad behavior more than external sanctions. Quaint idea, isn’t it?
One of the fundamental principles of our government is Equal Protection Under the Law. This is defined as:
the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. (emphasis added)
The idea of different fines based on an individual’s income flies completely in the face of equal protection under the law as mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The idea is blatantly unconstitutional.
Hmm. So Joe Warbucks makes, say, 2 million per year and Joe Plumber makes 10,000 per year.
At a fixed rate of 2.5%:
Joe W gets fined $50,000 and has $1,950,000 left over.
Joe P gets fined $250 and he has $9,750 left.
At a progressive rate, where, say Joe W gets charged a rate of, say, 50% and Joe W remains at 2.5%:
Joe W gets fined $1,000,000 and has 1,000,000 left.
Joe P still has $9750 left.
If this were a taxation argument, we’d say great — that miserable Joe W should pay more and, hey, he has plenty left over anyway.
But, if the intent is to punish Joe W, how is a measly $1 million fine any kind of punishment. Hey — he still has a million bucks left over!
I say take all but $9750 from the bastard and let him live on that. That’ll show him.
And how about Joe Nuthin, who has no income at all? When he gets caught speeding, he *gets* $1,990,250.
It’s only fair.
Oh, I remember this.
First, they took the land from farmers and ranchers, you know, those they called “kulaky”, or ” The Rich”. Then they created collective farms, where nobody worked, because it belongs to nobody. Then came the famine. Then….everyone became miserable, not just rich. The rich, in large part, became rich because they worked better and more, then others.
Or, socialism, what a beautiful thing to have( NOT!!!!).
You ALL got it easy. You did nothing to have freedom and possibilities and abilities and everything that comes with This Great Constitution. That is why you are so eager to destroy it. You think Freedom is FREE????? Wait till you find out what socialism is.
So, if you’re laid off, or don’t make much, do you get refundable speeding credits?
DS@7: As a progressive would you support a wealth tax? For instance on all assets and worth, above $100k to $24 million you are taxed at 2%; $25 million to $100 million at 5%; $101 to $500 million at 10% and above $500 at 15% each and every year. The only exemption is if you own a business.
As you know many of the uber wealthy are liberals (Soros, SKG, Peter Lewis, Heinz, US Congressmen and Senators) who seek tax shelters and receive no income so they are no paying income tax. So let’s get them too, right?
How about progressive payments for gas, heating oil, food and medicine?
yeesh y’all sure have a lot of faith in the gubmint.
I dont know about Switzerland but around here the revenue from traffic tickets goes right back to the same people who wrote it and imposed the fine. The Swiss poilice and courts have just hit the lottery and the idiots over there just keep on paying..
We already have a deterrent. It is called the point system and even without that judges can pull your licence for certain other types of reckless reckless behaviour.
They didnt do that here because, well the Swiss always had a talent for getting rich off other peoples money.
All this does is give local judges unlimited ability to buy a new comfy courthouse and for the police to selectively target Ferraris so they can get some cool new squad cars and stuff.
Spindok
Maybe they should reform their income tax the same way. Everyone, even the rich, pays the same percentage. Seems only fair…
Kind of strange hearing Progressives making an argument for deterrent since many here in the US have argued that the death penalty doesn’t make a dent in the murder rate.
After Nero burned a good part of Rome, which he blamed on the nasty Christians, he started to build. After realizing he was bankrupting Rome, he started taxing the rich.
The global Marxists bankrupting countries to pay for entitlements will be going after the rich. Just like Nero, and like Nero may have to cut their own necks.
Earning income is not a crime, yet;
Progressive fines are fine, or give
each speeder the same three lashes
with a bullwhip.
I’m canceling my speeding holiday is Switzerland.
For some time I have dreamed of starting a private school and setting tuition to a percentage of the family’s AGI.
Regarding the speeding ticket for the rich. Anatole France was correct, “The law in its infinite majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.” The fine should be issued in terms of labor demanded. If the punishment for a 100 km/hr over the limit speeding ticket is (5 hrs labor)/(speeding unit) or 500 hrs of labor then the law could allow the offender to buy back their time at a rate that is income dependent. A poor person could buy back their time at the rate of €1/hr and a rich person at the rate of €100/hr. That would allow uniformity in the allotment of punishment and flexibility in the collection of fines.
Zombie – Well if the rich in Europe had any sense they would vote with their feet and high tail it over here. Hopefully, when they get here, they will vote with their heads to keep American exceptionalism alive.
@28. blotto:
DS@7: As a progressive would you support a wealth tax? For instance on all assets and worth, above $100k to $24 million you are taxed at 2%; $25 million to $100 million at 5%; $101 to $500 million at 10% and above $500 at 15% each and every year. The only exemption is if you own a business.
As a progressive, I support graduated income taxes, graduated fines, and a graduated inheritance tax. I also support property taxes. I don’t think a special tax on “wealth” is needed if these other taxes are managed properly. I also don’t see why you would exempt business owners.
As you know many of the uber wealthy are liberals (Soros, SKG, Peter Lewis, Heinz, US Congressmen and Senators) who seek tax shelters and receive no income so they are no paying income tax. So let’s get them too, right?
It’s not about “getting them”. You want to make it personal when it’s pure economics.
How about progressive payments for gas, heating oil, food and medicine?
I can see some advantages.
Peace.
DS
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” I’ve always thought that was a funny statement, coming from a guy who tried so hard to avoid actual work. As Marx’s mother in law supposedly once said, “Karl should try earning some capital, rather than just writing about it”.
On another note, on of the biggest ways in which Marxist progressives delude themselves in the notion that the heavy hand of confiscation and authority won’t come down on them, too. They only think about how it is going to punish the “rich”, never realizing that the same coercive authority will have power over them, too. And they have no guarantee, and can even be assured, that what goes around comes around.
I’m reminded of what Solzhenitsyn wrote about on that score. He reflected that, when the government said that they no longer needed labor unions (because now the government represented the workers), the labor unions disbanded. Only later did they realize that they needed protection from the government as much as anyone else.
A word of caution to political “Progressives”: once you get your long wished-for powerful state, the hammer is coming down on you too. Do you really trust that the state will never list you as one of the “bad guys”? Will you be able to do anything about it does?
DS,
You say it’s about “pure economics” but in the next breath say you “see some advantages” in progressive costs for gas, heating oil, food, and medicine. Thereby proving that you don’t know squat about economics. Please refer to my earlier post and pray tell explain how you square THAT circle.
All I see here is a fanTAStic opportunity for a protection racket. At what level, I’m not sure – could be at the patrol-car level, all the way to traffic court or beyond.
5. Brett:
I’m not sure I can entirely agree with your argument. The point of taxes are to raise money for the government. The point of fines for criminal behavior are to discourage criminal behavior. Perhaps one can argue it’s a bit of both, but “discourage criminal behavior” is a major point of fines.
So, if you don’t like the idea of fining rich people more, how do you propose to discourage them from speeding? The only systems I can see that equally discourages both poor and rich, while having the same quantity of punishment, would be imprisonment and corporal punishment. Now, I’m all for beating speeders and jay walkers, but is anyone else?
It really should be very simple: A repeat scofflaw, rich or otherwise, should go to jail.
I say should. Life isn’t always that simple. I can almost see the appeal of fining a rich person more for the same offense. Almost. My reflexive reaction to such laws is based on my dislike of “punishing success.” However, in this case, we’re talking about punishment, period, for an actual offense. That kind of thing is worthy of discussion and debate.
Now, if this sort of philosophy were applied to normal, lawful commerce, where a financially better-off person would have to pay more for the exact same goods and services, that would be stupid and unconscionable. Now please note, for the logic-challenged: I am saying paying more for the same goods and services; the fact that a modestly-paid person buys a Hyundai, and the richer one a BMW does not fit into that category. If regular person ‘A’ pays $19K for a Huyndai, and richer person ‘B’ is required by law to pay $35K (or more) for the same car, THAT would be utter economic insanity and injustice. Different issue.
I agree with Ben@39. You are a fraud DS.
If you were really a progressive you would want a wealth tax. So either you are NOT for the little guy or you know that the uber- wealthy are also progressives and they SHOULD be allowed to keep their money because they share a kindred spirit with you-and they finance your goofy 527s and think(?) tanks. Either way you exposed yourself as a fraud.
And it is about “getting them”. You progressives want to destroy the people who make this nation great-the producers through taxation and regulation. We hear it all the time from your pols. The “rich” get richer blah, blah, blah…
Business make jobs. Geez what is it with you progressives? Do you think money grows on trees. Are you that ignorant or incompetant in basic economics. If you tax a business into oblivion who hires the poor? Who creates jobs but business. God, you are so backasswards in your logic or lack thereof.
DS go tell your owner that you think he/she should pay more in taxes and more in benefits to a level you seem appropriate. Then see how long that business stays open or god forbid profitable???
Want to impose progressive fines based on income? Fine, but only if we can get progressive voting at the same time. However much you pay in income taxes, that affects how many votes you get to cast at the ballot box, based on factors of 10. Pay no income tax? You get the minimum 1 vote everyone gets. Pay $10,000 per year? That’s 10 to the 4th power, you get 4 votes. Pay $100 million a year in income tax? 100 million is 10 to the 8th power, so you get 8 votes.
So under this progressive fine system let us say that I am traffic police assigned to a speed trap. Not a good day but that is my job.
Two cars come zooming by at 80 mph in a 40 zone. One is a high class Ferrari, the other a Honda Civic showing a bit of rust, doesnt matter either one can do 80 mph anytime.
Whom will I pull over? Under this system this is a no-brainer. The fine alone might pay for more than my annual salary if I nab a rich guy at more than 1000 normal speeding tickets.
Swiss and many euros would love to eliminate the sort of person in this article, and I am not talking about driving habits. There is not a shred of evidence that under the same road conditions rich are more dangerous than poor.
Many euros drive cars that we wouldnt think about in the US and are irked that excessive tax on fuel has forced many people to drive crappy cars they do not like.
So this is another way to drive Ferraris and such cars out of the market. Clever.
If I have the money best to get a low profile car and stay out of court.
If I were a dangerous driver the same option is available whatever income, put me in jail or pull my licence. Incremental fines accomplishes something else which amounts to a very different definition of ‘equality’ than what I have come to understand.
Spindok
Equal protection under the law. But then liberals aren’t real keen on the Constitution.
@39. Ben:
You say it’s about “pure economics” but in the next breath say you “see some advantages” in progressive costs for gas, heating oil, food, and medicine. Thereby proving that you don’t know squat about economics. Please refer to my earlier post and pray tell explain how you square THAT circle.
I see some advantages in progressive costs for gas, heating oil, food and medicine. In fact, we already have systems in place that provide for such progressive costs. Heating oil costs are subsidized for the poor, food stamps are available for the indigent, and medicines are often made available at a discount or for free to impoverished persons. I don’t personally think doing away with these measures would be a good thing.
Your earlier post on the economics of traffic fines is funny, in that it completely ignores the reason for fines. Fines are supposed to deter behavior. Progressive fines are more effective – that’s why they make sense.
@40. blotto:
I agree with Ben@39. You are a fraud DS.
You make me laugh. Thanks!
If you were really a progressive you would want a wealth tax. So either you are NOT for the little guy or you know that the uber- wealthy are also progressives and they SHOULD be allowed to keep their money because they share a kindred spirit with you-and they finance your goofy 527s and think(?) tanks. Either way you exposed yourself as a fraud.
You are making no sense. I don’t think your tax proposal is necessary, so you decide that I can’t be progressive. A tax on wealth is not needed if taxes on income, capital gains, real property and inheritance are properly structured. I’m all for the little guy, but that doesn’t mean that I think your proposal is the best way to go. There’s nothing fraudulent here but your assumptions.
And it is about “getting them”. You progressives want to destroy the people who make this nation great-the producers through taxation and regulation. We hear it all the time from your pols. The “rich” get richer blah, blah, blah…
I have no desire to destroy anyone. I simply want the American Dream to be available to as many Americans as possible, and I see increasing income inequality as an obstacle to the fulfillment of America’s promise. Taxation and regulation are tools that should be used to make America better for all, rather than just for the rich.
Business make jobs. Geez what is it with you progressives? Do you think money grows on trees. Are you that ignorant or incompetant in basic economics. If you tax a business into oblivion who hires the poor? Who creates jobs but business. God, you are so backasswards in your logic or lack thereof.
Yes, businesses provide jobs. Business taxes are relatively low. No businesses are being taxed into oblivion. You are spouting the same talking points that the rest of the tea party crowd repeats ad nauseam, without even understanding how absurd they are.
DS go tell your owner that you think he/she should pay more in taxes and more in benefits to a level you seem appropriate. Then see how long that business stays open or god forbid profitable???
Nobody owns me. Slavery is illegal, and has been for some time. Business owners generally recognize that taxes are needed and that they don’t pay their fair share. Most businesses are taxed on their profits anyway, so your argument makes no sense. But thanks for playing anyway!
Peace.
DS
@18
Why don’t you read what I actually said.
I didn’t advocate progressive fines at all.
I merely pointed out that the idea that the rich should pay more is not limited to Marx / Marxists. Adam Smith also supported it. If you can read that quote and tell me he advocated passing on the cost of taxes then you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
I like this concept (I should. I thought it up ten years ago). Fines are supposed to be a deterrence, not a revenue raiser for government. A $100 fine to someone earning $600 per month is painful. To someone earning $600 per hour, not so much. Progressive fines are the only way to keep the deterrence effect the same for all violators. If you can find some other type of penalty that provides equal deterrence value to all law violators, then lets hear it.
CJ made a good point about how much you have leftover after the fine is deducted from your income. So I propose a different solution. When you get a license, you start out with a certain number of points. Each year that you drive without any infractions, you get some points added. Every time you are found guilty of an infraction, points are subtracted. If your point total goes to zero, you lose your license for one year. One year later you can get a new license, but you have to pass the written and on road driving tests again. If you get caught driving without a license, you get a mandatory minimum one year in jail. Every subsequent conviction of driving without a license increases the jail time. That’s a system that deters everyone equally, regardless of wealth.
Well there is such a thing as such a thing as equal treatment under the law.
It goes to show that moral imbeciles like Davud S are thoroughgoing hypocrites and liars: They want no such thing as equality. Any angle that allows they to avenge their inferiority upon the world and allows them to pick the pockets of their betters delights them. This sort of immorality is just why thry have such grim prospects in life in the first place.
What they do not realize is that once they open the door to unequal treatment under the law, it will quickly be turned on them, and they, losers that they are, have little recourse whatsoever.
In fact, the notion of “progressive fines” is a gross miscarriage of justice, a profound immortality, a recipe for tyranny and, in this case, pure highway robbery.
48. chad:
@18
Why don’t you read what I actually said.
I didn’t advocate progressive fines at all.
I merely pointed out that the idea that the rich should pay more is not limited to Marx / Marxists. Adam Smith also supported it. If you can read that quote and tell me he advocated passing on the cost of taxes then you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
YES Chad I understood what you wrote. socialism is even a companion to Adam Smith.
wrong is wrong. disproportionate taxation is simple not fair no matter who promotes it.
for people who claim to champion equality (liberal/progressives/democrats) they have a twisted view of fairplay.
I am not saying you are a progressive Chad. I do think you should accept that if you favor disproportionate taxation you may be a progressive.
I think you will find this progressive charges levied in the reformed medical program that the congress and senate are working on. when the public option takes over (and if the health care bill is passed it will become a public mandate) you will pay what ever you can afford. the government will have your tax information and bank information.
OK, so if Officer Friendly has to write a certain number of tickets which bring in a certain amount of revenue, why waste your time on the dented ’98 Chevy that’s going 80 in a 50 mph zone when you can snag the guy in the new Mercedes who’s going 65 instead? A dented old rust bucket driven by a guy who’s had one too many Buds can squash you just as dead as a Mercedes driven by a man who’s buzzed on Dom Perignon. But if hauling in revenue becomes the primary focus of traffic cops (and how could it not, under this system?), it will hardly pay to nab someone for a measly $50 bucks if you can nail Richie Rich for $50,000.
It’s a really bad idea – even though it is pleasant to contemplate Beverly Hills libs sqauwking and whining when they get a $100,000 speeding ticket. They’d just have to suck it up, and would undoubtably do so by cutting the wages of the illegal alien working as the pool boy or gardener.
How does this logic square with the standard liberal trope that tax deductions benefit the wealthy more because they save more net dollars from the deduction, due to being in a higher tax bracket. Seems to me that, consistent with the logic presented above for penalizing the wealthy more to make the fine hurt just as much as it does to those having average incomes, tax deductions should skew to favor the wealthy so they feel just as good about the deduction as anyone else. Somehow, I doubt many liberals would agree with that, however.
#43 LOVE IT, JUST LOVE IT
MONEY REALLY DOES TALK, IT SAYS BYE BYE…
@# 52, SAC
“disproportionate taxation is simple not fair no matter who promotes it.”
And these aren’t progressive or disproportionate fines, they are flat rate fines–like they should be.
It is not government’s job to move money between persons of differing income levels. Which is why fines for things like very excessive speeding should be assessed at around 0.5% of your annual income.
Course, it should take more than an officer’s say so that you were speeding…
The flaw in this whole system, which nobody seems to notice, is the idea that governments make money by fining lawbreakers as punishment for crimes. Therefore the object of deterring crime becomes confused with the object of funding government, and in a perverse way increased crime leads to better funded government. So we have speed traps and aggressive speed limit enforcement whenever local governments need to gin up some money. Now we have governments finding new ways to increase income from fines because they can’t pay for all their high minded schemes with the existing tax and fine structures.
If the object is to deter the abuse of one’s license to drive by speeding or reckless driving, the obvious punishment should be suspension of the license.
David S., businesses don’t pay taxes. Consumers, workers and business owners do. And guess what happens when a business owner dies and his/her heirs do not have the cash to pay the inheritance taxes on a business that has a lot of valuable, but illiquid, assets- the business gets sold! If the workers are lucky, the business will be bought whole; if they are unlucky, it will be shut down and the assets sold individually, resulting in them all losing their jobs.
@Kurt,
In the Leftist mindset it’s not about feeling ‘good’ as it is more like metaphorically feeling ‘bettered’ by getting the ‘bad guy‘ who has more money than you. Class warfare is all about dehumanizing wealthy people and transforming them into multi-purpose targets.
Of course the people who peddle this ideology are usually rich bastids themselves (often tax dodgers evennnn) using po’ folk’s ignorance and jealousy to their benefit politically.
@Bigfoot,
LOL! Your analogy reminds me of smokers paying for health-care! haha
How hilarious to see the insane usual suspects ( yes you David S)posting on here in defense of the Swiss insanity.
I don’t by the slippery-slope argument here: the comparison is (presently) apples-to-oranges.
On one hand we have fines as percentages of income, assessed for offenses defined in code/regulation/law, and on the other we have goods and services provided by the market.
Of course, if the market is entirely nationalized, which it would be in the socialist utopia, then this article’s complaints would be valid.
Furthermore, comparing a flat percent tax (which is what the fine would be) with the progressively increasing income tax of the US is disingenuous. Flat percentage taxes are considerably “fairer” if consistently applied than the current situation with most persons paying zero, and the rest shouldering immense tax burdens.
The point made by the Swiss legislators, however, is an issue: that the purpose of the law is circumvented by the wealth of the offender. It’s an old problem, dealing with persons of wealth/power who, by virtue of their status, operate effectively above the law.
–JC
David S is a known left wing provocateur who was run out of the Belmont Club. Anyone who ends his efforts to incite conflict with the signature “Peace” needs some serious therapy time. He is essentially masturbating in your faces and laughing at you. I suggest that you do not feed the troll.
To say that a $250 fine deters speeding less as the speeder is richer means that richer people actually speed more. There is nothing else that it could mean. Therefore it only makes sense to impose higher fines on richer people if (1) richer people do speed more, and (2) it is just to punish some rich people for the speeding of other rich people. Even if both conditions are met, the fines should be just so progressive as to deter richer and poorer equally, which might or might not be the same as making them proportional to income.
Perhaps the way around this issue is to eliminate fines altogether and simply deal with a points system.
Accrue too many points in a particular period of time and lose your privilege to drive. Driving with a revoked license would result in automatic jailtime.
This method affects all (wealthy and poor alike) in equal fashion. And it eliminates potential problems of law enforcement targeting specific drivers (or ignoring others) with the anticipation of a jackpot.
“How does that idea strike you?”
It strikes me as progressive. Isn’t that what liberals call themselves nowadays since liberalism has become a dirty word?
@66 Curtis M.
Do you propose a points system for all civil infractions? When do points turn into jail time or fines, and if there are ever to be fines, why shouldn’t they be asessed as a % of income?
I do not think it is a proper function of government to be either progressive or regressive in taxation or punishment.
@ ALL Why on earth are you calling this progressive, when if it was a fixed percentage of income, it would be explicitly not progressive or regressive?
@64. Lifeofthemind: – David S is a known left wing provocateur who was run out of the Belmont Club.
He’s also a documented, pathological liar.
Progressive fines are just another mechanism for out-of-control government to increase the revenue/largess it uses to perpetuate its lifetime incumbencies. The idea is made possible only because the so-called “rich” are in the minority in a world where, increasingly, the law doesn’t reflect justice or fairness, it reflects the dictates of socialist, mob rule.
i come from a long lived family.
does this mean that i should get a longer prison sentence for some crime than a person who’s relatives all drop dead at 50?
“Do you propose a points system for all civil infractions?”
No.
“When do points turn into jail time or fines….”
When the points system doesn’t serve it’s purpose: ie. determent. If an individual continues to drive after the points system has taken away a license, then the State could resort to alternatives (jail and/or fines).
“Why on earth are you calling this progressive, when if it was a fixed percentage of income, it would be explicitly not progressive or regressive?”
That’s the point – a system based on “Fines” can be interpreted as progressive/regressive REGARDLESS of how the fines are assessed. It depends on which metric (fixed % of income vs. fixed $ amount) is used.
I’d like to ask a question of those favoring fines based on % of income: is there a documented problem of the ‘rich’ speeding (or committing other civil infractions) more than the ‘poor’ and the reason for this problem is that the ‘rich’ don’t feel the pinch of a fine as much?
Otherwise, the concept of assessing fines based on % of income has the appearance of a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It also has the appearance of a money-grab on the part of the State.
Next you may have groceries and gas priced according to income. Does a loaf of bread cost the same whether rich or poor?
This already exists in the United States of America. It’s known as the Illinois Tollway Authority, and the people facing progressive pricing are those poor out of staters who either lack Internet access or didn’t take time to read the tiny print on the ITA website about the ‘fines’ for those who don’t pay unpaid tolls (complete with the exact location of the violation) within seven (non-business but regular) days. In other words, public private partnership in scam – the Chicago Way.
Turn off your vehicle, please.
Do you know why I stopped you?
You were speeding.
Give me your liscense, insurance, registration and W-2, please.
@71, Curtis M
“– a system based on “Fines” can be interpreted as progressive/regressive REGARDLESS of how the fines are assessed. It depends on which metric (fixed % of income vs. fixed $ amount) is used.”
It cannot honestly be called progressive or regressive when it is assessed as a fixed % of income–by definition that is a flat assessment. If the percentage rises with income, that is progressive. If it falls with income, it is regressive.
Our current system of fines for traffic violations is massively regressive.
It shouldn’t be so any more than our tax system should be progressive (hint, it shouldn’t be).
@Steve, #72
“Next you may have groceries and gas priced according to income.”
Probably not. And not constitutionally unless there were an amendment to permit it.
Yes, that’s old fashioned, or so I’m told.
The system of fines we have is already authorized by state constitutions, and in many states the fines could be fixed as a % of income without a modification to the state constitutions being required. I think that would more fair, and it would be a “flat” and not progressive or regressive thing if it were to be done.
Remind me to play the world’s tiniest violin for the ultra-rich.
@Curtis M. # 71,
“is there a documented problem of the ‘rich’ speeding (or committing other civil infractions) more than the ‘poor’ and the reason for this problem is that the ‘rich’ don’t feel the pinch of a fine as much?”
Since it already a built in problem that the current fines system is massively regressive, why do we need it to have another problem before we fix it?
I don’t think it’s government job to relatively move money between economic classes of people in either direction, or relatively to hit the poor harder–as this system does–I hope you don’t either.
“the worst part of democracy is stupid people are allowed to vote.
another serious flaw in democracy is people without any skin in the game have the same vote as those that do.”
YOu know what would be better, an oligarchy where only the rich and Ivy league “intellectual elites”(like Obama and friends)have any influence on politics. after all, that same group of people is doing a great job now, am I right?
There is more and more incentive to not earn money.
As it is the poor are the ones who face no consequence to their actions. If you can not afford to pay a ticket you can get a waiver that reduces, or even eliminates, the bill. Of course, this benefit only applies to those making under a certain income.
Okay, here we go. If we are to be progressive with taxes, fines, and any number of other categories determined by the government, then we must add this:
Our vote must be progressive as well. The more I pay in taxes, the more my vote should weigh. And if I pay no net taxes, I get no vote.
The world of Atlas Shrugged, the world over, coming to a country near you.
It’s time for a moral revolution… against Progressives and for freedom. Make them suffer the consequences of their insane, destructive ideology, in every peaceful way possible.
What’s next? Progressive prison sentences?
These “progressive” laws simply don’t go far enough.
What cities need are “smart” parking meters that can identify what sort of car you’re driving, and charge you the appropriate parking fee accordingly.
Hence 4 year old Prius might be charged $3/hour, while a new $60,000 Escalade should pay $30/hour.
Seems “fair” to me!
Tom Perkins -
“It cannot honestly be called progressive or regressive when it is assessed as a fixed % of income–by definition that is a flat assessment.”
Interesting. Because you claim the fine is “fixed” (based on % of income) it is neither progressive or regressive. But your metric is arbitrary (% of income).
Likewise, I can claim that a fine that is set at a fixed $ amount is also neither progressive nor regressive since EVERY offender pays the same fine. I’ve simply chosen a different metric (flat fee).
Why not base a fine based on how much an individual is LEFT WITH? One could argue that any income above $100k/year is unnecessary and that a fine would simply confiscate EVERYTHING except for that last $100k?
My point, which you seem to not grasp, is that whether or not something is ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive’ depends on the metric chosen.
With my approach (purely points), one takes both $ and income out of the equation.
“Since it already a built in problem that the current fines system is massively regressive, why do we need it to have another problem before we fix it?”
I thought the point of fines was to act as a deterent? I thought that the (perceived) problem was that the rich weren’t paying enough in fines RESULTING IN their flaunting of the traffic laws – and that fines based on income was an answer to that problem? Therefore, I repeat: has it been documented that the ‘rich’ are speeding anymore than the poor?
I don’t see where scaling fines by gross income crosses the line into “cruel and unusual.” If anything, this is stepping away from that line.
Put another way, should my safety be reduced to the “cost of doing business” at the hands of some tycoon’s spoilt kid, while the driver who has no car insurance (hence is driving illegally in all 50 states) is arguably more careful* behind the wheel?
(*)Any insurance agent can tell you, insured people as a group are more reckless than the uninsured.
“84. PoonTang:
What’s next? Progressive prison sentences?”
No, that would be the initiation of force, and through government in particular. I’m suggesting the exact opposite.
I am proposing simply that individuals voluntarily withdraw all moral, financial, and social support from those who have been preaching and working to implement the ideas (and legislation) that are destroying American freedom and prosperity.
No one has the right to initiate coercion, but we are not obligated to support those who are trying to destroy us, either.
“84. PoonTang:
What’s next? Progressive prison sentences?”
I just re-read your post and it occurred to me that you probably weren’t responding to me at all (despite the fact that your post followed mine), but to the topic in general. (And making a good point about the rule of law.)
If so, apologies for misinterpreting, and ignore what I just said.
“84. PoonTang:
What’s next? Progressive prison sentences?”
Ooops…
I just re-read your post and it occurred to me that you probably weren’t responding to me at all (despite the fact that your post followed mine), but to the topic in general. (And making a good point about the rule of law.)
If so, apologies for misinterpreting, and ignore what I just said.
I don’t know about all states, but in mine, the number of tickets and the types of offenses increase your insurance dramatically, and that is definitely a deterrent. You can even end up un-insurable, and you can lose your license because of excessive tickets. Those are much more just deterrents and punishments than just writing another check to the government.
God, I hate communists.
This nation is divided. Divided between those who love freedom, and those who despise freedom for anyone but themselves. We are like a married couple that would be better off divorcing. The problem is that one spouse will not allow the divorce, will make any divorce as painful as possible, and truly wishes only to impose his/her will on the other spouse … FOREVER.
A war is coming in this country, and it is being FORCED upon freedom-loving Americans by Communists bent only on tyranny. The communists, as always, attempt to project their own ill-will upon those who oppose tyranny. All the while pushing, and pushing, and pushing … until violent reaction is the only reaction left available.
The political process in America is already dead, useless. The Constitution irrelevant. Those who believe in the Founding Principles of this Nation — including EQUALITY OF TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW — cannot redeem this country by the ballot. The last recourse will be the bullet. And this is the way the Communist wants it.
My only consolation these days is that when the war begins in earnest, I will be able to kill these communists.
This is nuts. Let’s just extend to ever other aspect of life. Any thing that is currently “flat” taxed will now become “progressive” taxed based on income.
OK, so now I’m done with Swiss cheese. And watches.
By that same logic, someone who is unemployed should stay in jail longer than someone convicted of the same crime who has a higher paying job. Otherwise, what’s the deterrent if they’re losing less money by being in jail?
This doesn’t actually seem like a progressive fine in the sense of progressive taxes (which increase exponentially along the axis of income). I disagree /fundamentally/ with taxes and paternal “deterrence”, but insofar as this is trying to make a flat fine (tax) rate that appropriates income “fairly”, it fits right in with small-government ideology—I don’t see conservatives or libertarians advocating an absolute fee to replace taxation. The problem comes when the fine percentages increase exponentially with income.
This, according to you, is a slippery slope, but it either is and you are eventually going to have to abandon taxes altogether (something I find few people willing to do), or it isn’t and you’ve not really dovetailed this into your gestalt.
Personally, I really like this idea. Before you call me a commie, remember that the most ideal tax system is one based upon a flat rate. As such, our current penalty system is actually regressive, so adopting a policy like this would actually re-balance fines based upon an objective principle of fairness.
gus3:
“Put another way, should my safety be reduced to the “cost of doing business” at the hands of some tycoon’s spoilt kid, while the driver who has no car insurance (hence is driving illegally in all 50 states) is arguably more careful* behind the wheel?”
I’m going to ask, AGAIN, are there any studies which show that the ‘rich’ ignore traffic laws (or have more accidents) on a per capita basis than the ‘poor’?
Let me ask a second question: would a system of fines based on income somehow REDUCE the current burden placed on a low-income individual who gets a ticket? No? Or is this just (yet another) way to ‘get back’ at the evil rich?
Third question: what’s to keep your local Barney Fife from spending half his day shadowing drivers of new Benzes, BMWs, Caddies, etc. just WAITING for an excuse for a big payday while ignoring some punk in a clapped out Civic with a grapefruit launcher exhaust because it’s just NOT worth his time?
My point? A system BUILT around unequal fines is ripe for abuse.
I’m somewhat shocked at the number of idiots here that are willing to forget all about that little equal protection clause of the Constitution. It’s sad to see my country and our culture infected with so many damn communists.
I think you guys are missing the point.
This is nothing more than indulging in envy by using the authority of the law. It all basically boils down to “this SOB makes more money than I do….how dare he/her!!!….let’s even the score”. Pretty it up however you want with the argument “he/she can AFFORD it!!” as a justification, but it basically boils down to a desire to punish someone for what they have (and you don’t), not for what they did.
Paris Hilton makes more than I ever will, and she doesn’t really “work” for it, either. So….if she goes barreling down the road at 90 mph, why is that worse than if I do it? It’s not. In fact, she’s gonna have an embarrassment factor that I won’t have, since I could keep my infraction private by not telling anyone. You think that it won’t get out within minutes if she gets busted?
(Yeah, ok, you don’t like her, and neither do I. Put in the name of any celebrity of your choice. They still are gonna get a story on the newswire while Joe Schmoe doesn’t. I’m guessing that embarrassment counts for something, or we’d hear more stories about stupid Hollyweird types racing their Mercedes on the highways. After all, they could afford the fine, right?)
If this ever does come to pass, well….I may just go nuts speeding around town if I ever get laid off. Why not? Maybe I could toss some trash out the window, too, while I’m at it. It will save me money on trash stickers and bags, and I wouldn’t have to deal with sorting out my garbage for recycling. Make the fine contingent on my “income” and I might even come out ahead.
And the economic impact?
The “Rich” money confiscated is not in stocks, invested in companies, paying salaries, nor providing goods or services. How many jobs could we wipe out by taking %5 of Bill Gates’s income? A whole hell of a lot directly, plus just a little more misery for everyone else.
Progressives are not just about “leveling”; their goal is to destroy the concept of the individual. Their method is shared misery. Only animals or people living like animals are truly “equal”. If you disagree, I suggest that you watch youtube videos of North Korea.
Government should not be collecting money as a means of deterring people from violating the law. The government income creates a law enforcement conflict of interest. There has to be a better way.
I like the points system. The goal is to effectively get people to obey the traffic laws, and if they won’t, remove them from the road. Mandatory minimum jail time for driving without a license is crucial to the success of a points system.
If you take money out of the equation, you remove the conflict of interest, and you treat people equally regardless of their wealth or income.
“Interesting. Because you claim the fine is “fixed” (based on % of income) it is neither progressive or regressive. But your metric is arbitrary (% of income).”
I’m sorry your vast ignorance of the terms regressive and progressive preclude you from realizing you are flatly wrong. Progressive is when the percentage climbs with increasing income, regressive is the percentage climbs with decreasing income.
This is a case of you wanting your own facts. You fail. When speaking of government confiscating income, the terms regressive and progressive have fixed definitions, and they aren’t what you need them to be.
“Therefore, I repeat: has it been documented that the ‘rich’ are speeding anymore than the poor?”
Therefore I throw your question back at you, why do you think that is the proper metric?
Why do you believe it is government’s job to be harder on the poor, instead of evenhanded with respect to punishment?
“I’m somewhat shocked at the number of idiots here that are willing to forget all about that little equal protection clause of the Constitution.”
Yes. It would seem to mandate a fixed pcentage fine, wouldn’t it?
“By that same logic, someone who is unemployed should stay in jail longer than someone convicted of the same crime who has a higher paying job. Otherwise, what’s the deterrent if they’re losing less money by being in jail?”
So you think a poor man values his life less than a rich man does? Money and span of life are not even slightly the same thing. You can earn interest on money over time but not on time, you can’t save time, you can’t avoid spending it (you can change how you spend it), you never know how much time you have. There’s no gold standard for time, every second is just another second.
What you think is the same logic is no logic at all.
There is a fundamental difference between penalties and pricing if you are including non-economic elements. Pricing is how you support your business and pay your workers / make a living. You WANT people to pay your price.
Speeding tickets and other penalties are meant as a punishment and a deterrent. You want people to AVOID the penalty. I work in the safety industry. If a company commits a flagrant violation, I want OSHA to nail them, but not drive them out of business. A fixed penalty doesn’t work for both a small business and large business, as the same penalty will have a decreased deterrent effect.
Disparity in the application and penalties of criminal law is what liberals love most. They just love to punish freedom and success.
And for the confused Chad, if you actually understood Smith you would see he advocates an equitable application of a tax. What the EU is doing is an inequitable application of criminal law. Not to mention one is voluntary, the other is not.
Since we seem to be equivocating taxes to fines are we to assume taxes are meant as a deterrent? As has been mentioned prior, there exists a considerable conflict in the State funding itself through “punishment of crimes against society”. Progressives seem to only be comfortable with the punishment of crimes when it can be perceived as principally a punishment of the political undesirables, especially when it funds their agendas.
“Since we seem to be equivocating taxes to fines are we to assume taxes are meant as a deterrent?”
Well they are a deterrent. They relatively disincentivize making money.
@97 Curtis M:
***
I’m going to ask, AGAIN, are there any studies which show that the ‘rich’ ignore traffic laws (or have more accidents) on a per capita basis than the ‘poor’?
Let me ask a second question: would a system of fines based on income somehow REDUCE the current burden placed on a low-income individual who gets a ticket? No? Or is this just (yet another) way to ‘get back’ at the evil rich?
Third question: what’s to keep your local Barney Fife from spending half his day shadowing drivers of new Benzes, BMWs, Caddies, etc. just WAITING for an excuse for a big payday while ignoring some punk in a clapped out Civic with a grapefruit launcher exhaust because it’s just NOT worth his time?
***
I posted this much of your comment, because you put two big things out there that I need for a response.
“What studies,” you ask. Do your own. Here’s what I did.
I lived in Silicon Valley for 3-1/2 years. I had been there about a year, when I noticed that an unusual number of aggressive drivers who tailgated me were in a particular make of car. So I started keeping track.
Sure enough, with just one month’s worth of data, over half the tailgaters I encountered were driving one of the makes you named. It’s a very popular brand in CA, but it doesn’t account for half the cars in the Bay Area, or even in the toney area I was living in.
Now, here’s the upshot. At the time, this manufacturer was running an ad campaign based on the notion that driving their car meant one was rich, so the laws of physics and the laws of man didn’t apply. Even their salespeople were appealing to that kind of thinking, as I was privileged to overhear more than once.
Was every driver in a car made by this company, driving like an a–hole? No, definitely not. But it was definitely interesting to see which brand’s drivers were most likely to say “screw it, I’m just gonna go, to hell with everybody else.” These people were most definitely not driving beaters or ricers. They were simply behaving the way their car maker’s marketing department wanted them to. After all, they could “afford” it; their salespeople said so!
Before anyone accuses me of having an axe to grind against people in expensive cars, I’ll point out that I have carefully avoided naming or describing the brand. It’s simply a brand that can’t be bought new, without a substantial bank account.
So go for it. Move to San Jose or Sunnyvale for a year. (I suggest avoiding Oakland, though.) Keep track of the tailgaters. Then tell me that those with dough are just as careful with *your* life as those without.
I’m neither rich nor poor. I’ll take a guess and say that the majority here probably fall into the middle class and upper middle class. The middle class is the group that pays a disproportionate share in the folly of these class warfare schemes. The poor have less to lose and the rich have better connections.
Envy is a tool of tyrants and a killer of the social contract.
Lock and Load, but “wait for it”.
“The term “progressive” has been adopted by the modern left as the understudy for the increasingly besmirched term “liberal,” and so we now think of it as a strictly political concept.”
Well- I’ll pick this minor point to disagree with. The term have been around for over a hundred years. In Canada, at least, it has variously be used to describe: liberal leaning agarian parties, small c-conservatives, liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and the fiscally conservative green party. It’s modern meaning originates in the Comintern’s Popular Front policies of the 1930′s. Which had the Communists work electorally with Socialist parties and even Liberal parties. Funnily enough in Canada at least the socialist leaning party (the CCF) refused to cooperate yet the Liberal Party was more then happy to enter the mutually beneficial arrangement.
So it has a broadly left leaning and cross class connotation. I suppose it has come to mean liberal in the American sense of the word with the virtual annihlation of the Socialist and Communist parties as meaningful political actors and the continued ineffectiveness of the American Green Party.
Did any of you for one second think of why they give out speeding tickets? Well in case you didn’t let me explain you give out speeding tickets primarily to discourage people from speeding because speeding endangers peoples lives. Now how much of a discouragement would a hundred dollar speeding ticket be to this guy. Because I’m thinking none at all i know that if I had his kind of money i wouldn’t give a shit about a hundred dollars. So for him the ticket that someone with a common income would receive does not serve to discourage him from speeding and endangering the lives of others. So, how do you discourage him from speeding in the future you either have to punish him in a non-financial way and i don’t think jail time is really justifiable for breaking the speed limit so the other option is to make the fine actually hurt, if it doesn’t the ticket doesn’t serve its purpose. So i don’t mean to burst your bubble here but what their doing is making the punishment actually affect the person being punished.