A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's never going to be completely fair. If I'm a billionaire and I lose my drivers license I just hire a guy to drive me everywhere. Or yeah, maybe the judge is my neighbor and I just get a warning. Life has always been that way.  

 

  I think the loss of a drivers license is more of a deterrent in the long run than higher fines though. As much as people are arguing about it in this thread, I don't think rich people actually care if a fine is $100 or $1000, much like I don't care if my coffee costs $2 or $3. 

 

   

Agreed. And I don’t think that there are many poor people in jail because they got a speeding ticket and couldn’t pay it. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's never going to be completely fair. If I'm a billionaire and I lose my drivers license I just hire a guy to drive me everywhere. Or yeah, maybe the judge is my neighbor and I just get a warning. Life has always been that way.  

 

  I think the loss of a drivers license is more of a deterrent in the long run than higher fines though. As much as people are arguing about it in this thread, I don't think rich people actually care if a fine is $100 or $1000, much like I don't care if my coffee costs $2 or $3. 

 

   

You nailed it.  Post of the thread.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

8 hours ago, smilesammich said:

whenever forking over money is the consequence for breaking the law, i believe the fine amount should be based in relation to the person's income. otherwise, the punishment is not equal.

but we're all supposed to be equal under the law........

[spookyturtle 9,466]

5 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

but we're all supposed to be equal under the law........

Evidently that only matters selectively. If it was a rich black guy and he had to pay more than a poor white guy the law would be racist. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

Evidently that only matters selectively. If it was a rich black guy and he had to pay more than a poor white guy the law would be racist. 

I laughed at your post, but sadly, it is actually true.  

 

Only the left could some up with ####### like this... they refuse to work hard enough to make as much as the rich, which they seem to despise, so why not jsut tax them more, and make them pay higher fines, in an attempt to make everyone more level, money-wise?  *smh*. Just cannot make this stuff up!

[TBoneTX 45,304]

Buying a can of green beans is a bigger hardship for the poor than for the rich.  The government should therefore decree that supermarkets should charge multiple prices.

5 hours ago, Neonred said:

So does this mean police should spend their time targeting speeders in expensive cars where the payoff will be substantially better? 

 

Skip the speeding 10 year old beat up Toyota Corolla and go for the Lexus or Mercedes or BMW.  You know thats' going to bring in more money.

 

Nothing wrong there, right?

Can we spell "profiling"?*

 

*(NB, kindly ignore this, just in case)

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

I laughed at your post, but sadly, it is actually true.  

 

Only the left could some up with ####### like this... they refuse to work hard enough to make as much as the rich, which they seem to despise, so why not jsut tax them more, and make them pay higher fines, in an attempt to make everyone more level, money-wise?  *smh*. Just cannot make this stuff up!

 

   It's not that the idea is without merit. There are many civilizations where punishment has been scaled by social class,  and often these laws were designed primarily to protect the poor from the rich, something that was empirically necessary for justice. The issue currently is money can't address that. You probably have to go back to feudal times to find examples where income disparity was as great as we see in the USA today. There is no way that I can see that we could effectively accomplish justice based around different levels of monetary fines. 

[Dashinka 24,508]

9 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Exactly. Here it’s 3 tickets and loss of license for x period. I’m not buying that the rich do whatever they want because they can afford the fine and the poor can’t. The connected can get a ticket fixed rather easily. 

But as you know, even the loss of a license doesn't deter someone from driving illegally regardless of income level.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

49 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

But as you know, even the loss of a license doesn't deter someone from driving illegally regardless of income level.

Yep. Plenty of drunk drivers have been caught driver drunk after their license was suspended. Plenty of legal and illegals drive wth no license. And lots of people don’t file tax returns either. 

[Dashinka 24,508]

18 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Yep. Plenty of drunk drivers have been caught driver drunk after their license was suspended. Plenty of legal and illegals drive wth no license. And lots of people don’t file tax returns either. 

It just galls me when I hear of a story of someone that has been caught driving drunk in a fatal accident, no valid license due to multiple infractions (DUIs and otherwise) and therefore no insurance.  As you said earlier, it really comes down to personal responsibility.  The premise of the OP was that a rich person would simply just break traffic laws since the impact (financially) was insignificant, but most wealthy people I know that are self-made, would not be so reckless with their money.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's not that the idea is without merit. There are many civilizations where punishment has been scaled by social class,  and often these laws were designed primarily to protect the poor from the rich, something that was empirically necessary for justice. The issue currently is money can't address that. You probably have to go back to feudal times to find examples where income disparity was as great as we see in the USA today. There is no way that I can see that we could effectively accomplish justice based around different levels of monetary fines. 

You’re right, of course.  And I understand that the rich would need a much higher fine for any crime to be as much of a deterrent as a person with less disposable income.  That’s one of the luxuries of having more money.

 

I buy things today on a whim that I would have agonized about for weeks when I was younger.  It’s nothing to drop $50-100 on dinner nowadays, but that is out of the reach of some.  Does it make me a bad person for paying it?  No.  Does it mean I should pay more?  Well, technically, I am... more than I used to.  But it’s a slippery slope, with no real line in the sand.  Higher fines for the rich today, and soon we will need to bring our tax transcripts to the grocery stores and restaurants to see how much we will be charged for our food.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

44 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Yep. Plenty of drunk drivers have been caught driver drunk after their license was suspended. Plenty of legal and illegals drive wth no license. And lots of people don’t file tax returns either. 

You said it before, and your words summed it up nicely.  Personal responsibility.  PR is so much bigger and better than my WP.  And not everyone wants to have it.

[Dashinka 24,508]

22 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You’re right, of course.  And I understand that the rich would need a much higher fine for any crime to be as much of a deterrent as a person with less disposable income.  That’s one of the luxuries of having more money.

 

I buy things today on a whim that I would have agonized about for weeks when I was younger.  It’s nothing to drop $50-100 on dinner nowadays, but that is out of the reach of some.  Does it make me a bad person for paying it?  No.  Does it mean I should pay more?  Well, technically, I am... more than I used to.  But it’s a slippery slope, with no real line in the sand.  Higher fines for the rich today, and soon we will need to bring our tax transcripts to the grocery stores and restaurants to see how much we will be charged for our food.  

The MDL has never seen a slippery slope they cannot spin.

[bcking 3,157]

25 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You’re right, of course.  And I understand that the rich would need a much higher fine for any crime to be as much of a deterrent as a person with less disposable income.  That’s one of the luxuries of having more money.

 

I buy things today on a whim that I would have agonized about for weeks when I was younger.  It’s nothing to drop $50-100 on dinner nowadays, but that is out of the reach of some.  Does it make me a bad person for paying it?  No.  Does it mean I should pay more?  Well, technically, I am... more than I used to.  But it’s a slippery slope, with no real line in the sand.  Higher fines for the rich today, and soon we will need to bring our tax transcripts to the grocery stores and restaurants to see how much we will be charged for our food.  

Dropping money on a restaurant isn't the same thing as easily paying fines and ignoring your punishment because it is inconsequential. Eating at a restaurant isn't illegal. Speeding is.

 

It is still boggling my mind how off base some people are on this thread.

Edited March 20, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

I try to always share data when I find it, regardless of whether it supports my views or not. With that in mind - 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17366333

 

"Drivers who receive speeding citations are at increased risk of receiving subsequent speeding citations, suggesting that speeding citations have limited effects on deterrence in the context of the current traffic enforcement system. When comparing different penalties, PBJ is associated with a reduced rate of recidivism more than stronger penalties; however, it is unclear whether the reduction primarily is attributable to the penalty itself or to characteristics of drivers receiving probation before judgement (PBJ). Increasing drivers' perceptions that they are at risk of being caught speeding may improve the effectiveness of speeding law enforcement."

 

They do state that there may be a difference in the population that receives a "Probation" (Warning) vs. a Fine, and that may account for the differences. Women were less likely to receive a subsequent speeding ticket compared to men (after a fine).

 

This is the only study I found (though in fairness I just spent about 15 seconds looking), and not surprising it doesn't discuss different levels of a fine. I was hoping to find a study of somewhere that increased or decreased fines, and analyzed the impact. If I have time later I can look again.

 

So if fines AREN'T intended to deter or punish people, then why do they exist? Just as a source of revenue?