Speeding tickets based on income

The high income earner pays more taxes is questionable. Most homes are taxed at 70 % of their value. The taxes on the sale of stock is on about 50% of the profit. The people making less than 90,000 pays social security on all their wages & the excess is being used as tax money. Some exectuives are finished paying their social security in 2 hours & that gives them an extra 7% There should be a flat tax about 15 % on all income with just 2 exclushions, $15,000 per person & no tax on the sale of your principle residence. Sales taxes are sinfull as most Americans have to spend all their income just to exist.

More Class Warfare bull crap!

When will the ignorant class warfare warriors learn that level of income has nothing to do with the ability to pay. Cash flow means everything. The multi-millionaire may have a bigger budget, but if their cost of living exceeds their income, they actually have less ability to pay than the guy who makes $20,000 a year, but yearly expenses come to $18,000.

First let me ask, did you just get a ticket? Seems like something someone upset over a ticket would write. In any event I have to disagree. First of all I think and equal PERCENTAGE is more "equal" than an equal fixed number as far as the "equal under the law" (and similarly I think a flat sales tax is more equal or fair than the current income tax system.) Also since they obviously CAN tax unequally I don't see why they wouldn't be able to fine unequally. I also think it's supposed to be "equal PROTECTION under the law" and in that case you aren't the one being protected when you get a speeding ticket anyway, they're protecting everyone else from you so it really doesn't apply. By discouraging you from speeding they are protecting the safety of everyone on the road, rich or poor. I am curious as to how they figure what to base the fine on though, I mean do they look at your prior year tax returns, does it go off your salary (don't some insanely rich CEO's just make like $1 salaries?) As for wealthy people having effectively less freedom if officers spend more time in wealthier parts of town I just don't see how that holds up. Right now they spend most of their time in low income areas so I guess that means low income people already have "effectively less freedom" than the wealthy. I don't really believe that but I think it's similar to your point. Finally on the issue of the rich paying more in taxes and having to drive the same roads the once again it depends on if you're talking about percentage of their income of flat numbers, I contend that the percentage is a more equal value. In any case though it seems to me as it's the same type of thing as me having to pay for your kids to go to school. I don't have kids, I'll likely never have kids, and so I shouldn't have to pay any tax that goes to public schools, especially if I went to a private one that didn't recieve any public funds. Again, I don't necessarily believe that but the point is that sometimes, as a member of a community, you just have to suck it up and pay for the community interest. It might not always seem "fair" but I certainly don't think it's unconstitutional.

Scandinavia seems to be the place where most of my annoyances are born. It never fails that when you get into an argument with someone, they beat you over the head with some small, backwards Scandinavian country. Crime rate? Drug legalization? Social Programs?

Granted, if I tried to condemn the social problems of, say, China by comparing it to Connecticut, those same people would be the first to protest the statistical flaw in the argument. Like France and the rest, I think they are very valid within their own borders, but outside that their ideals are vastly overrated.

Punitive action should be the most stern against people that are the most problem. If they think the top 5% or so of the population is getting the vast majority of tickets, I could see this. That doesn't ring true to me. In the US I think our car insurance bills do a lot more to promote safe driving. Sure, a $50 ticket is not to painful, but an extra $50 a month is to most people that speed.

Fines based on income has to be the single dumbest thing I've heard of in quite a while. Why the hell should I, working for a large corporation, pay more for speeding than the guy who works the cash register at the local gas station? We both broke the law, why is my punishment greater? Because I can afford it? BULL!

An income tax where everyone pays the same % of their income is fine and fair and reasonable. Higher taxes on luxury goods I can even go along with. But legal punishments based on how much money I make is absolutely ridiculous. It places undue burden on those with money, and points out to the poor that they can really get away with anything so long as they're poor.

As a testimony to the fact that this law would NEVER work in the USA, I humbly submit the following true story;

In the late '80's I managed a High Line European Used Car Dealership. I routinely drove Porsches ( 930,928,911), Benz ( SL, SEL ) BMW's ( 6 and 7 series ) Jaguar ( XJS, XKE, and VDP )and the occasional Ferrari ( personal favorite was a Mondial Cab ) or a Rolls ( brought newborn son home in a '74 Silver Shadow LWB ).

Every morning, and I mean every morning, I passed a Police cruiser operating Radar in the same spot, and every morning I shot by at least "5 miles" over the speed limit. A friendly wave was my general greeting as I went by....Until the morning I drove a Volvo 240DL ( Sporty as a Brick )we had just traded in.
Talk about profiling, I was bluelighted, pulled over and ticketed before I could blink. When I mentioned that I rolled thru every other morning at the same speed or more I was quickly informed that they do not stop "those kind of cars". It seems the owners of expensive european cars typically had good lawyers that tied up the officers in court, but a Volvo driver just paid the ticket off in shame and disgrace....

To this day, I have never, ever driven a Volvo since ( I've slowed down as well, more often than not driving SUV's and Pick Up Trucks )

"... and points out to the poor that they can really get away with anything so long as they're poor."

As opposed to pointing out to the rich that they can really get away with anything so long as the fine is insignificant to them?

I don't think either of those arguments are particularly valid.

Perhaps public beatings would be a better punishment, then income plays no role at all.

If someone habitually speeds and gets tickets, eventually their insuance carrier is going to drop them which is going to hurt regardless of your income.

Those cops that don't stop "those kinds of cars" shouldn't be in the job in the first place. But, that's the way things work. If you have enough money you can pretty much get away with nearly anything. If you're broke, you don't matter.

The high income earner pays more taxes is questionable. Most homes are taxed at 70 % of their value. The taxes on the sale of stock is on about 50% of the profit. The people making less than 90,000 pays social security on all their wages & the excess is being used as tax money. Some exectuives are finished paying their social security in 2 hours & that gives them an extra 7% There should be a flat tax about 15 % on all income with just 2 exclushions, $15,000 per person & no tax on the sale of your principle residence. Sales taxes are sinfull as most Americans have to spend all their income just to exist.

Nonsense.  The top 1% income earners pay over a third of the federal income taxes.  Don't let some fantasy of the "rich not paying" cloud reality. They're paying lots of taxes.

First let me ask, did you just get a ticket? Seems like something someone upset over a ticket would write.

I have not gotten a speeding ticket in nearly 20 years.  So no, I didn't just get a ticket.

"... and points out to the poor that they can really get away with anything so long as they're poor." As opposed to pointing out to the rich that they can really get away with anything so long as the fine is insignificant to them?

Any law that punishes success is not good for society.  If speeding were to be such a big problem that such drastic measures could seriously be contemplated then start taking away licenses.

While not a statistically valid example, it seems like every time I hear about a dumbass car accident it's due to some uninsured loser not paying attention to what he was doing.  If a poor guy totals your car, you're screwed. If a rich guy totals your car, you can sue them for big bucks. The system already tends to balance out to a certain degree.

But it is important to note that in an egalitarian society such as the United States, there is no reason to cut poor people slack for speeding and punishing those who are successful more so.

If government punishment is going to scale based on income, then so should government services.  Given the condition of our roads here in Michigan, I already don't think I'm getting my money's worth.

Luckily, such a proposal here in the US would die a quick and painful death.  In Finland it's the rule of law.  Finland also has the world's highest suicide rate incidentally.

Finland also has the world's highest suicide rate incidentally.

Maybe it's all the rich folks going broke paying speeding tickets?

Ok, I do make wise crakcs, but really, how likely is something like this to ever even be proposed in the US, let alone actually implemented? Don't forget, it's the rich folks who make the laws.

I'm not sure what the syntax is to do a quote here (I guess you have to be a registered member to do so?) so it's kind of hard to respond in my usual point by point basis but here's a go: (oh and I find it interesting the one line removed from the quote was the one line pointing out that BOTH the above were NOT valid statements)

"Any law that punishes success is not good for society. If speeding were to be such a big problem that such drastic measures could seriously be contemplated then start taking away licenses."

I totally agree with this. Apparenlty where we disagree however is that I don't think subjecting everyone to the same PERCENTAGE equally is punishing success. Now if the rich had to pay a higher percentage than the poor (like with taxes) then I'd agree it's punishing success but that's not the case here. Likewise I don't think an EQUAL percentage "cut[s] poor people slack for speeding and punish[es] those who are successful more so."

Trying to link services with punishment is just as irrelevent as trying to link taxes with punishment. So to counter your roads in Michigan example I simply point to our income tax system. It punishes the rich and so obviously it's okay to do so. Again, I don't think EITHER of those comparisons are valid and in fact I'm using my example to point out they are equally invalid.

I agree however this debate is purely academic, there is NO WAY this would ever happen in the U.S. (just like the U.S. will never ditch income tax in favor of a national sales tax.)

"equal PROTECTION under the law" that's a load of bull. I was driving once and got behind a car tailgating another car. They were both going below the speed limit. I didn't want to get stuck behind them and I don't really feel safe being behind someone who is tailgating another car. I decided to pass them so I sped up and changed lanes (I was in the right lane). The cars in the left lane were flying by and I had to match their spped to merge into the lane. Guess what, the car that was tailgating was an unmarked cop car and he pulls me over for speeding.

"If someone habitually speeds and gets tickets, eventually their insuance carrier is going to drop them which is going to hurt regardless of your income."

Do you really think a millionaire is going to care about insurance... They have enough money to easily be self-insured.

Equal under the law? IF there's one thing I've observed after over 11 years in law enforcement, it's that in reality there are two sets of laws, one for the rich and/or/both connected and one for the not.

I'd start riding the bus just to see the fireworks start going off. I mean it's not like it's equal now anyways. This would make it funny at least. For once, the rich man would learn to fear the L.A.P.D..

I still say we should put non violent offenders in the stocks. Say 1 hour for every 10mph above the flow of traffic? ;~D Link

Nicholas, the problem is that the speeding laws would no longer be equally enforced. As a practical matter, they'd just hang out near the wealthier parts of town since that's where the money is.

'Nicholas, the problem is that the speeding laws would no longer be equally enforced. As a practical matter, they'd just hang out near the wealthier parts of town since that's where the money is.'

A fair point Draginol, but at best probably only half-right. The problem is that it assumes the speeding laws are equally enforced NOW. Bear in mind Dynosoar's experience: 'It seems the owners of expensive european cars typically had good lawyers that tied up the officers in court, but a Volvo driver just paid the ticket off in shame and disgrace....' Policing is, perhaps by its very nature, a political exercise. There is very little risk of such a change resulting in a loss of equity, in that there is precious little equity to begin with. It's just tweaking a pre-existing bias.

Tickets are not given to people to make them obey various traffic laws; they are simply a means for the various states, cities, counties, et al, to collect revenue. Traffic court is the furthest thing from being representative of our frayed legal system. You are guilty, unless you can prove otherwise, and even then, these traffic court "judges" can and do, simply ignore you and set a fine to pay, anyway! These kangaroo courts might straighten up, if EVERY person that got a ticket simply used their one trump, which is to have a trial by jury! Hardly anybody knows this applies to traffic courts, too, but EVERY person in this country could make a big statement by using their Constitutional right to a trial by jury. Instead, the majority simply pay rather than go to any trouble...and that's what the traffic court system expects.

LW,

I think it works both ways. Rich people have a lot more to lose. A rich person does something to someone else, even accidentally and they get sued for millions.  Poor person does the same thing and nothing happens because they have nothing to lose.

Wealth in the US is generally not inherited. Being able to afford an attorney is definitely a big advantage. But it's not a genetic advantage, it is often the result of having worked and made enough intelligent decisions to build up enough capital to be able afford that attorney.

You could argue that the police and other civil services are already getting plenty of money out of the rich through raw taxation.  It's not like the rich get to drive on special, rich person roads. Here in Michigan they drive on the same craptastic, pot-hole filled roads that the poor drive on. 

There's no justification at all for punishing one person more than another.  What's next? Having one murderer serve fewer years than another because one is older than the other and hence doesn't have as much life-time (the ultimate capital) to spare? Perhaps we should imprison people based on percentages of their life expectancy.

While I can never see this actually happening in this country, I disagree with you Brad on this one point. If the fine is based on a percentage, then technically the wealthy person isn't being punished more than the poor one. They are being punished equally in terms of a percentage.

You know, I despise, no, I hate lawyers....that is until I need one.

Lawyers are the reason my Insurance premiums are so high. They're the reason my kids can't have a trampoline in our back yard.
They're the reason why my taxes are so complicated ( 3 LLC's and 2 Sub Chapt S's ) and they're the reason the human slime that
bankrupted my last business by embezzlement is a free man( 6 mos house arrest and 5 years probation ) BUT,

Lawyers are also the reason I still have my rental property despite filing Chapt 11 and 7, they are the reason my ex-wife no longer
harrasses me, and they are the reason my driving record is still spotless...( making DWI/DUI charges go away is a terribly punitive expense in and of itself ) .

I'm not a rich man by any means, nor am I a well connected member of some "Good Ol' Boy Network", but the system is contrived to support Lawyers and understanding that will get you a long way ( and cheaper insurance premiums too )

the system is contrived to support Lawyers

Very true.