Megabuck Ticket

In reply to friedgreencorrado:

Tyler H wrote: I strongly disagree that the financial punishment should be proportional to income. At one point in my life a $200 ticket would have busted me too. Now it wouldn't. What's the point of working hard, if you are taxed, levied, punished such that your income is normalized? That's busllE36 M3. On the other hand, this guy should be made to pick up trash or spend a few weekends in the pokey, just like everyone else.

So a quirk of doing well for yourself is being able to break laws and not notice the impact? Really?

Oldsaw- equal protection also equals equal penalties if you break the rules. $200 means an unequal penalty for $20k income vs. $200k, and especially $2M. So the rich would essentially be getting unequal protection. Really?

It still stuns me that people are so quick to defend the rich. If you break the rules, you shouldn't be able to get away with it since you work hard and make money. Rules are rules. Being rich means you already have a big house, great cars, cool trips, better food, better booze- etc. So you want more rights, too? Really?

Again, this isn't a commentary on how the US does it- which I find deporable, and hope that more communities in Michigan really change the stupid taxing speed traps. And start serve and protect.

But this is a commentary about the Swiss, and them making it an equal penalty to your means.

In reply to Osterkraut:

I think the quote, "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still" applies here...no matter what your view of the situation.

alfadriver wrote: It still stuns me that people are so quick to defend the rich. If you break the rules, you shouldn't be able to get away with it since you work hard and make money. Rules are rules. Being rich means you already have a big house, great cars, cool trips, better food, better booze- etc. So you want more rights, too? Really? Again, this isn't a commentary on how the US does it- which I find deporable, and hope that more communities in Michigan really change the stupid taxing speed traps. And start serve and protect. But this is a commentary about the Swiss, and them making it an equal penalty to your means.

No one is defending the "rich" as much as some people are attacking them.

If the "rich" think they deserve more rights than others, too damn bad. They should always face the same penalties as anyone with lesser means because law (at least in the US) was intended to be an equalizer.

Perhaps some should be more upset with how law(s) have been perverted instead of railing against "people of money".

The Swiss can implement and enforce their traffic laws any way they wish. But, it's one more reason for concern that their legislative attitudes are embraced by some in the US.

I think it boils down to what is expected of you and what are youre expected penalties if you dont live up to your end.

If you know going in that you will be fined a multiplier for speeding: something like base speed limit = x, and your speed is y, and the amount exceeded is y-x=z. Then your multiplier is a factor of your income...maybe a set scale like if youre Gross adjusted income $15-25k - multiplier of 2, $26k-35k - 2.5, $36-45k - 2.75 and so on and so forth ...or some other version, but make it an even scale - therefor its even for everyone.

If the intent of the law is to punish someone for a committing a crime, then it should actually be a punishment. I agree that if a fine is to be monetary, then the amount should have the same impact (perceived displeasure) to all law breakers. I think the devil is in the details when you try to quantify the perceived displeasure of a monetary fine...a task I certainly dont wish to tackle.

jlm_photo wrote: Just doesn't seem fair charging people different ticket prices depending on their income.

Makes a lot of sense to me. If you goal is to punish, adjust the punishment to hurt the same. When I was in college, a $200 ticket was a huge deal and I would do almost anything to avoid one. Now I'd be mildly miffed and probably keep breaking the law.

Luke wrote: How about, they confiscate his AMG status-symbol for a month, and he's forced to drive some econobox (Fiat Punto, Fiesta, whatever) for that period.

I vote for a 1978 AMC Pacer painted lime green.

oldopelguy wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Why? A big fine to a poor person should be a big fine to a rich person, too- it's a peanlty for breaking the law. If not, then the penalties are worse for those with lower incomes.... Or, why should the rich not feel pain when they break the rules as much as the poor do?

What about the low-income guy who hits you, totals your car, then gets away scott-free because he has no insurance and nothing of value you can go after for restitution? Perhaps if you can't afford the consequences of your actions you should drive more carefully and it should hurt you more when you violate the law? Not saying a rich guy should be able to break the law with impunity, but since the new American Dream is to get rich via lawsuit, if the guy has $ and screws up then maybe someone else get's their meal card punched. And who decides what metric is used to calculate someone's worth for these fines? For the half of Americans who don't pay taxes at all I am considered very wealthy, as indicated by my giant annual tax bill, but to me or anyone making more than me I'm barely getting by myself.

That is one thing they do much better here in Korea than they did in the States, car insurance. When I bought the Daewoo I wasn't allowed to leave the car lot until I'd paid a full year's insurance. When its time to re up next year the government will send me a reminder. If I ignore the reminder, they will take my car until I pay my insurance.

That said, due to the fact Korea has universal healthcare and much less litigiousness, my expensive-for-this-country car insurance is still only about 40% of what I'd pay in the US. For perspective on that figure, in the US I had one ticket and no accidents on my record. In Korea I'm treated as a 16 year old getting his licence for the first time.

I don't know if the US could do that though, since having a car isn't that important in Korea but it's a career death sentence in America.

So from each according to his ability? Someone needs to read Carl Marx, One of the tenants of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Lets take MORE money from those that make more. It removes the incentive to attain wealth. I am busting my ass to attain my wealth, if the reward for attaining weath is to pay a disprapotionate amount of tax or penalty when I screw up why should I work hard to attain said wealth?

As for the flat tax check out the fair tax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

alfadriver wrote: In this case- explain to me in simple words why rich people should have less relative penalty for gross speeding than a poor person? What makes them special?

They have money.

In reply to porksboy:

No, from each as much as is needed to make them stop breaking the law.

As for the flat tax/fair tax ... biting my tongue and remembering this is a car site.

You cannot sparingly enforce a law and claim the true intent of the law is to reduce the crime. Speeding is penalized enough to pad the budget of law enforcement agencies but not to stop us from speeding. If they truly wanted to stop speeders they would double or triple the amount of speed traps and put speed cameras everywhere they can. Then of course people would stop speeding and the income from tickets would dry up. Its not about crime, its about money.

MrJoshua wrote: You cannot sparingly enforce a law and claim the true intent of the law is to reduce the crime. Speeding is penalized enough to pad the budget of law enforcement agencies but not to stop us from speeding. If they truly wanted to stop speeders they would double or triple the amount of speed traps and put speed cameras everywhere they can. Then of course people would stop speeding and the income from tickets would dry up. Its not about crime, its about money.

In the US that's true. Korea, it's not the case at all. Switzerland? I have no idea.

porksboy wrote: So from each according to his ability? Someone needs to read Carl Marx, One of the tenants of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Lets take MORE money from those that make more. It removes the incentive to attain wealth. I am busting my ass to attain my wealth, if the reward for attaining weath is to pay a disproportionate amount of tax or penalty when I screw up why should I work hard to attain said wealth? As for the flat tax check out the fair tax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

I havent read all the links in this thread, so I am not certain, but is the Swiss penalty formula a sliding scale? If it is, I can see an argument. But if the proportion is 1:1 for the income variable, then I would say its fair. Kinda like saying paying 2% of your income as a flat tax is fair... I cannot see how it is not fair...everyone pays exactly the same rate. True a person earning 200K pays a higher dollar amount than a person earning 20k, but its undoubtedly fair in its equality to both parties.

One argument against the flat tax is that if we move to that system, no one will want to work hard to earn a million anymore if they are just gonna lose it to uncle sam. Thats BS...no one ever went after a large income BECAUSE of tax breaks for the rich, and NO ONE would ever stay poor because they were afraid of higher taxes that could be imposed on their wealth. Thats a terrible argument, and Im a BS-er. People want a lot of money so they can have security and toys...plain and simple. Some people get mad once they get there because the rest of us think they owe a proportional amount. The anti-marxism and pinko-commie jargon is just posturing; make me forget about what Im arguing about cuz you confused me with outdated and failed societal blueprints. Please haz better argument fodder soz I can haz a respect fer Y0 point. Im a big boy - I can admit when Im wrong if you can convince me rationally and without letting emotion into the conversation.

One of the most central motivators to this whole shindigg (America that is) is that we wanted fair taxation, I have a hard time understanding how a perfectly flat tax rate is anything but fair. Is it more fair that wealthy corporate types move their earnings off shore to avoid paying taxes altogether? is it more reasonable to think that they made at least a portion of their income by utilizing a society built around the laws and statutes of American governance? Should they then not be held at least in part responsible for keeping that governance in order in fully equal proportion to the responsibility of any other American who makes less than them? Theres a bazillion shades of gray in that logic, and Im sure Im gonna catch hades for thinking that way. I will be certain to bring yet another stake, some rope and some gasoline for the fox news addicts out there to use in a Salemesque dramatic reenactment. I just think that theres an Oligarchy forming where the tax men and the bank men start wearing the same mask - and the rest of us are left holding the tab at the end of the day. Its been said that the greatest trick the devil ever played was fooling us into thinking he doesnt exist. Id say there is a similar quip regarding the high powered SEC/IRS/Wall-street club out there too...

wow that devolved quickly. Uhhh...man that AMG is a cool car huh

Datsun1500 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: It still stuns me that people are so quick to defend the rich. If you break the rules, you shouldn't be able to get away with it since you work hard and make money.

Again, only the rich speed? Can you please tell me where the roads are that the rich speed by the poor, laughing, because they can? Only the rich break the rules? I suppose only the rich rob and murder people, you know, because they can...

When did I ever claim that it's only the rich that speed or break the laws? I've never claimed that a single time.

I have claimed that they "get away with it" since either a) the penalty is quite a bit less impactive, or b) they have lawyers that get them out of tickets or other arrests.

Again, since you posted it twice, I've never claimed that only the rich break the rules. Just that they have the means to get away with it.

And that seems just as likely that a rich person will get away with someting they actally did whereas an innocent poor person will go to jail (or worse).

oldsaw wrote: No one is defending the "rich" as much as some people are attacking them. If the "rich" think they deserve more rights than others, too damn bad. They should always face the same penalties as anyone with lesser means because law (at least in the US) was intended to be an equalizer.

Well, I think few have any problems with that.

And if the penalty was 2 months in jail, the penalty is pretty darned equal.

But explain to me how a $200 speeding ticket is equal for a person making $20k and a person making $200k? For one, the penalty is harsh enough not to want to break the rule again, for the other, that's less than a new iPhone- bid deal.

Weak penalty isn't a deterrant for doing it again. Harsh penalty is.

Perhaps some should be more upset with how law(s) have been perverted instead of railing against "people of money".

Works for me, somewhat. Here in Michigan, there are rules against speed traps- that the speed limits should be set based on a survey of what people really drive on the roads- which will eliminate many artificially low limits.

But I'd also have no problem paying more if I do something stupid, just so I don't do it again.

The Swiss can implement and enforce their traffic laws any way they wish. But, it's one more reason for concern that their legislative attitudes are embraced by some in the US.

That we want to make sure penalties mean the same to everyone? That's so evil?

porksboy wrote: So from each according to his ability? Someone needs to read Carl Marx, One of the tenants of Marxism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Lets take MORE money from those that make more. It removes the incentive to attain wealth. I am busting my ass to attain my wealth, if the reward for attaining weath is to pay a disprapotionate amount of tax or penalty when I screw up why should I work hard to attain said wealth? As for the flat tax check out the fair tax. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

So when you get rich, you should be able to get away with speeding? Bust your ass so you can pay a negligible amount of your wealth?

You do realize that even if you do pay more, you also get the benefits of having wealth- better everything. You'll note that the rich are still quite comfortable in countries where taxes are quite high- many countries in Europe for example. Somehow, even with high taxes and relative penalties, people are willing to work hard so that they can afford the extras that they don't need, but want in life.

This argument is brought up a lot, and it doesn't take but a quick look around the world to see that it's a BS argument. Unless you want excuses.

Please, convince me that a $200 penalty is the same for a person with 10% savings rate, a home relative to their income, and the two make $20k and $200k each. Don't use Carl Marx or claim socialism or whatever- do the math, show me that they are equal relative to their lives.

For one, $200 makes it hard to make a housing payment, or food, or whatver. For the other, sacrifice a luxury for a month- big deal.

MrBenjamonkey wrote:

jlm_photo wrote: Just doesn't seem fair charging people different ticket prices depending on their income.

Makes a lot of sense to me. If you goal is to punish, adjust the punishment to hurt the same. When I was in college, a $200 ticket was a huge deal and I would do almost anything to avoid one. Now I'd be mildly miffed and probably keep breaking the law.

Like I said in a later post..."Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still". End of MY argument anyway.

Datsun1500 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Please, convince me that a $200 penalty is the same for a person with 10% savings rate, a home relative to their income, and the two make $20k and $200k each.

The issue is does it really matter what the fine is? If the $200 fine was such a big deal to the guy that makes $20K, why do I see that guy speeding? It seems like he only complains when he gets caught that the fine is unfair. If it is such a hardship to those guys we would only see those that could afford the ticket break the law instead of what we really see. There are many people of means that don't speed just like there are many that can't afford it, that do speed. Will the guy that makes $20K and can't afford the $200 stop speeding if the fine was $2000? No, so it does not matter. Make the penalty mandatory time in jail and see the issue go away really quickly.

As someone who has gone from completely broke in the bounce checks and eat ramen everyday sense of the word to pretty comfortable in two years, I can tell you without a doubt my respect for the law has changed dramatically. Two years ago I would do anything to avoid that 200 dollar fine. Now I'll just hire a lawyer or pay up, and I'm sure as hell not doing the 25mph speed limit on those long empty country roads.