California Lege Considering Traffic Fine Based On Income

[rm9792]

I figured in California feelings are what mattered. A good defense is the red light offended me as I am 1/64th Cherokee or I felt that 10mph faster was better for my self esteem or some such crap.

[Flightmare]

So if a couple is married and filing taxes separately, and one spouse has no job. Would it be advantageous to have that spouse drive since they have an income of "zero", and could therefore drive faster with less financial risk?

[mojo84]

I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

Maybe they should treat ALL Crimes the same! Life without parole for any crime. Makes the same sense as comparing traffic laws with bank robbery.

That wouldn't be Constitutional and it's missing the point of his analogy.

Means and needs based society ends up as a socialistic failed experiment.

[Liberty]

So if a couple is married and filing taxes separately, and one spouse has no job. Would it be advantageous to have that spouse drive since they have an income of "zero", and could therefore drive faster with less financial risk?

Typically it would take a lot of tickets to make up for the increased taxes that one pays by filling separately.

[apostate]

However, it might be a good strategy for an unmarried couple since they have no choice in filing status and are going to pay the single penalty to the IRS either way.

[puma guy]

I'm not a a lawyer or legal scholar so this may be an incorrect assumption on my part. But it seems to me that legislatively mandating punishment for two individuals differently the same crime based on income is not equal protection under the law. I know there ranges of monetary fines and confinement but as far as I know they're not scaled on wealth or income.

[The Annoyed Man]

To some extent, I agree with the reasoning behind this. The idea behind a fine is to make it hurt enough to where people don't perform the same action in the future. If an average middle-class person gets a $200 traffic ticket, the fee will be annoying and they'll probably try to avoid doing the same action in the future, at least for awhile until the memory of the fine fades. If some Silicon Valley tech millionaire or Hollywood actor gets a $200 traffic ticket, it'll be pocket change and the cost won't cause them to think twice about doing the same action in the future. Alternatively, if some poor person gets a $200 traffic ticket, it would cause them much more disproportionate hit to their wallet. Is it really equal justice under the law if the effect on different people varies so much? A more serious crime that involved jail time wouldn't be appropriate to scale, because everyone experiences time at the same rate. But given that people's finances differ so much, I think scaling fines by income level isn't a terrible idea.

All that said, I'm against using income taxes for revenue generation, so ideally the government wouldn't know your income in the first place, and therefore scaling fines by income wouldn't be possible.

So by your logic, a poor person would only get 2 years in prison for capital murder, while the rich man would ride the needle. Justice is always about making sure that someone gets what they have coming for whatever infraction they have committed.....nor more, and no less. It's not about deterrence. It's about punishment, and revenue. No law ever stopped someone from breaking it if they were heck-bent on doing it. Scofflaws are scofflaws, regardless of their income brackets. Watch that new live police program on TV........multiple tickets, multiple warrants, and mulitple license revocations don't stop people from driving if what they want is to drive. They live the lives they do mostly because they've spent them trying to fulfill their wants instead of their needs.

What the California legislature is considering will cater to and encourage people to ignore the law. Poverty is a tough condition to be in, and as individuals, we ought each to entertain opportunities for charity when we are presented with them. But whenever govt takes on that role, it becomes injustice to somebody. The Californian legislature is attempting to violate one of Ben Franklin's precepts by making the poor easy in their poverty; whereas poverty should be difficult enough that the individual is motivated to do something to get themselves out of it. And in Switzerland, where my neighbors are from, the reason people drive carefully isn't because of means-based traffic fines, it is because it is the nature of their culture to be thrifty and law abiding. End of story. They haven't always had the means-based fines. Guess when that started? It started when, like the rest of Europe, Switzerland began accepting large numbers of immigrants from countries where, culturally, obedience to the law is for suckers. The native Swiss are not real happy about that any longer, but their socialist streak is a mile wide, like the rest of Europe's, and so they can resist passing laws that treat people unjustly......in the name of social justice.

[twomillenium]

I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

Maybe they should treat ALL Crimes the same! Life without parole for any crime. Makes the same sense as comparing traffic laws with bank robbery.

That wouldn't be Constitutional and it's missing the point of his analogy.

Means and needs based society ends up as a socialistic failed experiment.

No it is not missing the point, it is pointing out the absurdity of the comparison. By the way, we are taxed according to income. Just a thought.

[mojo84]

I'd like to know the answer to parablum's question too.

That California legislators would even consider a traffic fine based on income is commie-like.

What about other crimes?

I get caught robbing a bank, but I only have to serve 6 months because my bank account is so very low, (oh the irony) while Joe, my bank robbing partner in crime is super wealthy thus he gets 20 years?

Is that the way justice should be served?

Prorated by income?

Maybe they should treat ALL Crimes the same! Life without parole for any crime. Makes the same sense as comparing traffic laws with bank robbery.

That wouldn't be Constitutional and it's missing the point of his analogy.

Means and needs based society ends up as a socialistic failed experiment.

No it is not missing the point, it is pointing out the absurdity of the comparison. By the way, we are taxed according to income. Just a thought.

Traces and criminal penalties are two completely different issues. I also disagree with the progressive tax system. However, that's not what this is about.

Income should have nothing to do with the amount of a criminal penalty or fine.

[CleverNickname]

So by your logic, a poor person would only get 2 years in prison for capital murder, while the rich man would ride the needle.

No, because murder is bad in and of itself. Violating traffic laws is not. The only thing bad about those is the higher likelihood of things which are bad in and of themselves (like people being injured or dying in traffic accidents) resulting from violating traffic laws.

What the California legislature is considering will cater to and encourage people to ignore the law.

Having fines at a level where they're inconsequential to the rich doesn't encourage the rich to ignore the law?

Or is your problem with this proposal not so much with higher fines for the rich as it is for lower fines for the poor?

[Jusme]

To some extent, I agree with the reasoning behind this. The idea behind a fine is to make it hurt enough to where people don't perform the same action in the future. If an average middle-class person gets a $200 traffic ticket, the fee will be annoying and they'll probably try to avoid doing the same action in the future, at least for awhile until the memory of the fine fades. If some Silicon Valley tech millionaire or Hollywood actor gets a $200 traffic ticket, it'll be pocket change and the cost won't cause them to think twice about doing the same action in the future. Alternatively, if some poor person gets a $200 traffic ticket, it would cause them much more disproportionate hit to their wallet. Is it really equal justice under the law if the effect on different people varies so much? A more serious crime that involved jail time wouldn't be appropriate to scale, because everyone experiences time at the same rate. But given that people's finances differ so much, I think scaling fines by income level isn't a terrible idea.

All that said, I'm against using income taxes for revenue generation, so ideally the government wouldn't know your income in the first place, and therefore scaling fines by income wouldn't be possible.

So by your logic, a poor person would only get 2 years in prison for capital murder, while the rich man would ride the needle. Justice is always about making sure that someone gets what they have coming for whatever infraction they have committed.....nor more, and no less. It's not about deterrence. It's about punishment, and revenue. No law ever stopped someone from breaking it if they were heck-bent on doing it. Scofflaws are scofflaws, regardless of their income brackets. Watch that new live police program on TV........multiple tickets, multiple warrants, and mulitple license revocations don't stop people from driving if what they want is to drive. They live the lives they do mostly because they've spent them trying to fulfill their wants instead of their needs.

What the California legislature is considering will cater to and encourage people to ignore the law. Poverty is a tough condition to be in, and as individuals, we ought each to entertain opportunities for charity when we are presented with them. But whenever govt takes on that role, it becomes injustice to somebody. The Californian legislature is attempting to violate one of Ben Franklin's precepts by making the poor easy in their poverty; whereas poverty should be difficult enough that the individual is motivated to do something to get themselves out of it. And in Switzerland, where my neighbors are from, the reason people drive carefully isn't because of means-based traffic fines, it is because it is the nature of their culture to be thrifty and law abiding. End of story. They haven't always had the means-based fines. Guess when that started? It started when, like the rest of Europe, Switzerland began accepting large numbers of immigrants from countries where, culturally, obedience to the law is for suckers. The native Swiss are not real happy about that any longer, but their socialist streak is a mile wide, like the rest of Europe's, and so they can resist passing laws that treat people unjustly......in the name of social justice.

This is just another robin hood scheme. The wealthy already pay more in taxes, income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc.. The fact that it is not a major hardship on them is not the issue. As TAM stated, the desire to overcome poverty should be a motivating force, and not a way of life, subsidized by those who have done so. The law should be enforced equally. The fact that some who have money, have gotten criminal cases dismissed, is not the issue. There have also been cases of poverty level defendants who have not been given sentences they deserve, either. The penalty for breaking the law, should be the same, no matter a person's income, social standing, or their clothing choice.
As TAM so eloquently stated, law breakers, will break the law, no matter what the potential consequences may be. While the left try to argue that penalties, should be lessened, because they are not a deterrent, I say, they never were intended to be. They are punishment. No where in a court case, has a judge or jury ever issued a "deterrent sentence" . Nor is their a definition of such, in the law.

[flechero]

No it is not missing the point, it is pointing out the absurdity of the comparison. By the way, we are taxed according to income. Just a thought.

But being employed isn't a crime [yet] so it's not a criminal penalty. Until you DON'T pay taxes and then we can use the sliding scale based on income, for the penalty! ...lol

[ScottDLS]

So by your logic, a poor person would only get 2 years in prison for capital murder, while the rich man would ride the needle.

No, because murder is bad in and of itself. Violating traffic laws is not. The only thing bad about those is the higher likelihood of things which are bad in and of themselves (like people being injured or dying in traffic accidents) resulting from violating traffic laws.

What the California legislature is considering will cater to and encourage people to ignore the law.

Having fines at a level where they're inconsequential to the rich doesn't encourage the rich to ignore the law?

Or is your problem with this proposal not so much with higher fines for the rich as it is for lower fines for the poor?

If speeding isn't bad in and of itself, then don't make it a criminal offense. The fine and/or jail is a penalty that is supposed to reflect the damage to society by the act. It doesn't become better if a poor person speeds or worse if a high income person speeds. The impact of the fine or jail on someone based on their circumstances should not be a consideration. Some people view jail as "three hots and a cot" and for some it will be a significant loss of their livelihood. That's irrelevant. The penalty is supposed to be determined in advance by law based on the gravity of the offense.

[treadlightly]

I think I can simplify this.

Some folks think it's OK to shoplift from a chain retail store because the store is so large they will never notice it.

Some California legislators apparently think it's OK to take more in punishment from someone who is rich to even out the punishment.

To me, both statements are flawed.

At the height of my little run as an entrepreneur I had expenses of about $2,000 a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. You might argue that a $2,000 fine once a year would have barely been noticeable but for one thing I learned.

The last dollar I earned every day was just as much work as the first dollar. The last $2,000 I squeezed out of thin air and sweat on the last day of the year was just as dear as what I had to cough up on the first of January.

[mojo84]

Isn't there something somewhere about how the penalty should fit the criminal and his pocketbook? Constitution or some silly place like that?