Oh man, I have had this on my mind for 20 years. Watching BMW and Lexus drivers tear past me, cut me off, tailgate, text, etc. I know the patrols keep an eye on out of state vehicles, and they should focus on these shady characters as well.
30
Easiest leveling solution: all traffic fines should be paid in hours picking up roadside trash.
57
Wow, I can't believe the number of communist idealists here. What has our country come to? We used to applaud people that were successful and strived to achieve. Now everybody wants to sit on their duff and do nothing but be jealous of anyone who has more than they. So, should rich pay more for a gallon of milk? Pay more for gasoline? Pay more for a beer? How about a prison sentence? 50 years instead of 5 for stealing. Americans have sure been brainwashed into despising those 'rich' people.
As for the speeding ticket, how about neither one of them should be speeding and it wouldn't be a problem. If they do, they should all be treated FAIRLY and equally, like the US Constitution dictates. If you want to discuss sliding scales of punishment, how about harsher punishments for blacks since they commit more crimes, causing an disparate amount of money to be spent prosecuting them?? No, treating people un-equally is in stark contrast to the whole meaning of being an American.
75
The simple solution is don't break the law! Everyone understands there are risks and consequences when someone breaks the law.
39
Surgeon making $300,000 per year. Her stay at home husband gets caught doing 15 mph over the limit.
What’s the penalty?
24
Problem: The poor are overburdened by the criminal justice system. Accepted.
The proposed solution: Arbitrarily raise fines for the non-poor. Huh?
Hey, way to not address the actual problem! I wish I could remember the name of the Vonnegut book where parents, upset that their children were learning about sex outside a candy store after school, banned candy.
38
After several trips to the municipal court with my boneheaded son, who is currently paying off a $600 dollar traffic fines (about 2 weeks pay for him) with added collection fees and interest making it more like $750, and hearing all the cases of unfortunate people in trouble for unpaid tickets, court fines for not showing up, which in turns leads to driving with suspended license and so on, I wholeheartedly agree with this concept. To any of the "rich" folks complaining it adds on to their already expensive lifestyle and that it would be an unfair "burden", woe is me!! Would they rather go back to being poor?
24
In Finland, speeding fines are assessed as a percentage of one's annual salary. EVERYONE obeys the limits.
35
Ah the classic socialist distortion in another effort to demonize the successful.
A) Justice is blind
B) Justice applied with inequality is injustice.
What you are advocating is that justice becomes injustice.
Let us change your thesis slightly by altering the nouns. A black man and a mexican woman should not pay the same fine for breaking the same traffic law. See the point? You wouldn’t accept that form of bigotry, why would you advocate a different form?
Justice is blind for a reason, so that each of us are treated equally by the law.
41
Uh, folks, it's better to be rich. But, best, is to obey the LAW!
18
Why have fines at all? If the goal is public safety simply expand the points systems for driving licenses.
For example, start out with 50 points on your license. A 10 mph over the speed limit costs you 10 points. Rack up 5 of those and your license is gone.
40 miles over the speed limit, automatic suspension. And make the time period to regain points reasonably lengthy. Since rich and poor depend on cars, and often the well off more-so, this seems fairer to me.
It also means enforcement will not be part of a revenue scheme. And when you remove revenue from enforcement you also have an easier time convincing the public that the rules may have an actual public safety benefit.
34
What a brilliant idea and no surprise the US did NOT think of it. There is a puritan sensibility among the 1% (formerly the Blue Bloods) that poor and middle income people are lesser and should be treated as such.
10
We absolutely should do this, and we absolutely shouldn't cap the fine. If you cap the fine, it completely removes the fairness of the fine.
8
If governments pay for themselves through fines, then graduated fines would encourage police to ticket expensive cars. The drivers of these cars would be influential and use their influence either to get rid of graduated fines or to get rid of fines as a source of income for the governments levying the fines. If the fines were levied by the city and the money went to the state, the police would have no monetary incentive to go after expensive cars and the city would have no incentive to get its police to do so.
2
until the state rebates each city for the revenues they generate as to encourage more revenue generation.
1
Being a billionaire is a reflection of net worth, not income. It is possible to be a billionaire and not have any income. I'm wondering how an income based fine system would work in these scenarios.
6
That is a theoretical problem. Name one billionaire who doesn’t have any income.
2
Income should include capital gains.
In everything.
4
Use other proxies for wealth. Such as amount spent on food and travel in the previous 6 months.
1
Not too long in the past I would have agreed with the sentiment of the article that government fees and services, including speeding tickets, should be charged based on a percentage of some combination of wealth and income. Now I do not think this is correct and believe that everyone should pay the same for the same service, not a percentage. It's simply not fair to charge someone more because they have more. There are plenty of injustices out there but equal cost for the same service is not one of them.
10
“More” can be applied to both relative and absolute scales. It is a definition.
Are you suggesting that someone worth billions should be taxed the same amount as their secretary?
Same argument.
7
Cognition doesn't always improve with age. It often declines.
5
This has been a no-brainer to me for decades. Easiest place to start is parking tickets. Car owners are charged an annual excise tax based on the worth of their car - a parking ticket should also be pro-rated based on the current value of the car violating the parking law.
6
shouldn't a society simply purge those who do not, or can not, contribute? how will we progress without trimming those that refuse to contribute, no matter how little.
our justice system should ensure that every member contributes. our jails should ensure that the incarcerated contribute while they are jailed and upon release. our justice system should evaluate contributions and perhaps dismiss fines for taxpayers. non-violent offenders should simply document their anticipated contributions to avoid reduced contribution from incarceration.
/S
2
When you say “purge”, what do you mean?
This sounds pretty ominous.
6
A fair and meaningful concept to make a person pay a fine. While taxes are an obligation to society, fines are meant to send a meaning or lesson to the person committing a breach to the norm. A severe penalty to a poor person makes no sense except to beat a person when he is down. A insignificant penalty to a rich person is no penalty at all. The idea of a speeding ticket, for example, is to makes sure the person does not speed again. The poor person will probably never speed again, the rich person will continue to do as he/she pleases. I hope judges makes the fine, send a right message to the offender.
13
This is the same for all flat fees, fines and taxes. A flat amount is always regressive. So instead of highlighting only speeding tickets, to make things fair, you'd have to tackle all flat assessments, from tickets to taxes.
5
First of, not a millioner. What you are proposing is changing fines into a tax. You are proposing changing a crime into a tax. So be clear, again you want to tax more rich people. Since it is still a small crime, then if it is murder, not speedeing and the sentence is death do we kill rich people many times?
What you are talking about is what every ledt wing people talk about, you are rich you can afford it. Then rich people start having less extra money, either they stop investing or they charge more for services and products amd who suffers in the end? Poor people. We all know the rules, we all should have the same rules. And finally, you are talking about how to raise taxes for rich people.
5
You seem to miss the point completely. Are you suggesting a flat tax that is identical whether you are a billionaire or a pauper?
2
What a nutty idea! The "deep pockets philosophy" of enforcing traffic laws. The issue is automobile safety, not income, and fines are set according to the potential dangers of speeding. Is it more acceptable for a low-income person to speed than for a rich one? One can imagine police officers being told not to sweat the small stuff -- like beat-up Honda Civics -- and to tag every Corvette or Ferrari that drives by.
Lawyers would have a field day, producing briefs that argued the pros and cons of obeying speed limits. They could earn vast sums from wealthy clients, arguing the fundamental unfairness of municipal laws, questioning the accuracy of the radar guns, the possibility of sleep apnea in the arresting officer, and so on. Bring on the litigation! Not surprisingly, the writer is a lawyer from Brooklyn.
12
Justice is supposed to be blind and impartial. My advice to the billionaire and nurse: don't speed. Problem solved. No one pays a fine. [mic drop]
18
Your solution is a non-starter, as both bankers and nurses continue to speed. By your argument, “don’t murder: solved!”
6
This article sounds like a 13 year old's logic. And Finland has some very foolish extremes of socialist thinking. With this proposal police would be better off targeting expensive vehicles - much more money to be made. And do you really want police to access your personal financial records if you've overstayed a parking spot by 5 minutes? Digging through your personal assets? Ridiculous administrative task and an invasion of privacy. The fair solution might be to give people options to do community service, or to present financial difficulty to argue down the fine. But everyone should be treated equally when it comes to crime and punishment. It's still a crime they've committed after all. Don't commit them.
23
Define “equal”. Are you talking absolute equal or relative (proportional) equal? If you have it one way, you can not have it the other.
So no matter the implementation, one way or the other, there will be an unequal solution.
4
As many commenters suggest, this whole debate is resolved simply and fairly, by every standard of justice by assessing the penalty in terms of time, rather than money.
One day, two days, a week or what have you of community service depending on the violation. If the market value of your day (what you'd otherwise be earning that day) is $10,000, you should be permitted to pay that in lieu of the community service, and the dishwasher should likewise be permitted to pay his $45 to get out of it. Making the time commitment the basic punishment, but allowing that person to pay that period's wages instead is perfectly just.
19
This opinion piece is so frightening, but that the NYTimes decided to publish it is even more so. How do you know how much one makes, or what they can 'afford.' Seems the author just believes in punishing the rich and letting the 'poor' get off scott free. He doesn't seem to know how many millions work under the table and pay no taxes (most get tax credits) because the fail to report their income. And what about those in OR that asked their hours be cut when the minimum wage went up because they didn't want to lose snap, free cell phones, housing subsidies, free or minimal cost healthcare, and aid to dependent children? Of course, in states with a high illegal population, illegals will pay nothing for speeding.
Perhaps we should also inquire about the reason a parking fine is $250, or a speeding fine is $300? Is it to redistribute to those who have less (as the author obviously believes should happen) OR is it to fill the coffers of irresponsible government employees/agencies so they can continue to spend at will (plus add to salaries or pensions, etc.)?
Sounds like it's an invite to those with less to ignore the laws. Actually, that's exactly the outcome that would happen. The 'rich' - who are they? The billionaire (not many of them, and many don't even drive themselves) or is it the 'upper' middle class? These are the people paying 80% of the taxes although they make up 10%?
NYTimes, your judgement and continued identity politics hurts Dems.
34
Why is this “identity politics?” The authors identified a problem, and offered a solution. At that point, a discussion on merits can be engaged, and out of that perhaps, a stronger proposal.
By resorting to buzz phrases you return the discussion to political stereotyping.
6
Wow. “Poor get off Scott free?” This is about equal opportunity cost: which must be assessed by by how it feels to the perpetrator. I like the idea of fines being assessed by time: 1 hour of salary, one week, whatever.
It is not a deterrent to fine someone an amount that will be made up in the next second of their hourly rate.
8
Since there are not enough rich people committing fined offenses to fund the legal process, you end up with everybody paying the fines they now pay and the few rich caught paying a lot more. If the intent was getting some kind of moral retribution, you succeed. If you thought this asinine idea had an chance of reducing existing penalties, you miserably fail.
6
What's ignored in this piece is that many municipalities use tickets as a source of revenue. They have no interest in fairness. In fact the more they entrap you as per the Ferguson example, the more the courts collect. Who better to collect from than the working poor who are squeezed by the law just as effectively as if the courts were loan sharks. They can't afford lawyers so how are they going to fight back against injustice?
It's not the fine schedule that has to change. It's the laws that are not geared toward safety that have to change. My wife got a speeding ticket for driving 17 MPH in a 15 MPH zone. I got a $200 fine from the city of Philadelphia PA for driving a pick-up truck with no tail gate (and nothing in the bed of the truck). These aren't safety issues. These are make money issues. Change the laws and eliminate the incentive to use drivers as mobile ATMs.
14
"Progressivism" run amok. The costs of a citation should be commensurate with the harm (both real and potential) that speeding poses to society. In the case of speeding, how is the harm any greater when it comes from a wealthy white man than a poor back woman? The only rational argument in favor of higher fines for the wealthy is that they might discourage wealthy people from speeding in the FUTURE if they are larger. In this case we're talking about incentives rather than penalties, however.
65
The main purpose of traffic fines (and parking fines as well) is not to dole out justice, commensurate with the harm caused. It is to discourage repeat offenses. It just needs to be painful enough to get the offender's attention. The purpose is not to cripple them. So making the fine proportional to a person's income or wealth seems very appropriate. They do this in Norway too. I wonder if the U.S. is actually in the minority here?
20
Do you think the same about taxes?
4
It's about time this idea got some press. Proportional loss of time for all, where money payments reflect time. Thus, when some one suggests that the fine should fit the crime, the answer is the same proportion of annual income or the same number of hours in community work. Annual income, not wages, to correct for race- and age-based differences in wealth and income.
5
As an 80 year old retiree I should be allowed to hire an unemployed teenager to perform the assessed community work. The teenager wins, society benefits, my pocketbook is punished. and a lawyer is kept out of the unemployment line.
as long as I can hire someone to perform the same hours of community work I could support your proxy idea.
Same dollars worth of hours, of course, paid to the court system. As an 80 yo retiree on social security only, that would be one dollar amount. As an 80 yo retiree with a big portfolio, the amount would be much higher. Equal time, because you need an equal lesson for your malfeasance that led to the initial penalty.
3
Seems like Mr. Schierenbeck is making the case for a flat income tax...interesting. As I worked hard for 45 years in order to be able to not be dependent on the Feds for my retirement, I would have enjoyed a tax rate affordable for all. Maybe 10 or 15%? Well, at least we know how Justice Breyer (the author's new boss) will vote if this matter arrives at SCOTUS. All that said, I like the idea of (equal) community service for parking offenses in lieu of fines.
1
Actually, your comment raises an interesting option: how about graduated fines for offenses? Might offset some of those recent tax giveaways to the rich.
slavery (community service) as a social compliance tool. we have indeed come a long way.
I believe this is what the authors are proposing
A much needed, stimulating, clear and well written article. At issue is what we decide to underpin the objectives, and functioning, of any legal control system. If it is restorative justice, as an ethic, value, goal, and well-demonstrated process, and not blind punishment as an additional budgetary resource, then we should surely do what is necessary to include "just controls" as enabling equitable well being, while serving to teach that there are consequences to what one does. As well as what one chooses not to do.
This may be even more important during these divisive times when leaders, and "commoners," like most of US, at all levels, in all areas, and not only policymakers in DC, not having to take personal responsibility for their harmful, violating words and deeds. Which should not have been said or done, Nor for much needed helpful words and deeds, not implemented, when they should have been. And could have been! Different strokes for different folks, in whatever language, is not just a mantra. It's a realistic, menschlich, guideline for daily living. Interacting. BEING.
Perhaps The Times would like to apply the same variable pay schedule to the subscribers of their paper.
11
Or perhaps we should just tax everyone the identical amount: that would be moving the line in a different direction
2
In addition to the fine, how about all the Nassau, NY surcharges? Our politicians say they are not raising taxes, but the fees squeeze hard. In addition, there is a surcharge to pay online. That's adding insult to injury especially when you are trying to avoid losing a day's pay to go to court to pay the ticket.
We could always go a step further. Give a choice for the sentence to the crime: 1) either pay 1% of your monthly/yearly income depending on the crime; or 2) spend 500/5000/10000 hours of community service depending on the crime. The choice would be the person who committed the crime. Naturally, they would take the lesser costing method. Everything would depend on the seriousness of the crime as to the size of the penalty.
"Amid a flourishing national movement to reform our criminal justice system and tackle income inequality, the progressive fine is an idea whose time may finally have come"
I admire your optimism Mr Schierernbeck, but am not so sure that there is so much of a " flourishing national movement" to reform the criminal justice system (which is in dire need of reform and repair in so many ways, at so many levels) but in regards to tackling income equality...the only thing that is flourishing on that issue is the ever increasing levels and rise of even greater levels of income inequality even further and more blatantly than any other time than as at perhaps the Late 19th century and the period known as The Gilded Age when income equality and social problems were at the highest levels ever seen in America.
Unless things change, The Gilded Age might soon have a challenger to that dubious achievement.
1
I couldn't agree more. As a cop on patrol in the 70's and early 80's I issued summonses (or let the driver go with a warning) based on two main factors. First, the danger posed to the public by the violation; and second, the harm it could cause to the violator by issuing the summons. I spared no one who committed a dangerous violation, but we could use discretion for minor, non-dangerous violations. I was much more likely to issue the summons to a well dressed driver of an expensive car than to a poor guy in a jalopy. Sound unfair? Hey, we have to level the scales of justice, and if the government won't do it, I would do what I could.
10
What you could not know is whether the guy in the expensive car was in a lease he could not afford and had credit cad debt that made him poorer than the guy in the jalopy. Leave it to a judge. Please.
6
In Flatbush, the most expensive cars are Mercedes, BMWs, and Audis, all parked on the street, which means they don't belong to the sometimes very expensive private homes in the neighborhood. I guess those cars are leased. Lots of Section-8 families in the apartment buildings. Liberals tell me, "They have nothing else, so they have a nice car." That sort of reasoning is why my liberal thinking is now tempered . . . .
4
I'm a prosecutor and have long believed the rich often get off with a pat on the hand for violating the law because of the inequity of fines/forfeitures and costs assessed against those found guilty of everything from minor traffic offenses to more serious crimes.
One way we could address the inequity was to have a poor person pay only the costs associated with the offense, BUT, the offender must first plead "Not Guilty" so the offender could negotiate the offense and then an offer to settle could be made. Another "but" is that the offender has to know they can go to Court. Generally for minor traffic offenses they can even plead "Not Guilty" by mail.
Another impediment prosecutors have in these cases is that the fine is only a fraction of the monetary penalty. Often the costs assessed by the Court is much more than the fine and as prosecutors we can't waive the costs.
In more serious criminal offenses, many low income people don't qualify for a Public Defender or a Court Appointed Attorney and can't afford to hire their own. As a prosecutor I always made sure I treated pro se defendants the same as represented defendants. That said, we don't represent defendant so the defendant must inform us of mitigating facts, circumstances & defenses, but we must also ask the right questions.
Prosecutors often don't have time to spend more than a few minutes with defendants and that is also why its important to adequately staff prosecutor offices. No time = No Justice.
4
Terrible idea. The penalty must focus on the nature of the infraction, not on the economic circumstances of the person who committed it.
8
That's right. If you can't afford the consequences, don't commit the infraction.
2
Depends on whether you are factoring the penalty as money or time.
This proposal -- of which I approve -- introduces an ancillary issue: Disclosing one's income. There are a lot of folk obsessed with their "right to privacy" -- which, incidentally, appears nowhere in the Constitution -- and who will fight having to do so. Imposing, then, the maximum fine -- or jail time, if applied to criminal offenses -- seems the solution. Then hear the howls of indignation.
3
privacy is addresses in the constitution in the fourth amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
6
The government already knows your income via tax returns
5
Idiocy abounds in this piece.
"Other places have saner methods. Finland and Argentina, for example, have tailored fines to income for almost 100 years. The most common model, the “day fine,” scales sanctions to a person’s daily wage. A small offense like littering might cost a fraction of a day’s pay. A serious crime might swallow a month’s paycheck. Everyone pays the same proportion of their income."
What do you think the odds are that governments might take the opportunity provided by tailored fines to tailor enforcement? It isn't as if government *ever* turns down an opportunity to stuff its coffers. The certain outcome is targeting visibly well off people, followed by an increased incentive for graft, as well off people try to buy their way out of the "offense", then shedding trappings of being well off.
The author didn't give any of that a moment's thought, any more than he substantiated his implicit claim that since fines don't deter rich people nearly to the extent they do poor people, the rich break the law more.
The problem of parasitic government isn't going to get fixed by feeding the parasite more.
11
I totally agree. In law, in a civil case, we can ask a jury to award punitive damages in cases where behavior reckless or intentional. The measure is the amount to "sting" the defendant. And so - in that event - the jury considers income/wealth as what will "sting" depends. It serves as a punishment - a meaningful one - and - hopefully - as a deterrent. In most states (I believe) you cannot insure for punitive damages because it violates public policy. So the "sting" is felt by the wrongdoer. (Now, honestly, with corporations, I don't think this works at all - the wrongdoers rarely feel any "sting" at all because they are so overcompensated to start with and the corporation bails them out. (Unless they are low lever and then they are hung out to dry.)) The whole system is a disaster. Our Republic is - as Lawrence Lessig, has written so eloquently, Lost.
3
Thousands of young men of color are kept in jails and prisons (where they learn how to be criminals, what it's like to be beaten up, intimidated, raped, and otherwise abused, because they can't come up with a few hundred dollars or thousand dollars to pay bail. Private prisons make huge amounts of money on this practice. Lives are ruined -- imagine if we put these kids on probation, instead, if they had to go to school, learn high paying skills, learn socially acceptable behavior, empathy, grooming, be given a chance to have productive, loving lives? We have failed to "habilitate" these youths, in the first place. We can "rehabilitate" far cheaper than we can incarcerate them. We can make them assets to our society and our economy. Duh? We can also train and employ the guards for more productive lives. Oh, I forgot. The prison industry has a strong lobby.
3
and why not the same for shoplifting. or armed robbery for that matter, a needs test ought to influence sentencing.
the demands of "basic fairness" and "equity" have us equal under the law...if the prices of traffic fines are too high, get them changed and, next time you're hit, car totalled and maybe you in a sling, thanks to an uninsured driver, (who will likely be someone front the economic margins) maybe one with a suspended license and/or registration to boot, call back about your own financial stress therefrom.
1
Individually-designed punishment! Wow, that should be easy to enforce.
2
We already do this every April 15.
Alec, have you lost your mind?! Has the far left lost their mind? What ever happened to 'equal treatment' under the law? Are you saying that those that make less money than, what - the average?, others shouldn't be held to the same rules? If you're poor, go ahead and park where you like, drive at your own speed. Kill someone - it's okay, you don't have much money so it's not your fault?
Where did you come from?!
16
"Ma," have *you* lost *your* mind? Do you think $150 is the same punishment to M. Zuckerberg or B. Gates that it is to a semi-employed nurse who can't pay her rent & spends her life staring into the abyss of potential homelessness? Or as a result of the fine would have to switch to a diet of pure starch for a month, or forgo much needed medicine, or be plunged further into ruin from inability, for want of that $150, to pay her payday loan shark institution? Or the guy who will lose his job because loss of that $150 will prevent his getting to work? Or for the guy who for want of that $150 will miss a payment on his Citibank card (which he'd used to pay medical bills) & see his APR skyrocket to 29.76%?
If you think this is hyperbole, I'm sure you'll just go on thinking whatever thoughts make it easier to enjoy your relative luxury, whatever level you're at. But this is the reality for a great many, who are by no means lazy deadbeat good-for-nothings (quite the opposite, as in those categories mere survival entails heroic efforts far eclipsing anything Mr. Zuckerberg must do playing at his keyboard to tweak the next social media irrelevant incremental innovation for which he'll be compensated $400 million).
The degree to which some of you folks have been brainwashed by the school/marketplace ideology-propaganda of "meritocracy" is mindboggling, truly staggering. If you built physical churches with a big dollar sign on the roof, it wouldn't be any more perversely cultish.
5
So it seems it's always ok to discriminate against the successful in the New York Times. That said, this proposal is idiotic on its face. Just what America needs, police profiling the wealthy for traffic stops to raise local revenues. This is just another "soak the rich" scheme put forward by yet another echo-chamber "progressive."
14
Because there is absolutely no profiling going on now. Oh wait, different group of people who do not count.
So sorry for our oppressed billionaires.
I think this would fail the "cruel and unusual punishment" test.
I so fully and completely agree. This is logical and right.
2
A lawless society is when the majority of people feel hopeless about the fairness of the legal system, then they ignore it altogether. Laws supposedly restore fairness, justice, provide restitution, but they also serve as deterrence to the potential offenders. If money, a fine, is used as the preferred deterrent, then it loses effectiveness against the rich and increase unfairness in society. For some type of infraction against the safety of the citizens, best to abolish fine as a deterrent. Send the offenders to jail or to perform community service.
3
In Ferguson, MO, your scaled fine systems will drove the town's revenue into disappear, since Mr. Zuckerberg dose not live there, he dose not drive on the city's road, speeding, therefore, he will not received a ticket and pay his fine.
Instead, the Janitor lives there.
Traffic violation ticket counts larger portion of the revenue for the poor community than the richer community.
Fines are currently, and in my opinion rightly, based on the severity and degree of danger posed by the offense. Is a janitor doing 80 less dangerous to the people around him than Mr. Zuckerberg? I do not see that as being the case. In fact, since Mr. Z can afford regular upkeep to his vehicle, his offense may be less of a danger.
Also, I see no reason why the degree of success one has in the world should lead to greater punishments. If a rich man kills someone should he serve more time than a poor man? By this author's implication, that would be the case.
3
A related issue is the outrageous cost if one's car is towed. A friend of mine who was struggling on the brink of homelessness loaned his car to someone, who parked it illegally and it was towed. Friend didn't learn this until several days later, at which point the towing and ludicrous daily storage fees had already reached $800, which of course he didn't have. Within a couple more days, the storage fees exceeded the value of the car. Friend lost his car permanently. Why can you park all day even at the airport for maybe $30 but "parking" at the impound lot is $150/day? If this happened to me, I would have cursed and pulled out my credit card to pay the ransom but to a poor person the penalty for a parking infraction is essentially govt confiscation of the vehicle.
4
Unfortunately, your point is hopelessly beyond the intellectual capacity, moral imagination, and empathy quotient of our loutish, intellectually and morally impaired social darwinists opining in this forum. (They're the ones saying "Only the same fine for everybody is fair," too obtuse to realize that $150 for Mark Zuckerberg is not the same as $150 for a semi-employed nurse.)
4
I heartily agree with the concept (theoretically could be in proportion to disposable income).
I also think that repeat offenders whose cases never go to court should be investigated. When these individuals or companies have financial means, they keep settling out of court, and basically fly under the radar of law enforcement.
Instead a law could mandate that legal settlements, even those that never go to court in the first place, have to be recorded in a public repository. Then repeat offenders (say of sexual harassment, or fraudulent individuals and companies) could be monitored for the same behavior, eventually triggering a mandatory investigation. It would put a brake on bad behavior that is being repeated because the consequences are not enough to deter.
2
What exactly is "disposable income" ? The stuff you pay to the government or the stuff you give to charity?
I agree disposable income can be gamed.
Absolute income (factoring in capital gains etc) not so much.
1
Special treatment for people who are less successful?
What a stupid idea.
You scream about equality, yet, segregate at will.
6
Not less successful, less fortunate in a society already tilted toward the fortunate.
2
"less fortunate"? Do you mean that those with means were given their success? I brought up in a household so poor the "kitchen" had no sink, dishes were washed in a pan filled in the bathroom, 4 of us in under 400 sqft. I worked every summer, starting at age 14 (illegally employed), put myself through school, finally earning a PhD, then worked my butt off starting, building a small software house -- maxed out at 30 employees -- and made some money -- not a fortune, but more than the average American.
I wasn't "more fortunate." I earned every penny.
8
You broke the almighty law? Sounds like you should be docked those wages and the fruits of those wages you've been enjoying your entire life, since you advocate an uncompassionate standard of strict justice.
2
Yes they should!
3
Please re-read the opinion piece. Punishing the rich is not the point here at all.
2
ah, but it is. it is a thinly veiled attempt to enrich the entitled lawyer class at the expense of the working class.
3
Major constitutional problems with that
4
I received a ticket for 4 miles over in a school zone years ago, it was $350. When I went to pay it I told the clerk that I made enough money that 350 was not really going to change my finances in any appreciable way but I asked her what do people do that make significantly less than me. She said many don't or can't so they get warrants issued against them for non payment and additional costs just start piling up. I thought how crazy is this that 4 miles over a speed limit could so screw up a persons life. When people say the system is rigged it is just not necessarily the way they think. This is a good idea whose time has come. Though can't see this happening in the red states of America.
5
If someone can't afford the $350 ticket for speeding through a school zone then perhaps they should surrender their car so that they are not a threat to our school children.
5
Happens every day, and lives are routinely ruined that way once the chain reaction sets in. Based on so many of the comments here trivializing and disacknowledging this fact, I conclude that the "morality" (or rather wickedness) of Sodom and Gemorrah, defined by cruel indifference -even mandatory cruelness and indifference- to the plight of the poor, has been revived in this country.
I'm amazed that even in so liberal a paper as this one such crass, callous, and coarse inhumanity is expressed so forthrightly. Am I being judgemental and sanctimonious? No, I'm indeed characterizing these barbarians' opinions too generously and kindly only because moderators strictly hold us to nicey-nicey standards. But the truth is, to those who hold the other way: You are indeed barbarians.
3
Yawn. Another NY Times piece on social justice where achievement is hated, and is punished. Somebody please read "The Ant and the Grasshopper".
6
Your comment makes no sense. Do you think the janitor works any less hard than Zuckerburg? We can't all be the creator of Facebook. And in the story you reference the grasshopper refuses to work, the janitor and the nurse most certainly are working, and working quite hard.
3
Yes, do read that fable because all conservative policy is based on fairy tales.
3
Story mentions a black woman from Missouri who got a $151 fine.
Why is her race mentioned here?
Does this writer assume all black women are poor?
4
But they are a protected class which is the means for an entitled lawyer to make a buck off the taxpayer.
5
I don’t think your point addresses the underlying proposal of this piece.
While we are at it, why don’t you object to the use of the word “woman”?
With this SJW/activist - like idea and many reader comments in support of it, I feel like back in the not-so-good old communist regime.
"Let's soak the rich" seems to be an irresistible urge to too many Americans?
4
Leftist ideology gone mad. Leave it alone. Jordan Peterson, please come forward and take centre stage and tell the twits with ideas like this what it's really about.
2
The asymptotic limit of this apex - this anti-abyss - of progressive intellect is that when penniless people commit an infraction, they should be paid for their trouble - which was obviously caused by privileged white people...
Perhaps:
> For turnstile-jumping, a monthly NYC subway pass - and a credit for a podiatrist visit and massage, in case a foot caught on one of the barriers and injured
> For robbery, a percent or two of the victim's wealth - and a surtax on the better-heeled folks living within a block of the occurrence
As far as the ultrachoate thinking that:
"A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn’t Pay the Same Fine for Speeding"
Billionaires should simply hire nurses to do their driving for them - while requiring them to drive "really fast" and wear scandalously-tight uniforms...
> A nurse's uniform, if the billionaire is a he and the nurse a she
> A driver's uniform, if the other way around
> Just about anything that comes to mind, in any other case
Of course, the driver must be paid a pittance to keep the fines low...
But - in the interest of egalitarianism - they are welcome to snuggle in the back seat with the billionaire when the car isn't moving...
Looking ahead - with:
> Autonomous cars, the driver/nurse can be replaced by a robot...
> Progressivism, the billionaire can be replaced by one...
3
How a out relating the fine to an amount of time?
I don't care what the fine is. I just want the cops to actually ticket all the jerks who blow through the intersection I have to walk across on my way to work even after their light has turned red and I'm halfway across the street. OK, maybe tack on extra for the ones who give ME a dirty look.
4
Of course a nurse and billionaire should pay the same for a ticket. It has to do with t he crime committed and nothing to do with ability to pay. Stop your leftist and American socialism.
8
But rewarding the already over-wealthy with more of my tax money is not socialism for capitalists? None are more wrong than Libertarians.
3
Our most important commodity is time. So fine using a time-based rubric.
so now rich is getting punished for everything , when did we start punishing people for being above average thrn lets bring out equal wage for everyone
3
Oh yes those poor abused rich people. Already hurt so much by the most recent tax bill.
2
Typical scandinavian nonsense being spouted by an idiot. By this absurd logic, a 60 year-old should only get 5-y3ars imrpisonment for murder while a 20-year old should get 25 years, since this would consume an equal percentage of remaining life-expectancy of each of the culprits, for the same crime. Also, should we not consider that Zuckerberg speeding for work and getting there on time can perhaps add a billion dollars to the the GDP, while the janitor being absent 2-days is a matte of indifference to the economy? So we should perhaps go the other way and ALLOW productive members of society to speed all they want and apply traffic rules only to the ones whose time is worth little or nothing to the society at large? One sees the absurdist arguments one can develop once you buy these illogical concepts as advances in social justice!
6
Not sure why Scandinavian is nonsense. Have you investigated world happiness indexes? Are you suggesting the Scandinavian countries are suffering form their ideas?
4
So a person with no income can drive 100 mph with zero penalty???
Get real!
4
Agreed.
2
Why not return to flogging?
3
Oh what's not to like about the Finnish system?
"the head of Finnish communications giant Nokia was ordered to pay a $103,000 fine for his speeding ticket in 2002. Officers pulled over Anssi Vanjoki on his cherry red Harley Davidson in Helsinki" doing 47mph in a 30mph zone.
Yes!
2
I've already had my chance in this forum and that's usually my golden rule but the uninformed opinions here are really misleading. Although it's nice to think that we are all treated equally in this society (as Anatole France observed both the rich and the poor are forbidden to sleep under the bridge at night), it is simply not true that wealth and income are forbidden private areas from which the government is excluded. In civil trials of all kinds, income and wealth are explicitly considered as recognized relevant factors in assessing punitive damages. It takes no great intelligence to understand that such damages (very similar to traffic fines in their function) must be proportional to the defendant's wealth and income if they are to perform their function of punishment in all its aspects. The law may be an idiot, as Shakespeare suggested, but thankfully it is not a moron, I suppose.
3
Are you referring to the Beadle calling the law "a ass" in Oliver Twist? From reading many comments here, I think many writing in this forum wish to re-institute the work-houses that figure so prominently in that story.
What a crass bunch of wealth idolaters.
3
I thought it was Dickens, not Shakespeare, who wrote Oliver Twist
3
Base traffic laws on a class system? What an interesting approach. If we are to view traffic laws through the lens of class we'll to satisfy a few questions. Is a wealthy person's vehicle more dangerous than a middle class person's vehicle? Is someone who makes a six figure salary more reckless than someone who makes minimum wage? If two people commit the same traffic infraction, can the one who has a higher income be more guilty? Your argument to treat an individual who cannot afford to pay a fine more compassionately is good, but you expose your personal bias when you suggest that the wealthy should be punished more more severely.
3
What about the nurse?
1
As Christ said we gotta hammer the poor to give to the rich.
1
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's .
1
Two people rob a bank of $1000 under identical circumstances. One proves to be destitute while the other a person of means.
Did they commit different crimes? Ought their penalties be different?
The person of means always agrees to pay the bank back the $1000 along with some interest. That is their fair punishment. The person that doesn't make the agreement is a criminal and should be removed from society.
How long do you think it will take for a court to decide that the precedent of fines being proportionate to a person's income or wealth works in criminal cases as well? If the rich person has income from stocks and other investments and doesn't need a job for income he can easily serve 10 years for an offense a poor person would get a 5 years for.
The premise of equality before the law would be overturned with this kind of thinking.
1
Just use a time metric.
Are Finland and Germany failed socialist states? That's news to me. Argentina has serious issues, but not because of communism or socialism.
1
Sorry, but things are as they should be. That's one of the benefits of being wealthy, insulation against the discomforts of being poor. Our goal should be success and the ability to individually support ourselves. We should be rewarding the successful and penalizing the underachievers - to an even greater degree, if you ask me. You have a choice: drive under the speed limit, stop at red lights, and don't park where your not supposed to. If you can't afford the risks then you can't afford to drive.
3
Norwegian justice: the fine is based on your monthly income. The cases where the driver is just below the point of losing his license (yes, it happens): one and a half month's income. Seems fair to me.
2
Drew Carey told a joke about driving his sports car too fast in the cold and rain. The police officer who pulled him over, while standing in the miserable weather asked “Do you know why I pulled you over?” Drew replied, “Do you know why I was speeding?”
Sounds like another lame attempt at wealth redistribution. Obey the laws. Plain and simple.
1
Excuse me, how is the skin color of a woman, struggling to pay the fine, relevant to the story?
1
Why is it relevant that she is a woman?
how about lashes?
As an advocate for ALL people with disabilities, in the 90s I was one of the first 5 people to join the City of Houston's Volunteer Disabled Parking Enforcement Program. This program allows citizens to issue $235 (now $500) parking citations to people who park in disabled parking spaces without disabled license plates or properly displaying disabled parking placards.
I don't care if it's a Jaguar, Ford Pinto or UPS Delivery van, if the vehicle doesn't have the disabled parking identification, the car is issued the citation. It is the DRIVER/OWNER who parked the car is responsible for paying the fine.
That is NOT economic WARFARE it is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY/CHOICE.
6
Why should we even have disabled parking where there are affordable modes of public transport and inexpensive personal transportations modes like Uber and Lyft? The means of accommodation for those with disabilities needs to be periodically reexamined.
A legally indefensible idea in this country. The fine system is a putrid, corrupt mess, but this is not the way to fix it.
4
How is it legally indefensible? It does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, or any other such prohibited category. In fact, it is the only way to serve the perfectly legal function of discouraging violations.
stupid idea...not to mention it's illegal under the constitution. Should a billionaire's Big Mac cost 1000 times that of a student? Should the author's fines be 10 times more than a student?
If you have a problem with your community's obscene efforts to generate revenue- which is what thee things are- then vote against them.
3
Should the rich man and the poor man pay the same price for murder?
3
False equivalence
Following this logic, you might as well consider most things that has a flat cost profile an injustice for all "low income" people.
I'd argue that the OP expresses non-conformative, anticapitalistic opinions.
2
Nope. Just the opposite. It recognizes reality, that the rich are not discouraged from violating the law by what for them are mere nuisance fines.
1
Absolutely right!
Duh, you've just figured this out? Return to keeping us poor by reversing Amscot predatory and similar changes to pay day loans,and back to deregulating the banks again.
I'm still awe that you think you found some enormous secret.
1
Why stop here
People who make more money should spend more time in jail for money laundering, or tax evasion
People who make more money should pay more for steak
People who make more money make Mr Schierenbeck angry. They must be punished
Oh. And they should pay more for public transportation
1
In Finland they practice progressive punishment, so a traffic ticket can cost a person a fortune. See NYTimes article from April 15, 2015, "Speeding in Finland can cost a fortune, if you already have one."
I’ve got a simple solution. Don’t break the law. End of story.
3
You think that is going to happen?
The blindness is at the core of the laws which have been set on the stone since Sumerian 4000+ years ago otherwise why would we even need them? The opinion such as this is a curse for the liberal and it will certainly lose in every election when promulgated in front of the public.
The problem is that unelected social justice warriors like Mr, Schierenbeck will implement these corruptive concepts as bureaucrats from within the justice system.
1
It is also terribly unfair that I pay the same amount of money to access the “newspaper of record”while someone richer than I can afford this publication without any sacrifice. Similarly, a working person may not have the means to get access to it at all. Terribly unfair.
2
you are probably joking but go to the local library and read it for free,
2
How about not speeding?
1
If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.
1
This would end when a New York Times newspaper delivery truck ran a red light and the company was fined $80 million because it has $1.6 billion in revenue. There would be a lot of hurumphing in the boardroom and then Mr diBlasio would be summoned to make a change.
4
Why do people think nurses are poor?
2
That is the biggest line of bunk I’ve heard from the NYT. Let’s take this to the next step. The person speeding dosn’t read or speak English do they need to be fined? Oh wait, I come from a suppressed minority, I should not have to pay as much as those rich “white” people. Or how about this, I’ve committed a crime but because I’m poor, I shouldn’t get the same jail time and rich people who commit the same crime. Equality, under the law is the foundation of this country. Do not mix income inequality with the legal system or you’ll have no legal system at all.
4
There is a simple solution to this problem...don't break the law in the first place.
2
I’ve seen a person in a really nice car park in front of a fire hydrant off of 5th Avenue here in NYC. This article has some merit.
What would be the fine for a billionaire impersonating a president?
7
Another idiotic idea. How is the enforcement agency going to get a speeder's salary information? More intrusive government seems to be in the progressive playbook.
3
I’ve long bee I’ve long been a big believer in progressive fines, but I wish the author had shared some thoughts on how we should address the grey area of hired drivers. Whether cabbies, car service, or chauffeur, hired drivers are under some level of pressure or leverage from their passengers. One can easily imagine a scenario where a rich person keeps a driver on staff or retainer who can be relied upon to speed at their direction with the aim that any fine would reflect the drivers modest income rather than the passengers. Sadly, finding people willing to take the ticket in return for a job and reimbursement for tickets would not be hard in this economic era.
We can certainly find was to address such evasion; progressive fines are a reform we should have adopted decades ago. I would love to hear more from the author on addressing such fine details in a future op-ed.
Hey how about you actually tax the wealthy too, and perhaps even more??
2
Portionality is the key -- if income/wealth of the offender. x% of personal income/wealth of offender.
Portionality:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
--Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book Chapter I l Pt Il,
2
There’s a flourishing movement to address income inequality??
High time. Can you imagine a $100 fine for a broken taillight when your earning minimum wage (=15K/year) in Ferguson? No one should have to suffer like this.
There is no justice in America.
2
I can’t think of a proposal more likely to guarantee unequal treatment of drivers based on their car’s appearance. Furthermore a rich person who speeds more already pays more....because they speed more. Did this author bounce this idea off a single other person, or even think about it for 5 min?
2
Don't be so sure. Plenty of Mercedes, Audis, and BMWs parked on the street in my neighborhood. If they belonged to the stately homes several blocks away, they'd be in driveways. So my guess is that they belong to people living in the apartment buildings and tenements, some of whom have welfare and Section-8 subsidies.
Traffic violation tickets are often dishonestly issued--and beaten. Got a nice speeding fine once in Gorham (pronounced same as "gore 'em") Maine--cop said we (in a 4 cylinder sedan pulling a full trailer) were going 50 right after the light changed, which really wasn't possible, much less correct. This did not matter to him. "You're from out of state," he told us when handing over the ticket, and "we've been stopping out of staters all day, coming off the freeway." It was pretty much "I'm sticking you with this and there's nothing you can do." He was right too, since Ohio backs up tickets issued in Maine, and it would cost more to drive back to contest it than to pay the $50. Besides, think you'd ever get 'em to admit a mistake--or worse?
3
Baloney. The concept of paying a fine based upon what you earn is socialism. Speeding is a civil infraction and the penalty should be the same as the infraction is the same. If you wish to use this "logic", you must socialize the entire economy. Is that what you want?
3
In Switzerland, fines are proportional to income/fortune since 2010 after a referendum on the subject. Works quite well and this is fairer, even for a conservative country like mine.
290'000$ is the biggest fine emitted to a Ferrari driver (22million of fortune) for speeding.
81
Excellent idea, although you won't get any republican to vote for it.
Or one could obey the speed limit?
1
More whining and useless class resentment drivel. Accountability is an equal opportunity employer.
2
A billionaire’s vote should count for, say 1000 votes, in an election since he pays so much more in taxes than a nurse.
No?
2
federal voting proportional to their federal tax payments. if the billionaire doesn't contribute tax revenue, no vote. deferred taxes, deferred vote.
different for local elections. if it is a property tax funded political district, voting proportional to property taxes paid. if it is a sales tax funded political district, votes proportional to the sales taxes paid. if it is not a tax funded district, then perhaps one person, one vote.
It actually does
Argentina as a model society? The economies of failed communist and socialist states as examplars?
And those who have no money? No fine deters them so we must incarcerate them for trivial offenses.
And those who are good? We must increase the fines on them because the infrequency of their fines will cause them to be more likely to offend.
Also, those who have long lives should have longer prison sentences. Old people. Those with aged parents, from whom the children have inherited longevity.
Yours is a particularly evil idea.
3
It would be nice if speeders would stop speeding.
1
Nice thought but clearly illegal and unconstitutional.
1
Losing points, then your license, is the real deterrent for those with money.
1
Disagree with your opinion. A person's wealth is a product of his efforts. If someone chooses not to strive, so be it. They do not get a discount on a traffic ticket. Another liberal minded way to take money from hardworking people and give it to society. They already pay the lion's share of income tax.
3
An idea so bad it takes a law school education to think it is useful.
4
This is really a pitch to put more money in the pockets of lawyers. If the cost of the fine rises based on a person's wealth, the amount paid to a lawyer to fight the fine will raise as well.
A lawyer advocating for a fiscal change is only motivated by their self-serving interests.
1
The author fails to see how the US sees "equality". The vision is that we are all equal, have an equal opportunity to become wealthy and have an equal.chance to make the rules/laws that will benefit "us" and keep the unwashed masses away from "us". Orwell sums this up as All animals are created Equal, in large letters, but in smaller letter Some are more equal than others.
Having lived in places where fines were based upon your income, it did seem fairer and more equal to a point. But it was no more of a deterrent as.rich or poor both believe THEY will not get caught this time. My neighbor racked up multiple $10k euro speeding tickets over the years that I have known him. It was the demand from his wife to sell his beloved Maserati for a VW Golf or she would divorce him, that slowed him down.
Another instance of the chattering classes doing what they do best, being patronizing. Not surprised at all. If you want to see a fairer society make university free instead of 50 to 100k a year. Find the money for THAT in your progressive balanced budget by putting the world’s greatest killing machine on a diet. Everything else is cigar talk.
1
We can make it free by just nationalizing the universities. Make all the staff and professors public employees on fixed pay scales with campus housing. Students would be required to work for the campus as part of their education, anything from building maintenance to child care for the staff, to keep costs down. Just because you or your parents have some extra money saved up shouldn't allow you to get out of the campus employment or go to a better campus with better professors and better outcomes. /S
Reminds me of the Andy Griffith Show episode where big shot Danny Thomas gets a speeding ticket going through Mayberry and gets a huge fine, for that very reason, to make it hurt.
You got that right! And I shouldn't pay the same for a head of lettuce as a billionaire does. We need more and more of this "Bernie" social re-engineering.
1
Were it only true they paid the same. The billionaire gets most things cheaper because he belongs to Costco or equivalent, or buys in quantity. Everything is cheaper (like credit) when you're rich.
1
Here is novel idea: don't break the law!
1
Ah, yes, more cultural Marxism published by the Opinion Kingdom: "But giving wealthy offenders a mere slap on the wrist makes a mockery of that objective."
The real objective is to increase revenue to the city's treasury. But that minor point aside, this is nothing more than another version of the Vonnegut "Harrison Bergeron" approach--tie fifty-pound weights around Michael Jordan's legs and see how high he can fly.
So much unfairness and inequality on God's earth where to being for the ardent Cultural Marxist.
Point of fact: To make the parking ticket as painful to a family with several million in assets "equal" (a Marxist's favorite word) to a family just above the poverty line the state would have to take away the Tesla that the ticket was placed on. Pshaw.
Because rich or poor same mentality is at work with such things. But want to do damage to the rich and change behavior, make them do community service in the inner-cities.
Of course, that would be "unequal", too, but who cares when we're really only interested in punishing the rich--what's really the point here.
4
Maybe this will convince people to rely on others for income while not working themselves so that they can break any law without paying anything!
2
The solution is simple. Don't break the law.
1
What about the unemployed?
1
And if the speeding gets someone killed, does the family of the killed one get a sliding scale for their grief? Breaking laws that are based on safety isn't negotiable.
2
I find it interesting that the "You broke the law! So sad, too bad!" argument is being disproportionately applied to the poorer folks.
Do you have demerit points in the US? Rack up enough of them and you lose your driver's licence, regardless of your income.
2
Yet another poorly thought out idea. The True rich dont show Income, so how would you scale their fine?
1
I can't believe how inane the objections are: "same crime, same fine?" "how would you compute income?" I never read comments so devoid of common sense, from any party, any political persuasion. Seriously; I do not exaggerate my bewilderment in the least.
Then these folks have the coarse obtuseness to say: "yeah, it's rough to pay a $100 fine when you're broke, but just pay it (or just finance it, says another), I find such comments truly obscene in their willful indifference to the point the author makes.
To most of you writing that sort of drivel, $100 is the tips you leave for your lattes at starbucks, & for others it's their bus money to get to work, without which they'll get fired & wind up evicted, homeless, losing custody of children in the process. This happens every day, & if you don't undertake or believe it, take your head out of the receptacle into which you should be pouring your precious lattes. And you have the nerve to belittle the author & his point by calling him an irrelevant fantasyland socialist?
Equal punishment means equal in impact, which can only mean proportional to resources. Whoever rejects this is an affront to the idea of justice.
How to implement? Who cares if it's only approximate? Oh man, do you folks quibble frivolously. Here: Fill out a form: the value of your home, your car, your average paycheck, your bank account, stocks; assign point value in each category, determine on scale 1-100 your economic status/resources, & scale the fine.
1
"& for others it's their bus money to get to work, without which they'll get fired & wind up evicted, homeless, losing custody of children in the process."
Do you see the irony in your comment? We're talking about speeding tickets and you mention bus money.
Side note: I feel no remorse for the losing custody of children, don't have children if you're poor. Wait a few years, save up money, climb the economic ladder, having kids during a period of economic insecurity is reckless and immoral.
1
Just wait while I Google the facility where you should be required to turn in your own children should you suffer a major downturn in your finances (maybe resulting from a severe medical or health issue, or or job being automated out by the latest billionaire programmer wiz kid's latest app, or perhaps your employer closing shop because he -unheard of, sure, because the rich are virtuous and poor are immorality parasites, I get it- turns out to be a crook), or perhaps for efficiency's sake (you strike me as an efficiency person) you'd prefer them dispatched in your own home.
1
Actually, Andrew, in the 1920s and 1930s my mother-in-law and her sisters were in and out of orphanages because their mother was ill and their father was working very hard to earn a living. Their cousins, too, were in orphanages periodically when their father died and their mother could not, because she was trying to run a business, care for them.
They all turned out very well.
Much better, in fact, than children who remain with their drug-addicted parents (or parent), or with parents who leave them alone so that they could go out and party.
Much better indeed than the poor little girl in Maine who, when her mother got remarried, was taken from her grandparents' care and given over to her mother and new stepfather who beat her and then ultimately killed her.
If Trump had his way the billionaire would pay $1 and the nurse $100!
1
I think people who drive 116 mph on a public road, call themselves a "judge", and go on national TV every week railing against "illegals" shouldn't be allowed to drive.
And no, I'm not talking about Jeannine Pirro specifically - she was driving 119 mph.
Yes,, they should......it's fair and equitable.
Are we supposed to pull our our bank statement each time we're pulled over ?
If something like this were implemented I would probably just reduce any additional expense from the amount of charitable donations since that is the most flexible part of my annual budget.
Who determines who is rich or poor? Who makes this determination? A rich guy just went bust and he is on his way to the unemployment center. Who determines his fine? See where I am going?
Nice thought but complicated by the fact that governments use fines as a source of revenue. Look at Ferguson, MO. Also, what about equal application of the law?
1
This is not the first article NYT published how people's life are ruined over a ticket.
It is a vicious cycle for the poor.
Ticket, loss of income to attend the court, unable to pay the ticket, jail, loss of job, homeless....rehab?
Are we an intelligent and civilized country? Why would we let this happen to our poor and people in need?
This is simply cruel justice system run by cruel people, who value money more than people's life.
It's a sick society. We all need rehab if we think that this is equitable and just.
87
People with money control the system that creates and enforces the laws, so it seems highly unlikely that anything will ever change, at least not in the US.
I'm in the top 10% economically in Maine and a 1% on my salary --a 200$ ticket --hurts me. I would go further and follow the Finnish model. Why should there be a cap? The purpose of the fine is to cause some pain to prevent the citizen from breaking the laws. A billionaire is not hurt by 10,000$. But a 1,000,000$, they will feel that and not be so badly off with $999,000,000 left--I don't worry about their seventh home myself.
1
In Switzerland, fines are proportional to income since 2010 after a referendum on the subject. Works quite well and this is fairer, even for a conservative country like mine.
290'000$ is the biggest fine emitted to a Ferrari driver (22million of fortune) for speeding.
1
The mind boggles. Even easier answer: don't speed if you can't afford it! And the "work around" took me 10 seconds to think of: "billionaires" can hire other people to speed for them. Do billionaires even drive anymore? This is silly.
In light of the need to have law enforcement directed to the things we really care about, like the deaths of children in schools, this is double silly.
3
The comments section for this article is truly frightening. It's clear that a significant portion of Americans believe the wealthy are somehow blessed and the poor should be punished--severely--and the poorer they are, the worse they should be punished. There is also a tremendous problem of false equivalency, ridiculous analogy, and just plain cruelty. This is a sick country.
2
The consequences of a fine for a poor person may be a violation of the 8th amendment. Regressive taxes,fines,and bail are neither equitable nor fair.
2
The whole idea behind the concept of a fine is for it to be punitive.... PERIOD.
No need to get into whether making it punitive is fair or not.... either it is, or eliminate all fines.
1
People are not equal and no attempt to level the playing field will ever work. BTW if someone is destroyed by a 150 dollar ticket, they probably can't afford auto insurance and really shouldn't be driving at all.
How about a simpler system... give a fine based on the market valuation of the speeding car.
1
The idea that the some official makes a social judgement that a “privileged” person should be punished more in the name of “equity” feels like the road to gulags.
I hope society can better judge an individual then to group this person into income or identity groups.
1
In Switzerland, fines for serious violations (for example, for very high speeding) are decided by a judge and are proportional to personal income. It is not infrequent to hear about some millionaire being caught in his supercar at over 130 mph on Swiss highways, and being fined 10,000 Dollars or more - and often being forced to do weeks of community service as well as losing his license for 12 months or more.
Now, THAT hurts even the most arrogant oligarchs, I assure you!
2
I proudly display my collection of speeding tickets from Europe in a framed display on my office wall. It is a rather unique collection. Next to each ticket I have a photo with the officer issuing the ticket with the car I was driving. I was thinking about publishing a coffee table book someday.
No one ever said Capitalism is fair. That is what makes us work to pay to speed.
Completely disagree.
To be just, punishment needs to proportional to the harm committed.
Punishment for an offense based on wealth of the offender is disproportionate to that harm.
What this author is suggesting then is punishing wealth, not harm. This is a form of tyrrany.
Have you not read Beccaria or Bentham?
2
It is Bernie socialism.
By this reasoning a rich man should go to prison longer than a poor man, for the same offense. Not my idea of equal justice for all.
2
This links in to voter ID. Poor people (often of color) can't pay these flat fines. This leads them to losing their driver's licenses. With the fines hanging over their heads they never resolve their ID situation or are afraid to show up in public in any formal capacity, and so they now become non-voters. Politicians looking to suppress the vote know this, so they push voter ID in part because it ensures that a significant portion of the poor electorate will not be able to vote.
1
1) there aren't many billionaires and they have drivers in any case
2) cops would be incentivized to pull over wealthier seeming drivers - that doesn't serve the aims of justice
3) people with assets tend to carry more insurance, your average ticket is 3 points, and suddenly your risk goes up and your rates on everything, so yes, you're paying more than the nurse
Look at Switzerland, above a certain speed, the drive pays a % of their income, can loose their license, and in some cases, their car is sold.
Maybe we could create a form like a 1040 or FAFSA and you could submit w2s for your entire family. It would take hours to gather all of the documentation. You may need to wait for them to be mailed. Then read all of the directions, etc. Maybe H and R Block could over a service or someone could write a Turbo ticket program.
Well, perhaps this opinion piece explains the fury in Park Slope over the killing of those two little kids. The driver was a middle-aged white woman. Would Park Slopers call "Lock him up!" if the driver were a young black or Hispanic male? Would they be demanding same with such virulence, or would they find an excuse for his behavior?
Don't get me wrong. Someone who regularly has seizures shouldn't be driving. Someone with a lot of traffic violations in the space of a year shouldn't be driving. It made me sick at heart to hear about the deaths of those children.
But it's also stomach-churning to read about the driving records of those finally caught for killing someone with his car and speeding off into the dark.
I'd like to see statistics on hit-and-run drivers who are, with any luck, finally caught: Who are they, how many traffic violations have they accrued, are they insured, do they have suspended or lapsed licenses or any at all, and has the community had a demonstration calling for immediate incarceration?
Ultimately, judging people by factors other than the crime -- their socio-economic status, color, education level -- isn't this what Alec Schiernebeck is suggesting?
1
Capping the fines to avoid "astronomical" fines negates your whole point, There would be a set of the population for whom the penalty would be smaller than everyone else. Oher than that, I agree with you,
Speeding is speeding regardless of who is behind the wheel. Financial status has nothing to do with the fact that the speeder might cause a fatal accident.
- 1, lets abolish state and city budget dependency on fines. Most traffic fines are levied to meet the quota for each traffic officer. We all know about speed traps which by themselves should be illegal. We all know how one is likely to get a ticket in the last few days of the month to meet the quota
- 2, no one should ever serve a jail time if they can’t afford to pay the fine and just because they don’t have the means. US has an excellent income reporting mechanism through IRS and it’s easy to track what someone is making
- 3, punishment for violent crimes should not be based on monetary fines. So that eliminates the need to levy them
- 4, as writer said let’s have a min-max for rich and min-max for poor which applies to those with minimum wages so that it is not debilitating yet makes them feel the importance of following the law
- 5, let the fine be decided by a judge, not the witnessing police officer. The judge should NOT know the color or ethnicity of the person. It should be a blind decision based on income and recent violations. It will at least reduce the discrimination to people of color. The records should be timely expunged based on intensity of past fines/crimes & how long back they occurred.
We are an over policed nation with extremely high level of incarceration of the poor and people of color. The current legal system has significant room for improvement. The large income gap makes this a complex issue yet we need to make some initiative to address it
Don't speed, don't break traffic laws......that simple.
The idea is moronic and would end up being a huge drain on an already backed up court system. This would not effect the truly rich like Zuckerberg who don't drive themselves as much as it will shaft the middle class mom taking her kids to daycare on her way to work.
I have yet to hear of a court system that will not work out a payment plan for low income traffic offenders, especially for people with reasonably clean driving records.
In our legal system, the billionaire wouldn't even need to pay the fine in the first place.
Perhaps based on personal tax info - federal and local (to quantify value of property owned). Perhaps the latest 3 year average.
But, let's face it: fairness as a goal - however it might be achieved (always difficult to measure) - won't even be attempted in states where the ethos is to punish people who are already at bottom (like the nearly homeless woman in this article).
Municipalities are mastering the art of turning tickets into revenue generating schemes. Whether it is shortening the length of yellow lights to catch motorists with ticket cameras within a fraction of a second of the light turning red, school zone cameras to “save our kids”, etc. It’s all about raising revenue so while our elected officials can shout “no new taxes”. They really have, by burdening those who can least afford it.
1
In Massachusetts there is a "head injury surcharge" tacked on to all moving violations. Why? Who knows the whys and hows. Especially when no head injury or even no accident has occurred. IF someone suffers a head injury, sure, why not, but in the absence of one? Seems unconstitutional to me.
Sort of like tacking on some sort of repair surcharge when no automobile damage has occurred.
Also in Massachusetts, on top of those fines, one has to PAY for access to a PUBLIC court, in order to have a hearing over said violation. Something that is anathema to blind justice: You have to pay for your day in court. If you want to argue "poor vs rich" why don't you go after nonsense like that.
1
This is silly. If infraction is the same why should punishment be different. I fail to understand that.
Improve public transport so there’s lesser traffic and fewer speeding tickets. Plus the buses could go faster with lesser traffic. If I take a bus or train I can’t be ticketed!
Fines should be the same no matter what your income level is. If you have broken the law what difference does it make what you earn? What I would like to see if that all people who commit the same crimes are punished the same.
Ok, paying an equal proportion of income would make the punishment the same, wouldn't it?
Hogwash!
Nobody is forced to speed. So “the poor” aren’t being forced to pay anything unless they “break the law” by speeding.
What needs to be done is to make all traffic violations subject to “points on the license.” Even parking tickets, with automatic license suspension when a certain number is reached. That will give EVERYONE pause, no matter how much money they are worth.
Why stop here? Why not charge Mark Zuckerberg $100k for a dozen eggs? This is a slippery slope. Letting bureaucrats go down this path is dangerous. Soon cops will be told to just ticket people in expensive luxury cars so the government can make more money. And, imagine how much more income the writer of this article can earn when wealthy clients come asking him to fight their expensive tickets.
1
There are many scenarios (and I'm not talking about the financial repercussions that may attach to hunger-motivated stealing), not farfetched at all, in which the poor may pay what amounts to $100,000 for a dozen eggs, so I don't consider the idea of Mark Zuckerberg doing so altogether outrageous.
The poor, so commonly forced to focus every iota of attention and resources on mere survival, that they routinely miss out on improvements and opportunities, over something as trivial as a dozen eggs, that are easily worth $100,000.
The poor, because every cent must go to food (eg, eggs) and shelter, may lose out on Internet access, or have phone service interrupted, the electricity shut off, all preventing access to myriad life-improving opportunitues, including a cess to job postings.
Spending that dollar on the eggs may rule our getting the suit pressed or a haircut before a job interview, scuttling his chances. Maybe he didn't have that dollar to buy a lotto ticket that instead was bought by a millionaire on a lark because he didn't feel like putting his dollar change in his wallet at 7-11.
1
The billionaires will never go along with it, which in this country means it is never going to happen. As Huckabee-Sanders will explain: It is simply not fair that a job creator, who has worked hard and made a billion dollars, should have to pay a thousand dollar fine to do something that a lazy taker can do for ten.
“Other countries typically cap the size of fines to guard against astronomical sanctions. We should do the same.”
Why Alec?
You undermine your own argument.
If the point of a fine is to deter, punish, etc, why should people with astronomical incomes not pay astronomical fines?
Are we merely trying to deter the moderately wealthy from ignoring the law, but don’t mind if the absurdly wealthy break the law with impunity?
Day fines are a good idea. Follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion.
If a 100 million dollar fine is needed to ensure that some rich person doesn’t drive 150 mph in their Ferrari on the LIE, so be it.
Perhaps Mr. Zuckerberg should have to pay $1,000 for a loaf of bread, you know, to make him feel a little bit more of the same impact the janitor experiences.
The author makes some good points but there must be a minimum fine. Otherwise, anyone who has no reportable income would be allowed to break the law with impunity.
The super wealthy (think bill gates) pay Little or no income taxes. They invest in tax free municipal bonds and offset taxable income with charitable contributions. Warren buffets is similar. His wealth accumulates tax Dee most years as he doesn’t sell much. His salary is like $125,000 per year. His wealth is on paper.
Justice is still blind, right? Or did that change? The 14th Amendment guarantees that States won't discriminate -- by sex, race, religion, age, or income -- and we must treat everyone the same. Schierenbeck wants income discrimination. There's one problem with that: a capitalist economy incentivizes work with rewards; if your Mastercard bill is on a sliding scale, you eviscerate the reward. Therefore, ethically and economically, I reject this proposition. To the people who can't afford a speeding ticket, may I pass along sage advice from my mother, given when I was in college and couldn't afford a speeding ticket myself: don't speed.
Great investment of time and energy for the dawn of the self-driving car. Also, as the population grows and the highway network remains fixed, when was the last time the average Northeasterner had the opportunity to drive faster than 30 mph?
Make the punishment something like so many hours of community service, street cleaning in shifts 6AM-8AM.
I expect the pain will be a lot more equal.
Let’s approach it mathematically:
Case1
effort hard work perseverance frugality education = greater wealth.
Case 2
partying frivolous spending no desire to take risk no desire for education = less wealth.
So I think it would make sense to INCREASE the fines on those with less wealth as an enticement to follow the example of case 1 or face financial ruin, and since there are far more of the 99% than the 1% we would reduce traffic fatalities significantly. It’s a win-win.
Hey, it’s just as absurd as the article...
How about this - a 'basic' fine, then a surcharge based on the worth of the vehicle itself. Speeding in a new Mercedes would be more expensive than doing so in a 2nd hand Chevy.
What a terrible idea that is guaranteed to end messing our traffic courts. I have not checked the statistics lately but I am guessing that the majority of those hit by traffic fines pay those without contest. If we implement your proposal, instead of paying the $150 fine, the “rich” will hire a group of lawyers to get him/ her out of paying $15,000. This will surely overwhelm the court system in this country and guess what, the rich and powerful will find good lawyers to get them out of paying the fines. So, In the end this idea will only benefit the lawyers. Wait, isn’t the author a lawyer himself??
1
So by this standard should young people receive longer prison sentences as they have more years to lose?
Maybe those "living on the margin" should be a little more careful about breaking the laws they can't afford to break?
1
A poor person inflicts just as much damage as a rich person when he crashes his car into someone. You have to decide what the goal of the fine is. if it's to make some sort of statement of moral outrage, maybe it should be proportioned to income. But if it's to discourage risks to other people, it should be in proportion to the harm to other people, not the perpetrator's own wealth.
Therefore, need should be a consideration in the punishment of thieves?
If justice is to have any meaning, it has to apply equally to all regardless of race, circumstance and etc.
A rich person doing 70 in a 55 zone, is no more culpable than is the poor person doing the same.
Get real.
The fine is the least of it. It's the Points that you want to avoid and those are equally assessed against billionaires and nurses.
1
How about coming up with plans that involve less government intrusion in my life?
So should taxes be adjusted so the poor pay less and the wealthy pay A LOT MORE.
There is front-end Socialism and there is back-end Socialism. This is obviously the latter.
Makes me wonder though. The poor person needing to scrape together money to pay a fine would have it if people who preach socialism did it on their own and didn't wait for the government to step in with a "solution". How much do we all spend on alcohol, restaurants, art, clothes, and vacations? Cut down on your own discretionary spending and give to the needy, either locally or to a national charity. If you really believe in socialism, they live it now and don't wait for the second coming of Marx.
The problem isn’t that wealthier folks aren’t paying enough in fines, it’s the insane way are putative towards the poor for being unable to pay. Seriously, why spend time and resources continuing to prosecute a speeding ticket, ruining a life, and ultimately depriving the government more in taxes paid on earned income. I’m not advocating a poor person gets a pass, but use some common sense!
1
Many of the objections and also the reasons in support of the proposal need to be taken into account in devising a fair system, particularly the seriousness of the offense for public safety. The harshness of the penalty should be commensurate with the severity of the offense, and mere fines are not proportionally harsh to people with vastly different wealth.
As pointed out in the article, you don't want fines for minor offenses to be so harsh they become long term punishments. But you also don't want fines for serious and dangerous offenses, such as speeding through a residential neighborhood, to be mere slaps on the wrists for people who can so easily afford to pay them, that they basically serve as the equivalent of a licensing fee to commit the offense, at least the first time or two.
But one caveat to the suggestion that punishments should be based on equal time: the same disproportionate penalty problem arises, since a billionaire can afford a day or more away from work much more easily than someone living hand to mouth who needs every paycheck. So even equal time is not necessarily either equally harsh punishment or equal deterrent.
All the reasonable ideas in this comment section need to be taken into account in devising a fair system, and may require some judicial discretion.
Fines should not be directly proportional to income. They should be progressive. The janitor at Facebook can't afford to lose a couple of hours pay. Mr. Zuckerberg can, easily. Like income taxes, the share should increase with income. THAT would actually be fair.
So now part of the evaluation of "the punishment should fit the crime" has to include knowing the finances of a person found guilty in court, even for traffic citations? Should it now include a subjective evaluation as to whether or not the person also belongs to some other classification that is viewed as either having been getting historical advantages or has in some way been oppressed? Very slippery slope.
This is one of those ideas that sound good on paper but in reality would become a fiasco. A single person earning 50K and living modestly will have much more disposable income than a married parent of 3 in a single earner household who makes the same 50K. A whole new set of inequities arises.
Better not to speed or litter for all.
1
Bad idea. The reference to the example woman in Ferguson is used in a distorted way. I agree that a person without means could be harmed inappropriately in some cases such as the Ferguson example but better to address that by leniency exceptions rather than a convoluted system change. Even wealthy people sometimes mistakenly commit traffic offenses and to presume that exorbitant punishment as the norm would prevent inadvertent offense is nonsense. Wealthy repeat or cavalier offenders can and are punished, and can lose their license.
I don't think poor people should be saddled with crushing fines. That is the problem that needs to be addressed. We don't have to punish people for having money. That doesn't help poor people. It is a rather silly idea.
The problem is the fine for people who cannot afford it. Unfortunately, It would be unconstitutional to charge individuals more based on their assets and income. Also, most speeding tickets today are not given out to control reckless driving, but rather to raise revenues. Much of what is considered speeding, are arbitrary and unnecessary limits on speed in order to make more money for local and state governments. That said no one should ever go to jail because they cannot afford a fine.
Oh, brother.
And who's to decide? To some people, my savings are enormous; to others, paltry. To me, my savings just might get me through to the grave.
A fine is a fine.
If poor people don't want to waste money, they won't run red lights, speed, or leave their cars parked on alternate-side parking days so that the street can't get cleaned.
Good article. Interestingly there is good research showing that it is not the harshness of the punishment but the likelihood of getting caught that acts as a deterrent. Australia has automatic ticketing for speeding and almost nobody speeds. Perhaps if we instituted methods like that, there would be fewer infractions and fewer people would have to worry about fines.
1
Two other features of our current system make the fine for a given offense not the only cost to the offender. Substantial court costs add to the total bill and may equal or even exceed the fine itself. Moreover, court costs have to be paid even if you plead guilty by mail and never go to court. In addition, many jurisdictions charge convicted offenders for their imprisonment and they can go back to jail if they don't pay them on a timely basis. Then there are additional costs borne by the families of poor offenders who may be the only breadwinner for a large family that still has to pay the rent, utilities and keep a car on the road. Finally, as to caps on fines guarding against "astronomical sanctions", $67,000 is not even pocket change to a millionaire, it's pocket lint.
Makes sense. Drew Cary did a comedy bit years ago about the struggles of being poor and the liberation of having lots of money. Once he became wealthy, the bit went, he would take his new sports car out on a nasty stormy night and speed through neighborhoods. When the police pulled him over and stood outside his car in the cold pouring rain, they would ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" "Yes," he'd reply. "Do you know why I was speeding?"
Of course, he is limited to the number of times he can flout the law without losing his license (thereby stuck being driven by a chauffeur), but if the intent of these fines is to serve as a deterrent they should be meted out proportionally, as is the case for companies that violate regulations and/or do public harm. The punishment should hurt.
Different punishments for the same crime is a fundamentally flawed idea. If we set punishment based on income, then why not punish people according to their political affiliation, gender, or race? Does that seem absurd? Of course, but the principle in the same. According to the author, discrimination on the basis of income is okay.
Situations such as that encountered by the woman who couldn't pay the $151 fine obviously need to be corrected. If someone simply can't afford to pay a fine, then community service should be imposed, or the offender's paycheck or welfare or Social Security payment should be docked by a small amount until the fine is paid. No one should have their life ruined by a speeding or parking ticket. But that doesn't mean Mark Zuckerberg should pay a $50,000 fine for speeding, while I get hit for $150 for the exact same offense.
1
Isn't this what the points system was designed to resolve? A few big speeding tickets and you lose your licence and potentially your car. As for making fines more progressive, I think an equally important issue is putting a check on the power of municipalities to police and enforce local ordinances.
The thought of issuing an arrest warrant for minor violations seems utterly ridiculous to me.
1
Stop thefts like the current trumpian GOP tax cuts. This literally steals the food and services from the mouths of poor and middle income people.
No tax cut bills until there is a darn good definable reason and can describe an equitable way to pay for it.
As for tickets and criminal offenses, it’s time for jail terms, seriously, for upper class offenders, who serve no consequences for their horrendous actions such as the mortgage crisis. Bank presidents and investment firm executives should pay for the consequences of their actions.
Enough of the wealthy feeling no repercussions for actions that destroy lives. The robber barons of the past have never really left our society.
I agree in general with the sentiments in this piece.
But I am disturbed at the repeated emphasis on littering as a minor transgression. Nobody needs to litter. It costs nobody anything not to litter. Littering is a malicious offense against the greater good and should be punished aggressively--and progressively, as the logic of this article would imply.
1
No wonder the very wealthy think they are above the law. They are! If the average Joe was fined one penny for parking in a handicap spot or in front of a fire hydrant, the only thing standing between him and the law would be a strong moral compass which these days is becoming is a rare commodity.
2
Finland is a backwards country. Imposing a speeding ticket of that magnitude for such a trivial offense underscores the logical weakness of this concept. This article is flawed in that there are precious few zillionaires roaming the streets but plenty of low-income people speeding. If you did slash the amount collected from low-income speeders, the shortfall will have to come from someplace. That someplace is higher income taxes. The answer to whether a billionaire and a nurse should pay the same speeding ticket is whether you can fund a society with a $1,000,000 ticket on the one billionaire and a $20 ticket on the worker.
To be fair, a fine should be against something everyone only has the same amount of, time. The idea of fining everyone with community service or prison time is more equitable than encouraging governments to target the rich as a source of income. Think about speeding tickets issued by small towns that target strangers rather than locals who know where the speed traps are located. Fines as a source of income is just as evil as fines proportional to income.
Don't compare parking tickets to speeding. One endangers people (unless you park in front of a fire hydrant). And in there you miss a major point on fines and laws themselves. Many are there to protect people.
You are focusing only on the money aspect of the fine and not the transgression. If Mark Zuckerberg and that Janitor both hit someone crossing the street due to speeding, one or the other doesn't injure them any more or less due to how much money they make.
2
I think that income based fines are a good idea, but first, fines for the lower incomes need to be reduced.
Great article. Fines can be a slippery slope if you fail to pay on time. The process to recover from a license suspension is brutal. You have to consider taking time off from work, which takes away from your paycheck and or vacation. Plus, not only do you have to pay the ticket, but also the cost to reinstate your license. Then there are the counties that cut the ticket fine, but adds court cost to the fine, which start at $200. I hope every American county reads this article and consider their process is dubious and antiquated.
And what about corporations? We read about fines for crimes like fraud or gross negligence and watch as large public companies are fined amounts that represent little more than a rounding error. If a corporation is found guilty of a serious crime, the fine should be set at a percentage of that company’s market capitalization at the time the crime was committed.
I am frequently amazed at the brilliance of solutions to apparently intractable problems. This would appear to solve multiple problems with one change. Who could be against it? I would think only those who believe they should be above the law, like a certain chief executive we all know and few of us love.
2
The Bill Janklow effect. South Dakota's longest serving governor repeatedly received speeding tickets. When challenged he said something to the effect "I drive fast and I pay the fine." Then he hit and killed a motorcyclist and was finally convicted of manslaughter. I suspect the motorcyclist, family and friends would have preferred something that actually deterred the behavior.
Traffic fines are hardly the only thing where the criminal justice system fails to deter wealthy and powerful sociopaths from treating getting caught as just another cost of doing business.
5
In Australia we supplement the traffic fine with points which remain for ~ 2 years. The points vary depending on the seriousness of the offence, and can be doubled during holiday periods. More than 12 current points can lead to loss of licence.
Agree that fines should be scaled to capacity to pay.
2
Let's assume such a system gets put in place. If the CEOs wanted to protect themselves, they could use a passthrough corporation to hold assets and receive money instead of taking pay from the company. That would effectively place his/her income beyond the reach of the fine scheme--it wasn't the corporation that got the ticket, after all. The CEO could effectively drop his/her daily or monthly income to zero for ticketing purposes while not changing his/her lifestyle at all.
Part of being CEO-level wealthy is the ability to spend money in avoiding such schemes. That's why people like Warren Buffett pay a smaller percentage of their income in income tax than his secretary does.
3
Don't they do the same to avoid income tax?
1
Years ago, I did receive a rather large ticket for parking in an unmarked spot in Boston on a busy Back Bay street with cars parked front and back to me (my parallel parking skill was awesome then), but apparently I was too close to a curb and entrance to an alleyway. I was there for under an hour. The ticket was an astounding 15o$ given to me by the meter patrol. There were no meters on this street and cars were parked bumper to bumper and just as close to the alleyway and curb as I was. (No tickets on those cars) The fact that my car was a Mercedes made me wonder. Anyway, I went in person to dispute this during my work time as a hospice nurse and had forgotten to take my RN badge off. I am not sure if that helped, but they reduced my fine to 25$. I was grateful, polite and suggested they mark the areas where we are not supposed to park, or pahk as we say there. They laughed pretty hard at that suggestion. So, many times, it is a guessing game as to what may get you a fine. An egregious disregard for obviously illegal parking is one thing, but I think some of these non illegal fines are at their own discretion. Meanwhile, on my way home, I watched as a car sped through a red light right in front of a police car, but they did nothing!
3
We used to have red light cameras here. They were taken out over a dispute as to where the fines were to be spent.
It seems thousands of cars still today have these license plate covers that obscure the numbers by making them difficult to see. Any cover on a plate has always been illegal but these are obviously designed to make it difficult for the numbers on the plates to be seen. Police have never enforced this law as far as one can tell. If i can see about 10 a day in the little time I drive imagine how many a police officer can see in at least 6 hours of driving every day. I've been told that they're ignored because the majority of the plates are installed on the cars owned by one ethnic group and the police do not want to be seen as harassing them. Just one example of unfairness in enforcing the law already in place.
An interesting, if problematic, concept, as many of the comments note.
As for me, I just kept thinking of Kurt Vonnegut's classic satirical short story, "Harrison Bergeron," in which the 211th through 213th amendments to the Constitution forbid anyone to be smarter, better looking, or otherwise better able than anyone else.
Ah, Vonnegut, we miss you.
3
You do realize of course, that fines related to speeding and parking will be gone once we have fully automated vehicles? Of the many problems we need to solve, how to make fines such as these more effective seems like the wrong one.
1
The injustice that results from low income people paying the same fines as do the wealthy, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the criminal justice system favors people with money. Our underfunded public defender system means many low income people don't get the same representation as those who can pay for private counsel able to devote the time necessary to provide high quality representation. Not to mention the discretion exercised by prosecutors, as demonstrated by the Obama justice department, that chose not to seek jail time for the predatory lenders behind the foreclosure crisis, because jails, while adequate for the poor offered too horrible a placement for white collar criminals.
2
This is an old story.
Wealth is power, and extreme wealth means trivial consequences for civil offenses. This proposal ignores the reality the wealthy have international investments that are not made public, which would make implementation fines based on wealth difficult even if there were a will to do so.
While speeding is illegal, intentional noise pollution is not. If you can afford the latest Jaguar sports care it has a feature to switch on a 90 decibel speaker to enhance the sensation of power as you disturb the thousands of peons trying to get some rest. While hundreds of billions have been spent to make airliners quieter, this little toy has brought no objections from any political sources.
And the long standing principle that the beaches belong to the people, not the owners of adjoining land is being challenged by a billionaire in California with the legal resources that may get this principle overturned by the Supreme Court.
Being rich has its privileges.
1
We had a suit that ran for a few years filed by a couple from New Jersey. The beach property in question is in Emerald Isle North Carolina.
The town requires that a small strip of land near a home on the ocean front be kept clear so the trash cans can be emptied and the beach tidied up in the early morning. They claimed it was an illegal taking by the town. The courts in North Carolina disagreed. The people sold the house and as far as I know have dropped the suit although there are rumors that they are going to make it a Supreme Court case.
What puzzled me about the suit is that one of the plaintiffs was in California. Your comment about the California billionaire I think has made the reason now clear.
I grew up in Miami and I remember when the hotels tried to keep the public from using the beaches adjoining the hotels. Florida put the kibosh on that. No one should be able to buy land all the way to the waterline and prohibit the public from dipping their toes in the ocean. I say that as an owner of an oceanfront house.
Ooooooh, I LOVE this article! It kind of highlights the inequities of our raging capitalist nation and explains how legislators, most of whom are in the upper strata economically, can recklessly shape legislation that hurts the majority of Americans, working and not, but is of little consequence in their lives. I have often said that if they had to inhabit the lives, even for a week, of most of us, their perspective would be greatly altered.
3
I don’t think poor people should have their lives upended because of a parking ticket. I also don’t think that high earners who made their money the hard way should be penalized for it. Either. I think that tickets are way too expensive for everyone. Local governments should be charging hundreds for a parking ticket. It means the politicians in charge can’t balance a budget the car correct way.
What makes you think that rich people made their money in ways harder than poor people? Have you tried holding two full time jobs at minimum wage just so your children can be clothed and fed and housed? Try that, and then say it's harder for rich people to make money.
2
Or judges could start to take interest in the impact of their sentences on the people they sentence. Jails are full of people who can't pay $250 bail, for ridiculously petty crimes, and who stay for a half a year, awaiting sentencing. Six months/$250, it is unbelievably sad to meet people in that position. Judges should be responsible for knowing the impact of their sentencing and defending it.
Further they should know about the conditions in the prisons where they incarcerate people. Punishment is not an abstraction for the person serving it. It should not be for the one determining the right sentence.
1
"Plus, scaled fines might encourage more equitable prosecution. That’s particularly true in cities like Ferguson that went easy on wealthier residents but treated poor people like cash cows. After all, the city would get more bang for its buck pulling over a rich driver with a blown blinker."
Last sentence argues contrary to equitability. Pulling over luxury imports in order to increase fine income is far from equitable.
How about a better idea? I bet 80 percent of speeding is done by 20 percent of people. First ticket, everyone pays a small amount. Tenth ticket, exponential increase in fine. Tie it to behavior not wealth. Saves time, data mining and targets the major offenders.
7
Punishments should be equitable. This claim doesn't seem controversial. The problem arises when trying to determine what is equitable. Flat fines, on the face of it, seem equitable; everyone pays the same fine for the same offense. But they also seem massively inequitable when described as a percentage of income; a $50 fine can be 10% of one person's weekly income, say, but only 1%, or maybe even 0.1% of another's weekly income. A blow to the head in one case, barely a slap on the wrist in the other. Such a massive disparity is hardly equitable, and certainly isn't justice.
Offenders should suffer equally; flat fines singularly fail to accomplish that goal.
2
I appreciate your point, but please stop equating nurses with janitors, the homeless, etc. Registered nurses are highly-skilled professionals who are often paid quite well.
4
What about the issue of "speed traps" designed to raise revenue so that politicians can avoid the career killing necessity of raising local taxes. If you are going to raise the cost of speeding tickets, for anyone, then this issue has to be resolved. Any legislation accompanying such an increase should be accompanied by another provision making it illegal to engage in revenue raising with speed traps. After all, the supposed point of this whole scenario is to increase safety on the roads, not tot give the " boss hogs" of the world an easy path to extract money from safe drivers who unwittingly exceeded 40 mph on a limited access highway service road.
Speed Traps? How about parking traps?
I used to visit my grandparents years ago in Brooklyn. I double parked with all the other cars while the street was being cleaned. The when the time neared to park the car I went out and found a ticket for double parking on the car. I looked and the rest of the cars did not have tickets.
What I did notice though is that the cars had a business card from a small printing company on the street on their dashboards. I had the only out of state license plate.
It was obvious to me that the fix was in, the parking violations person was being paid off. I ripped the ticket up and threw it in the street. It's been almost 30 years and I don't care if NYC sends a SWAT team out I still won't pay it.
As an economist, I find it convenient to think of a fine for law breaking as the price the state charges a resident for the pleasure of breaking the law. The state is the only entity that can, so to speak, sell outlaw behavior; it is in other words a monopolist.
Now, it is a standard idea in Econ 101 that a price-discriminating monopolist (that is, a monopolist who charges different people different prices for the same commodity) may achieve a socially efficient outcome (that is, an outcome in which social welfare is maximized), whereas a monopolist that charges all customers the same price never does.
So, for an economist, justifying a system of fines in which the rich pay more -- which is a form of price discrimination by a monopolist -- is not only equitable, it may be efficient as well.
When a (perfectly) price-discriminating monopolist sells a consumer good, the outcome, though efficient, is considered unfair by some because consumers may receive no consumer surplus (which is the excess of the highest price a consumer would be willing to pay over the price the consumer actually pays). But when the commodity being sold is the right to be an outlaw, the disappearance of consumer surplus is clearly not a bad thing.
So, economists would probably love the author’s proposal, though not always for the reasons outlined in the article. Charging fines that rise with the law-breaker’s ability to pay may be one of those rare things: a policy that is both fair and efficient.
2
A lot of commenters protest the unequality of sliding scales in fines. The whole point is that current one size fits all fines cause unequal pain. And the point of fines is to cause equal pain and equal deterrent. So sliding scales would be more equal. You may not think it's fair to pay more than a poor person, but that's not a question of equality.
This is not the aim with a carton of milk or other consumer products: the shop wants to make as much money as possible and setting the price is one way of doing that. A shop does not know how much money they can shake out of you personally, only if their products are sold or not. So the rinciple cannot be stretched to everything. The only time sliding prices work in business is at an auction, there you really paying as much as you are possibly willing to pay. No one is protesting auctions...
1
Fines should increase if the act is committed multiple times, increasing consecutively with each violation. Therefore, a wealthy person would not continue to feel as if they can get off easy after violating the law.
I strongly feel the fine should be correlated to the violation, not the income of the violator. Therefore, if a crime is a $100 crime it should remain a $100 crime despite the violator's income.
2
Perhaps you have stumbled upon an equitable solution. If the concern is that the wealthy speeder isn't deterred by a small fine and will continue to offend, then increase the fine with each offense. $100 for the first speeding ticket, $500 for the second, $5000 for the third, $50,000 for the fourth, etc ...
1
On a less serious note, how 'bout we just vigorously raise most speed limits to match the speeds people actually drive? So many fewer tickets, so many thousands more happy people, excepting perhaps the various police departments. Speaking of them, let's divert all collected traffic revenues into public education. That will sap their enthusiasm for speed traps and other unsavory practices.
There... several problems solved.
"so many thousands more happy people, excepting perhaps the various police departments..."
Also, except the people mourning their relatives who got killed in car crashes. There's a reason for speed limits.
1
Agree. Fines are regressive. There should be a way to scale them. If I had to pay a $75 or $150 fine I could still meet my rent. For others, a fine of that size would be a true hardship.
1
The Irony of course is that everything also works to the great advantage of the Millionaire/Billionaire/Influential on the opposite side of the scale as well!
Hence, more often or not, when Managers, CEO's and Owners steal/lose/scam millions or billions from others/taxpayers or Government...and even damage/threaten the economy (or in the case of the GFC, the World Financial System) few if any individual's are punished, let alone fined for their transgressions in any real or meaningful way.
But God Forbid if you are desperate , poor or doing it tough and decide to steal a can of beer from a convenience store...if you have priors or warrants ...that could mean jail for years.
There is no such thing as equal opportunity in America for some except that circumstances as well as the actions of those in control and power ensure if anything, things just become just a little less equal and opportunities a little more hard to find for those who are considered and shall remain (if possible) the "have-nots" whilst the "have-most" continue to enjoy their privilege and continue their quest to "get-more" as is their want.
Why stop at fines. Why not apply this reasoning to the grocery store. Some pay $2 for a dozen eggs while the wealthy pay $20. And gas stations - separate pumps for different income ranges. Sporting events also should base ticket prices on income levels. This will be great.
1
I've waited literally years for someone to write this Op-Ed. Thank you. "Petty crime" fines are a poor tax. This is not only because states and localities have raised these fines over the years to make up for low tax revenue, but because poor neighborhoods and areas are often more aggressively patrolled than wealthier ones are.
2
Insofar as logic and fairness, this is spot-on. Logistically, however, the author of this piece is living in another dimension, as the notion of tying fines to one’s income or net worth would be nearly impossible. Background checks can be cumbersome enough. I can’t even fathom the time it would take for a police officer to run a financial check on someone pulled over for speeding.
1
How many government officials, who can't keep confidential information private, are going to have access to everyone's tax return info?
1
I agree with everything you say except “Other countries typically cap the size of fines to guard against astronomical sanctions. We should do the same.”
Why? If someone makes an astronomical income why shouldn’t the sanction be astronomical? A days’ pay is a days’ pay even if it is astronomical. In case of anyone but close family members driving somebody else, both the driver and the passengers should be subject to the fines. This includes uber and taxis.
Otherwise you should also exempt small earners when, to them, the fine is astronomical.
Fair is fair.
1
Time is a far more equitable punishment for offenders. If speeding resulted in a period of public service at a site designated by the judicial system, the punishment would be far more equitable. I am not proposing jail. Simply compel those who commit like offenses to sacrifice their precious time doing essential services that benefit the community and equality will reign.
I've said the same thing for years. The point of a speeding fine is to be a deterrent so as to make all the roads safer for everyone. It should carry the same effect, expressed as a percentage of a person's wealth.
A few hundred dollars to a nurse might be the difference as to whether or not he/she can keep the heat on. The same for a billionaire is what he might tip the waiter for lunch. It hurts the poor and does nothing to deter the rich.
Justice is blind. At least that's how the Greeks who gave us the term democracy chose to portray her. Americans have other cultural mechanisms to help the less financially fortunate but we should not abandon a core principal of the founding of our Democratic state - that all men are created equal. yes it's aspirational, and we haven't gotten to fill equality before the law after nearly 250 years, but let's not give up what is fundamentally good because it is not yet perfected.
1
With my kids I use natural consequences. If they throw a toy, the toy gets taken away for a period of time or some other consequence directly related to the rule that was broken. I don't take away allowance or treats, etc. Maybe we should consider a system of more natural/logical consequences.
1
Here's an idea, tax the rich. A lot. If police forces are so strapped for funds that they must rely on asset forfeiture and forcing the working poor into abject penury to keep the station lights on, someone's not paying their fair share.
The problem with variable fines based on income is that it may undermine equal protections under the law. Are the rich more guilty of speeding because they have more money? It makes it appear that some people's infractions are worse than others based on the price of the infraction and may cause a backlash against enforcement from wealthy perpetrators who feel victimized when they are forced to pay more.
The fact that this idea is even being floated reveals the depth and breadth of the wealth disparities in our country. A more equitable distribution of wealth based on progressive taxation would help alleviate much of these issues.
1
Unfortunately, we favor the wealthy in many ways. The recent tax plan is a prime example. So lets put forth a couple of absurd explanations for letting the wealthy off the hook for fines that would moderate their behavior that is analogous to why the tax system should be so rewarding to them.
Imposing significant fines will inhibit their super productive behavior, from which we all benefit and be grateful for.
The wealth are so callus and careless that the already pay more than their fare share of fines. I think that is my favorite.
the UK experimented with this 'Swedish day fine' system in 1991 but unfortunately media and political reaction was not as rational as the model anticipated. tabloid media focused on large fines for rich people for relatively trivial acts, for example, and the music died. Sentencing and voting patterns suggest that the US is not a more rational society than the UK, sadly. But good luck - it is a good idea.
The reality of fines is based also on the potential harm that the offense may result for the common good. It's not simply about the individual who committed the offense. Moreover, your proposal also unlocks a massive amount of potential complexity on arriving at one's economic position. Is it how much they make? How much they are worth? How much is salary, or salary plus overtime? The situation of the woman with the traffic ticket could more easily be handled by wise judicial and enforcement personnel. The legal bureaucracy in Argentina is mind boggling, the costs excessive, and the society not better off.
3
Really? Paying a ticket would then involve a financial disclosure? Really???
How else would the court determine the size or percentage of the fine?
An exemplary composition, and truly a joy to read. I couldn't agree with you more. If we are going to have a punitive system, instead of one focused on rehabilitation, let's make it as equitable as possible.
18
Absolutely. Fine is supposed to be a deterrent and the designed in days where incomes were more or less the same. If rewards (esp corporate bonuses) are based on proportional to the money you make, penalties should be the same. However, I doubt if this system would actually generate more money. Very rich people rarely drive fast as they are usually risk-averse and hire a safe, careful driver.
3
"Days where incomes were more or less the same"
Ummm... And in what fictional era was that?
This might solve the problem for poorer payers, but rich people will certainly find a way to game the system, e.g. by having low monthly income on the books but far greater actual wealth.
13
As long as less people are going broke from a traffic ticket, I'm happy.
A few years ago I worked at a healthcare company whose sales people would frequently get speeding tickets rushing to clients. The company didn't discourage them from speeding, but simply paid the tickets. It was cheaper to pay the ticket than to lose business. After all, time is money.
9
That's "fine," but the drivers still got points on the licenses, so it's not a total solution. Better if the company would encourage their sales team to slow down.
6
If the tickets were the result of speed cameras there aren't any points assessed.
An idea whose time has finally come? What is the author of this piece smoking? How can he have failed to notice that our country is headed in the opposite direction? That what's called tax reform was actually designed to make taxation less progressive? And that opposition to healthcare reform was based on healthy people having to subsidize sick ones? In all the talk about patients having skin in the game to discourage overuse of medical resources, did he ever hear any advocate of that approach suggest higher deductibles/co-pays for people with greater incomes?
What's the point of having money if you can't use it to do whatever you want? To paraphrase Leona Helmslet, Taxes, fines, deductibles are for the little people.
20
The ACA's subsidies are income-based, so it's not only been suggested but implemented. Perhaps not to the extent it ought to be.
I like this idea. Another one would be to require X number of hours of community service in lieu of a fine. There in much less inequality of time than there is inequality of wealth.
7
@cdm: except that community service time punishes the working disproportionally compared to the unemployed/part timers. To guarantee equality, hours should therefore be adapted to the offender's work schedule; therefore piling community service hours on part-time nurses while giving just a few hours to CEOs typically at the office 12 hours a day.
In an effort to be even more egalitarian, we would also have to consider family time in the equation. A mother who needs extra time to read with her kids would get a lighter sentence than the barren woman who already is in a daily mental agony because she can't have kids. Let HER do more hours, because progressivism, right?
The subsidies are income based, but it's still much likelier that a poorer family will spend a significantly larger percent of their income on healthcare than a wealthier one.
And I have not heard a single advocate of the notion that co-pays help deter people from using healthcare "frivolously" suggest that such co-pays be proportional to income. Because I seriously suspect that the second anyone suggested deductibles large enough to deter upper middle class income people from visiting the doctor, the idea would vanish.
Being (fortunately) in one of the upper income brackets myself (I'm the CEO of a startup) I initially thought this wasn't fair to charge rich people more just because they''re rich. But then I thought of another obviously fair method; putting them in jail (or prison?) for a similar amount of time. Time is a constant for everyone right?
Thinking about that made me much more receptive to paying more!
31
No, time is relative in many ways. On these principles, Madoff, at 79, with an actuarial likelihood of a brief lifespan remaining, should be sentenced to much less time than a 40 year old who did the same crime.
That's exactly what the author proposes: seizing from each the monetary value of each person's working day. your brainstorm was nothing other than the exact scenario the author proposed and you initially rejected.
I must say, your initial resistance (you're candor is very admirable by the way), suggests something verging on a callous obtuseness about the difference in how a $50 fine would affect you and someone who can't pay the rent and put food on the table, the exact point the author is trying to bring out and which his sliding scale fines rather Solomonically (in my view) addresses. The fact that by your one day in jail scenario you arrive at the exact position of the author ratifies his wisdom on this matter. Only paying in proportion to one's resources are the punishments actually equal as punishments.
Glad you so quickly outgrew the absurdity of your initial stance you were (commedably) honest enough to acknowledge.
Using the same logic younger people should have longer prison sentences as they have more time...
While the fine might be easier for a wealthy person to pay, in many States the wealthy person can still have his or her license revoked with enough tickets. Also, the wealthy person typically has a more expensive car, and will end up paying very high insurance rates, after a speeding ticket or two.
And its not as if the wealthy are getting speeding tickets every day. Insurance companies are well aware of the fact that persons with higher incomes tend to be more law-abiding and tend to be much safer drivers, and lower insurance risks.
12
Larry, you miss the point.
1) the author is talking about the first ticket, not so many the license is revoked.
2) some wealthy people may drive more expensive cars, but their insurance rates are not equally proportional to the rates a lower income person pays (especially weighted against income).
3) wealthy people are less likely to speed? Where is your data on this? My experience tells me the exact opposite is true.
24
I haven't got statistics to prove it, but I believe that the wealthy can afford lawyers that will prevent license suspensions and revocations. I like the idea that fines should be indexed somehow to financial condition. I remember recently that the late founder of a local computer company here in Cupertino routinely parked his $150,000 car in handicap spaces, absolutely unconcerned about the potential fine.
17
How about if the fine is 1% of the value of the car? That's $1,500 for a $150,000 car and $2 for a $200 VW bug.
I agree with the concept but the implementation is a nightmare. Best find another way to raise revenue. For example, states with regressive property taxes, need to reconsider the punishment of small property owners. At least one pol in Illinois, who is running for office, is talking about this. And good luck with that!
5
Income from fines ought not fund the expenses of governance. The income from fines ought to be redistributed to those who are “fine free,” less a small percentage to manage enforcement (electronic) and rebate processing.
9
True! A system that financially depends on people breaking the law will always find ways to ensure that enough people keep breaking the law.
Utter dribble. Maybe the author should instead argue that we lower the fine to a measly one cent so that we can all afford to speed. Now that’s equality!
54
The argument is not that everyone should be allowed to speed, but that (1) everyone is entitled to a life free from ruination just because of one ticket, and (2) rich speeders need a real disincentive.
A $250 fine is the equivalent to one cent for a wealthy person.
But it's a week or more of meals for a low-income family.
What's your idea of fair?
1
By your logic, if the fine of breaking the law was one cent, nobody would think twice about breaking the law. The point of financial deterrents is to deter people from breaking the law, (which also ensures a safer civil society). The author is arguing that wealthy people are not deterred by financial slaps on the wrist, which disenfranchises us all. How to create an equal society? That is the question, and your suggestion is not a satisfactory answer.
AGREEED!!!!
13
Impossible. Even if my significant other makes more than I do, it is not evident on my own income form—just one out of a million reasons why this wouldn’t work.
Not that I don’t believe that fines are a severe problem for those who can’t pay them. This is a terrible predicament for people who live paycheck to paycheck.
8
I am glad that you agree that flat fines are unfair and cruel punishment on those who can't afford to pay them. I'm sure dual income households will be just fine.
Same crime, same fine. Take your socailistic nonsense elsewhere.
113
It would be the same fine—a percentage of ones income. We all pay x% of our income. See? Same fine.
7
Speed limits, and therefore speeding fines exist to promote public safety. Therefore, speeding penalties are fines not fees. Fines are supposed to hurt. That's the definition of what a fine is supposed to do. The best proxy that we have for making fines hurt equally is to charge according to income, as this opinion piece argues for convincingly (other than it's unprincipled hedge against 'astronomical' fines).
Nobody is talking about making prices (fees) for TVs or steak dinners scale to income. That would be socialistic nonsense.
However, making FINES, repeat FINES hurt equally is good public policy. If you disagree, make an intelligent argument against them rather than appeals to boogeymen terms.
14
Same crime, same PAIN seems like a much fairer and more effective system of deterrence. If I get hit by a speeding car that runs a red light, I'm not any less dead if the driver is rich.
3
With traffic fines directly related to income, the black guy in a Mercedes will get pulled over daily.
48
He already does.
2
I would just prefer that everyone is required to do community service (walking around picking up dog poop and trash or something like that) because the time of a billionaire is supposedly so much more valuable than that of a nurse. Each would be required to do a mundane manual task w/an equal amount of time bringing the reality of being a human to the billionaire, while the nurse would just be annoyed enough to maybe not do it again. This would accomplish the same thing, to limit speeding or other infractions, by all those involved.
457
Millionaires don't lose income when they are doing community service. Nurses do.
3
Love it. It will keep all of us grounded!
1
Thanks. Just what I was thinking.
Keep the fines where they are and offer payment plans to the poor.
Day fines and others reinventions of the wheel introduce more complexity and unintended consequences into each infraction - this is already a problem with our democracy
Goals: Keep people out of traffic court, pay your fine, learn your lesson and move on.
11
Has this lawyer thought of how much bureaucracy would be created trying to process paperwork to verify income, employment, etc? This is a country of almost 300 million people, unlike Finland. It's not enough for this lawyer to ask "does this shallow idea make me feel good?", rather he needs to ask "does it actually DO good?"
36
I think in about an hour a clever programmer could make an algorithm that would assign to most folks a reasonably accurate (for purposes of the proposed policy) economic resources rating that would be the basis of scaling their fine.
Not only is it very feasible, it's viritually inevitable. The only reason nothing like this was implemented before was the technology wasn't there. Now, the average video game supasses this challenge's complexity by a hundredfold.
1
Traffic fines aren’t issued by the US government, they’re issued by cities, which are not comprised of 300 million people. But in any case, a simple paystub and other documentation to show the court would suffice just as it does in many other court proceedings (divorces, for example).
We already have a system that processes the required paperwork- it's called the IRS. I have been the victim of cruel and unusual amounts of money to pay for minor traffic violations. I was once fined $2,400 for driving a 10' Uhaul on the wrong street. That was more money than I made that particular month. No, I don't think it is a shallow idea to reassess how flat fines for infractions is an unequal burden on the poor.
This is a terrible idea. Fines are major part of cities and states budget. Police would target drivers in expensive cars and not bother to waste time on clunkers. Luxury cars will be stopped for going 2 miles over the speed limit and old cheap cars will get a pass for going 15 miles over . Law should be applied equally to be fair.
62
It is a terrible idea for fines to be a major source of revenue, because it makes government dependent on lawbreaking and tempts it to design laws so they will raise revenue rather than keeping public order.
35
If you look at city budgets I believe you will find that fines are NOT a major part of city budgets. In some very small towns that may be true but not in cities of significant size. Sales tax and property taxes far exceed revenue from fines.
1
Your comment implies that police cannot be trusted to be unbiased in how they enforce traffic laws. I disagree. I hope and expect that traffic cops are motivated to use their powers to make the streets safer.
This entitled young writer needs to experience some real world court experience, beyond clerking for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge.
How would he propose apportioning fines? On earned income? Gross income? Should a two-earner family reporting $90,000 a year pay the same as a single retiree with the same income?
And in what universe do we...should we substitute fines for violent criminal behavior like domestic assault? The United States is not Finland and while the Germans may choose to let contract killers get work release, Americans are largely repulsed by such unfairly lenient sentences.
The justice system should never be about generating revenue, certainly for criminal behavior. Even traffic offense fines should be designed to deter, not raise money for the taxing district.
Why not apportion the punishment based on the relative harm suffered by the victim? As a prosecutor for 35 years, I see the people whose cars are stolen are often devastated by what would for people like me able to afford comprehensive auto coverage a really irritating inconvenience.
39
People living from paycheck are often devastated by small fines. The true purpose of these fines is to disrupt the lives of marginal people and make it more difficult for them to improve their lot. Thks makes sure they really deserve the improvement, and also keeps them marginal so we have somebody to feel superior to.
12
Some people do live from paycheck to paycheck.
These people should not be breaking the law.
If they didn't break the law they wouldn't be marginalized and no one would feel superior go them.
If they want to improve their lot then don't do the crime.
Maybe a prosecutor (albeit it one with 35 years experience) from the country with the world’s largest prison population should give pause before accusing other countries of being lenient. Generally speaking putting people in prison is an incredibly dumb thing to do. The UK is also making a shambles of this
Knowing the devastation that would be inflicted upon the poor, charitable organizations and individuals could pay all or part of the fines owed by people that were deserving help and/or provide legal representation that could avoid fines being owed in the first place.
1
My teenage son's response. "Epic fail. The law is supposed to be used equally for all."
35
Your teenager misses the point.
The purpose of a fine is to deter.
The wealthy are not deterred by small fines.
The point he's making is that the law is absolutely not being applied equally when a parking ticket destroys one person's life and barely affects another. This is a subtlety lost on republicans.
Fines do not equally inconvenience their targets. How is that equal?
It would be better still if the penalty was a mandatory safety course or community service. Though the title implies nurses are an example of someone who is poor, for many people a speeding ticket would cause a massive hardship.
Police departments should not be tempted to run as profit centers, because this rewards a focus on revenue collection - issuing fines to those who likely cannot fight them - instead of more serious crimes and community problems that may not have as good of an hourly return.
9
Two Words: Revenue neutral
1
Let me elaborate. To guard against abuse, the net excess collected over the "base ticket" should go to a general fund at the state level. That additional revenue to the state would be offset by a flat amount refunded to all state income tax filers.
For example, let's say the base fine is $100. Some poorer folks pay only $50, but some higher income ones pay $1,000. Add up all of the money collected and subtract from $100 x the number of tickets written. That excess (if any) goes to the state treasury. Let's say all jurisdiction's excesses come to $11.13 per tax filer (ignoring single vs. married, etc. for now). Each of them would pay $11.13 lower state taxes the following year. Really not hard to administer and reduces the incentive for cops to target fancy cars and focus on... public safety.
6
That sounds more costly to administer than the fine itself.
An interesting idea, but why stop there?
Take jail sentences. Given that women on average outlive men, shouldn't they do more time for the same criminal offense?
Or what about another measure? In determining punishments, shouldn't we take into account the good that people have done as well as the bad? Given that Yale economist William Nordhaus estimates that innovators typically get only a 2.2% share of the benefits from their inventions (the rest goes to you and me), isn't it only fair that the courts should take into account their value to society and reduce their sentences?
Presumably extroverts suffer a greater loss of well-being from a long prison term than introverts. To balance the punishment, shouldn't extroverts get shorter sentences?
The possibilities are limited only by your imagination. But, all things considered, I think I'd like to stick with the reactionary principle that the punishment should fit the crime.
186
Fascinating. Good food for thought. Thanks.
1
Of course the punishment should fit the crime Ian.
But for me, a 50 dollar fine isn't really a punishment at all.
And for someone living paycheck to paycheck, 50 dollars may be a week of groceries.
So, let's compare the result- 50 dollar fine for the same crime, I barely notice it, someone else goes hungry for a week.
So does the punishment really fit the crime? Obviously not.
But no worries, the current situation works for me.
13
This would be an attempt to have the punishment fit the crime. The death penalty is a lesser punishment for the man with nine lives.
5
Mr. Schierenbeck's proposal opens the door to serious abuses, with penalties grossly unfair and disproportionate both to the nature of the offense and the identity of the offender. Historically certain jurisdictions were notorious for being speed traps designed to 'harvest' fines paid by out-of-towners, and as a practical matter, no recourse. Hire a lawyer to fight a hefty speeding ticket? Even if the offender could easily afford to do so, who would do that? Worse, when patrol officers are evaluated for their on the job performance, you can predict that the standard for efficiency would inevitability turn on ROI, Return on Investment, meaning, how much money did that particular officer generate, and whether there are cash incentives to encourage that behavior.
The inherent corruption is indisputable, as is the prospect of bribery by law enforcement officers. It comes as no surprise that an offender presumed to be wealthy enough to pay a significant fine will attempt to arbitrage his penalty downward by paying off the cop who stopped him, with the money changing hands less than the official fine. This has been our history.
The collateral effects are obvious. Regulatory measures that are enforced by fines, i.e., building, fire, and public safety codes, would be governed by ROI instead of risk of loss or dangerousness. That, too, is our history.
Bottom line, discriminatory enforcement policies invite corrupt collection practices.
20
I find it frankly hilarious that you rest an argument on the belief that no one would hire a lawyer to fight a "hefty" speeding ticket. You must not have met many spoiled rich kids.
I've seen people (and their dads) send a lawyer to fight 200 dollar speeding tickets. Traffic lawyers are not a small subindustry. Some corporations pay them as a fringe benefit for their employees.
Many traffic tickets are really easy to get out of for people who actually show up rather than mailing in the fine- or better yet, sending a trained attorney to point out the inevitable paperwork errors made by the traffic cop.
5
Its not a little sad when the corruption of government officials becomes the determining factor in how we govern. Why even try, if that's the case?
Many comments here seem unwilling to acknowledge how devastating an unforeseen $100 obligation can be when you are poor.
The rest of them seem to express horror that they might have to spend a months income for a petty infraction. Poor people feel the same, so I guess at least we can agree upon that.
Yes, of course we should do this, but it is unworkable unless the IRS shares tax records with every law enforcement agency across the country. In the US, where someone can be elected president without revealing their tax info., one must question how legislation such as this could ever pass a legislative body filled with Republicans.
18
It is a great common sense idea. Sometimes things happen, we are human, parking meters act up...In California if you are pulling a trailer you can only go 55 mph. I only drive 55 mph when towing, but when I learned another tower was passing over the limit and got a ticket for $400, that scared me out of my socks. I could not afford that and would have ruined my trip. The condition of the roads and the damage they do to my vehicles is a burden already.
5
While the idea that fines should differ for a nurse vs. Mark Zuckerberg makes some sense, it also ignores the facts that (a) the purpose of fines for speeding should be to deter speeding, not for revenue. No realistic fine would have much deterrent effect on Mr. Zuckerberg but the nurse may decide to drive at a legal speed in order to avoid the fine, which is all to the good and (b) the nurse and Mr. Zuckerberg will always live very different lives and this is only a tiny part of it. Finally, if Mr. Zuckerberg and the nurse both speed so many times that they lose their driving privileges, the nurse may also lose his or her livelihood since he or she may no longer be able to commute to work. However, Mr. Zuckerberg has several chauffeurs so his lifestyle would not be impacted at all. That difference is far more significant than the fines.
8
Zuckerberg is of course the extreme case. The great majority of higher earnings people would probably feel the bite contemplated in the essay.
2
Actually, there'should no downside whatsoever to someone like Mr. Zuckerberg being automatically fined $5 million for speeding. It wouldn't hurt him, and it could fund school lunches for thousands of kids for a year.
Perps there should be a variant of the law for the mega-rich. Any fine, of any size , would be barely half a drop in the bucket, that would never even be felt.
To get this passed, there should be some middle ground. It seems like a lot of commenters against this assume that we'd keep the base ticket where it is (potentially devastating for the poor) and then their ticket would now cost some multiple of that. Why not go for a hybrid? For example, instead of a flat $100 ticket, have a flat $50 plus an income-based (or some proxy like vehicle value) portion that could slide from $0 to cap of $400 or so. Most folks would still pay the same $100. The rich would pay $450, which would improve enforcement against them since it would subsidize the cost of enforcing traffic lawsagainst the rest of us.
7
Fines are not meant to pay for law enforcement, but to deter people from committing infractions.
For a person making $450k a year, a $450 fine is a joke, about an hour's pay.
Be very careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Our country was based on the idea of equality. Hillary floated the idea of imputed rent. So that if you had saved your money and purchased a house, you were somehow taking advantage of poorer folk, ( or, you had saved money for a house while others were eating out and taking expensive vacations). I worked my butt off saving money to start a business. My friends were buying Lattes and having lunch out, while I brown bagged and brought coffee from home. Am I now a bad guy because I scrimped and saved while others were living above their means?
43
No, you are not a bad person. But the author has a valid point. If a $1,000 fine for you would have the same relative value as $100 to me, then differentiated fines are necessary to create equal deterrence and penalties. It is worth a try.
14
Citizen,
On what basis? The most recent tax return filed? What about family wealth? What if the person scrimped and saved for decades prior to earning a high income?
7
The student loan program used to be plagued by this same idea. I say used to because I hope the flaw has been fixed. My mother scrimped and saved so that I could attend college. The FinAid formula (rightfully) expected her to apply a portion (a good portion, in fact) towards paying for tuition. Alas, had she blown her savings on vacations and other consumption, she would have had more fun and I would have received an even greater amount of financial aid. Silly systems with poor incentive structures abound. Let’s look to correct them, not add more.
21
A sliding scale is a good idea. Not only is it hard for the poor to pay, but frequent trips to court because of slow payment can cause a person to lose a job. Community service is not an option for many poor people who are struggling to hold several jobs with constantly changing hours. Loss of money, even a small amount is still a bigger punishment for the poor who live from paycheck to paycheck.
I see no reason to cap the fine because someone is very wealthy. If a rich people are willing to break the law they should be prepared to pay the price. As it is, people who embezzle money get a much shorter sentence at a cushier prison than those who steal goods from a store. I don't know why Europeans are afraid to incarcerate people but, rich or poor, assault should lead to prison.
10
What if the "wealthier" person was supporting two elderly parents with no savings or income and an adult special needs child? What if that person is worried sick that the wealth will run out because of those huge and sustained expenses? Just a "hypothetical" example.
Speeding is speeding. You break the law, you pay the fine. Consequences for a certain behavior should be specific and equally given. The poor person didn't break the law any less than the wealthy person.
36
That's a specious argument.
A wealthy person supporting a sick relative is still wealthier than a poor person supporting a sick relative.
You're advocating giving the wealthy a pass but not the poor.
1
"What if the "wealthier" person was ..."
They can appeal the ticket citing the circumstances or they can obey the law.
1
Is this not the thin end of the wedge?
Where the more wealthy of us use these sliding scale fines to justify demands to legitimatize government access on a sliding scale, government services on a sliding scale, preferment in negotiations for any license or permit on a sliding scale?
Should we start seeing the street where the millionaire lives get more priority in snow clearance, garbage pickup, police/fire/ambulance emergency response?
Sorry, nice idea, but I don't think so.
We already have fairness issues, even things out first.
8
In many places, the more affluent neighborhoods already get better services, but this is not the point here. If the purpose of the fine is to deter speeding, then a wealthy person is less likely to be deterred by a modest fine than a poor person. That's all.
8
Peter, of course, that's the point, which many posters here seem not to understand.
If Lebron James scores a basket (easy for him), it should only count for 1 point. If a less-talented player scores a basket (more of a challenge for him), it should count for bonus points.
Makes sense.
70
Typical lawyer who misses the basic fact that the person violated the law and that has nothing to do with how much money he/she may have. Wonder what school he attended. Too Bad.
24
No, actually, you miss the fact that fines are supposed to be a deterrant, but they don't work on the wealthy.
or perhaps it is you that has missed the point
As usual, Finland "gets it." They were recently confirmed as 'The Happiest Country on Earth,' by the way. They impose fines as a percentage of last year's income - so a 1% of annual income fine for, say, reckless driving is meaningful to both the billionaire and the janitor. I know this is "Murrica" and "We're Number One" and all that but can't we ever adopt a smarter, better way of doing things from overseas???????
11
Sure, let's cherry pick what we like from countries smaller than dozens of U.S. cities. (Make sure we completely ignore what we don't want to know about those little countries too.)
11
tew,
Everybody "cherry picks" all the time, taking the good and rejecting the bad.
This one is a good idea. The fact that Finland may have other ideas that are not so good is irrelevant.
Nor does the size of the country matter. A larger country has more people servicing the government. The US Social Security Administration is not less effective than that of a smaller country.
if you can't do the time don't do the crime.
12
Unfortunately, the inverse of that is that if you can do the time, go ahead and commit the crime. And that is one of the problems that we have right now.
3
Or if you aren’t a well off white person who can afford a good lawyer.
Better yet go big or go to jail. Commit corporate crime where you mismanage or defraud millions and you can probably just quietly resign or declare bankruptcy.
A nurse and a billionaire should not pay the same fee for congestion pricing to enter Manhattan.
3
Yes they should. Both are causing the same amount of additional congestion.
11
This won't happen. My god, how we squawk at progressive taxation in general.
2
The problem really is tax rules to benefit the wealthy. End the gimmicks. A flat tax for all income , earned and investment. Never happen the one percenters will never allow it.
Who is the "we" who squawks at progressive taxation?
Not 99% of the people.
While I can see a judge using permitted discretion to reduce a fine for a financially stressed individual, unless a crime was committed with the intent to reap an illegal financial gain I don’t see how a fine or civil penalty set by the legislature based on the offender’s wealth could pass the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—something Scandinavian countries no doubt lack, just as there is no First Amendment in Europe or Russia or China.
It has been a sacred legal principle in this country that unless I am asking for something from the government, how much money I make is between me and the IRS (and me and my wife and the divorce court judge in the event of divorce), not any government official who inquires.
Were any state to pass such a law the U.S. Congress would slap it down in an instant—Democrat or Republican.
6
The equal protection clause does not prohibit a sliding scale of fines, any more than it prohibits progressive taxation.
You assuming that fining wealthy people more denies them equal protection, whereas in reality currently it's a poor person who is denied it, as he feels punishment while a wealthy person does not for the same infraction.
This is why we should have 100% tax on wealth. The government can supply what people need to live. All services free!
8
Oh Jeez. The socialists are stirring today. How about obeying the laws and avoiding the fines? And what about municipal budgets that don't rely on fine quotas?
21
Rich people are not compelled to obey the laws because the fines mean nothing to them.
Yelling "socialist" is a poor tactic to try to deflect from the purpose of the proposal.
There's no question there were terrible abuses in Ferguson and no doubt a lot of other places. Trying to gouge a wealthier person for the same offense cannot be the answer. You wonder why people in red states think we're nuts. This proposal would be exhibit A. They would read this as wanting to punish rich people for their success. You know what? They wouldn't be wrong. This isn't Finland. It's never going to be Finland. Tear up this absurd proposal and find another way to solve this problem without the obnoxious class warfare.
16
Why do you consider is "gouging" of a wealthy person, when it is actually a poor person and not a rich one who suffers from a hefty fine?
Fines for small infractions should be small, large ones large. It’s that simple. The unfairness is when jaywalking is a hundred bucks, instead of ten. Going five or ten percent over the limit should be fifty bucks, not two hundred and fifty. Fairly setting the fines in the first place solves the problem. Changing the structure to match income would be divisive. It would also likely be unconstitutional. Tax the rich more overall to make up for any losses in police funding incurred by reducing fines. Law enforcement is not supposed to be a government funding mechanism, that’s the real problem.
3
Well, whether you're rich or poor, the danger your reckless driving poses to others is the same. That's the primary basis of the fine.
17
Yes, that is the purpose of the fine: to deter people from reckless driving.
And fines that mean nothing to the rich do not accomplish that. That is the point.
1
The nurse in this account was only parking in the wrong place.
Police interested in fines to fund government services would only issue traffic tickets to Tesla’s, Mercedes , BMW and Lexus. A few miles over in a late model luxury car and you’re pulled over. Drive a 10 year old stealth car and you can drive as fast as you want worry free.
5
You oppose more fairness in levying fines because of police corruption?
That's a ridiculous argument.
Any sensible billionaire would not be driving herself or himself. So the enhanced fine would be easily avoided.
Maybe the author should content himself with the fact that "in 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined." Source: The Tax Foundation
14
To revive Britain after the war the tax rate rose to about 96% That way the whole infrastructure got a shot in the arm, it was amazing the recovery Britain made. We need this desperately - just wait til next week or so when the whole sewage system in, say, Manhattan breaks open and there is no money to use to fix it. I used Manhattan for this remark because most of Manhattan's wealthy also winter in Florida where the taxes are so much less; they don't have the foresight to be glad to pay tax where they spend most of their time, in Manh. - it's more fun to pay less and escape the winter as well.
So don't try to tell us that the rich pay their part of taxes, they find ways NOT to.
So what is next? How can society discourage achievement more than it already does? Should wealthy people pay more for groceries or clothes? They already pay more for their children's education. One of the primary motivations in life is to earn enough income so that everyday expenses become a smaller portion of that income and more is left over for discretionary spending. We have already have a sharply progressive income tax that sucks up much of a high earner's income. This is essentially another plea for socialism. Someday in the not too distant future, unfettered immigration will lead to an electorate all too willing to leach off of the few that will actually be paying taxes and then all Americans can be poor.
14
Fines ARE meant to be a deterrent after all - so they should be progressive.
5
Terrific, let’s use a progressive cost scheme for all of life’s expenses. This will work as an effective deterrent to stop anyone from seeking to improve their lot in life. Too bad this wasn’t put in place during the cave man days. If it has we would all still be living in caves because we would have no motivation to do better, since we would just get penalized with a progressive capture for having done better. What Neanderthal thinking!
So justice should be blind to everything but an offender's bank account? Sorry, not buying it.
In the case cited, of the $151 parking violation, first of all, if you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. Secondly, this woman failed to appear in court 7 times - SEVEN! And she is identified in this story as a "black woman". If she was a white man, parked illegally, and skipped court 7 times, he would be in the same predicament.
My suggestion for those who don't want to suffer the indignities of our criminal justice system is to abide by the law. It's worked for me for 42 years! (Though, admittedly, I have a parking ticket outstanding, I failed to move my car off the road during a snowstorm two weeks ago and got a ticket; the judge who lives next door to me has done the same thing several times in the past week and has not gotten a ticket. Which in no way excuses what I did - I knew the rule, I broke it, and now I'm out $20. Sigh!)
11
This is too intelligent a proposal for the US. We like simple-minded, and if it is stupid in addition, so much the better. cf. 2nd amendment.
2
Or we could raise the speed limits to something reasonable.
4
Yeah, especially since the nurse was going 40 in a 25, and the billionaire was going 385 mph between San Carlos and Las Vegas.
1
I am of modest income who makes life with many omissions. I would like steak and the gent whose name I cannot spell perhaps ought to pay for most of it. Maybe even some of the sales tax! Thank you.....
3
This is how it works in Finland. When the CEO of Nokia as fined for speeding he had to pay 30k. He was ok with it.
1
I'm curious how this might this work at the lower end of the income scale.
For example, if a 16 year old high school student with no income gets a speeding ticket, there is no fine at all? What about someone who has lost their her/his job because of a drug addiction, anger issues, or simply a lack of responsibility?
This seems like an incentive for a relatively high risk groups to engage in even riskier behavior.
Perhaps there should be a minimum fine as well as a maximum one.
5
We don't have to completely re-set all the rules now, let's just agree that progressive fines would make more sense.
As someone who spends months on end in Argentina and has done so for years, I become highly suspicious of an op-ed piece that states that Argentina has tailored fines to income, for no less than already 100 years. I would love to hear what fines the author is referring to, as it certainly does not apply to traffic violations (the example he is using to start his argument). Nor to many other fines for general violations. It seems a completely spurious and false statement in an already very ill-thought argument. If Mark Zuckerberg gets a speeding ticket, the severity of the fine is NOT meant to inflict pain but set for the seriousness of the offense, which is the same no matter who commits it. By the reasoning of Alec Schierenbeck a billionaire might receive the death penalty for an offense that a poor person will just serve minor jail time for. This is the kind of thesis fro which most high schools reward an F — and rightly so. Failed!
13
The first step would be prosecutors treating the poor the same as those who have hired counsel. We are talking Municipal Court here.
1
Switzerland has a similar system, which totally makes sense. A few years ago, some Swedish guy did actually get fined $1 million and had his Mercedes SLS AMG confiscated for driving on the motorway at 180mph (!!!) instead of 75.
2
Inequality of income can be the result of many personal individual reasons. Skill, birth circumstances, education, aptitude, drive, and desire. The reasons for inequalities many vary greatly between individuals. But a traffic ticket is the result of society’s laws. It is fixed. Laws should recognize differences in ability to pay, and the infliction of equal punishment, by the real world impact on lives of laws which need to be just.
Well, as many state, this is just another way that the poor pay and the wealthy don't. But to think on a bigger scale: the more desperate people are the more risks they are willing to take. After all, the regular stuff hasn't worked. So vote for extreme candidates who offer quick and emotionally fulfilling solutions. Something new! Different and maybe better!
There's opportunity here!
1
It's a perfectly progressive and reasonable idea that I'd approve, and patently unAmerican on many levels. It is as is stated herein, a measure that would make America more in tune with other nations, a very unpopular idea indeed for that reason alone. The best case I know of this refusal to accept good practices if they are foreign was the rejection by US Senate of Wilson's League of Nations after the horror of WW1. This malarkey invocation of possible lost sovereignty left France without it's potentially strongest ally vs a rearming Germany. WW2 was the result.
I'd note that the Right Wing has, ironically, won the US "communication of ideas" war, because poorly delivered progressive ideas rarely get judged on their merits. This is the case with income taxation. For all the same reasons progressive fines make sense, progressive taxes do too - smaller amounts of money mean more to people who don't have it. Ironically the one word associated with the regressive flat tax idea is "fairness."
You can't get good ideas across if you the other guys own the communication high ground. More evidence of this is Trump, who is a killer communicator on the stump if you watch without bias, yet is derided by my liberal fellows every time he speaks as stupid etc. Liberals simply don't get messaging. Our hopes suffer commensurately.
2
Some nations offer fines in lashes. Do you want America to get in tune with those nations? Why only follow European nations?
What! I am in the camp that penalties should be the same for all! Why should I be penalized for being successful? How did such silliness even become an issue. We ought to concern ourselves with more important inequities. Discrimination, hunger , domestic abuse, sexual harassment and nepotism in the White House to name a few....
4
What a great idea but why stop there? White people have an inherent advantage because of their "privilege" so they should pay more. Men should pay more than women, because on average, they earn more. Oh, and red state residents should pay more because we just don't like them very much. And climate deniers? In their case the death penalty for even minor infractions is wholly justified.
20
I'm familiar with this idea, it's been around for many years. A speeding ticket is a speeding ticket, the potential safety hazard it imparts to others on the road is the same whether the driver is rich or poor. So the penalty should be the same. Anything other than that is a slippery slope. For example, what if I am rich but have a problem with authority so getting pulled over by a cop sets me off and leads to my arrest, and a whole phalanx of life degrading emotional self worth issues. Should my penalty be less - or exist at all - because I have a diagnosed "problem with authority." Big can of worms, and relativism, I think.
Also, in the article's example, shouldn't the flip side be that say if a Facebook janitor wins the lottery, he should only get 2 million- an astronomical sum to him, whereas mark Z should get 200 billion, an equally astronomical sum to him. And should this apply to other areas of life- tho i can't think of any right now but I'm sure there are some. After all, how else can rich people feel joy, though this article focuses on how to make them feel pain. I know people are gonna rip me for this, and I'm not a right winger or nut job about it all. I think you get too many speeding tickets you lose your license anyways, on points.
3
I've been ranting about this for years. Glad someone has finally writen a column about this disgarce. Someone making $100,000per year getting a $100 fine for texting while driving looks at that fine as chump change, as opposed to a person who makes $30,000 or less per year, looks at that fine as a finacial burden, and therefore makes a change in their habits, while the other rich clown keeps on driving recklessly. Fines are supposed to be a deterrent, with the rich it's not. Time to base fines on a person's GROSS yearly income.
1
Maybe you should grumble instead about the road signs that post the maximum fine (e.g. $450 for littering). While I doubt the cost of the speeding ticket is the driving force behind a wealthy driver deciding to speed or not, it might actually play a role in deciding whether to litter or not. Of course, only a miscreant would use the maximum fine as the hurdle in deciding whether to litter or not.
You're right... fining them both $100 for texting while driving is ridiculous. They should both be fined $1000 and lose their licences for 1 year.
If the nurse and billionaire both drove the legal speed limit, they would pay the same amount!
7
should we legislate a systemic restructuring of our theft-related criminal law based on ability to pay.
3
This argument actually makes Donald Trump appear sane and rational by comparison. How scary is that? I might go along with shifting the emphasis to community service. Let the billionaire and the janitor work weekends leaning graffiti or passing out soup. But then the argument will be about time spent getting o the community service and the burden of using public transportation over a limo. We are all equal before the law (at least in theory). Start to tinker with that and the Days-O'Trump will be blissful in hindsight.
5
I've always grumbled about fines that are not tied to wealth. Fortunately I have only received seven fines in my life, all parking fines when I lived back in NYC. The wealthy would just consider the fine a trivial cost of daily parking.
The Nurse and the billionaire should pay a fine based on the SAME PERCENTAGE of their total wealth. Yes we should fine Zuckerberg $1 million for a speeding ticket - that would certainly help reduce wealth inequality, get some of their tax cuts back for society, should not be tax deductible, and would reduce the sense of entitlement the wealthy feel they have. Otherwise billionaires can continue to speed while paying a pittance - cost of doing business - in this case a speeding fine is a trivial cost.
To base it on a daily, monthly or yearly income does not work either. Look at all those who "work" for a yearly income of $0.00 or $1.00 - like our POTUS and a few CEOs. They'd get a kiss on the wrist while they are overpaid in other ways.
Someone like trump can avoid paying the fine altogether by simply hiring a lawyer to fight it out and appeal indefinitely - bankrupting our legal system.
If you steal a candy bar and your poor, you go to jail. If you steal millions and millions, you get to continue living the good life.
1
Bob Dylan.
The lonesome death of Hattie Carol.
Percy's song.
Dylan is perhaps the most quoted by judges....don't know why....he does not seem to have much respect for them.
great idea. then maybe you defense traffic-ticket, ambulance chaser type of lawyers will begin providing "defense" against traffic tickets at a sliding scale so that a janitor pays $20/hr and a rich guy pays you $200/hr.
lemme guess, you're not so sure about that one.
5
We definitely should have progressive fines! Its way past time.
A silly article that ignores the biases of police and the arbitrary implementation of fines to raise revenues for counties.
4
Sorry pipe-dreamer, but each crime carries the same penalty no matter who breaks the rule.
You need to complain about the penalties, so write your Congressman. Or, better yet, move to Missouri, run for office, and change the law yourself. Good luck!
3
Moral of the story: If you don’t want to pay the fine, don’t do the crime.
2
When did it become a crime to be wealthy?
7
When envy became an overriding political principle.
A lot of comments dont get it. This is about money-based fines. The money is intended/designed to be the penalty. If you dont care about 100 bucks, it is not a penalty to you.
Length of imprisonment is something altogether different. To compare the two types of penalties is to misunderstand what a money fine is supposed to accomplish. Whether money fines actually accomplish anything is a different question of course but not the question asked here.
2
having observed a few new municipalities being erected, money fines are simple the method municipalities use to offset the cost of expanding their local police departments. The municipalities want to advertise safety and security to attract new business and residents but they don't want to assess taxes to pay for it as that would discourage the recruits. Fines are the hidden tax, only paid by offenders. If the fine revenues aren't sufficient, they are easily increased. If the revenues are excessive, staff is expanded.
2
This is a great article. It's awareness of class consciousness flies in the face of elites who espouse individual responsibility, yet never suffer the full brunt of social consequences.
3
elites suffer more than the full brunt. the elites have more invested and more at risk.
Flat fines or flat taxes: both are regressive in nature and the wealthy fight against any effort to make them pay their fair share. Illinois billionaires Ken Griffin and [Governor] Bruce Rauner have fought against progressive taxation of all kinds for years.
Flat tax efficiencies depend on a broad base (i.e., closing all the loopholes used by companies and individuals to avoid paying appropriate tax) and a high enough rate to maintain revenue neutrality to the extent that the flat tax works like a consumption tax. Conservatives know the regressive nature (and revenue-losing qualities) of a flat tax and its favorability to the wealthy, so they are disincentivized to promote a graduated tax.
3
Interesting idea. Perhaps we could extend it to prison sentencing. Commit crime X at age 20, do 20 years; commit the same crime at 70, do 5 years; do it at 85, serve maybe a week.
2
Nah, you'd end up with hitmen with walkers.
What an absurd idea. A crime is a crime. And the law must apply equally to everyone. Oh, and by the way, that billionaire you cite in your title most like does not drive his own car.
Additionally, if we follow the same logic, we would also have to adjust the cost of utilities and food. Why does a nurse pay the same as a billionaire for a gallon of milk?
22
R, buying milk is not a penalty imposed for committing a crime. The other is a voluntary retail purchase. Not the same thing in any form. Your comparison invalidates your argument. Who would upvote this?
3
Your idea that a fine is a fine is absurd. It illustrates the lowest level of Lawrence Kohlberg's levels of moral development. Don't worrying, though. You're in the company of police and grunts in the military.
Eh, a billionaire’s not going to be drinking the same milk anyhow. Probably some grass-fed organic fancy stuff that comes in a glass bottle.
2
perhaps prison sentence government guidelines should be based upon life expectancy.
6
This idea is beyond asinine. The simplest way to avoid financial ruin that can result from incurring a fine? Don’t break the law! You chose to break the law = you pay. You don’t break the law = no cost, no risk to you.
Maybe we should instead raise the fine to something outrageous ($10,000?) so that you will think twice before breaking the law. If that doesn’t serve as proper motivation, nothing will.
And why are we penalizing the wealthier individual for committing the same crime as any other individual? It is the same crime no matter your wealth. The crime isn’t more heinous because you make more than the other guy. Should we do the same for prison sentences?
The author prefers that we penalize those who earn more because they can afford more. What is one of the primary motivations behind earning more? To afford more. That we should penalize someone for being motivated to boost their lot in life is a hair-brained idea. Its underlying basis smacks of envy and jealousy rather than honesty and integrity.
And let’s not forget that there is an end game penalty: should the wealthy individual continue to flaunt the law because the fines don’t cause financial stress, that individual will eventually accumulate enough points whereby he/she will lose the freedom to drive.
12
Brilliant idea. Those who think they should face no meaningful consequences when they break law (Trump voters) they will not like the idea, and they will not like their lost ability to step on the poor, who they love to abuse for fun and profit. Frankly people fines redistribute wealth from those who break the law. If the amount isn’t large enough, it doesn’t work.
So, you are saying that to afford more is equivalent to being able to break the law more often or in more severe ways?
I respectfully disagree with your view. I believe you've made your own counter argument by proposing that the fine be increased to $10,000 so that people would think twice. That argument only makes sense because you personally think $10,000 is a lot of money; what if you had a salary where you made that in a day? what if that's 60% of your entire yearly income? the effect is disproportionate and therefore ineffective as a deterrent for higher income earners. Income based fines ensure that people who break the law are paying an amount that feels like a lot no matter how much they make.
How ridiculous! If we use that type logic, then those with higher income and who are paying the lion's share of taxes, should have their own highways, police departments, fire departments etc. Should Mark Zuckerburg get life in prison for jay-walking, since, if you index the fine the what about the prison sentence.
This is just another veiled attempt at wealth redistribution. This country was founded upon the premise that those who work hard and succeed reap financial reward. Today there are far too many advocating for 'financial equality' which is nothing more than socialism. That is a great plan for turning the U.S. into just another second-tier, third-rate country.
17
this country was founded on the principles of life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. capitalist goals do not appear in the Constitution.
2
No, Mark Zuckerberg should be paying a lot more for jaywalking than you or I. Nobody talked about changing the way the person is punished. I am curious also why so many of you equate affording something should also include breaking the law. These are two entirely different things from a moral point of view.
And, I can go on and on... Why are the police and state patrol prostituting themselves selling those bumper stickers that say "I support our local police" or something similar. Of course, no one would give to the police fund thinking that that sticker might avoid a ticket. Certainly not! Corruption is corruption is corruption. You want equality and fairness in this country? It starts at the top.
1
I am for such day fines, and have been for many years.
Until we severely moderate the influence of money in our republic [I'm looking at you, Citizens United], however, nothing will be done to equalize the burden and consequence of unlawful behavior.
Justice is colorblind, until it comes to the color of green...
3
Likewise everything should cost the way Coke changes the price of soda depending on how hot it is. Everyone in America should be income indexed and everything they spend money on reflect proportionately. Bill Gates should have to pay a million times more for the same hotdog as Joe the Plumber. Of course he’s probably rich now too after all that free publicity he got. This will cause people to strive to be as meager as possible. Anyone flat broke pays nothing. Who knew there were so many ways to fix a flat tire without a pump and a patch.
2
This is blatant nonsense. Say both commit armed robbery. Should the poor man get a lighter sentence because he needs the money more than the wealthier? (Leave Jean Valjean out of this). The poor man my take the lesson and not speed again. The wealthier continues his miscreant ways, racks up points, and gets his license taken away. Fair indeed.
Justice is not justice if it is not dispensed equally -- or at least that is what everyone says. Here is at least one example where all of the "social conditions", save wealth, are as equal as they can get.
2
Most folks would say that commuting armed robbery and a speeding ticket are not the same kind of crime.
K Of course not, but where does one draw the line?? Think slopes.
Well you certainly baffled me. I was following along fine, thinking the Chicago law review had chosen well publishing your article. You had me convinced that fines should follow income to accomplish all the goals of the criminal law. As I say I was cruising along and then hit this huge pothole: "Finland... handed a businessman a $67,000 speeding ticket for going 14 miles per hour above the limit. But the United States doesn’t need to go that far. Other countries... guard against astronomical sanctions. We should do the same." Why is that? Your logic was clear and then it vaporized. If someone, like that Finnish driver, has an astronomical income, then the fine should be sky high too. Your argument essentially is that the law should be impartial and fair and equal except for the astronomically rich. So what else is new.
10
Agreed, the other logic fail was, "Plus, scaled fines might encourage more equitable prosecution...After all, the city would get more bang for its buck pulling over a rich driver with a blown blinker." What's equitable about harassing a beamer over a blown blinker and letting a hoopty roll on at 51 in a 35?
2
The wealthiest people I know have little income, and live off their accumulated assets. How about giving people the option of a fine or some amount of pre-defined community service. Say pay $100 or spend four hours picking up trash on the highway.
2
It's not about trash pick-up; it is about safe driving. We need for the wealthiest to drive safely just the same for everyone; it's just that the fine that is meaningful to the poor - say $100 - is very painful; to your wealthy accumulated asset people, why would a wussy little fine like $100 bucks mean anything to them, except annoyance that they have to tell their office assistant to get online and pay it. Nothing more. Nothing learned. No pain. No gain. No use.
i believe the current system is unconstitutional; why hasn't it been challenged in court yet?
2
Because it is not unconstitutional in any conceivable way.
Policing is not supposed to be entrepreneurial.
6
The Finnish idea is an excellent one. The US should adopt it, too.
5
Excellent. I agree wholeheartedly.
5
I've argued for this for years. The current system is a good example of something looks fair, but is anything but.
Also, let's get rid of house-arrest for the rich.
7
OMG, yes! house arrest! or should I say "House Arrest!!!"
Imagine the humiliating & painful sting of serving your time at home - where you can read, watch TV, get out your paints, sort out your jewelry, go through your clothes to chuck out some for the charity shops, send the rest out to the dry cleaners, write emails to pals in Italy; cook some tasty dishes through delivered from the high-end grocers right to your door. Entertain; Yes! house arrest!
Let's get rid of it.
The obvious problem is that someone has to research each offender's finances. Does anyone really want to give the cops all their income data over a ticket?
4
The countries that use this system base it on income tax returns for the last several years.
1
Cops only write the summons. It's the appropriate court that determines guilt then applies the law to the circumstances, including driving record, etc. What this world do is create a sellers market for traffic defense attorneys. Wait, isn't the author...?
3
A silly idea, the consequences of which the author has totally declined to think through. Should people at the top of the income pyramid serve shorter prison terms for like crimes because their time is more valuable?
8
The author certainly thought that part through, covering only the financial penalties. You would have known that had you read the article through.
It's a shame no one has acknowledged that all drivers should always respect traffic laws regardless of their income. While to some it seems to have become a government revenue generating issue, speeding and other traffic laws are there primarily for safety.
Making the penalties "almost equal" or fair is not so difficult:
2nd or 3rd speeding ticket in X months?
Lose your driving license for a year, regardless of your wealth.
2nd time to lose your license? It is gone for a long, long time.
Add the same fate for your Bentley, Benz or Lamborghini. Bye-bye Beamer.
If you get your car back, by then it might be a "classic"!
But selling the car at auction would be a fitting, equitable "fee".
3
Time is money, rather than fine an amount that is crushing for some and easy for other, make the punishment in time. Community service or jail time.
2
What is speeding?
Who is speeding?
When, where and why are they speeding?
Who or what is catching speeding?
Why should there be any fine for speeding for anyone?
What is the purpose of speeding fines?
1
They should not pay the same for health insurance either.
1
This is a very equitable idea and does very well in Europe. However I fear it could never take off in the US because it would smack of "socialism" which of course is the slippery slope to the dreaded "communism".
Having said that, Finland is now the happiest place in the world to live.
Things that make you go HMMM
2
First of course, don’t park illegally or exceed the speed limit. Secondly, there is that, truly antithetical to Liberalism idea, of equality before the law. Thirdly, rather than give low income miscreants a free pass when they run afoul of the law, consider the tenet that paying for crimes is not the most equitable way to finance administration of the law.
Today medicare premiums indexed to your tax return making the cost progressive based on tax returns. (Where is yours, DJT?). The folks at SSA have the needed data and tables to figure it out. Can be done!
1
This idea seems grossly unfair. For one thing, a speeding ticket is essentially one hundred percent objective. It is not a subjective crime like murder or robbery or money laundering. A scientific instrument is the judge. This idea seems like it would squeeze the middle earners just like our current tax systrm does. So the poor get off easy, the middle gets the brunt of the burden, and again the rich could care less for the exact same offense. No thanks.
While I understand how this idea appeals to our resentment of the wealthy, I do wish Mr. Schierenbeck had explained how issuing a $10,000 parking ticket to Mark Zuckerberg was going to help the homeless woman in Ferguson.
7
Resentment of the rich?
"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages."
-- Adam Smith (of "Wealth of Nations" fame)
The law and the penalty for breaking the law should be the same for everyone.
4
But - the pain is not the same, and that is the point.
and...speaking of equal treatment under the law- why is is that a congressperson gets special license tags? Do you think a cop in more likely to pull over a car with congressional tags? Do you think an insurance company is more likely to approve an expensive drug for the child of a congressperson? The idea this country began with was Equality! I'd kind of like to see that, someday.
1
Better add repealing the 14th Amendment & its restrictive "equal protection" clause to your to-do list, so the states (those purveyors of "traffic safety" laws - darn bureaucrats!) aren't bound by such a 20th century concept.
2
In the Nordics fines and penalties are assessed as a proportion of income.
Wouldn't this author"s argument apply to everything with a price attached to it? Everything takes a bigger chunk out of a poor person's budget than a wealthy person's budget. Should Mr. Zuckerberg pay $10,000 for a dozen eggs? Should we take our tax returns with us to the grocery store and present them when the bill is added up? If a person doesn't want a speeding ticket then don't speed.
2
We a
Ready have this in a sense. Judges don’t fine poor people if they don’t have the money or the fine would lead to people depriving their children. Sat in an Essex County courtroom and watch case after case dismissed because the court couldn’t get blood from a stone. In many places, police only ticket luxury and late model cars because they know tickets to the poor are worthless.
At some point, people will realize that the wealthier cannot pay for everything.
I understand this piece, and it does make sense.... but what's next? I pay more than you for a movie?
I already pay disproportionate income tax. Perhaps it is necessary, but it is a necessary evil and inherently unfair.
At some point, a line needs to be drawn.
3
I wholeheartedly support means-tested fines. Unlike the author, I would go as far as the Finns, and have the scale not capped. Should Mr. Zuckerberg (or any other gazillionaire) decide to break the law, the sting of a fine should be similar for him ( or her) as it is for the person flipping burgers at McDonald's. Fines are meant as deterrent and punishment, not an indulgence people with greater means can easily afford. I would also apply means-testing to parking violations: start at $ 250, with the possibility of a downward adjustment to half a day's income upon submission of last year's tax return. Right now, parking tickets in NYC (flat fine) can be easily more than a day's takehome pay for those making $15/h to less than 15 minutes of pay for some investment bankers.
1
Expecting Federal tax returns to be produced in order to verify financial status? Good luck. This isn't Argentina or Finland. Assume the fine for speeding is $250. If you can not afford the fine and the enormous increase in auto insurance, don't speed. If you could easily afford the fine et al you probably wouldn't speed anyway since you obviously have some brains.
It is the driver's responsibility for good or bad choices, not a class warrior progressive social issue. More laws and complexity for the lawyers.
2
We can find out how Finland et cetera do it; then do it their way.
By that logic, a billionaire and a nurse shouldn't pay the same price for necessities like food, accommodation, education, or health care. Also by that same logic, shouldn't the points lost from your license be tied to your wealth?
1
Good grief, where does it end? Life isn't perfectly equal, and never will be. This kind of stuff ends up ticking off moderate-leaning people and thus drive them to vote for Republicans. Get past the niggly stuff for a while, get elected, and focus on some bigger picture issues.
Should goods and services all be priced according to what one can pay? Should rich peoples' purchases subsidize poor peoples'? Equal fine for equal behavior feels reasonable, just like everyone paying the same price for a gallon of milk seems reasonable.
2
Everyone fears going to jail regardless of income. Attempting to base fines on income requires that you know the income. I am still awaiting news of the President's earnings. You could probably sentence minor offenders to jury duty.
1
Should a rich successful person get 2 votes at the ballot box if he or she has to pay twice as much for the right to be called a citizen?
11
You throw in the line: "Some evidence shows the rich are more likely to break the law while driving" implying it has something to do with the cost of fines and the burden of those fines not being significant on the wealthy. Yet, the study you link to does not mention this as a reason at all. Justice is an incredibly difficult convoluted subject that some people get even degrees in. It is odd that you talk about raising the fine for the wealthy and never once mention that we should lower significantly the cost for the poor or maybe have some other form of punishment that does not include money at all. This piece was devoid of true thought and nuance.
1
What an excellent idea. I was already aware of the Finnish method from when I taught a drug course and talked about international responses to alcohol abuse. This needs to come to America in all its forms. But there will be resistance from local police and city administration who will lose a cash cow in robbing the poor.
You live in NY. We don't fine the poor and neither do most blue states. You didn't need to go to Argentina or Finland. In Ferguson its the the unlawful racist manipulation of the application of the law that federal investigators found. Ferguson was about how the law was twisted and used to target African American community members. Your failure to recognize or acknowledge that it was racism and not the law in Ferguson is particularly disappointing. Its almost always the people misusing the law as a wepon instead of a useful tool.
If the court fined my client more solely based on his income I might argue its arbitrary and capricious, even asking for financial records for a parking ticket seems absurd and a violation of right to privacy, oh and that niggling equal protection clause in our constitution presents hurdles to your plan.
Civil and traffic fines are set based on what we as society decide is a fair penalty in an effort to keep order. Deterrence is only one part of a fines purpose. If they double, triple and add interest, so a $15 dollar fine becomes $150 when ignored you are being punished for ignoring a ticket and thumbing your nose at the system. Not even bothering to respond to the ticket or ask for financial consideration leaves no room for a court to reduce or excuse or waive a fine.
2
I disagree. Where does this sliding scale argument end? Why not make rich people pay more for gasoline, or milk, or a plumber? Let's give smart people more difficult tests, and strong people weights to carry about on their torsos. Let's deface pretty people. It's socialism plain and simple. Ridiculous.
4
Instead of making the rich pay more by some complex income-related system, II would prefer to see the wealthy actually prosecuted and sentenced like everyone else. How many bankers or other financial people ended up with ANY punishment for 2008? 0? 1? 2? I mean, none. And what about the almost 100% criminality of the current administration. How many of them are likely to suffer anything at all? Probably none. How about cops breaking the law. How many of them suffer anything? Nearly none. Judges bend over backwards to find excuses for cops when they break the law. And criminal D.A.s who purposely hide evidence so innocent people go to prison. How many of them have ever suffered in the slightest?
My point is, there are many areas where our "justice" system stinks horribly. I would be surprised if Finland's is even in the same negative league as ours, even in the same town. Ours is on a level with many 3rd world countries and we have no excuse at all.
This is a ridiculous idea and, presumably, an affront to the equal protection and nondiscrimination afforded everyone. It's already bad enough, our jails are filled with those less able to afford expensive legal representation. On the other hand, what a quick way to up the quotas by keeping an eye out for a Maserati, Mercedes, or Ferrari. Ha.
2
Doesn't the point system address this to some extent? More infractions more points, reach a certain amount you lose your license.
Nonsense.
How much overhead would this need to set the rates, verify people's income level. What about employment status and mortgage obligations or student loan debt? What about retired/unemployed people with no baseline?
The very wealthy would easily just hire a low cost driver to avoid this ridiculous idea so would you fine the owner or the driver ?
This would clog the courts with plea bargains in many cases.
More money for lawyers, oh wait this was proposed by a lawyer altruistically I'm sure.
Not worth any serious thought.
Laws and fines need to apply equally to all citiziens
1
It wouldn't be fair, Mr. Schierenbeck, to levy a heavy fine on a poor person, but it would be just. Justice mean treating people alike. It is an impersonal virtue.
14
Should we extend this to prison sentences?
Those who have families who depend on them presumably suffer higher costs of imprisonment than those who don't. Should prison sentences for the same crime be based on how much the person is perceived to feel the cost of being imprisoned? Should we let mothers and fathers off lighter because each extra day in jail has a higher cost to them?
The idea of how much someone 'feels' a punishment is far too subjective to ever use as a basis for the administration of justice.
5
for a country that holds itself out as a paragon of fairness, justice, and equality, why is it such a struggle any time someone proposes actually making the system a little more fair, just, and equal?
Regardless of income, getting such citations are equally preventable across incomes. Abide by the traffic laws. And all laws. If you are poorer than others, then you know it hurts more. Drive better. The reality is that as wealth goes up driving behaviors improve. More to lose from an accident ( civil liability), and life in general.
3
The problem with this argument is that if you accept it there is no reason to limit it to fines. Why not apply it to food or other basic necessities? Why should someone who earns low wages have to pay a much larger percentage of his/her income on gas than a wealthy person? Where do you draw the line?
4
Progressive fines are long overdue. Likewise, we need to replace or regressive loan system that penalizes people for earning less money when in need of buying things like cars.
As Alex Schierenbeck points out, a speeding fine or bank fee for a bounced check can be a stinging penalty, whereas wealthy people can simply pay them. On the other hand, since the Enlightenment, we have generally believed that punishments should fit the crime, rather than be tailored to the criminal. What would really make me happy, since tax day is approaching, would be if governments would eliminate many of the myriad ways that wealthy people hide their income. That might go further toward creating a just society than assessing wealthy citizens a steeper fine for comparatively minor violations of the law.
3
How do you propose to administer such a means-tested sliding scale for traffic fines?
You would have the DMV or local police have access to everyone’s income tax filings?
I understand your concern, and am sensitive to the inequity. If it makes you feel any better, the real arbiter of justice here is the insurance industry. Very few can afford to see their auto insurance premiums get jacked up, lose their insurance coverage, or have their license suspended by DMV for excessive violations.
1
The fine is the least of a driver's worry. His/her auto insurance will go up. Does the author suggest we should means test auto insurance premiums too?
Maybe we should get rid of fines and send everyone to jail for traffic infractions. That would certainly inconvenience the billionaire at least as much if not more than the janitor.
I have a pretty negative feeling toward this, but at least it seems to have a slight anti-libertarian slant to it. The masters of the universe cannot just pay their way through every event - or would they. Does anybody think a 67,000 dollar fine on Zuckerberg would make him bat an eyelash?
With a high end cap on fines, wouldn't a low end one be necessary as well, or are we going to give a free pass to commit fineable offenses to the unemployed? The scary alternative would be denying driver's licenses and other access to the poor, since they can't afford to drive or go about their daily business along the same lines as their richer counterparts (I'm jumping to a conclusion here). I can also imagine that this system would backfire by making an exception for the very poor, the precise individuals this proposition is attempting to help. Would the inability to pay the smallest of fines suddenly make a fineable offense a jailable one?
This kind of pitchfork populism is nothing more than a matter of using taxation to soak the rich. There are plenty of opportunities to reduce the costs of fines to the indigent as opposed to attempting to massively raise the costs to the wealthy. If the purpose of fines is to change behaviors as opposed to raise revenues, the real test should be a reduction of whatever the offending issue.
1
Even if there were a credible argument to be made, the symbolism evoked via the generic "billionaire" and the hard-working nurse is unnecessarily provocative and hurts the integrity of the op-ed. At a time when the obfuscation of the president's and his cronies' finances is so clearly problematic, it might be worth picking our battles and not giving wealthy wrongdoers another reason to hide money and/or distrust the system - they will probably figure it out.
1
In California the problem is fees,costs,surcharges added to the fine,a $200 fine becomes 4 to $5 hundred out of pocket. These motivations taint any justice preformed by these highly paid court officials. They'll have dollar sighs in their eyes when they hear of this idea.
"Other countries typically cap the size of fines to guard against astronomical sanctions. We should do the same."
So returning to your first example of the janitor of Facebook and Zuckerberg, Zuckerberg still wouldn't bat an eye. If we are buying what you are selling, why should the super-wealthy be immune from meaningful consequences?
Not the same but in a similar vein, those who get arrested for drugs or alcohol related crimes (DUI) should receive the same jail time. As it is, wealthy people have themselves or children whisked off to private hotel like rehab facilities when they're busted. Whereas people with less money go to jail for the same exact offense.
We have a two tiered judicial system. One for the rich and one for the rest of us.
This has to be done for fairness. If you use money for a punishment, then a small amount of money is no punishment. And it has to be relative. Here's a slight variation - the fine for a speeding offense is $10,000. If you wish, you can pay the fine. Or, you can go to court with your 1040 and the judge can reduce the fine, proportionate to your income. And the offender must show up - not their over-paid lawyer.
Then, the judge can set the fine, taking into account income and other considerations. A janitor pulling down $25,000 ought to have that fine reduced to $50, say. Warren Buffet? Um, sorry, full freight. In addition to the fine, all would be equally punished by having to spend half a day in court, and a day of my life is undoubtedly worth the same to me as yours is to you, regardless of how much you make.
While I agree that there should reform so low income citizens don't become indigent, fining based on income will lead some law enforcement to ignore the 2002 Camry and just go after the 2018 Lexus. Then the primary purpose of speed limits, safety, is no longer the motivation.
The only problem being that a 'fair' system such as that described would destroy the fundamental goal of American Society-the distinct advantage that accompanies the accumulation of wealth.
1
The justice system isn't so much meant to treat offenders the alike, it's meant to treat the OFFENSE alike. The idea that a bylaw infraction should be charged hundreds of times greater to a wealthy person is preposterous, especially when these "crimes" have built into them the ability not to be committed, thus saving the poor person if he were to be judicious enough with his actions.
Something of an extreme case happened up here in Calgary, where a First Nations man murdered a random stranger on the street. He was let off with a relative slap on the wrist with the explanation being the historical inequities and suppression faced by the First nations people.
If we start going down this road, what is the place where poverty, or historical injustice stops being a means by which to segment punishment?
2
This theory is littered with problems, but one thing that would curtail many traffic crimes would be higher fines in some areas. Texting while driving should lose you your license before you kill someone, even speaking on the phone while driving should be severely punished. There are laws against doing these things, but they are rarely enforced and therefore largely ignored.
1
The problem with this argument is that if you accept there is no logical reason to limit it to fines. Why not tolls? What about food and basic necessities? Why should someone who earns a low income have to pay a much larger percentage of his/her income on gasoline than a wealthy person does? Where do you draw the line?
2
Instead of a fine, impose a day’s labor – say, picking up litter around town – with a buyout option. Everyone wins.
Among other problems, in this country, one's income is none of anyone else's business, let alone that of some traffic court judge. The last thing we need is the envy-besotted seeking to fund their local government by pulling over every expensive car they see on the street, as there's bound to be something wrong, and they can always find some reason to impose a fine.
1
I tend to be someone who aligns more with the ideas that wealth distribution etc is bad but.. I gotta say I agree with this op-ed.
I think there is a lot of issues around speeding tickets all together that need to be looked at. For example, some how a photo copy of my ID was stolen years ago. I suspect from it being scanned at a medical office. The id was probably uploaded to the dark web where someone looking like me used it during a violation. The officer never ran the plate and only checked the id. In my research I found the plate was not in the system thus not valid. I had to travel to Arizona to show up in person because it was my hope that the officer would notice it wasn't me. I was wrong, he insisted it was me. The only thing that got me out of it was the fact that the officer did not run the plate, if he had then the individual would have likely be picked up for bad tags.
My back plan was a lawyer with appeal however luckily it didn't go that far. I'm lucky that I have money and time to travel to another state to deal with that. A lot of people don't have that luxury and get stuck either paying for a ticket that's not theirs, or ignoring it only to have it come bit them back in a few years. The system needs a total re-do. It doesn't have to favor poor or rich, or anything like that, it just needs to be more common sense and less inefficient sausage machine churning bureaucracy.
Interesting. My perception is that many, certainly not all, poor people simply ignore their legal obligations like fines, registrations, emissions, inspections, licenses, mandated insurance and so on, because, well, what do they have to lose when they get caught? It's not like anyone goes to debtors prison any more. I'm pretty sure that the payment of a government fine goes to the bottom of the uncollectable list right next to income tax and MasterCard. I think it's ridiculous to reinforce the enabling truth that for a great number of people there are no real consequences for bad behavior. I suppose the people to get fleeced for a ticket could hire a full time driver. Problem solved. Of course, anyone, rich or poor, could also just decide to obey the laws. God forbid we expect that from everyone equally.
2
The criminal justice system is based on the principle of equal jutice for all. The idea that equal means unequal justice is interesting it would revolutionize sentencing and be challenged as a violation of equal rights. But from a common sense view it seems reasonable.
On a recent trip to Montreal I discovered why the price difference between our all dressed Hyundai and an identical Mercedes.
With the Mercedes you don't have to navigate to the curb, you just park in the driving lane and turn on the four way flashers.
With a Mercedes the yellow lane markers are invisible.
With a Mercedes you are entitled to always be in a hurry and sudden Uturns in traffic require no advanced notice or any caution.
In a Mercedes the universal signal of affirmation, the raised middle finger is a sign your observations have been acknowledged and the message received.
When we visited Helsinki Finland, we were told that fines for speeding are based on a percentage of income. One billionaire was fined six figures.
Why fine anyone at all? Rich. Poor. In either case a fine is considered a deterrent, a corrective, a negative judgement yes? In a truly free, progressive society, no one should be fined at all, whatsoever. TIME is what we all lack--as well as money. The more affluent should be commissioned to do public works in poor neighborhoods. The less well-off, community service in affluent areas. More hours of life for the rich, less hours of life for the poor. And, to be frank, rich people doing public service in poor neighborhoods is a much better deterrent than a good lawyer and credit card swipe. The chances of being kicked in the rear as they pick up litter is a rich, rich reward for everyone.
How on earth would a court decide on someones income? Wouldnt we waste a lot of time/money figuring out who was rich and who was not? Why would we waste community resources on that determination for a minor speeding ticket? I favor letting people who cant afford to pay a fine doing a community service project of their choice in lieu of a fine. Judges in my district give $10/hr credit for helping their community, a win/win.
How on earth would you implement this idea? Who determines a person's worth, and how, and when? Do we all drive around with a copy of our last tax return? That would not work either- truly rich people pay little in taxes.
Why, the Billionaire and the Nurse pay the same tax rate. What is the fair rate for a even a millionaire
The problem with this idea, of course, is that traffic cops would figure out how to identify wealthy people (they'd start by looking for expensive cars) and then give them as many tickets as possible. Speeding fines, after all, make up a large chunk of their funds. Imagine being the only millionaire in a small town—you'd get a ticket every day!
1
I agree entirely-- scale the fines around income tax brackets, perhaps.
This is a great idea, and one that dawned on me as long ago as grade school. That some can't see the value in it astonishes me, especially in a country where economic inequality is so out of whack. Do we really want to do nothing to address the problem? Even on the simplest, most benign level?
An eminently reasonable proposal. Flat fines only make sense if everyone is has reasonably similar resources. No doubt the 1% will devote all their's to fighting against a change.
Maybe, instead of the author's conclusion that there should be tiered fines based on his example of a $151 parking violation sending a woman into dire straits we should be examining how $151 is a fair penalty for *any* income level for parking. Law enforcement shouldn't be a profit center and it all too often is.
1
The fine is one part of the penalty. As anyone who has spent a day in traffic court will attest, the purpose of fines is not deterrence, it is simply revenue raising by the government. A tax in another form.
The points added to one's license are a bit more egalitarian--although there too, I suppose, someone with more resources could fight the ticket or even hire a driver if they lost their license.
Why not eliminate the fines altogether, charge a somewhat higher fee for license renewal (to make up for some of that lost revenue) and make the points system a bit more fair for all?
Imagining that speeding fines should be income based is an awful construct-- shouldn't we then do the same for all government costs? Garbage collection, public school and even a subway ride on a sliding scale.
No thanks.
1
There are some advantages in life of having a high paying salary, or having money in general. Paying off tickets is one of them. The amount of money that anyone makes should not affect the amount someone pays for a fine.
The recent uptick in calling for more money from the rich people in this country is disturbing. Because someone makes a bunch of money does not give me or anyone the right to take their money. We want to have incentives for people to strive to make more money. If we take away all benefits of making money through taxes or fines, no one will want to make money. Progress will slow and the country as a whole will suffer because the people in the society that are the ones that are entrepreneurs and take risks and start companies, will end up just saying "whatever, who cares, I am going to have to pay more fines and more taxes". But they are the ones that create jobs and employee other people.
1
After working for both urban and suburban EMS agencies, I have much experience working alongside law enforcement. In my experience the real issue is that cities, towns and municipalities are allowed to budget income generated from traffic and speeding fines. This makes fines more of a local government racket (to pay for police and judges overtime pay) than a deterrent to discontinue the cited infraction.
While there are solutions to this (sending all money from traffic fines to the states which evenly dispersed to local govts based on predetermined criteria) what is stated in article will only reverse the current situation, not fix the problem.
As an example, most local governments that border interstate highways, ask state troopers to pull over a certain number of drivers within a given timeframe. This allows what would otherwise be a cash-strapped area a large cash influx that gives communities a reason to justify having large and overly compensated police force and courthouse.
All you’re stated proposal would do is promote pulling over expensive cars like Porsches no matter how much they exceed the speed limit. Since it can beassumed the 15 year old Jetta isn’t likely a “rich” person there is no financial gain to pull them over.
The logic is simple:
Why pull over a piece of junk going 40mph above the speed limit when a 70k sports car going 5mph over will net more in profit.
The problem is that those speeding pieces of junk are far more likely to get others killed.
1
It seems like what you really want to do is criminalize wealth. If you have data that show that the kinds of activities that are subject to fines - which typically are assessed for relatively trivial breaches of law such as speeding, littering, open containers etc. - are committed in direct proportion to wealth, then please share it. I would be very surprised if you could show such a relationship (in fact, I suspect that such behaviors decline in direct proportion to wealth; my observation is that wealthier communities have fewer such quality of life issues than richer ones). Absent this relationship, you are simply proposing that the wealthy should be punished more severely than the poor. There is also of course the practical difficulty of actually determining the size of the fines assessed on rule breakers; we’d need a large number of people to track the wealth and assets of people subject to fining, another large group to collect, an increase in legal cases as citizens fought cases in court etc. This is just another example of trying to stoke class resentment.
3
Here's another way to do it: Base it on the value of the car being driven during the infraction. This is similar to how registration fees on a car are done -- the higher the value of the car, the higher the registration fees. The same thing could be done with tickets -- if you're driving a car worth $100,000 your fine should be more than the person driving a $20,000 beater. In Beverly Hills, it's not uncommon to see drivers of cars worth close to half a million dollars not paying for parking meters or illegally parking in red zones or handicapped spaces. Obviously, they have so much money, they don't care about a $60 parking ticket. But a $500 ticket might make them think twice. While it's not a perfect solution, it could at least help the situation and wouldn't take a lot to figure out the appropriate fine.
What is a "day's pay" or a "monthly salary check"? I can see a whole new industry built on assessing the income of petty wrongdoers. Then dealing with the court cases.
Furthermore, it would be seen as inequitable. Why not make the price of bread income-based as well? And since it would be the the rich and powerful who would be expected to pay more, I don't see much hope for such a system.
But if you want a truly equitable system, why not look to Singapore? Caning. A few strokes across the back will make just as much of an impression on the rich as it will on the poor. A real social leveler, if that is your main goal.
No. This is what income tax is for. Should we also start paying different grocery prices based on income?
1
At at least in and around Chicago, fining motorists is already a big revenue source. Increasing the take from high value targets would inevitably lead to victimization of better off drivers since nailing one Bentley driver would net as much as nailing dozens of old beater drivers. Modern well designed cars are a lot safer at speed than old bangers as well. If you can’t afford a car take a bus. Just don’t victimize people who happen to be better off. It’s also true that you only get speeding tickets if you are caught speeding - so there is a very simple way to avoid them.
1
Not workable. As residents of a college town, we are wary of driving on "party nights". How would college students be ticketed, since they have no income but are in the age group most likely to commit traffic violations, speed, drive while inebriated, etc?
1
No problem. The wealthy person will get off without a fine, large or small, anyway.
Put this author in charge of some fictional utopia where those living paycheck to paycheck don't have any fines imposed on them for breaking the law. I guess that would help cut down on the rates of folks driving without insurance, speeding, not wearing their seatbelt. The judge should merely admonish them- "this time we really mean it!"
Life isn't fair. One way to make it somewhat more of a level playing field is to avoid breaking the law in the first place, especially if you fear paying the fines will be a problem.
2
Having fines that bankrupt one person, while being pocket change for another does violate equal protection of the laws. It's past time for us to do something about this. Fines are made with the attempt to not destroy a normal working person - but they bankrupt people on the edge while being less than a nuisance to those with money. A day, a month, a year of income sounds very appropriate and really would make a difference.
Speaking personally - I sure cared a lot more about watching my speed to avoid fines when I was a college student, than now when the fine is less than what I might spend on a single hour long massage.
The concept sounds plausible but the execution could be complicated. How is someone categorized whose income is not from wages but rather from investments?
And I might also note that one person's nest egg might have been built by frugality & saving while someone else's portfolio might have been almost exclusively inherited. Would these people be treated (fined) the same amount?
What about the speeding ticket for a recent medical school or law school graduate with a nice salary but also a mountain of debt?
The devil will be in the details for legislators looking for fairness - a laudable but elusive goal.
1
I'm sorry but my personal wealth and income is privileged information and not open to public perusal, nor should it be. I am not going to provide my IRS return to a local court or law enforcement officer, not should I be forced to.
2
Some excellent thoughts here. My $85 dollar speeding fine cashed out at $350 by the time the extra taxes (county), fees (DMV administration) , and programs (DUI state) that I am supposed to support with my traffic ticket. Those who are seriously hurt by this why not have the judge assess the basic fine, or on a worse case scenario work it off in community service. The Zuckerburgs of the world can just drive off into the sunset.
1
I agree with the author's sentiment. With regard to deterance - as well as the avoidance of cruelty. Unfortunately, I don't think this situation will change, unless the US espouses a more socialist consciousness.
While on its face this idea seems to hold water, it's merely treating the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. No one can doubt that these fines are regressive, or that they simply don't matter to the rich (cue the story about Steve Jobs where he was pulled over for speeding well over the limit then grew frustrated with the officer for not writing the ticket fast enough).
The problem is that municipalities are too reliant on these fines for revenue, fines for a crime that more often than not is minor and relatively harmless. Reckless driving, DUIs, and other more serious offenses necessitate higher penalties, ones that are less likely to cause outrage when the offender's income is above or below some value.
The bottom line is to make minor speeding (i.e. not reckless) an offense with a small fine, say $30, but ramp up fines and other penalties such as demerits for crimes that are more serious. And get minor traffic tickets to play a much more diminished role in the local government finances. I'd happily pay higher taxes if it would level this playing field for everyone!
This article makes sense and explains to me why so many people in my area, a wealthy one, routinely speed far over the speed limit and go through yellow lights. But even if these folks don't care about the cost of a ticket you think they'd care about points on their license-if only. But I also think we need cameras at every intersection and along roads because so many people break the law that the police can't begin to stop them all; I never see the worst offenders get caught.
1
And why stop with only fines being progressive? Why not charge for flying, dining, movies, car purchases based on one’s income. Football tickets? Two days of work. Buying a dog? One week of work. Before long we will all have exactly the same opportunities. But then why work hard and seek financial success if you can get the same rewards by earning less and paying less.
2
I strongly disagree with the rational and practicality of the authors claims. Yes, fines are a imposed as a deterrent, but economically fines are are also a way for society to recoup losses incurred due to someone breaking the law. Fines have a cost basis correlation and are not solely moral deterrents. A speeding fine is underwritten based on the damages and required emergency services an accident could cause. Put simply, a $100 fine for Graffiti is associated with the cost for cleaning and repainting said surface. It doesn't matter if a hooligan or billionaire spray painted the wall, the cleanup cost is the same so why should the billionaire be fined more? The very core of our democracy is rooted in the idea of fair and equitable justice. The law should not diacriminate (yes, it's discrimination) based on the income of the individual. Just like in an idealized society in which justice is blind to race and other social differences. Taxes are one thing, but progressive laws should alarm everyone.
Secondly, in the real world, enforcement of laws is sadly unequal and often is often the result of biases (or digression) held by the law enforcement official and justice system. Imagine now a jurisdiction could make $1mil off a single speeding ticket– who do you think they would target! Municipalities would optimize their resources and enforce laws on the individuals that were the most profitable! Zuck couldn't walk his dog without a city inspector hiding behind every tree.
3
What flourishing national movement to reform our criminal justice system and tackle income inequality are you referring to? I follow the news and politics and I am not aware of this "movement" you mention.
If anything, when you consider the Trump administration and the recent tax cut, I would say inequality is surging and I see no political will, especially by the Republicans, for any reform of the criminal justice system.
This country is so far down the wrong path I cannot see any change happening without some kind of new American revolution.
Ever since I was in Germany back in 1991, for an extended period, and learned about income-based fines, say for speeding and other moving violations, it never fails that I can tell people here about these fines and get a shocked reaction like you wouldn't believe. And of course, the initial notice might come in the mail, complete with the photograph that caught the violation.
This sounds convincing but only on the surface.
First of all, my income is my business only, and not the state's, thank you very much. Regardless, my income is X, my expenses (childcare!) are Y and my leftover is Z. If you dock me to pay a day's pay for 5 mph over the limit, I come perilously close to the exact same scenario as a woman in Ferguson on her 7-year journey, as do many people.
2
Poor people should not pay fines at all, for traffic or for nonviolent offenses . They should be exempt, like they are from Federal income tax.
Except it's the risk of getting caught, not the fine, that deters crime. No one know or cares what the fine is, when you see a cop on the side of the road you slow down, even if you're a billionaire.
This is the same argument used against draconian prison sentences and the death penalty. They don't deter crime, only the risk of getting caught does.
Red light cameras reduce violations by 50%, without any increase in the fine.
1
It's good to be rich. If we didn't give the rich advantages, nobody would strive to be rich and fuel our economy. We'd be like Finland, with a crippling dearth of billionaires and nothing to show for it other than great schools, great medical care, equality and general happiness. Ugh.
This is a great, equitable solution. Sign ME up, and the Husband. He collects speeding tickets. Not intentionally, but like most Engineers, he's very distracted while driving. When it's the two of us, I drive.
And HE nags.
Your article and its point make a lot of sense.
Then lets talk about the tax changes Trump just put through. We have a POTUS and people in charge who flaunt the law, can pay lawyers who are smart enough to figure out how to get around the law, legislators who take bribes for votes and don't care about their constituents.
It is nice to read an article and about other countries that are doing common sense things when we have a ruling party that is insane, unjust, cruel, criminals. These people don't care about anyone except their bank accounts and then satisfying their urges.
I think the progressive fine is a great idea but can you figure out how to purge our govenment of these evil people first. The written law doesn't seem to mean much to them, they just go and get another judge.
This seems like a very good idea. Fines should be based on income. As should taxes.
Multiple offenders should always lose privileges. Its not about the revenue to the state, its about changing behavior.
1
Flat fines are definitely unfair, but progressive fines are not the solution. In fact, the whole premise that charging someone money is an appropriate sanction for them having broken the law is absurd. If you damage someone's property, compensate them financially, but if you put people in danger of injury by driving above the speed limit, how is having your money taken away from you an appropriate punishment?
Having people contribute their time through community services is the right punishment and deterrent: in regards to time we are all equal.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time--or pay the fine.
Last time I looked into it, with rare exceptions no one forces people to break the law. There is something called free will. If you break a law the onus on you--period.
Also, following this logic would suggest that rich people should pay more for groceries, air fare, dental work, gasoline, clothing, hardware, the list is endless.
Besides, if poor lawbreakers pay less in fines, won't that encourage lawbreaking?
Exactly
This idea is so brilliant it should be extended to the criminal system. For example, if the penalty for a crime nominally is 20 years, Zuckerberg would spend a day in jail and a typical individual would be in forever.
1
I would fight this idea tooth and nail for two reasons: 1) the infraction is the infraction. The fine is for speeding, not who you were when speeding. 2) any mechanism, ANY, that gives government yet another tool to extract money from citizens under the guise of ‘fairness’ is evil.
1
Everyone is equal under the law. Do we really need to continue to punish those who work hard and make money in this country? A law is a law, and breaking it should be the same for all. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise.
1
Before we talk about fines, progressive or regressive, we should address fines as a source of revenue in lieu of taxes.
We should be fining people for transgressions. We should not be out beating the bushes to fine people because we cannot make local payroll. And we should be able to put in place non-interest bearing payment plans and community service work in lieu of cash. We should be flexible; but we are not if we are basing a portion of our social costs on fines.
As for the billionaires who can afford to speed? Well, I will not get my knickers in twist over those low fines, if we can promise to make sure that the personal fines for campaign corruption, stealing from your own customers, building cars which you know will crash ad kill a few people, lying on loan paperwork or foreclosing on homes you don't even own the paper on - just to name a few things - are monumentally high and put those people into the same kind of debt.
Yeah. Maybe the problem is not the size of the fines that are levied on the poor; it is the willingness to make the poor pay fines that we'd never levy on the rich.
This entire piece begs the question of how these fines got to be so large in many jurisdictions.
In many states, local governments created municipal courts to adjudicate municipal ordinances paralleling existing state statutes so that their police officers could write citations resulting in fines that flowed to municipal coffers. This practice also created plum patronage positions.
At the same time, state and local officials identified fines, civil penalty, and court cost collections as an underexploited revenue source and escalated them.
How would income be determined? Would it be based upon the prior year's tax return? If so, what if the person's financial position had changed substantially since the prior year's taxes? If it were based upon the prior week's pay instead, what if that week's pay was an aberration? One could go to a more blended rate, but then you add tremendous complexity to what seems like an already modestly complex bureaucratic issue. Finally, should wealth, as opposed to income, play a role? If so, then complex valuation issues come into play.
I like the basic idea. I just don't know about its implementation.
3
What if the wealthier person is supporting an adult special needs child and two elderly parents with no savings or income? And is worried sick about the future of the child and expenses far into the future, since the wealth won't be enough to support that child far into the future. Just a thought. Lots of variables.
There is an easier solution to help people living on the economic margins: governments could lower the costs of traffic fines. In California, red light traffic violations were $103 in 1993 and now cost $490, compared to $296 in Dallas. The fine for rolling through a stop sign in California is $238, up from $130 in 2003. Carpool lane violations cost $179 in Houston and $490 in California. By this comparison, conservative Texas is much more sensitive to the plight of the poor than progressive California.
2
Hmmm... on the surface this sounds like a good idea, but I envision lots of people trying to trick the system and come up with ways to 'prove' they have less money, and the government then trying to 'prove' the person has money hidden somewhere...or is getting under-the-table income. Seems like a lot of wasteless energy might be spent in simply trying to figure out 'how much is the right amount' to charge each and every individual.
1
Kind of like what wealthy folks do with their taxes. There will always be scammers and people who use that as an argument against helping the less well off. But generally these programs can do a lot of good.
I guess you've discovered why corporate officers, insulated from the consequences of their decisions for the company, frequently break the law. The marginal cost of fines s nothing compared to the opportunity cost of not doing it. That's why concentrated capital is so relentless. That's way so many fines are regarded as "the cost of doing business" when the company distributes its bonuses.
3
Traffic fines are the least of our problems where inequality is concerned! First we have to get more progressive income tax rates, make soc sec taxes apply to total income without any upper limit, make capital gains taxable at the same rate as earned income - after all that is accomplished, we will have made a dent in the problem of inequality. Traffic fines are way down on the list.
5
No need to guess which end of the income spectrum you’re on, not that that would influence your opinion.
2
One bad year, after the 1987 recession, out of work, competing with 500 people for a job (true story!), I couldn't afford to renew my car license plates. I got ticketed twice in 1 week, 2 jurisdictions. It felt like disaster. I went to court and asked for some alternative to the fine. The judge was saying no when I burst into tears. She let me do 2 days of community service. Still had one fine plus tag fee to pay. I recovered economically, but I had prospects, skills and work history. What if people don't? It's easy to get behind the 8 ball when you're broke, and then it rolls over you.
26
As a municipal court judge I can sympathize with the author’s insight as to the varying impact of Fines as punishment depending on the defendant’s economic status. As a practical matter “day Fines” have not worked in the United States and probably will not work as citizens want to pay fines online and there is no practical time to determine economic status before assessing everyone’s fines, especially for those who wish to pay immediately. A far better solution is what is happening in Texas: judges can waive all or part of the fines and (importantly) costs and fees if it is a burden for the defendant to pay the fines and costs or perform alternative punishments like community service. Fines can be waived for a defendant who is going to the penitentiary or has a terminal illness or is indigent and cannot do community service due to work and taking care of children. The waiver of fines and fees has acted as a far more accepted procedure than day fines and has fulfilled essentially the goals of those who favor an equitable solution to the uneven burdens fines create.
37
Ed Spillane:
Your honor, your suggestion would be the best possible policy if all your colleagues were philosopher-kings. Where I live, we have an elected judiciary characterized by nepotism and influence peddling, and bereft of law review editors. I suspect you are better than all that; some others are not.
1
Many municipalities, such as ours, have a provision for community service in lieu of a fine. Justices simply need flexibility.
5
A cap on day fines just gives a privilege to the richest. They are again exempt from the full impact of the law as on everyone else.
If they are that rich, let them pay the astronomical fine, or just obey the laws like everyone else. Just as done in Finland.
12
Fines are an essential revenue stream, helping to keep taxes a bit lower. A fool's tax. I see no reason why it should be capped. In contrary, it should be progressive.
1
A fair compromise might be for the very rich offender to loose their car instead of paying the million dollar fine. And they have to call for a ride.
The same is true of health insurance deductibles. In my workplace all employees get the "same" health care benefit. The deductible for me amounts to one month's wages. I don't know what the top tier makes, but a good guess would say their deductible costs them maybe a week's wages. As deductible amounts increase this unfairness also increases.
5
health care benefits also usually carry to the spouse and kids. If you don't have spouse and kids you are not getting that extra benefit, hence you are getting paid less simply because you are single or chip less.
1
Do you think that law enforcement would decide to ticket the $100,000 Tesla rather than the $24,000 Prius wagering that one would generate more revenue for the city than the other?
20
Nothing stops them from doing that now.
Sounds good to me. Because right now, they go after the Junkers rather than the Priuses. Steve Jobs used to speed around San Francisco when he was courting, laughing off the tickets that he got. A particular lawyer up in Seattle made getting Microsoft execs off the hook for speeding. They didn't care about the money, but were worried that enough "points" would pull their licenses. This GoTo guy charged outrageously, but his clients almost always got off the hook as this lawyer exhausted the courts. Fines are meaningless when they can be considered the cost of doing business. Immunity from almost everything but gravity maybe why they frequently lose tough with general reality.
They ticket the driver, not the car.
It's the driver, the one who's getting it to the gas station for the owner, very likely.
Interesting idea, but there are many more blatant discrepancies in our legal system than doling out fines in proportion to what one can afford.
For example, corporate fines. When a corporation is caught and punished for deliberately cheating less sophisticated, less powerful, less rich customers, the penalty is often to just return the money - despite the fact that the customers suffered great harm. But when an individual cheats a corporation, it is a criminal offense and he goes to jail.
44
Both are discrepancies that should be addressed. The corporate fine issue is grave but has little impact on the average person. Fines for offenses such as speeding may seem like a small issue in comparison to corporate fines but it is likely an issue that would have more of a direct and positive impact on middle and low income households who desperately need leniency for penalties as small as speeding.
Starting out with amending flat fines is not only more likely to affect more people/voters, but in turn draw awareness and support for amending corporate fines in the future.
Corporate fines in serious matters should be big enough that the owners feel it. And not just for closely held corporations: if the Sun City set felt the consequences of their investments, the effect on corporate ethics could be quite salubrious.
1
A fundamental basis of our legal theory is that all people must be equal before the law – that means penalties for unlawful behavior as well as prosecutorial behavior during a murder trial. However, the author's arguments fall apart for other reasons, as well.
A police officer may or may not be able to tell the relative financial worth of a speeder he’s ticketing by the car he drives, how well he’s dressed or by his arrogance. However, it’s more likely that to apply the author’s UNequal prescriptions, a police authority would need access to net-worth data. Do we REALLY want to empower police to obtain that kind of information to assess the penalty on a speeding violation?
Then, and perhaps most compellingly, there are relatively few rich and many poor. It follows that the social consequences arising from speeding violations committed by the poor and the otherwise NOT rich basically constitute THE problem associated with speeding; and that the social consequences arising from equally unlawful behavior by the very rich are a tiny part of the problem. So, it’s far more important that the penalty associated with unlawful behavior by the NOT-rich should be felt more disagreeably by them than by the gold-cutlery set.
The author should re-examine his premises, because his reasoning and conclusions are highly suspect.
68
No need to process the amount of the ticket at time of issue: just give the ticket for the broken law, and an appropriately discreet third party can do the billing.
Secondly, taking the ratio of rich to not rich, and trying to say that the higher number of not rich should be served stiffer penalties simply because there are more of them misses the point of the article entirely.
6
> A fundamental basis of our legal theory is that all people must be equal before the law
I'm unaware of any American case law on this. Can you cite a legal precedent that using equal percentages of income would violate the 14th Amendment?
> a police authority would need access to net-worth data
The ticket can just say to pay X% of last year's income. The officer doesn't need to have any information here.
> perhaps most compellingly, there are relatively few rich and many poor. It follows that the social consequences arising from speeding violations committed by the poor and the otherwise NOT rich basically constitute THE problem associated with speeding
Your focus on the "very rich" is misplaced. ~20% of Americans make over $100k/year, an income that would allow them to cover most quotidian tickets without worry. Modifying the behavior of the petite bourgeoisie could have a meaningful impact regardless of consequences for the billionaires.
Look up the difference between equality and equity. There's a cartoon that should make it easy even for you to get the point.
This would work if signs were clearer, we could see the signs, and the speed limits were realistic. Until that happy day, perhaps the fines for certain offenses should be lowered so that anyone can pay them.
11
Absolutely not. The fines should be the same for everyone. Moreover, states, counties, and municipalities view tickets as cash farming opportunities by taking on service fees of all manner. So the $150 fine that is reasonable actually costs $350 by the time it is said and done. Or a lot more. Want to look for outrage? Look there.
39
That would be fair if everyone received the same income and had the same net worth.
Did you even read the article? What is the societal purpose of bankrupting someone already living in poverty?
Alaska had a statute authorizing day fines years ago, but it was never implemented and has been repealed, if my memory is correct. It's a state that could have been well suited to day fines at least for the villages where many people lived subsistence lifestyles and there was not much of a cash economy. But ironically most of those communities had no local mechanisms for citations or minor offenses, and state enforcement was nonexistent except for criminal offenses.
1
This is a good idea, with the cap of course. I had a $400 ticket in traffic court and it was no big deal, but I saw how devastating it was to many of the working people in the room. It was palpably unfair.
72
Nice thought; but of course the minute one of these poor cannot pay the fine, things get much worse, the multiplication table gets to work and exacerbates the fine to the point where the perp can no longer pay it - basically ever - and goes to prison and then loses everything forever and may as well die.
Aren’t sales tax a much more pervasive problem for low-income individuals? Poorer people tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on purchases and thus a greater percentage of their income goes towards sales taxes. Fees seem pretty trivial next to that as they are still a punishment for wrongdoing, yet everyone pays sales tax.
11
Typical better is the enemy of the good argument.
Tom H is not too smart.Look at the Ferguson example in the article, which is not an aberration. There are dozens of such cases in New York alone every day,
Leave the govt out of the business of figuring out real income (earned investment others) for the purpose of imposing a fine. Instead, the fine should be a chunk of community service time -- a fixed amount for an offense. These fines can be accumulated and paid for in one visit to the service venue. The service has to be performed within a fixed time (eg one year). People should be able to provide extra community service and receive credits in case they get fined in the future. This allows people to show up and do community service in one big chunk so their time is used efficiently so they can travel once and pay three hours at once instead of three separate fines of one hour each.
Time instead of money also helps people remember the price they are paying so they try and avoid that penalty in the future.
7
The government is already in the business of figuring out real income and assessing payment schedules based on it. Just use the last tax return.
18
Rational, have you ever held a low-pay, low status job. Your comment leads me to doubt it. Very minor cogs in the great wheel of business and government can't get time off for community service. Instead, they miss a few days and are fired. The managers and bosses, take the time, or appeal the verdict if they got mucho dinero and suffer some good natured ribbing from their peers.
And our resident president? how'd that work out? He hasn't filed his tax return for 2017 has he? - what's the fine for that, and when will it be levied? I hope it is a hugely big one, I would think that would be very fine indeedly. But it's meaningless to him, though.
The biggest flaw that I see in this argument is that if Zuckerberg is involved in an accident in which he was speeding, he will have significant insurance and other resources to pay for his liability. On the other hand an individual of less means may have minimal insurance coverage which may or may not be sufficient to cover damages in the event of an accident - as a result, that person should fact greater peril in the form of a fine for breaking the law.
7
Fines are a completely separate matter from insurance liability. No amount of insurance coverage compensates the community at large for the harm done by reckless drivers, which is not limited to those individuals they may happen to actually hit (of course, no amount of insurance compensates those individuals when they are killed). The community has an interest in effectively regulating driver behavior even, perhaps especially, when no accident has yet been caused.
1
Or... I don't know... maybe that person should not have been speeding... and not causing an accident... we need to seriously address our constant desire to infantalizing the poor.
2
not a bad idea. of course, President trump and other wealthy persons will have to turn over up-to-date income tax returns so that the traffic judge will know how much he makes the year prior to his getting a ticket. also need a sworn net worth statement to show what he is worth.
the police and judges are certainly going to need a lot of file space to keep all these financial records of all drivers.
I'm hoping you are being sarcastic. There is absolutely no reason that a traffic judge should be privileged to a person's net worth or income.
There is not much space needed, it all fits on a microchip, like my 30 years of tax returns ever since I started to use Turbo-tax.
There is nothing that so focuses one of my wealthy, Republican clients on the inequities of the criminal justice system or on the value of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments as their own arrest and prosecution. Progressive fines might be a way of getting even more buy in. Just saying.
6
One last auto cost-related item- if auctioneers and realtors have to disclose their % fee compensation to consumers, why don’t auto insurance agents have to do the same thing?
When consumers can see on their premium notice that $250 of their $1000 auto premium goes to the agent who wrote the policy 20 years ago and not to the actual cost of the insurance, my bet is prices will come down.
8
The immediate problem I see with this argument is that it treats a fine as a burden to an individual rather than what it is: a punishment. How an individual perceives a fine is perhaps an interesting discussion, but wholly irrelevant to equal application of law.
That being said, I do believe that judges should have the power to truly judge, which means they have the power to adjust fines, and other modes of punishment, as seen fitting, with limitations, of course, and use of such power should not be frequent (and if it is, that should be a red flag), i.e., misused.
8
A $300 dollar fine to me is not a punishment. It's an inconvenience.
A $300 dollar fine to my sister is a massive punishment and a hungry month where they have to cut their food budget.
One reader observed correctly that the point system is the equal opportunity deterrent, so this argument on fees for speeding tickets is somewhat moot.
On a related topic, I believe that most speed limits and their enforcement are driven by their revenue stream, and kept in place by the lobbying of various enforcement interests. Cars are capable of much higher safe operating speeds than 50 years ago, yet limits haven't meaningfully changed.
Distracted and drunk driving are likely a far greater cause of accidents than simply speeding. So I'm against giving sharper teeth to the enforcement of poorly designed laws.
16
"Cars are capable of much higher safe operating speeds than 50 years ago, yet limits haven't meaningfully changed."
Now all we have to do is work on the infrastructure and the drivers.
2
"Cars are capable of much higher safe operating speeds than 50 years ago, yet limits haven't meaningfully changed."
Very true. But the drivers, oh the drivers! I'm pretty sure that incompetence, stupidity, and ineptitude cause more highway harm than speeders or drunks —though they probably fall under the stupid category.
So it ends up, if you're rich and stupid, highway harm is no big deal. If you're poor and stupid, you better get smart, rich, or both real quick.
Just watch a couple of episodes of “Live PD” and you will see that speeding tickets etc are a responsibility tax. So many low income or lower middle class people drive without a license, without Tags ( Plates), insurance, without tag light, with all sorts of basic maintenance, then they don’t stop, run lights, are texting on the phone, speeding, the cops pull them over and they can smell the weed walking up, they have open containers. They find they have never had a license and they are 25-35. I am just taking my kids here, or just going to see my mother over there. Or the registration expired two years ago not last month.
My insurance with a 23 year old who had an accident at 17 and two more smaller ones and speeding and just added a 17 year old who went to a professional driving school, is $8,000 per year. I have full coverage and uninsured/underinsured motorist. My cars are 11 and 9 years old. Those of us who own homes and have assets have to have the maximum insurance policy that is available.
I once lived in between houses in a $400k townhouses an NBA player owned the one right across the street from me. He had a $25M contract parked bicycles inside the garage and then had $70 k and $100k cars in the driveway. His friends would come over and park Maybacks right across from my garage. I had a new driver backing out. It was scary a 16 year old vs a $300k car. When the max. Property damage you can buy is $100k.
4
I got a ticket recently for taking a right turn without coming to a full stop. It was a robo-ticket, the intersection was out of town, the turn was protected by turning cross traffic, and the city (Sherwood, Oregon) was bragging about how the system had brought their city from deficit to surplus by making millions every year (over the added cost of 3.5 employees to process all of the tickets they were writing). My ticket was dismissed in lieu of a $240 fine - helping me avoid an insurance jump and them avoid oversight. On the 10 second video clip they showed, mine was the middle of three "offenders". So, no, I'm not convinced that they're a "responsibility tax," just a new revenue source.
34
Yup, got one of those right turn on red tickets by camera also. They are designed to modify behavior. In my case it worked. I come to a full stop at the line, often waiting extra long to be sure. Be thick skinned though, as the horns behind you will sound. Fun stuff, driving.
Why are people in different income brackets being included in this discussion? What do the wealthy have anything at all to do with this non-issue? Should they also be charged more for every day purchases simply because they have more money? By the way I would be considered lower middle class, so should I also be charged slightly higher seeing as I’m just above the lowest bracket?
Everyone should be careful to avoid being ticketed. End of story.
38
This isn't a discussion about spending money on luxury goods et cetera.....it is a fine for bad and dangerous driving practices like speeding.....it MUST hurt or it is not effective. When the billionaires pay the same speeding fine, or parking fine in the case of the nurse, then what is being learned? The rich man tosses the ticket to the secretary, he doesn't need to say anything, she gets it and pays it and that's the end of it. It is NOT like that for the poor man; read the story. Late fees, fines and fees on the fines pile up on the poor person; soon he/she is inundated and then it's jail for life.
Not fair at all, actually; in some cases, somebody just parked in the wrong spot, and couldn't get back in time to put another nickel in...in time.
And if you do the math we all 325 million of us cannot all be millionaires, our system doesn't work like that; the rich need the poor to sweep up, clean up, add up, fix up, and to do all the grubby jobs the rich don't want to do.... We cannot all be equal in income however much you might like to assume the poor have just refused to work, or just have not had your business sense and drive.
Using the authors logic, should the wealthy then been entitled to multiples votes in an election, based on taxes paid? And would those paying no taxes be deprived of any vote at all? The Constitution says citizens are equal, not treated differently due to income.
149
Thank you for your extremely valid point.
I wonder if the author - on top of everything a one allowed to publish yet another SJW/progressive spin - ever thinks in a comprehensive way.
5
The wealthy may not be entitled to multiple votes in an election, but political contributions matter--a lot. Foreign corporations can make such contributions as well, and they are not even citizens. Citizens United ruling of 2010 has done a lot of harm.
1
If it were true that the Constitution says citizens can't be treated differently based on income, there would be no graduated income tax. Flat taxers may oppose the graduated income tax, but the U.S. Constitution allows it. See: Article 1,Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment
Warren Buffett earns $100K/year as salary and some $387K/year in additional compensation. Yes, combined that's definitely 1% territory, but it's just a fraction of his annual income, as the bulk of his wealth comes from investment income. I would imagine basing a fine on his compensation from work (the "day fine") would be just as inconsequential to him as a fixed fine. Many wealthy folks, especially those that own their own businesses, have minimal or no salaries at all. So even if you penalize folks based on "a day's wage", it won't achieve the goal.
Other folks, such as the middle income self-employed or those employed in the "gig economy", have highly variable income from one period to the next (month to month or year to year). What do you use for a basis for these folks. And what's fair?
What if one is recently unemployed? Do you base it off historical salary, or maybe unemployment insurance payments (if one is receiving it) or maybe $0?
The plan sounds great, but as they say, the devil's in the details. Because of the complications of income based fines, why not replace monetary fines with service-based fines and penalize folks with community service instead? Time is universal, everyone attaches some value to their personal time, and this approach would seem to level the playing field quite nicely across most income groups.
16
Agree in principle. But there are so many inequities in our society just now, growing daily, that fines are a minor issue. The entire economy, and the govt, are both stacked for the rich.
5
You "agree in principle"?
So if that billionaire pays 1000 x more in income taxes than your poor one ... does she have 1000 votes in elections?
1
Indexing to income is really not the solution because it just encourages governments to (increasingly) rely on fines as source of funding for unaccountable spending beyond public scrutiny. Getting into rich vs. poor discussions not only doesn't solve the problem, it creates new headaches. The problem can easily be addressed without resorting to these political arguments and raising fines for everyone "progressively." The real problem is that fines can drastically affect those at the margins of low income. For example, traffic camera fines for the minutest of technical violations without safety consequences can be on the order of $100, which is 2 days of wages for a minimum wage worker after we subtract payroll taxes, travel expenses, etc. So, what we need is a mechanism to reduce fines for those who can demonstrate disproportionate economic impact, while still being high enough to pinch a bit to discourage future violations.
7
I once received a parking ticket for parking within 20 feet of an unmarked crosswalk. As I saw the ticket on my windshield I thought "o.k., probably $50" to my surprise it was a $250 PARKING, yes parking ticket. This in Tucson where the average Joe makes about 34K a year. It was an obscure City Ordinance designed to generate revenue and nothing more. The best way to go about lessening the burden on those less fortunate is to allow for reductions in fines and to prohibit our Government Agencies from using fines to supplement their budgets.
275
When I had an office on K Street in NW DC (2 blocks from the White House) DC "parking enforcement" officers were extremely diligent not to miss a single opportunity and be creative in finding some more in order to be able to ticket those "wealthy" MD and VA commuters. Washington Post wrote about that several times, City Hall had that (strict enforcement of non-DC car rivers) on agenda many times. Getting as many $$$ from those suburbanites was common denominator of all those activities and dedicated foot soldiers as taxing them on income, to get more $$$ to DC government was not realistic way to more revenues. It was clearly Robin Hood "get the rich" effort.
3
I moved to Tucson after living in a large city for decades without ever getting one ticket. Immediately I started getting one ticket after another for laws I had never heard of and for infractions such as going 5 MPH over the speed limit while I was slowing down, which I went to court for and lost. I realized I was living in a Republican state where the government avoids taxes (AZ has lowest spending on education in the country), but still needs revenue and this is how revenue was raised. The newspaper wrote about areas where police form a hive and just pull over one driver after another and give tickets. I had a experienced this in a developing country and offered the officer my watch as payment as I wasn’t carrying enough of their currency. I learned how to stop the tickets by not driving where I know the police form hives, avoiding areas the police gather for tickets and turning around if I see police on the side of the road giving tickets to go another way to prevent being stopped for some infraction I have never heard of. So far this strategy works.
3
When you do nothing but cut taxes you have to find the money from somewhere else to keep your government and it programs running. This is what the GOP doesn't tell you about their constant ill-advised tax cutting. You want better and fairer government? Stop voting Republican.
3
Two fundamental issues seem to be missing from this piece. The first is the idea of separation of concerns. The article mentions the burden of fines on the poor, which is definitely one concern, since in the US being poor can condemn a person of little means to being a criminal, simply through inability to pay (for insurance, for a ticket, etc.). The second concern is whether a fine is big enough with respective to income to act as an effective deterrent. But at upper levels of income, fines may not work well at all as a deterrent. For some, the desire to be law-abiding may be enough, for others the time cost of dealing with a ticket, etc. Separation of concerns means treating these concerns separately, at least at first, though the ultimate solution may address both. The other issue is the difficulty creating incentive and disincentive systems with the intended outcome. These almost always backfire. Look at Wells Fargo employees opening unrequested accounts, or teachers gaming test scores since they don't have the means to actually improve the learning environment of their students. Carefully considering and empirically studying unintended consequences does not seem like something the law (or management) often considers.
4
I have to jump in here and remind the author and readers that the 14th Amendment provides that
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This idea would clearly violate that. I am surprised that a lawyer would propose it, without at least mentioning the 14th Amendment and why he thinks it would not apply. I understand the common sense aspect of it, but the Constitution is the Constitution.
The Equal Protection Clause is not generally thought of in this kind of case, it most often is associated with civil rights, but still I am sure it would apply here.
75
Put rather too simply, the 14th Amendment applies mainly to what are known as "Suspect Classes." An individual of such a class would have to show that their complaint was based on an application of a law that impacts them specifically/individually, as a member of a class of persons having been targeted by said law in a discriminatory manner in respect to said class of persons. Being a woman, for example, or being possessed of dark skin or some particular ethnic or national background in which the plaintiff is included by reason of birth or other unavoidable circumstance. These persons are (in theory) allowed a 'strict scrutiny' standard from the judiciary when pleading for their rights against some piece of legislation or decree in which they are burdened as part of said "suspect class.' I could be very wrong, and often am, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim being 'rich' as a indicator of being a member of a 'suspect' class of persons, although I'm willing to entertain the notion.
6
On the contrary, one could argue that the current system violates the Equal Protection Clause because of the vast differential impact fines have on individuals across the socioeconomic spectrum. And given that, Mr. Schierenbeck's proposal would actually move us toward greater actualization of the 14th Amendment.
18
I don't see equal protection of the law is violated by a speeding fine being set to "a sum equal to one day of the violator's income". William works a $15K per year minimum wage job; he pays a day's wage for speeding (in his case $58). George has a $300K per year stock broker job; he pays a day's wage for speeding (in his case $1,154). Both speeders are fined the same; a day's wage. William will still be hurt much more by his fine. Losing $58 may mean he cannot make rent or buy groceries that week. William will feel some sting, but still has plenty of money for his basic needs.
11
"Does this mean we should slap Mr. Zuckerberg with a $1 million speeding ticket? ... But the United States doesn’t need to go that far." Because? Because why? Why is it every time, when a policy might adversely impact the 0.01%, and only adversely affect the 0.01%, there are people jumping so quickly to their defense that it seems like an innate reaction?
24
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages.
—Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments pt i, ch iii (1759).
3
It only makes sense for people with low income to have proportional fines. As with taxes, it becomes too complicated at higher incomes with variable expenses and circumstances.
4
Do we use their tax returns as a measure? Or do we check the balance in their bank accounts? Or what's under the mattress at home?
1
that isn't the case actually. it's pretty simple to base fines on gross income as reported to the IRS. Rich folks won't like it but that's ok
1
This is a sane and more equitable solution.
But why should Mark Zuckerberg pay less than an amount that would feel to him like a penalty?
There is, however, already in place a system to prevent millionaires from excessive speeding and zooming through red lights: license points.
Acquire enough points, and one's license is suspended.
7
In some states, points can be avoided or reduced by taking traffic school classes or similar. Guess who can afford the time and money to take them? Not poor people. So it's still an unequal system.
2
Sorry - you're speaking sensibly and logically - and not with a rabid desire to transfer wealth from someone who freely earned it to the rest of us that view it as a lottery win,
Zuckerberg has a driver so this wouldn’t apply to him. People in limousines, Uber and taxis wouldn’t be at risk. Police would likely target drivers of expensive cars because they would be the most lucrative. People in rust buckets would never get tickets because the police would figure why bother.
I would fully support some level of indexing; though with the disparities of wealth it would be impossible to make the pain of a ticket be "felt equally" (it would be unjust to fine even a billionaire the millions of dollars for a speeding ticket as it would take to equal the pain of a $200 ticket on a nurse or teacher). The rich get so much better terms in life because they are already rich in so many ways (better interest rates on loans; free stuff handed to them if they are a celebrity; kickbacks; etc), even if this just amounted to a symbolic gesture it would be good for society.
13
How do you determine disposable income? Does the empty nester with a $100,000 income pay the same as the parent supporting a family of four, with one or more in college? How about the person who lives in the city and pays a significantly higher tax rate on his home of equal value? This sounds all well and good, but there are too many variables. Implementing and administering the system would be not only expensive, but intrudes on one's right to privacy. Who will guarantee that one's personal financial data is not compromised? This sounds like a backdoor attempt at redistribution of income, not fairness.
300
@BHN: Since other countries manage to impose sliding fee scales for fines in a successful manner, perhaps we can start by examining how they do it, instead of dismissing the idea outright.
33
It would be infinitely more fair than the current system.
And the "right to privacy"? You lose that when you are convicted of breaking the law.
5
Two points. 1 If somebody values his privacy, he can obey the speed limit. 2. I see nothing wrong with redistributing income (see our progressive taxes), especially where the redistribution is coming from law breakers.
5
An old and justifiable argument, however this article fails to mention another valid objective of such fines, beyond deterrence: internalizing the externality. That is, breaking the law creates a “cost” to society (e.g. speeding creates the risk of a traffic accident, which creates costs for first responders, medical interventions, etc.). A fine is calibrated such that it effectively compensates society for this cost.
Fines based on income may more effectively deter, but they may over or under-compensate for the actual damage done.
10
Fines perform multiple functions - they both compensate society for costs or impacts AND they dissuade the fine party from behaving in a certain manner. As well, this whole compensation argument assumes that there is some estimate of real costs associated with a proscribed practice and the fines have been set accordingly. I kind of doubt that. I suspect that a group of people with some designated authority get together in a room and make up the fines. But the deeper problem is that the real mechanisms that we have available to "fine" people for having too much money - i.e., taxes - those "fines" are being set by the people who have most of the money. And those "fines" do not come close to compensating society for the real impact that they have on the large numbers of people who produce the wealth that they have somehow managed to acquire.
2
If everything is indexed to income, income becomes irrelevant. If only some things are indexed to income, then who gets to decide what those things are? There is no way to avoid the fact that life is easier if you have more money, and I'm not entirely sure that it would be good to avoid it.
52
Even if you believe that life should be easier if you make more money, breaking the law should not be.
2
Yes! The current system is terribly unjust. And for those who point out that a sliding scale would inevitably have challenges: Of course it would! But that isn't a good reason not to do it.
Even a very imperfect sliding scale would be FAR more just than the current system.
269
What is just is punishment proportional to harm committed, not wealth. What you are suggesting is punishment disporportionate to that principle-overpunishment. That is unjust.
1
"Even a very imperfect sliding scale would be FAR more just than the current system."
Like Germany have, or at least used to have.
I'm 'rich' I guess. Upper-middle class. My income started rising a few years ago as my business grew. My business didn't just grow like a plant in the ground - I worked really hard for years to get it up and running. Now that I'm rich, I'm finding out just how expensive it is to be rich. My marginal federal and state tax rate is close to 50%. Actually, if you add in all the phase-outs (I lose the child tax credit, the benefit of the exemptions for the children, various Schedule A deductions, etc.), and if you take the AMT into account, probably my marginal tax rate is closer to 60%. I pay much more than most people for my Obamacare insurance. When I send my kids to college in a few years, I will pay full price, while other people's kids get financial aid. The article suggests I should pay more for traffic tickets. Where does this end? I fully expect to see the day, when I pull up to the gas station, and the price of gas will be indexed according to income. I will pay $5 per gallon, and the guy next to me will pay $1. I feel like most upper-middle-class people who work hard and didn't inherit the money - you start to feel like everywhere you turn, you're being punished for being successful.
490
You really believe the person with $15,000,000 in assets should pay the same fine as someone with $200,000 in assets ? Yearly income, total assets, taxes paid - regardless of which metric you use you really think people on the two extremes should pay the same fine?
50
Well, John, if you really feel that your life is so much tougher and more unfair than that of people whose earnings put them in a lower tax bracket, there's a very easy solution. Just decrease your income to that level, and you won't have to endure the suffering of being upper middle class.
I was at work late the other day and had a chat with the fellow who empties my trash can. About his disabled child. It slapped a lot of self-pity right out of me. I am grossly underpaid for the work I do, given my level of education and experience, but I certainly did not go home that night thinking "gee, I wish I got all the free stuff for my child that he gets for his."
If you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, have them work their way through or earn tuition on their own merit through scholarships. My husband and I wouldn't have been able to afford my daughter's college tuition without her part-time job, need-based scholarships and tuition waivers, but as it turns out, the job she took as she graduated from high school has offered her excellent experience that, coupled with her academic achievements, just nabbed her a coveted paid internship for the summer. Your children are benefiting from your example as a successful businessman. Do you want everything just handed to them?
Be grateful for what you have, and if you don't like your life, use your resources to change it. But don't begrudge other who are far worse off just because they get the occasional helping hand.
487
The point is that a $150 - $200 fine is utterly meaningless to someone with a high income, while it can mean not being able to pay the rent or buy food for a service worker or anyone in a family with an income below the median ( "real median household income was $59,039 in 2016" - that's AGI) some of whom also "work really hard."
And they do pay the same car insurance rates,which are often higher if they live in a "worse" area, and the same price for gas, and repairs, and the same tolls if they have to use a toll road or bridge to work.
The point of a fine is as a deterrent (well, in reality, it is too often used as an income generator for the state or municipality...): how does it deter someone for whom it barely creates an inconvenience? Someone who is likely to use an attorney to get out of the charge? And How does it help society if it creates hardships, or becomes in itself a cause of further prosecution for someone with few resources?
54
Yes, thank you. All fines should obviously be proportional to income and/or wealth. The only point of a fine is to deter offenders. (Compensation to victims is another matter.) Rich people cannot be deterred by the prospect of losing relative pocket change. And that's plainly unfair. It gives rich people a license to break the law by virtue of their wealth alone.
There is a risk that enforcement would focus too much on wealthy offenders, and that the plan would essentially immunize low-income people. Those risks can be dealt with by appropriate rules designed to ensure fair, consistent enforcement. (For example, traffic laws can be enforced by automated machines.)
My only quibble is with Mr. Schierenbeck's recommendation that we "should" limit maximum fines as other countries have done. Why? The outrageousness of a million-dollar speeding ticket merely highlights the outrageousness of the income gap and the outrageousness of the size of the individual's fortune. Why step back from the whole premise of this idea in instances where it's most needed and where it's logic is most compelling? Why give the super-rich a break?
204
Don't worry too much about the rich being targeted. Right now it's just the other way around - the poor are targeted because they're easy marks. The rich can always contact their attorneys....
2
RIght, I’m not worried “too much,” but I can see the potential for abuse. A wealthy person should not be followed by the cops all the time because he’s a potential payday. The appeal of this idea is its rigorous fairness. When it comes to criminal or misdemeanor punishments, nobody should get a free pass and everybody should face the same prospect of getting dinged.
1
Hey, why do you think Uber/Lyft have good sales? Raise the cost of transportation -- increase their sales.
Economics 101 -- the writer-lawyer needs to read that book, again.
1
Another consideration, why should I pay an auto insurance premium for collision coverage to compensate somebody who chooses to drive a Ferrari? There are a fair number of unjustified taxes in our system of justice. When I talked to my state representative about liability caps he couldn't relate to my argument. Another example, the open internet is going away to be replaced by a tollway. Good luck with this.
22
Your typical Ferrari is driven much more carefully and infrequently than the typical SUV. And they typically pay higher rates. While there are careless and irresponsible drivers in everything from a Tercel to a Maybach most people with cars costing more than a lot of annual salaries are pretty careful with them.
1
@Marie - Seriously? Maybe in Boston, but here at home and most places I've been, I'm frequently amazed at the reckless driving exhibited by many people in expensive cars.