Fines Geared To Income?

[cybercoma]

Sure but if you knew the police would treat you differently entirely based on your income then it'll change people's behaviour, perhaps not buy a nice car, or not declare as much income.

But they're not treating you differently. A fine is a punishment that should be commensurate with your ability to pay. This is why large corporations will do illegal things and just consider the penalties as an expense of doing business. They have such a large ability to pay that the fines are no longer punishments, just expenses. Were the fine proportionate to income, it would be equitably burdensome regardless of how much money you have. I don't see anything wrong with fiscal penalties being equitably levied against offenders.

Edited March 10, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Were the fine proportionate to income, it would be equitably burdensome regardless of how much money you have. I don't see anything wrong with fiscal penalties being equitably levied against offenders.

Except income is hardly a perfect proxy. Some people may have one year with a large windfall (selling a cottage/business) but otherwise have modest income. Other people have a lavish lifestyle but no reported income (e.g. spouses/children of rich people).

BTW: you graphic presumes equality of outcome is a possible or even desired result of social policy. In a capitalist society equality of opportunity is the only objective worth discussing.

[cybercoma]

That's fine. So there should be an opportunity to challenge the fines with documented proof that your income is inconsistent and will be substantially less than what was reported in previous years. You're still talking about the fines being based on someone's ability to pay. You're arguing about degree rather than kind.

[guyser]

Except income is hardly a perfect proxy. Some people may have one year with a large windfall (selling a cottage/business) but otherwise have modest income.

Here that is considered a capital gain and not income per se.

The system has been in effect since 1921 so I am pretty sure they have it figured out.

[jacee]

Except income is hardly a perfect proxy. Some people may have one year with a large windfall (selling a cottage/business) but otherwise have modest income. Other people have a lavish lifestyle but no reported income (e.g. spouses/children of rich people).

BTW: you graphic presumes equality of outcome is a possible or even desired result of social policy. In a capitalist society equality of opportunity is the only objective worth discussing.

Well then they better watch their speed the following year.

.

[TimG]

Here that is considered a capital gain and not income per se.

Line 150 does not care about the distinction. Child support and other income based payments use Line 150. There is no reason to believe income based traffic fines would be any different. Edited March 10, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Line 150 does not care about the distinction. Child support and other income based payments use Line 150. There is no reason to believe income based traffic fines would be any different.

Of course there is. You're just making up a situation where it's not relevant. There are many things they can do. In fact, you're actually arguing that they should consider someone's ability to pay when issuing these fines. You're arguing for the very same thing that you think you're arguing against.

Look at student loans for example. Most provinces take parental/spousal income into consideration. That's line 150 as you say. However, they will also listen to appeals where a parent has since lost their job for example or someone has other financial obligations, like caring for dependants, etc. There's lots of things they can and do consider when they make their decisions. There's no reason to believe a traffic ticket couldn't be challenged on the same grounds and likewise adjusted accordingly.

[TimG]

There's no reason to believe a traffic ticket couldn't be challenged on the same grounds and likewise adjusted accordingly.

Which, of course, increases costs because you need a bureaucracy to review such claims. There is no problem that needs to be solved here. Certainly not one that is important enough to justify the additional administration costs.

[cybercoma]

Which, of course, increases costs because you need a bureaucracy to review such claims. There is no problem that needs to be solved here. Certainly not one that is important enough to justify the additional administration costs.

You've got a citation that say it costs more? Because it seems to me like the number of people with capital gains claims, who would also challenge a ticket are probably very very few. It's quite possibly even less than the number of people who would challenge tickets that aren't commensurate with ability to pay. Bear in mind that the additional costs, if there are any, would be offset by the additional cost of the fines. Edited March 10, 2015 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You've got a citation that say it costs more? Because it seems to me like the number of people with capital gains claims, who would also challenge a ticket are probably very very few.

You would have to set up a process and hire bureaucrats to implement it. That costs money. What is missing is the point: do you have any evidence that 1) speeding is a serious enough today problem that requires additional enforcement 2) spending these resources on 'graduated fines' is the most effective to way to deal with the alleged problem.

I suspect you can't answer these questions and it is nothing but a policy driven by ideology which, ironically, is the complaint you always have when it comes to Harper's policies on crime and punishment.

Edited March 10, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

You would have to set up a process and hire bureaucrats to implement it. That costs money. What is missing is the point: do you have any evidence that 1) speeding is a serious enough today problem that requires additional enforcement 2) spending these resources on 'graduated fines' is the most effective to way to deal with the alleged problem.

Already asked for this evidence early in the thread. Typically, the request for any supporting evidence was ignored. It's all about ideology.

[cybercoma]

You would have to set up a process and hire bureaucrats to implement it. That costs money. What is missing is the point: do you have any evidence that 1) speeding is a serious enough today problem that requires additional enforcement 2) spending these resources on 'graduated fines' is the most effective to way to deal with the alleged problem.

I suspect you can't answer these questions and it is nothing but a policy driven by ideology which, ironically, is the complaint you always have when it comes to Harper's policies on crime and punishment.

How much more does it cost? You're the one throwing around "facts" without backing them up. You've said repeatedly that this is going to cost a lot more. You prove it and show me. I'm saying as a matter of principle the burden placed on a person from a fine should be equitable. Right now, someone with a greater means to pay is not as affected by these fines as someone living on the poverty line. In other words, the punishment is not the same. It's harder on one person than the other. As a matter of ethics, that's wrong.

If you want to talk about the massive expense of implementing and running such a system, go ahead and show evidence of the massive costs associated with it. We have the system setup already. The only difference is implementing a way for officers to access a database for the fines when printing off tickets. That's hardly a problem. You talk about people challenging the tickets as though there's some huge additional cost there, despite the fact that people can already challenge tickets so we're already paying those costs.

Now if you want to make claims of fact, e.g., that there will be more challenges or that the system would in fact cost more, then you need to put up some facts to support your argument.

[TimG]

I'm saying as a matter of principle the burden placed on a person from a fine should be equitable.

IOW - you are advocating policies based on your ideology which is not shared by everyone. This is exactly what Harper does with his various tough on crime measures. There is absolutely no difference.

Right now, someone with a greater means to pay is not as affected by these fines as someone living on the poverty line. In other words, the punishment is not the same. It's harder on one person than the other. As a matter of ethics, that's wrong.

Not if the fines are set low enough that hardship on poor people is minimal. Your problem is you don't think he punishment is enough for rich people. You are entitled to you opinion but there is zero difference between your stance on traffic fines and Harper's stance on minimum mandatory sentences. Both of you think the system, as it currently structured, is not just. The only difference is the exact areas where injustice needs to be corrected.

What this also means is you have no business complaining about cost when others propose policies based on principals since you clearly don't care about costs when your principals are being violated.

Edited March 11, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So I guess this means you don't have evidence to back up your assertions that this would be a more expensive system.

[TimG]

So I guess this means you don't have evidence to back up your assertions that this would be a more expensive system.

The cost is non-zero. That is clear and enough to say it is not worth unless one wants the policy for ideological reasons (which you have admitted). Also, you want the change so if you want to argue the cost is minimumal the onus is on you to show it. Trying to put the onus on me is pathetic. Edited March 11, 2015 by TimG

[kimmy]

It's possible that the costs of enforcing a proportional fine system could be more than made up for by the increased fines for high-income offenders.

Fines serve 3 main purposes in our justice system:

-compensation for harm caused.

-punishment for the offender.

-closely related to punishment, deterrence of future offenses.

Fines for every-day offenses are on a scale that's meaningful to the large majority of the population. $200 is a figure that's meaningful to most of us here; Argus being the exception obviously. For most of us, $200 out of our pocket is a figure that we can relate to: it probably means putting off a luxury purchase you were saving for, or borrowing from our savings, orsomething. For some, $200 is more than just an inconvenience... for those on a tight budget living paycheck to paycheck, a $200 speeding ticket could be devastating... they definitely should not speed. But for a lucky few, $200 is completely inconsequential. It's ass-wiping money. Well, not now that the bills are made of plastic instead of paper, but you know what I mean. For an extreme example of how meaningless monetary fines can be, look at the effect of fines on the serial-criminals at HSBC.

Monetary fines is always our go-to when it comes to dealing with minor offenses, but it doesn't fit every situation. For bad drivers, we have demerit points as well as monetary fines. No matter how much money you have, if you commit an offense you get the same number of demerit points as the poorest driver on the road, and money can't make them go away. If you keep screwing up, you can lose the privilege of driving no matter how rich you are.

That strikes me as inherently fair, and I think it would be appropriate if we had something similar to use in other situations. If the banking world had a demerit system, HSBC would have earned them a "time out" by now.

-k

[Bonam]

Monetary fines is always our go-to when it comes to dealing with minor offenses, but it doesn't fit every situation. For bad drivers, we have demerit points as well as monetary fines. No matter how much money you have, if you commit an offense you get the same number of demerit points as the poorest driver on the road, and money can't make them go away. If you keep screwing up, you can lose the privilege of driving no matter how rich you are.

If you've got money, you can call a lawyer and challenge the infraction ticket. Most challenged tickets are overturned, and the demerit points along with them. If you're rich enough, you can also just hire a chauffeur, so no biggie if you lose your privilege to drive. Those who have money/power will always have options/advantages available that those who do not have money/power do not have... can't really get around it.

[kimmy]

I doubt anybody buys a Lamborghini to be driven around by a chauffeur. And I think the cost in time and inconvenience of having to go to court to fight a traffic ticket might be a bigger punishment for a big-shot than a monetary fine.

-k

[Bonam]

I doubt anybody buys a Lamborghini to be driven around by a chauffeur. And I think the cost in time and inconvenience of having to go to court to fight a traffic ticket might be a bigger punishment for a big-shot than a monetary fine.

-k

Sure but the point is if you're rich you've still got more options than if you're not. Anyway, I agree with you, demerit points are a good parallel system to fines for the reasons you mentioned. But the progressive fining structure proposed here is a try for "equalizing" something for no reason other than ideology.... no evidence that it would be an effective deterrent or improve road safety has been presented, despite being asked for several times.

[overthere]

Same in Alberta.

Not in Edmonton or St Albert.

The photo radar is not fixed in one place, as it often is in Europe. There are photo radar cameras on pedestals all over the UK. In Alberta the mobile vehicles with phot radar could be anywhere, though they tend to cluster in areas where they generate the most tickets.

According to the chief of police, the purpose of photo radar is to slow down traffic. And also according to him , it works: they issue fewer tickets now than several years ago.

A greater deterrent than fines, for many people, is the accumulation of demerits and eventual loss of drivers licence. You don't get demerits on photo radar because the driver cannot be identified.

[WWWTT]

edit

Edited March 18, 2015 by WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Great incentive for people to cheat on their taxes.

Aren't taxes themselves a far, far greater incentive for people to cheat on their taxes?

[eyeball]

I think if we're willing to allow a scofflaw to perform a community service in lieu of paying a fine we should be even more willing to pay anyone who steps up to perform a service to the community.

In fact the scofflaws should consider themselves lucky if their service is even required after waiting at the back of a line of people who could use the job/money.

[guyser]

Aren't taxes themselves a far, far greater incentive for people to cheat on their taxes?

Yes , and the idea anyone would cheat on their taxes for future ticket infractions is whacked.

[LesActive]

If there's no record of income is there still a fine? Community service is a much better idea, imo. Too much focus on revenue generation is a dangerous thing.