Progressive Fines?

If A rich person (D. Trump or Hillary Clinton) are pulled over for doign 80 in a 65 zone, they'd get roughly a $150 dollar fine. A single mom who is barely making ends meet and has to decide between paying the rent and feeding the kids some protein who is caught speeding to get her kids to school so she can get to work... pays a $150 fine. The impact to these people is very different. $150 to D. Trump or H Clinton is nothing, more a waste of their time and a laugh. But the impact to the mother is crushing, she doesn't have it. And if she has to go to court, that is time and energy lost assuming she will even win pleading her case.

Would you support a progressive fine system based upon a persons prior social security income statements, with some sort of minimum so that there is still punishment?

Example: Last years income $450,000. Speeding ticket is.002%, or $1,000 (small, but aggravating). Last years income $20,000. Fine $25, and community service of 2 hours.

The fines could be adjusted, its just an example.
Additional funding goes to pay for more police, better trained police, better equipment, social training, whatever is deemed valuable to improve life in those communities.

  • Id support it
    57% (4)50% (12)52% (16)Vote
  • No
    43% (3)50% (12)48% (15)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

1|0
1|22

Most Helpful Girl

  • Id love it. At the same time our current fed income tax system suggests its not as easy to enforce as we'd like. The problem being errr, rich people, have a much better chance of getting out of paying these fines (and income taxes per DTs own words) than poorer compatriots. By making them equal at least some income is coming in...

    0|1
    0|1
    • 1mo

      The D~. paid an expensive fiscal lawyer who helped him to pay no taxes. It was NOT his own fiscal genius. He just bought advice.

Most Helpful Guy

  • No fine for either. You are right that a fine is meaningless to the wealthy and too punitive to the person earning minimum.
    Require the same community service from both parties. That's equitable.

    0|2
    0|0

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

What Guys Said 21

  • i understand the argument and to an extent i agree. a person making $1million dollars doesn't feel the burden of a $50 ticket compared to a person who makes $32k... so you can argue the deterrent is far greater for one person than another and thus unfair

    i think a percentage would be an interesting way to fine people. so since a person making $32k a $150 represents.4% of their income then a person who makes $1million the fine would be $4000

    i think the issue you have is that punishments need to be fair. a crime is a crime. however punishment as a deterrent is an argument for a percentage of income based citation system...

    i lean towards liking the idea but have some reservations

    0|1
    0|0
  • No I don't support that. It's just one more way for people to get a free ride and be leaches on society. The wealthy are already paying substantially more than other people

    All the people with their hands out wanting free money aren't satisfied with their wealthy sugar daddies who pay for most of their stuff. They want more more more. A bunch of leaches is what they are.

    1|1
    0|0
  • You can not have a system of laws under which all people are equal, and punish one group more, or less, based solely on what group they are in, and not their criminal act or criminal history.

    And, frankly, I don't give a damn if the impact on a poorer person is crushing. There was a known law, and they broke it. The only reason they are paying any fine is because they broke the rules. They would not be out a penny if they did not break the law.

    0|2
    0|0
    • 2mo

      The punishment should be proportional

    • Show All
    • 2mo

      I'm going to counter argue a bit, then let you to your view. you threw me... I thought all people are supposed to be treated equally under the law. We aren't punishing them more or less, it is equal proportionaltely in how well they can absorb the blow... so to speak. In the $ punishment system, one person received effectively no punishment or deterrent and the other person received an extreme one. That isn't equal.

    • 2mo

      That's not true, the punishment is not equal. That's like saying punching a baby would harm it the same way punching a boxer would. It's not the same punishment.

  • Many very rich people have very little taxable income. They're "rich" because they control a company, and the company has a ton of assets that they get to use for free and a ton of expenses that they pay on behalf of the person - but the person has little actual income. The company (s) may pay a lot of taxes, but the person pays very little.

    That would be a big problem for this system - and a very real one.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That is a great idea and very fair

    0|1
    0|0
  • PRO:
    It would be honest
    CON:
    If poor people get enticed to break as many laws as rich people , Society becomes a Chaos.
    E. G.: the D~'s companies declared bankruptcy 4 times. In some states the Law says "Three strokes and you're out."
    We can't do that to rich people, can we?

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Sorry you're in a bad financial situation, but if you know that, don't get yourself into situations where you'll get fined. Wake up earlier and you'll have more time.
    Sure, it's a struggle, but it's the life you have right now, so until you change it around and become more stable, you gotta work with what you have.
    Rich people have worked their ass off to become rich (most of them), you can't penalize them for doing things right.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It would be interesting to post this and give more options based on age or current income levels so you can track the level of self-interest reflected in the vote.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's a great system and works well in Sweden.

    0|2
    0|0
  • I think they do that in Finland and some other places. Some rich guy was appealing because he got a $220,000 traffic ticket.

    What pisses me of is here they add a "court fee" to the ticket, whether you actually appeal it or not. So you may get a $250 ticket, but then there are $140 in "fees" added to it so you pay almost 400.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I won't support it cuz this is another way to justify the old sentiment "Money can buy anything". Lets suppose in another universe this law is applied , TRump murder someone by law of common people. He must be hanged but he can pay more to get away with it. I know you are talking about making them pay higher price but "LAW IS LAW" and it applies to everyone equally. If your law is applied, then next thing you would hear about is that "They have premium laws".

    0|0
    1|0
  • Fixed rate makes more sense. So what's the percentage here. Lets say a billionaire gets a ticket. The amount would be ridiculous

    It works with taxes because it's tied to the amount of income you make

    0|0
    0|0
  • I thought they got chauffeured. Beside people that are broke and get paid under the table would take advantage of it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • why would the government punish the people it it is cucked by into protecting them?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Oh, because someone earned more money, they should have to pay with higher fees for the same thing? No

    0|0
    0|1
  • Of course not. It should be standard for everyone.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. There's a reason people want money, and that's one of the reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah, they have this in some countries.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yeah it would be nice if they did that, it's even more insane that middle class like me and most Americans pay a higher tax rate than the rich do

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. Same crime = same punishment.
    That is called equality.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 2mo

      I'm going to argue a bit. you hit the nail on the head. right now, we don't have "same punishment", we have same $ amount. There may have been a time when the middle class was large and so the majority paid the same punishment via the $ amount. But now, there is a huge disparity. To make it "same punishment", use a % basis... they both pay the same % of what they earned... .002%. Same $ amount does not equal same punishment because one person was not impacted at all and the other severely.

    • Show All
    • 2mo

      I think we have that in the US now though. Someone who "didn't make it yet", maybe they are just getting started or had a tragedy in life, is punished severely, possibly to the point of being pushed into poverty and hunger, the other is no impact. It isn't equitable.

      We may be given the same changes, but at different times. I've had 50 years to lie, I have 75 million in the bank and investments. You on the other hand just got started and can't make your rent like I couldn't 30 years ago. But you are getting slammed if you speed. I... no big deal, I don't care.

      I'm not serious about the numbers, just an example. Time in prison is a different matter to me than $'s. Keeping a rich guy a year (e. g. he loses $1million) and keeping a garbage man (e. g. he loses 30,000), is different numbers, but I'd bet the rich man has LESS impact still. He is still rich probably.

      I don't care either way on this, but it is an interesting question. Thanks for the challenge:)!

    • 2mo

      You do the crime, you face the consequences. We are all aware of the laws (well, for the most part), and we make an active choice to break them. Even if it is only be accident that we are speeding, we have made the choice to not pay attention.

      Imprisonment is the same as being fined; but where as one was dealing monetarily the other is dealing with time.
      If I break a law and I go to jail, my health should have nothing to do with it.
      The same as if I break a law and I am fined, so should my wealth have nothing to do with it.

  • its like that in a lot of countries. Rich have to pay more. But here in murica... the rich get richer.

    0|0
    0|2
Loading...