(04-29-2015 11:26 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

And a $200 fine doesn't mitigate the action similarly between vastly different income/wealth levels. You're just tap-dancing around this issue.

So you've got data that suggests that rich people speed more because they can afford the paltry fines?

No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The entire point of the fine is to provide a financial deterrent to lawbreaking. The Finns have done this correctly.

No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

Doesn't that kind of gradation undermine the idea that we are all equal under the law?

(04-29-2015 11:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

Doesn't that kind of gradation undermine the idea that we are all equal under the law?

I don't see how that argument could be made if the percentage of income is applied evenly. It's the same losing argument against tax brackets.

(04-29-2015 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:36 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I actually like the idea of fines like this being tied to income.

That's a real shocker coming from a lib. Got to punish people who work hard and are successful. You probably want the government to pay those that are failures in life traffic tickets.

The entire point of the fine is to provide a financial deterrent to lawbreaking. The Finns have done this correctly.

Evidently not.

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

(04-29-2015 11:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

Doesn't that kind of gradation undermine the idea that we are all equal under the law?

Nothing is equal to these thieving Progs. Envy drives them.

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

Doesn't that kind of gradation undermine the idea that we are all equal under the law?

Nothing is equal to these thieving Progs. Envy drives them.

This is not progressive or not. Its simple economics. The demand curve of spending 500 Euros is a hell of a lot less on a person making a billion dollars a year than it is on someone making 50,000.

(04-29-2015 11:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

Doesn't that kind of gradation undermine the idea that we are all equal under the law?

Nothing is equal to these thieving Progs. Envy drives them.

This is not progressive or not. Its simple economics. The demand curve of spending 500 Euros is a hell of a lot less on a person making a billion dollars a year than it is on someone making 50,000.

Sure...Morality of theft has nothing to do with this. Im appalled by the suggestion that someone should be fined for a statutory crime(not a real one) by their ability to pay. It may be the most disgusting idea I have ever heard from you Progs.

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

I guess I just don't see how a progressive fine would make a better deterrent considering how much everyone speeds in this country, regardless of income.

(04-29-2015 11:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

I guess I just don't see how a progressive fine would make a better deterrent considering how much everyone speeds in this country, regardless of income.

Well of course I agree that someone going 8mph over the limit should be treated differently than 20mph over. But you're not wrong about the overall speeding habits.

I do think that we need to start enacting german-style rules about left-lane highway driving. As I understand it, in Germany, it is a pretty serious traffic infraction to sit in the left lane without getting over for faster traffic. God we need that here.

(04-29-2015 09:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I actually like the idea of fines like this being tied to income.

Why? Then there would be an incentive to pull over more wealthy drivers and just corrupt the whole situation even more. This would not work in the U.S.

(04-29-2015 09:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I actually like the idea of fines like this being tied to income.

Why? Then there would be an incentive to pull over more wealthy drivers and just corrupt the whole situation even more. This would not work in the U.S.

(04-29-2015 11:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

I guess I just don't see how a progressive fine would make a better deterrent considering how much everyone speeds in this country, regardless of income.

People speed in this country because they largely can expect to get away with it. Its relatively low costs (especially if you can get out of it with watching a web video) combined with relatively low probability of capture.

(04-29-2015 11:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

I guess I just don't see how a progressive fine would make a better deterrent considering how much everyone speeds in this country, regardless of income.

Well of course I agree that someone going 8mph over the limit should be treated differently than 20mph over. But you're not wrong about the overall speeding habits.

I do think that we need to start enacting german-style rules about left-lane highway driving. As I understand it, in Germany, it is a pretty serious traffic infraction to sit in the left lane without getting over for faster traffic. God we need that here.

I agree with this. I think this is actually more important than parallel parking and isn't really hammered home equally across the country. I think up north its culturally enforced while down south it's just a suggestion. But you do know how much it costs to get your license in Germany? About $1500 USD. Paying those kinda prices work towards ensuring compliance but would create a significant barrier to entry in America.

(04-29-2015 09:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:41 AM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I actually like the idea of fines like this being tied to income.

Of course you do.

I guess more ideally income/wealth, though it becomes far too complicated to be accurate at that point I'd imagine. But I do because it makes logical sense from a perspective of these citations purpose.

And why would we not tie it to the severity of the actual infraction...

(04-29-2015 12:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:44 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, but I do have math to show that a flat fine affects those with different incomes differently, which seems to be more pertinent to the issue raised. Though I would be interested in that research if it's available.

Well that one will be fine for this purpose. I think our difference is that I'm more focused on the act itself as opposed to the fine. I mean isn't equality under the law the argument that is driving the push to eliminate to differences in sentencing between blacks and white with regard to drug possession?

I'm worried about the act itself, too, and I just don't see any reason to think this wouldn't be more effective at limiting speeding for those for whom the fines are just an inconvenience than a real discouragement to speed. I also don't like the idea that to make sure we 'discourage' all people enough, we disproportionately affect those with less income.

I guess I just don't see how a progressive fine would make a better deterrent considering how much everyone speeds in this country, regardless of income.

People speed in this country because they largely can expect to get away with it. Its relatively low costs (especially if you can get out of it with watching a web video) combined with relatively low probability of capture.

All true. I actually think just police presence is a better traffic calming measure than actual ticketing.

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:36 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 09:24 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I actually like the idea of fines like this being tied to income.

That's a real shocker coming from a lib. Got to punish people who work hard and are successful. You probably want the government to pay those that are failures in life traffic tickets.

The entire point of the fine is to provide a financial deterrent to lawbreaking. The Finns have done this correctly.

No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

you didn't dig deep enough in this isolated world of thought....the better question is why have money at all?

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The entire point of the fine is to provide a financial deterrent to lawbreaking. The Finns have done this correctly.

No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

Then why monetize the fine at all? Just make it points on a license?

But a 500 Euro fine isn't a big stick to a billionaire. Should they incur less of a penalty (relative to their wealth) for law breaking, simply by virtue of their wealth? If a poor person gets a 500 Euro fine, that's going to hurt their ability to spend. If a rich person gets a 500 Euro fine, who cares? Probably not the rich guy.

I knew someone would understand....

(04-29-2015 11:25 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:52 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-29-2015 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The entire point of the fine is to provide a financial deterrent to lawbreaking. The Finns have done this correctly.

No, the fine is a deterrent period. Speeding is speeding and the amount of money one has does not influence whether or not why breaks that particular law.

You and I will have to disagree on that one. Why not make all fines $0.01 then.

You could make the fines a point on the driver's license. You could make it $0.01 contingent upon a court appearance. The real issue regarding speeding is not so much the law be the risk to public safety that speeding can induce. So the fine is a stick to mitigate that action and the size of the fine being determined by the risk posed (5 mph over vs. 30 mph over) is the appropriate governor IMO.

And a $200 fine doesn't mitigate the action similarly between vastly different income/wealth levels. You're just tap-dancing around this issue.

So what about other punishments?

You could argue that someone with a successful life, a family and a job etc. would be more affected by one day of community service or jail than someone without those things. Somebody running a business would be more adversely affected by a month in jail than an unemployed high school drop out from the inner city. Should we make unemployed people serve longer sentences? That would harm black people more than white people.