Traffic fines in proportion with income

Originally posted by spruce112358
One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.

A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.

Of course, some...individual... is go ...[text shortened]... Why should a poor guy spend 2 days in jail and a rich guy 10 days for the same infraction?

One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.

Why the quotes around commits?

A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.

That doesn't make your point clearer. I wouldn't have a problem with a system having that option you described though - it would depend on whether it truly provides the incentives that the system is designed really.

Of course, some...individual... is going to come along and say that it should be "progressive" and the rich should pay 3 days or 4 days or 10 days wages because they have the ability to pay.

Sure.. but my argument has nothing about what someone is able to pay at all, it's about what serves as a true disincentive.

I don't think the argument that fines should be progressive (without the superfluous quotes) based on the ability to pay is a good one since that has nothing to do with the rationale or the goals for the system in question.

The goal for a system of traffic laws is to provide sufficient disincentive in the fines and rules to taking the risk of committing infractions. There are surely pros and cons to various approaches, but that is the end goal of any system of traffic laws.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I don't think it is an arbitrary assumption. Equating time and money is widely accepted -- virtually all companies pay wages and in return receive their employee's time.

[b]However, I like the loss of driving privileges for several days even better. That is even more fair because the punishment neatly fits the crime!

Good idea.[/b]

True, equating time and money is widely accepted, but the exact exchange rate varies considerably. Fixing that exchange rate at one day in prison = one day of wages is therefore wholly arbitrary.

Originally posted by sh76
Does everything in these "progressive" economic systems have to keep punishing people for making more money?

Eventually, they'll start pricing groceries and later all goods and services as a percentage of one's income. That will, of course, have the effect of making everyone's income the same. I believe there's a term for that (C--- something) but I forget i ...[text shortened]... 12 days' salary for a speeding ticket??? Yikes! And I thought our penal system was harsh.

Think of the corresponding principle for felonious acts!

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.

Why the quotes around commits?

A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whateve ...[text shortened]... and cons to various approaches, but that is the end goal of any system of traffic laws.

I disagree as to the intentions and purposes of traffic fines. Traffic fines are primarily to raise money, and amount to another form of taxation. Recognized as such, the progressive fining makes perfect sense, but is totally unjust in a punitive sense.

Doubt me. Most police and judges will admit without argument that traffic enforcement is largely a revenue producing activity, with little or no intentional or unintentional effect on safety.

Originally posted by normbenign
I disagree as to the intentions and purposes of traffic fines. Traffic fines are primarily to raise money, and amount to another form of taxation. Recognized as such, the progressive fining makes perfect sense, but is totally unjust in a punitive sense.

Doubt me. Most police and judges will admit without argument that traffic enforcement is largely a revenue producing activity, with little or no intentional or unintentional effect on safety.

I agree that income has become one purpose of traffic fines, but I don't think I am cynical enough to think it is the ONLY purpose.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I just wondered what your website said his payscale was since his salary was famously $1 per year. That works out to less than a penny for 2 days wages?

Yes they did have him down for a one dollar. Though that always seemed a hollow boast. What annual dividends did he receive from all his Apple stock. I'm sure that amounted to a fair salary, or have I cynically misunderstood the true nature of Job's altruistic genius?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I agree that income has become one purpose of traffic fines, but I don't think I am cynical enough to think it is the ONLY purpose.

That's one of the reasons I put "commit" in quotes. I'm not a big fan of punishing victimless crime.