Income based traffic fines

[W. K. Lis]

From an article on "Bring Income Based Traffic Fines to LA". Click on this link for view it.

Yet another good idea we can steal from the Old Continent: the income based speeding ticket. Already the law of the land in Finland, where a 2002 fine to a director of the Nokia Corporation cost him €116,000 ($103,600 at the time) for doing 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50 km/h (31 mph) zone. The man charged, Mr. Anssi Vanjoki, was charged a fine equivalent to 14 days of his €12.5 Million annual income.

What prompted this post was the news on Yahoo! on January 7th that the record for a traffic ticket has been broken by a Swiss speeder to the tune of $290,000. This may seem harsh to the offender until you realize that he is worth over $20 million and will definitely not be rolling pennies for gas.

Now for those Angelenos living paycheck to paycheck, a speeding ticket really hurts. They have the feel of a harsh penalty and getting a speeding ticket definitely affects their driving for months after a citation. Say an individual makes the minimum wage and works 40 hours a week. The net pay on the check is about $300. After a fine and other ancillary costs (e.g. traffic school), that person has lost at least a full week’s wages. For a person worth $20 million in LA, a $300 fine is laughable and no deterrent to speeding at all. With a toothless monetary deterrent to hundreds, if not thousands of drivers, what is to stop them from speeding? There is a point system in place to punish repeated offenders, but this means someone has to get caught time after time to have their driving privileges curtained. Not the best system that requires the multiple offenses before behavior is punished for a particular segment of the population.

A copy-paste of the income-based traffic fines used in Finland and Switzerland would bring many positive benefits:

1. Rich people would drive better. It levels the rules of the road for all drivers by implementing a fairer system of deterrence that would make even the wealthiest of people think twice before speeding.
2. Since some people will speed anyway, the city would raise a lot more cash. The money raised by the city should entirely be used to fund public transportation. After a few years of this, the city might have enough money to fund European-quality mass transit.
3. Not to bang the egalitarian drum too loudly, but implementing such a system would be a fine example of ending the cultural phenomenon of being able to buy your way out of things in this country. Think of the children.

If you are driving multiple $500,000 cars and are worth millions, there is not much of a defense in arguing against such a proposition on monetary grounds. Those people have the money to pay two weeks of their annual income should they be found exceeding the speed limit. If there are any millionaires that read the metroriderla blog and would like to mount a defense of the current system and how it keeps them in check, contrarian views are most welcome.

The only problem I would have are the spoiled brats (aka children), who get their fines paid by their parents without blinking their eyes. But if the fines are based on who does pay, maybe they will wake up and control them better.

 

[TOareaFan]

From an article on "Bring Income Based Traffic Fines to LA". Click on this link for view it.



The only problem I would have are the spoiled brats (aka children), who get their fines paid by their parents without blinking their eyes. But if the fines are based on who does pay, maybe they will wake up and control them better.

The problem with income based fines here is that they are, likely, unconstitutional. One of the basic rights in our charter is for equal treatment under the law. Speeding is speeding.....no? So if I were lucky enough (talented enough) to earn $1 million per year but am a bad driver....am I doing any more harm to society than someone who earns $30 thousand a year and commits the same offense?

Also, consider this, if it is ok to fine rich people more....is it ok to fine poor people less? So, I lose my job....I have no income.....I am running late for that job interview....I step on the gas....I get caught doing 50, say, over the limit......I have no income....is my fine $0?

 

[waterloowarrior]

Also, consider this, if it is ok to fine rich people more....is it ok to fine poor people less? So, I lose my job....I have no income.....I am running late for that job interview....I step on the gas....I get caught doing 50, say, over the limit......I have no income....is my fine $0?

There would obviously be minimum fines...

here's an article on how the Finnish system works
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

 

[kEiThZ]

Yeah, there's huge problems with this being implemented here. It's not unconstitutional, but it's certainly not within the bounds of our legal traditions.

Also, a person who can't pay these days can usually appeal the fine and get reduced fines, alternate sentencing, etc. The courts will take an individuals ability to pay into account.

This system just seems like an excuse for class warfare. Why not charge the rich more to use public libraries and swimming pools, or more to register their car, or more in gas taxes. This is basically an income tax by another name. The Europeans should at least have the gumption to admit to what it is.

Seriously, can anybody imagine a C$180 000 (give or take) fine for going 75 kph in a 50 kph zone?

If they are going to start doing this, I for one, want to see equal enforcement and prosecution of bicyclists and pedestrians as well. Let's see them fine a Bay street banker half a mil for jaywalking.

 

[DavidH]

The problem with income based fines here is that they are, likely, unconstitutional. One of the basic rights in our charter is for equal treatment under the law.

Isn't this *exactly* equal treatment, though? All drivers are punished for two weeks worth of income, regardless of what amount that actually is. Using a flat-rate fine is no punishment at all for the wealthier members of society.

I would fully agree that the intruduction of such a rule would lead to court challenges, but there's a good change that it might stand up. Certainly, it seems to be far more constitutional than Ontario's current "racing" laws.

Of course, don't just fine people for speeding, we issue demerit points that lead to license suspension if enough are accumulated. This is

 

[DavidH]

Why not charge the rich more to use public libraries and swimming pools, or more to register their car, or more in gas taxes. This is basically an income tax by another name. The Europeans should at least have the gumption to admit to what it is.

We *do* charge the rich more in income tax and in property tax (given that they tend to buy more expensive houses). Charging according to one's ability to pay is considered progressive, and hardly out of line with Canadian social traditions.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This system just seems like an excuse for class warfare. Why not charge the rich more to use public libraries and swimming pools, or more to register their car, or more in gas taxes. This is basically an income tax by another name. The Europeans should at least have the gumption to admit to what it is.

Actually it has nothing to do with class warfare (tax the rich!) but the efficiacy of punative fines, which is clearly related to income and net worth. It is not about providing service, which is what user fee is about.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

We *do* charge the rich more in income tax and in property tax (given that they tend to buy more expensive houses). Charging according to one's ability to pay is considered progressive, and hardly out of line with Canadian social traditions.

but if two people of different incomes own the same sort of housing....the property tax is the same.

So.....poor me inherits a house in Rosedale from a long lost loving aunt that i did not know I had. I don't get to pay less income tax on the house because I am poor while my wealthy next door neighbour pays more because he is rich.

 

[DavidH]

So.....poor me inherits a house in Rosedale from a long lost loving aunt that i did not know I had. I don't get to pay less income tax on the house because I am poor while my wealthy next door neighbour pays more because he is rich.

Separate discussion but yes, this is an inequity in the system. We can't use the fact that there are inequities in the system as a reason not to address *other* inequities in the system, however.

Not everything should be scaled to the ability to pay, but fines for speeding are intended to have a deterrent effect. Since our current fine levels pose no real deterrent for the wealthy, the only fair things to do are to scale fines to the ability to pay, or eliminate fines altogether in favour of some other penalty.

 

[TOareaFan]

Separate discussion but yes, this is an inequity in the system. We can't use the fact that there are inequities in the system as a reason not to address *other* inequities in the system, however.

Not everything should be scaled to the ability to pay, but fines for speeding are intended to have a deterrent effect. Since our current fine levels pose no real deterrent for the wealthy, the only fair things to do are to scale fines to the ability to pay, or eliminate fines altogether in favour of some other penalty.

I was simply pointing out that property taxes are not related to income....they are related to the value of what you buy with your income.

Isn't the real detterent in our traffic offense system the demerit points? The loss of a license has the same dettering effect on well off people as it does less well off people.

 

[kEiThZ]

We *do* charge the rich more in income tax and in property tax (given that they tend to buy more expensive houses). Charging according to one's ability to pay is considered progressive, and hardly out of line with Canadian social traditions.

On taxes and social services maybe, but I am fairly sure that differing punishments based purely on economic (not with wider socioeconomic considerations) standing is not part of Canada's social traditions.

Actually it has nothing to do with class warfare (tax the rich!) but the efficiacy of punative fines, which is clearly related to income and net worth. It is not about providing service, which is what user fee is about.

AoD

If that's the case, then would courts offer stiffer prison sentences to wealthier defendants too? For example, our courts generally equate $100 in fines to 1 day in your county jail. For most offences like minor assault or impaired driving, the felon is given the choice to either pay x dollars or spend so many days in jail ($1000 or 10 days in jail). Many who don't want to pay will sometimes just use up vacation days from work and take the prison time. Now what do you do if you start imposing differing punishment standards?

Of greater concern to me here is that they imposed a fine equal to 14 days income for speeding. Was that because the person was wealthy or is that because that level of punishment is standard? Would they impose a fine equal to 14 days wages on the average person? This is why it seems like they are out to hurt the rich rather than deter them from committing the same offence again. There seems to be at least some room for judgement on how severe the offence is. Are there any safeguards to ensure that wealthy offenders don't automatically always get the harshest judgements?

 

[kEiThZ]

So what happens if you are being chauffered and your chauffer gets busted? At the rates these guys charge, the best thing to do for the rich is to get a chauffer, give him lots of benefits and services but pay him dirt wages.

 

[Eug]

Yeah, as others have said, in the context of Canadian norms, such a system is just insanely stupid.

In fact, I think it's insanely stupid for Finland too. Things have gotten way out of hand there if such insane stupidity in the legal system is allowed.

A point system is much more effective, and much more equitable too. If you're a repeatedly bad driver, you eventually lose your licence, regardless of your income.

 

[doady]

Maybe fines should not be the punishment at all. Impounding of vehicles and imprisonment would be equal punishment for all people, not matter the level of income.

 

[Eug]

There would obviously be minimum fines...

here's an article on how the Finnish system works
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

Ouch, that is a huge bureaucracy. What a waste of time.

BTW, I know people who make mid-6-digit $ income, yet have true CRA-approved net incomes of 5-digit $. Why? Because they just funnel everything through their corporations, and yes that's absolutely legal.

Oh and Steve Jobs makes $1 in salary a year. He has a huge expense account however (which has covered things such as jet fuel, for example) that is not considered in his net income.

These examples are just a few simple examples as to why such a system is completely ludicrous, esp. in North America.