Income based traffic fines

[W. K. Lis]

With the European income based fine, the police has to see the driver's license, verify the driver's income, and then issue the ticket. Where this won't necessarily work is with red light camera infractions or parking tickets. There would be a lot of arguments for a higher parking fine for an illegally parked Rolls Royce vs. an illegally parked Smart car. Unless they can link the income to the owner or renter of the vehicle when writing up the parking ticket.

 

[kEiThZ]

About as readily as I can imagine making 12.5 million euros a year.

Personally, I think it is fair, and not an altogether bad idea. The punishment is equal in terms of the effect the fine has on your net annual income, the equivalent of 14 days pay.

Again, my point was whether the individual got 14 days because they were wealthy or because the standard is 14 days? Do the Finns dock 14 days benefits from a welfare recipient or a low income motorist caught doing 75 in a 50 zone? That's the only way I can see the system being fair. Otherwise, it's just another excuse to bleed the better off.

 

[kEiThZ]

Benefits are/can be considered a part of a persons taxable income.

Yes, but if the Chauffeur is speeding, who should get the fine? Him or his employer?

 

[rbt]

Yes, but if the Chauffeur is speeding, who should get the fine? Him or his employer?

Probably the chauffeur but that is not too difficult to deal with.

Chauffeurs require a special license, as they already do in Ontario, and they have a very very limited number of points before losing it.

You cannot figure someone for refusing to perform an illegal activity and a chauffeur getting caught with a significant traffic violation would no longer be able to do the job.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

So just how does the officer implement the fine on the side of the road? Request the driver's T2? What do we define as income? What period do we define the income as? Who do we use to define the income? The driver or the vehicle owner?

I think a system like this would be too unwieldy..

 

[Eug]

This is the class-warrior's wet dream. It has no real justification, except it makes a few happy they can stick it to the wealthy. And in true class-warrior fashion, it's a bureaucratic nightmare.

Anyways, like I said, I'd incorporate in a heartbeat if something as stupid as this ever got implemented in Canada. In truth, in 2010 I wouldn't be able to drop my income enough to justify incorporation, but I will be later after a few years, and that would drop both my official gross and net income.

 

[Hank]

This is the class-warrior's wet dream. It has no real justification, except it makes a few happy they can stick it to the wealthy. And in true class-warrior fashion, it's a bureaucratic nightmare.

Anyways, like I said, I'd incorporate in a heartbeat if something as stupid as this ever got implemented in Canada. In truth, in 2010 I wouldn't be able to drop my income enough to justify incorporation, but I will be later after a few years, and that would drop both my official gross and net income.

It should be noted that only certain regulated professions can defer receiving income through incorporation. A salaried employee generally cannot.

The current system of fines provides no deterrence for high-income individuals. It's as simple as that. If the purpose of the fine is to deter a certain behaviour, then the fine is not working. One method of ensuring that the fines have their proper deterrent affect is to peg them to income. There may also be other ways. It's not a way to "stick it to the wealthy", it's a way to ensure that the effect of the fine is similar, no matter the recipient. It's the exact same idea behind progressive taxation rates.

 

[TOareaFan]

It should be noted that only certain regulated professions can defer receiving income through incorporation. A salaried employee generally cannot.

The current system of fines provides no deterrence for high-income individuals. It's as simple as that. If the purpose of the fine is to deter a certain behaviour, then the fine is not working. One method of ensuring that the fines have their proper deterrent affect is to peg them to income. There may also be other ways. It's not a way to "stick it to the wealthy", it's a way to ensure that the effect of the fine is similar, no matter the recipient. It's the exact same idea behind progressive taxation rates.

Before I would agree to the highlighted statement I would need to see stats on traffic violations broken down by income level. IMO the true detterant in our current system is the demerit points (leading ultimately to suspension, revocation, of driving rights) and those are applied equally to the high earners and low earners.......are there stats supporting the belief that our current system is being ignored by high earning individuals?

 

[DavidH]

Before I would agree to the highlighted statement I would need to see stats on traffic violations broken down by income level. IMO the true detterant in our current system is the demerit points (leading ultimately to suspension, revocation, of driving rights) and those are applied equally to the high earners and low earners.......are there stats supporting the belief that our current system is being ignored by high earning individuals?

I'll agree that we haven't proven that high earners are NOT deterred by our current system, but it seems clear that if they are deterred, it's not by the fines.

Given that, we still have in inequity in that low income earners get fined an amount that is a significant hit and high earners don't. This is a simple matter of fairness, since you've pointed out that it is likely that the demerit point system (and its downstream effects on insurance costs) are the true deterrent.

 

[Eug]

I work with a lot of mid 6-digit income people. I guarantee you that the fines are a deterrent for them. A $100+ ticket definitely puts a damper on the rest of their day. However, the insurance demerit strikes and the licence demerit points are probably the bigger deterrent. I have no problem with actually enforcing these demerits, instead of the usual go-to-court-and-get-your-demerit-points-waived-just-for-showing-up practice that is the norm now.

Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if there were proportionally more speeding tickets amongst my acquaintances when I was a poor student than now, even though my acquaintances are much more wealthy than they were when I was a student obviously. ie. I don't know for sure, but I suspect for speeding there is a higher correlation with young age than there is with high wealth. If this is true, there is actually more justification to have bigger fines for the young than there is for the wealthy. Supporting this is the commonly cited statistic that the car accident rate is higher in very young drivers than middle aged drivers.

Like I said, the income-based traffic fines scenario is simply fodder for the class-warrior, to make a few less wealthy joe schmoes and a few bureaucrats feel better.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Before I would agree to the highlighted statement I would need to see stats on traffic violations broken down by income level. IMO the true detterant in our current system is the demerit points (leading ultimately to suspension, revocation, of driving rights) and those are applied equally to the high earners and low earners.......are there stats supporting the belief that our current system is being ignored by high earning individuals?

I work with a lot of mid 6-digit income people. I guarantee you that the fines are a deterrent for them. A $100+ ticket definitely puts a damper on the rest of their day. However, the insurance demerit strikes and the licence demerit points are probably the bigger deterrent. I have no problem with actually enforcing these demerits, instead of the usual go-to-court-and-get-your-demerit-points-waived-just-for-showing-up practice that is the norm now.

Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if there were proportionally more speeding tickets amongst my acquaintances when I was a poor student than now, even though my acquaintances are much more wealthy than they were when I was a student obviously. ie. I don't know for sure, but I suspect for speeding there is a higher correlation with young age than there is with high wealth. If this is true, there is actually more justification to have bigger fines for the young than there is for the wealthy. Supporting this is the commonly cited statistic that the car accident rate is higher in very young drivers than middle aged drivers.

Like I said, the income-based traffic fines scenario is simply fodder for the class-warrior, to make a few less wealthy joe schmoes and a few bureaucrats feel better.

+1. Punishing someone more severly for commiting an infraction and being x (in this case x is wealthy) is the very definition of discrimination is it not? Imagine if x were replace with blacks, or gays, or women, or asian how would you feel about that proposal? Wealth does not mean you have less freedoms.

Also I disagree with the progressive tax comparison. Taxation is part of our social structure and it is understood that we pay them in order to contribute to the better good of the community, and that our current system taxes those who make more money at a higher rate (somewhere there is a libertarian who is dying to get in on this discussion now). That cannot be translated over to someone pulled over for speeding and gets a bigger fine because the make more money. Our laws are built such that everyone gets punised the same (or somewhat the same) way for committing the same crime. You'd have rights activists all over you if you proposed that someone get punished more just because of their bank balance.

Security and privacy advocates would have a similar field day. Why should the police have access to my finicial records in order to charge me for speeding. Imagine foriegners, do you think the IRS will really be willing to provide income levels to canada for this purpose?

Again, what do you use as proof of someone's income? T4? That's last year's income, current pay stub? What about those that work on commission whose pay might vary from period to period? Bank balance? What about someone who makes most of their through investments?

Take the following example. Say John Doe has just started a new job this month where he is making in the 6 figures. However up to that point he had been making much much less, let's say in the $20 000 range. He gets pulled over for speeding, what do you charge him as? A high income person, since for all intents and purposes he is making a high income. However all of his tax documents from the previous year would show him making a poor man's salary so we should charge him as a low income based on his most recent tax return. Now say he decides to fight the ticket and in the mean time loses that 6 figure job. Can he make the argument that although the infraction occured while he was making a large salary that he is now in the low income range and thus should be charge in the low income? How should the judge handle that type of situation?

 

[DavidH]

+1. Punishing someone more severly for commiting an infraction and being x (in this case x is wealthy) is the very definition of discrimination is it not? Imagine if x were replace with blacks, or gays, or women, or asian how would you feel about that proposal? Wealth does not mean you have less freedoms.

Let's set up a hypothetical here. Two people are pulled over for speeding. Person x makes $20K per year and is fined $100 for speeding. Person Y makes $100K per year and is fined $200 for speeding.

Who is being punished more? Person Y is paying more but person X is paying a larger proportion of their income.

Until we can answer this question, we can't define the term "severely" as used in your post.

Personally, I'd argue that person X is being punished more because they they are losing a larger proportion of their discretionary income, but I fully expect that someone else here will argue that person Y is.

To answer the above question, the only reasonable way to do this would be to look at last year's T4. Yes, that brings up privacy risks, and even still it will be incomplete. What if I won a lottery since my last tax return? I'd look "poor" but in fact be quite well off.

There are no easy answers here, except that the current flat system has fewer questions that need answering and is simpler - at least until one gets in front of a judge who has discretion on fines.

 

[Eug]

Yes, in fact there is a very easy answer here. You charge them the same, since they committed the same infraction.

P.S. What if a $40000 a year speeder was driving a recent Audi A4, and the $200000 a-year person was driving an old Honda Civic? I'd almost be inclined to charge the $40000 a year speeder more to punish him for mismanaging his money. Almost.

 

[DavidH]

Yes, in fact there is a very easy answer here. You charge them the same, since they committed the same infraction.

Your answer is no more right or wrong than my answer, and that's the problem with this discussion. It's a fascinating discussion - it really is - but the chance of getting a consensus opinion who would agree that this is "very easy" is negligible.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Let's set up a hypothetical here. Two people are pulled over for speeding. Person x makes $20K per year and is fined $100 for speeding. Person Y makes $100K per year and is fined $200 for speeding.

Who is being punished more? Person Y is paying more but person X is paying a larger proportion of their income.

Until we can answer this question, we can't define the term "severely" as used in your post.

Personally, I'd argue that person X is being punished more because they they are losing a larger proportion of their discretionary income, but I fully expect that someone else here will argue that person Y is.

To answer the above question, the only reasonable way to do this would be to look at last year's T4. Yes, that brings up privacy risks, and even still it will be incomplete. What if I won a lottery since my last tax return? I'd look "poor" but in fact be quite well off.

There are no easy answers here, except that the current flat system has fewer questions that need answering and is simpler - at least until one gets in front of a judge who has discretion on fines.

If the vehicle was being used for business, can the fine become a business expense and therefore tax deductible?