Oh look its another racist European, Asian, Australian, or whatever you are. See I can make generalizations as well.
The right response here would be to just blow up the dudes car and make him walk home and if he argued you blow him up as well.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
85 in a 50 Results in $290K Fine
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
Oh look its another racist European, Asian, Australian, or whatever you are. See I can make generalizations as well.
The right response here would be to just blow up the dudes car and make him walk home and if he argued you blow him up as well.
So ticketing is a form of taxation? That is wrong on many levels and unconstitutional.
While I agree with your logic I don't agree with the multiple warnings. The speed limit sign should be your first warning and after that that is all you get. Driving is a privilege and is a responsibility that should be taken extremely serious. This is one of the reasons I'm all against drunk driving and imposing the harshest of harsh penalties on drunk drivers.
You are probably right on this one. One warning or perhaps no warnings would be more appropriate.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
So in other words, all of the people that drive the speed limit in the United States shouldn't drive? Because a simple Google reveals that driving the speed limit is far less safe than driving the prevailing speed of traffic, even if that speed of traffic is 15-20mph over the speed limit.
Nice try, but you should really research before you pontificate.
Do you know why the prevailing speed is 15-20 over the speed limit? Everyone ignores traffic law because the punishment is puny and just a form of taxation. If you lost your license from speeding would you still do it? No you wouldn't. The prevailing speed would be the speed limit in that case I would assure you!
Now I am not an advocate for speeding laws or whatever I could care less but I have real issues with the way this punishment is currently taken out. It's like they want you to speed so they can receive revenue by not giving adequate punishment.
The aim of traffic law should be safety, not revenue. Motorists can count on neither safety nor justice as long as police, courts and cities live on traffic fines.
Sadly this situation is not exclusive to traffic laws but all forms of law. A company can pollute to the point of endangering public health and they get a fine!?!?! WHAT! That is not a punishment that is a BRIBE!!
Think about it.
Revenue from traffic and parking enforcement is a huge part of a lot of city, town, county and state coffers.
During the current economic crunch, with the decline in sales tax a large number of municipalities have hired more parking enforcement officers (meter maids) and extended the hours during which parking is restricted.
The current traffic laws are not, and have not been for a long, long time, about safety. Any politician (including sheriffs and police chiefs) that try to tell you otherwise they are full of it. Neither, is parking enforcement based on availability of scant parking resources downtown anymore.
Think of it like the current war on civil rights under the banner of terrorism. Only it's your wallet losing out because of "safety."
marylandman
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 789
then why are so many threads locked down and told to pay a gen may membership, in fact, usually the most interesting to my nerdy self? actual question, not a smart assed remark
If someone is a millionaire, they've worked enough and made enough in their life to be able to care less about such laws - effectively, they've earned it.
It's the same as business - if breaking a law makes sense financially because it will make the business money, even if they get caught, the business has an obligation to their shareholders to do so.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Well geeze, if you make 25k a year should they still tax you on company paid health insurance?
Well geeze, if you make 25k a year should they still tax you on company paid health insurance?
All fines have a minimum cost. I imagine that is how much it would take to reimburse whoever it is for damages. Any cost beyond that is the punitive cost.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,720
Let each pay according to his or her ability...?...I read that somewhere
Karl Marx...and to think I was mocked earlier for saying this was Communism...maybe I should have been more specific...Marxism.
I'm giggling right now because I proposed a similar law in my high school government class back in 1995 where fines are based as a percentage of income.
My teacher flat out rejected it and wouldn't let the class do our mock-senate voting thing on it and told me to come up with another idea. I was pretty pissed about that. There is a little vindication here for me with this article.
My teacher flat out rejected it and wouldn't let the class do our mock-senate voting thing on it and told me to come up with another idea. I was pretty pissed about that. There is a little vindication here for me with this article.
Rofl-Mic-Lofl
For Whom The Bell Trolls
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 23,377
Well if they didn't have it this way then all the people would complain about significantly higher property tax
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
Since the fine is adjusted according to the income, why the speed limit isn't adjusted to the car as well? Why should a Ferrari go as fast as a shitty ford fiesta?
I actually quite like something like this. Reason is that a fine is supposed to be something that is a deterrent to make you not want to do it again, but not something that is supposed to make you go broke. Ok well if someone makes millions a year, a $200 fine doesn't do shit. They could get one of those a week and it wouldn't matter. It is no deterrent. However if someone makes like $20,000 year and has a family, $200 could well mean getting evicted or not having enough for food and so on.
I think having it scale based on what you earn makes sense. Fine enough to make it count, so that people don't want to get a fine, but not so much as to cause them real hardship.
I think having it scale based on what you earn makes sense. Fine enough to make it count, so that people don't want to get a fine, but not so much as to cause them real hardship.
I completely agree with this type of system. I don't know how it scales down, but I think it's complete BS that in Pennsylvania, I can get a $200 ticket for speeding as a full time student with no job, then a multimillionaire can get the same exact ticket. Fines are partially meant to deter people from committing the same violation. It's no deterrent when that's how much someone earns in 15 minutes. I don't understand how some of you claim this is unconstitutional. If anything our current system is unconstitutional. "Equal justice under the law" You're saying it's equal to give one person a ticket that might prevent them from even being able to drive to work, but give another person the same ticket and have them shrug it off because it's .01% of their weekly income?
There's a very good reason why I mocked you on "communism". None of this is in the spirit of communism. This has nothing to do with sharing the wealth. This has to do purely with determining what is an appropriate punishment for each individual. Since they're using a monetary system to determine fines, that is the ONLY THING they can do. If they were using a different system, they'd be able to calibrate the laws in a different fashion. Then, since there's no money involved, you wouldn't be screaming "communism". The truth is, you're only focusing on the money aspect of things, and missing the big picture.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Which supports the very post on which you commented. It is a form of taxation. The problem is, like every form of government intervention a bureaucracy is formed and you can't from one of those without it being self sustaining and it won't self sustain without growth.
In the end every time that happens people suffer in one form or another, usually from the pocketbook.
It's a vicious cycle until someone says no, no more of this. It describes the very reason this country was founded to start with and why we have a constitution.
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
The problem is, it should be one fine of a set amount per offense. It should not be based on what one can afford to pay.
When you base punishment on the basis of affordability, or someone's income you are ascribing to the theory of let those who can afford more pay more. That is pretty close to a Marxist sort of thought.
He asked it as a question. I pointed it out as a fact.
And yes, I'm pretty pissed off about it.
Fines are meant to be punishment. You're correct however if you take the affordability factor into economics (rich people must pay more than poor for houses, cars, groceries, etc), but when it comes to punishment for a crime it needs to hurt them as much as it hurts the less fortunate and middle class citizen.
So this isn't exactly communism. It's the way it should be.
Why all the hate towards communism? Is it because you don't understand it or you really love to blindly follow "our countries traditions?"
I will never understand this word association stuff. You could bring this idea up at a town hall and many people would go "Oh sounds great, a system that's fair and doesn't benefit people with outrageously large amounts of money." Then, of course, someone would scream "COMMUNIST!!! MARXIST!!!" and absolutely no one would like the idea anymore.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but classifying it as something that you think has become commonly known as wrong and having that as your argument is a terrible argument. Shit, it's really not even an argument. Give some reasons why it's bad other than "IT'S COMMUNISM" and perhaps people will listen.
I will never understand this word association stuff. You could bring this idea up at a town hall and many people would go "Oh sounds great, a system that's fair and doesn't benefit people with outrageously large amounts of money." Then, of course, someone would scream "COMMUNIST!!! MARXIST!!!" and absolutely no one would like the idea anymore.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but classifying it as something that you think has become commonly known as wrong and having that as your argument is a terrible argument. Shit, it's really not even an argument. Give some reasons why it's bad other than "IT'S COMMUNISM" and perhaps people will listen.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
I agree with you that punishment is just a form of taxation, but you're totally missing the point on why the prevailing speed is 15-20 over the limit. People drive 15-20 over the limit because the limit is deliberately set too low to increase revenue.
Incorrect. I would lose my license at some of the speeds at travel, but since I educated myself and invested in a Valentine 1, a laser jammer, and a CB radio, I do it anyway.
[quote[Now I am not an advocate for speeding laws or whatever I could care less but I have real issues with the way this punishment is currently taken out. It's like they want you to speed so they can receive revenue by not giving adequate punishment.
The aim of traffic law should be safety, not revenue. Motorists can count on neither safety nor justice as long as police, courts and cities live on traffic fines.[/quote]
I agree with you there.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
Seriously? How about the fact that the $290,000 which would have otherwise gone towards supporting private enterprise and small businesses (in the form of purchases) is not sucked into the spending blackhole that is the governement?
Are you really going to try to make the argument that the $290,000 is better spent in the government than through private businesses?
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
When you punish people based on wealth, or lack thereof, you just tossed all motivation to become rich down the tubes. In fact, you pretty much kill all motivation.
Why would anyone want to start a company and innovate and produce only to be punished for success?
We know we can't leave innovation and running business to governments, it's never worked anywhere. All you end up with is bigger and bigger government, people with less. You could call that equality if you like, but where is freedom?
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
One of my closest friends grew up in the USSR. One of her favorite sayings is "When I grew up everyone was equal. Equally destitute."
Since when did breaking the law equate to success? The guy was punished for being a general asshat repeatedly to the government, not for being successful.
Seriously? You have to be trolling.
It is an economic ideal based in a fallacy. If every man lived to his highest ideal all of the time, sure it might work, but what do you do with the other 99.999% of the population?
I could agree to that in some cases and I feel the speed limit on some freeways is much too low but I was not trying to argue the speed limits or merit of them to public safety. I am not an expert on such things and would not even try. Personally I wish the freeway limit was 80mph so I could get to work faster!
BillR
Born Again Cynic
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 18,535
Interestingly enough, you have a right to break the law. You purchased a government approved auto capable of at least twice any posted speed limit. If they didn't want you to break the law you wouldn't be able to purchase such an auto.
It's the good old catch 22. As long as you are willing to accept (gamble on) the punishment, you are going to speed.
In truth virtually nobody drives at the set speed limit, the speed of traffic always seems to find its own level. That level is always over the posted limit, thus providing a never ending stream of income for government.
Then you cannot use the idea of fines for punishment purposes. Sure, you can set a constant fine, but that fine could only be (ethically) used to cover damages and only damages. That would be akin to saying "we catch you stealing, you buy it, but if we don't catch you stealing, you walk away with the stolen goods for free". If you do not do this, then there's no equality in your punishment.
So to reiterate, here are your options:
- Fine for damages at a base cost and fine for punishment relative to punishment effect.
- Fine for damages and use jail time, torture, other methods of punishment.
- Fine for everything at a base cost, and throw lack of discrimination out the window.
I certainly wouldn't go for the 3rd, if I had the choice.
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
Watching others pay through the nose for their irresponsible behavior: Awesome.
Watching yourself pay through the nose, for your OWN irresponsible behavior: Not so awesome.
Watching rich people get bent over a table because they think they're rich and can do whatever the hell they want: Priceless.
I will say that I wouldnt want to be on the receiving end of this citation system, but its a lot better than the alternative: Here in America, if you're rich and/or famous enough, you'll get a misdemeanor and have to do community service/attend counseling (pending what you messed up on) for something most people would be serving prison time over. Lindsay Lohan. Nuff said.
Watching yourself pay through the nose, for your OWN irresponsible behavior: Not so awesome.
Watching rich people get bent over a table because they think they're rich and can do whatever the hell they want: Priceless.
I will say that I wouldnt want to be on the receiving end of this citation system, but its a lot better than the alternative: Here in America, if you're rich and/or famous enough, you'll get a misdemeanor and have to do community service/attend counseling (pending what you messed up on) for something most people would be serving prison time over. Lindsay Lohan. Nuff said.
The-UselessNoob
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 280
Its not really a catch 22, in that you can avoid it, by not speeding. having the ability to do something, does not mean that it is legal to do. in america you guys can carry guns, does that mean it is legal to kill people? not really no. except in special circumstances.