In some countries, traffic fines are adjusted based on the offender’s income - a system known as "day fines" - to ensure that penalties are equally impactful regardless of wealth. This approach aims to create fairness by making fines proportionate to the driver’s ability to pay, rather than applying the same flat rate to everyone. Proponents argue that income-based fines make penalties more equitable, as flat fines may be insignificant to the wealthy but burdensome to low-income individuals. Opponents argue that penalties should be consistent for all drivers to maintain fairness under the law, and that income-based fines could create resentment or be difficult to enforce.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH1mo1MO
No
@B53L79DRepublican2wks2W
Flat fines disproportionately burden low-income individuals while barely affecting the wealthy. For example, a $200 speeding ticket might devastate someone earning minimum wage, potentially causing them to miss rent or skip meals, while for a millionaire, it’s a minor inconvenience, effectively no deterrent at all. If fines are supposed to deter dangerous driving and promote public safety, then they need to be meaningful for everyone. An income-based system ensures that the punishment fits not just the crime, but the individual's ability to feel the punishment.
@B3VGV2T 3wks3W
Equality Before the Law:
Critics argue that income-based fines violate the principle of equality before the law, as it suggests that wealthier individuals should be punished more severely than others, according to chsprospector.com.
Potential for Undue Hardship:
Individuals with fluctuating incomes or debts might find it difficult to pay even income-based fines, potentially leading to further financial hardship or legal consequences, according to the Centre for Justice Innovation.
Complexity of Implementation:
Some argue that implementing a comprehensive income-based fine system could be… Read more
Penalties only have value if they have impact on you.
If we truly want traffic violations to mean something, the penalty has to be high enough for it to want to be avoided.
If you make $1M+ a year, a $200 speeding ticket is essentially valueless and not enough to warrant a behavioral shift. Reckless driving can lead to harm and puts the general public at risk.
@B4PSNZV4wks4W
For someone of low income, a traffic ticket is a huge burden. But for someone who is rich the traffic ticket is a no biggie. If the traffic tickets were income based then the rich would care more about following the law. Also there would be more tax revenue and more equal treatment of the law.
@ISIDEWITH1mo1MO
Yes
@B3VGV2T 3wks3W
They raise concerns about the principle of equality before the law and the potential for undue hardship for those with debts or fluctuating incomes.
2.6 million people are injured and 42,000 people die from reckless driving annually in the US. Victims from reckless driving don’t deserve injury or death.
People make different levels of income. If you make $500 a month, a $200 ticket has significant weight on you and is a strong deterrent for behavior. If you make $200,000 a month, a $200 ticket has almost no weight on your decision making.
Fines for civil penalties only exist as a working deterrent for behavior, therefore, a percentage-based fine would be a stronger deterrent and in this case, lead to safer driving.
@B4PSNZV4wks4W
For someone of low income, a traffic ticket is a huge burden. But for someone who is rich the traffic ticket is a no biggie. If the traffic tickets were income based then the rich would care more about following the law. The whole point of traffic tickets is to prevent behavior, not punish poor people. Also there would be more tax revenue and more equal treatment of the law.
@B4G5S371mo1MO
You shouldn't be given a worse punishment just because you get paid more or less. A crime is a crime regardless
@B4RTXBZ3wks3W
Fines for low income can be life altering Fines for rich are a suggestion YES, it should be proportional to what that fine would be for low income households or it won't change anyones behaviour to laws ever.
@B58Z9BHLibertarian6 days6D
Drivers should be given the option to take a drivers education course to erase the fine and points, or the driver can keep the points and do community service to pay off the fine. Have options for repayment that do not handicap the driver base on income.
@B57RWF21wk1W
Yes, and it should be reasonable to where the person in question can pay it all off in under a month.
@B54GC832wks2W
No, but it should be taken into consideration. It’s not fair that the wealthy can buy their way out & the poor end up in jail over traffic violations
@B5488HC2wks2W
If the person who violates traffic they should have to pay whatever amount they have to because they made that decision when they violated traffic laws in the first place.
For serious traffic violations, the penalty (jail and/or fines) should be whichever would deter repeated violations the most
@B4WYC6R 3wks3W
Yes, unless they are repeat offenders the fines and penalties should increase based on the income first and then should move to an exponential growth and penalty base to deter further infractions
Yes, but dependent on how severe/dangerous the violation was. If it was speeding on a highway (like 10-15 over the speed limit) where no one was endangered by the violator's actions, then it should be based to how they can pay it.
@SpaceManBob 1mo1MO
Yes, as the purpose of fines for traffic violations is to deter and to punish, both of which only work when the fine is relative to the individual's wealth
@B4FH92K1mo1MO
It depends on whether the driver does traffic violations often or not. I think if it is often then it does not matter what their income is, but if it rarely happens maybe their income could matter.
@B4FDFX21mo1MO
I don't think many traffic violations should exist at all. Penalties for causing damage or injury only.
@B4FD45S1mo1MO
It depends on what traffic law it is and how it happened/why it happened, however, some people would abuse the power of being able to pay the fines if their income suddenly grows and their system isn't updated OR those who are wealthy enough will easily be able to pay their fines and overcome their cases. So it would be nice for those in the lower-middle class should be given a smaller amount for their fines but overall it depends.
@B4FCD3J1mo1MO
should not allow the offender to go into debt if it is not serious but for more serious crimes they may be charged however
@RobinHoudeSocialist 3wks3W
Yes, this prevents traffic violation penalties from merely being a slap on the wrist for the wealthy
No, I think penalties should be different depending on income (ex: community service as an alternative for lower-class)
@B4QPJ2P4wks4W
Sliding scale based on severity of offense and driving record with flexible payment plans depending on income
for the most part yes. There are different circumstances such as someone going 100 in a 25, than clearly a much higher ticket should be given regardless of income
@B4HXVRF1mo1MO
No, when you commit a crime, you must be punished regardless of your income. The punishment must fit the crime for all.
@B4GDX2YIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, day-fines should be more widely implemented to stop the rich from overstepping the law just because they can easily afford the fines.
Yes, however if there is no income, then community service should be given but if habitual then should receive jail time relative to the offense
@B4G3JVX 1mo1MO
We should never lessen a charge, but increase it for extremely wealthy who wouldn’t otherwise feel the effects of a monetary punishment. Prison time though, should be irrelevant of income.
@B4FZTP91mo1MO
No, but a non-payment option should be available if the person can prove economic hardship (I.e., community service, education, etc.)
@B4FNB5QIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, so long as the amount is capped so as to not exceed that which is cruel and unusual and the judge is to decide that what amount is appropriate.
@Dry550Independent 1mo1MO
No, if you can afford a car and a license, you should be able to pay whatever fine for the traffic violation, payment plans can be set up, but it should go by a specific court basis
@B4F492Q1mo1MO
Yes, because some people could be living paycheck to paycheck, and if they get a parking ticket they might not be able to eat or get goods that they need for them elves or their family.
@B4DWBPG1mo1MO
Yes, in the context of any rich egotistical citizen undeniably commiting repeat violations for the fact it won't hurt the way they live their life after putting others at risk.
@B4G5WRRRepublican 1mo1MO
it should be on a case to case system like if someone doesnt stop at a stop sign but theres no one else around then i think it should be based on the drivers income.
@B4G428T1mo1MO
Income dependence would be discrimination. However, if one was to continue getting traffic violations after a warning, they should be charged the same amount and more if they continue to violate traffic laws. Depending on severity is also a possible factor.
@B4G3Y6W1mo1MO
should be where it is enough to cover it but not so much that it will leave a big delt in someones bank so yes
@B4FVDDG1mo1MO
depends on the severity of the traffic violation- lesser violations the fee should depend on income- but like drinking and driving the fee should be high and the same
@B4FTM3HIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, as this is the only way to prevent higher-income individuals from committing traffic violations.
@WildManBagginzIndependent 1mo1MO
Yes. It should be a penalty and punishment. But not put one at jeopardy of not being able to provide for their themselves or family. They should be stressed to by their normal wants. But they shouldn't be punished so severly that it prevents them from purchasing their needs.
@B4DNG9J1mo1MO
if they have low income and it wasnt like GTA violations or anything to bad they should be giving the chnage to have a lower penalty
@B4G5XXG1mo1MO
If it is a major issue, like a death due to a car crash, the punishment should be the same regardless of income. Otherwise, I'm fine with based-on-income penalties.
@B4W552L3wks3W
Traffic violations should not be based on money, but on community service or other forms of punishment.
@B5DN8N58mins8m
Yes, but only when statewide minimum fines by offense are set. It would not be a program to punish lower income individuals but to end the perceived notion that for the ultra wealthy fines are merely a paid pass to break the law.
@B4FVXQN1mo1MO
Based off financial income I believe if the fine is fair and constitutional of the law, then it is fair for the wealthy to get the same treatment as well, and to pay the proper fine of their actions.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
