should infractions for fines be prorated for wealth?

[© tweed]

yet another regressive method of revenue collection are the petty crimes, misdemeanors, citations, tickets, etc.  Ed Rendell can speed all he likes without serious fear.  Tim Lincecum can drive around with eighths of marijuana sans worry.  but the wage workers, not so much.  thoughts?

[Franzl]

yet another regressive method of revenue collection are the petty crimes, misdemeanors, citations, tickets, etc.  Ed Rendell can speed all he likes without serious fear.  Tim Lincecum can drive around with eighths of marijuana sans worry.  but the wage workers, not so much.  thoughts?

More or less, yeah, I agree. Fines should be designed so that each person (in theory) suffers eqaually from their actions.

Although fining someone that makes $1000 a month 10% of their income, no doubt, influences their life more than the same fine in % for someone making 10 times that.

Then of course it's somewhat bureaucratic to figure out incomes and such.

I think very minor things (such as things in the €10 to €100 range) should be kept without relation to income.


Germany has income based fines for crimes, but keeps simple flat fines for petty things like traffic offenses. I've heard Finland relates everything to income (It might be useful to look at their experiences for petty offenses to see whether it's worthwhile or not.)

[Simfan34]

I agree, this sounds like a very good idea.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree, this sounds like a very good idea.

[minionofmidas]

Should be based on a percentage of (income minus living wage), plus a flat component for the more serious offenses.

[© tweed]

Should be based on a percentage of (income minus living wage), plus a flat component for the more serious offenses.

basing it on income rather than net worth rewards capitalists.

[Free Palestine]

I agree, this sounds like a very good idea.

[Person Man]

Well, there will always be people who say that flat fines encourage people who don't work enough to pay the fines to work harder than commit misdemeanors. On the other hand, we can't have a system in which hard work and hoarding money is the ticket to impunity. In the Middle Ages, I think it was called "Indulgences". Where a merchant, professional or hereditary civil governor or military official could use their wealth to "buy off" sins.

A good comprimise is to always allow payment plans for those who make under X or have under X assets to be placed on a indefinite payment plan that is no more that 1% a month for a traffic citation, 3% (drinking in public, disorderly conduct, reckless driving, littering on highway) for borderline criminal activity and 5% for serious petty offenses (petty theivery, DUI, false police reports, simple assault/battery/DV).

For example, if you make $1000 a month, do a 45 in a 30 and are fined $120, you could be allowed to pay $10 a month for as long as it takes...or if you are caught drinking on the beach or in the park and are fined $350, you can pay $30 as long as it takes or if you slapped someone in an argument in traffic or stole a box a condems and got fined $250 + $550 community compensation for a total cost of $800, you can pay $50 for as long as it takes.

There would be no interest rates and you could satisfy the fine with a payment of 50% of the total fine if you pay it in 30 days.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I doubt it's practical.  You would have to have a person work with an accountant to figure out their wealth, which would usually end up being more of a burden than the fine itself.  If a person's poor, the judge should be able to reduce the penalty, or provide an alternative such as doing some service to work it off.  The real answer is to not hand out as many fines for basically harmless actions in the first place.

[Person Man]

In a lot of jurisdictions, they do allow community service to absorb some of the fines. However, as great as that is, its not really preventing the petty offender to come into a situation where they no longer offend. Perhaps community service can be replaced by some of vocational rehabilitation. The accounting issues aren't that big of a deal. They already have people determining who qualifes for a public defender and who must get a private attorney.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I doubt it's practical.  You would have to have a person work with an accountant to figure out their wealth, which would usually end up being more of a burden than the fine itself.

I know some of the Scandanavian countries use this system.  They probably just use whatever was reported on last year's income tax as the base figure.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I doubt it's practical.  You would have to have a person work with an accountant to figure out their wealth, which would usually end up being more of a burden than the fine itself.

I know some of the Scandanavian countries use this system.  They probably just use whatever was reported on last year's income tax as the base figure.

To be precise, that would be prorated for income, not wealth.

[Kushahontas]

I agree, this sounds like a very good idea.

[Bacon King]

It's a good idea in theory, but occasionally you have stories coming out of countries that do have laws like this (e.g., Finland, Switzerland, etc.) where a millionaire has to pay a six-figure fine for running a red light, and it makes it all sound a bit outrageous.

See here, for example, where a guy in Helsinki had to pay $100,000 for driving at 47 mph.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

15 mph over the speed limit deserves a harsh fine assuming the speed limit has been set correctly.  Two weeks' income sounds about right.

[nclib]

Yes they should, but perhaps at the extremes, a minimum and a maximum.

[Link]

What's interesting is on the civil side if someone/some entity with deep pockets is deemed to be in the wrong a jury will not hesitate to drop a multi billion dollar punative damage on them like they are giving out Christmas cards.  It is somewhat curious that the criminal side (which one would presume is more serious) does not have a similar leveling mechanism.

[Link]

It's a good idea in theory, but occasionally you have stories coming out of countries that do have laws like this (e.g., Finland, Switzerland, etc.) where a millionaire has to pay a six-figure fine for running a red light, and it makes it all sound a bit outrageous.

See here, for example, where a guy in Helsinki had to pay $100,000 for driving at 47 mph.

Well that is a case of revising the fines up for the rich.  Why not revise the fines down for the poor instead.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's a good idea in theory, but occasionally you have stories coming out of countries that do have laws like this (e.g., Finland, Switzerland, etc.) where a millionaire has to pay a six-figure fine for running a red light, and it makes it all sound a bit outrageous.

See here, for example, where a guy in Helsinki had to pay $100,000 for driving at 47 mph.

That just shows me how obscenely rich some people are.

I of course have been in favour of this ever since my politics teacher in High school told us that they did this in Finland.