SENATE BILL: Progressive Traffic Fines Act (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:42:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Progressive Traffic Fines Act (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Progressive Traffic Fines Act (Failed)  (Read 2473 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 19, 2012, 11:52:31 PM »
« edited: October 01, 2012, 06:53:31 AM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Marokai Blue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 11:53:11 PM »

You got 24 hours blue bird, or I push the red button.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 11:54:39 PM »

It may be a good idea, but the most I could support would a be resolution encouraging the regions to adopt such a policy. Unless I am mistaken, this is a largely regional issue and should remain as such.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 11:57:52 PM »
« Edited: September 20, 2012, 12:00:19 AM by Senator Scott »

The NE has a very similar law to this, IIRC.  I'm a tad on the fence for this one, so I'm going to have to be convinced.  Generally, I believe the regions are best fitted to determine road laws.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2012, 12:13:15 AM »

Traffic regulation is a regional issue. For that reason alone, I don't see me supporting this bill.

There will always be problems with the fine system: You have a flat value, and there's not much of a deterrence for wealthier people; you have a percentage system based on income, and unemployed people pay no fine at all. This bill would attempt to solve one problem while creating another.

It's my opinion that regions should adopt some sort of demerit point system for traffic violations. The consequences of demerit points would apply uniformally across all income groups.

As it stands, this bill is problematic on quite a few levels.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2012, 12:31:14 AM »

I am offering an amendment, although it is still highly unlikely I will support the bill.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2012, 02:29:00 AM »
« Edited: September 20, 2012, 02:32:22 AM by HagridOfTheDeep »

There will always be problems with the fine system: You have a flat value, and there's not much of a deterrence for wealthier people; you have a percentage system based on income, and unemployed people pay no fine at all. This bill would attempt to solve one problem while creating another.

Easily resolved by setting a minimum fine.

Yes, but 15% means something different depending on the value of the salary it's being applied to. I have a hard time believing that a 15% fine on the lowest-wage earners would be substantial enough to deter those folks from committing a crime. So if you create a base fine for the unemployed at, say, 15% of minimum wage on a part-time work schedule, it's not going to be the looming threat that it should be.

So then do we amend the bill to create a base fine that would be higher than what I mentioned? If we did that, we'd basically just be setting the base fines at flat values near where they already are. In that case, the situation stays the same for low-wage earners and basically becomes a bitter attack on the middle class and wealthier Atlasians. Someone earning $100,000 a year would have to pay something in the neighbourhood of $1200 for running a red light... in New York, that fine is currently about $200. If you earned a million dollars a year, you'd be paying $12,000.

This isn't a tax scheme. It's a traffic ticket. A $12,000 infraction is ridiculous. This system would make policing our roads about collecting revenue instead of enforcing safety standards. I don't like it.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2012, 02:53:13 AM »

This is about our fundamental attitudes towards the role of policing.

Maybe you just have more faith in the uncorruptability of the system than I do. I foresee Virginia state troopers pulling over Jaguars and Cadillacs for travelling 1 mph over the speed limit because they know they'll be able to squeeze more money out of people driving luxury cars. I forsee permanent radar traps every other block in Beverly Hills. I forsee a police system that puts money before safety.

$200 may not be a meaningful sum to these millionaires, but demerit points sure would be. They'd avoid the problems that this bill would create.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2012, 11:20:23 PM »

Oh mercy, mercy me! Oh things ain't what they used to be. Where have all the blue....gone?

Nothing like a little soulful Marvin Gaye for inspiration. Tongue

Marokai, you have a little more than 30 minutes here. Evil
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2012, 12:00:23 AM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: No Data Entered
Status: Server Failed
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2012, 12:09:32 AM »

24 hours, no posts, no LOAs, no Marokai. I really hate this part.


I am filing a motion to table this bill.


Note, this should only be seconded if MB fails to return in a reasonable amount of time afterwards. lol, you see the PM I am going to send him.

Presses Caps Lock Evil
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2012, 04:27:58 AM »

Yes, yes, yes, I accept the amendment as friendly.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2012, 04:32:06 AM »

This isn't a tax scheme. It's a traffic ticket. A $12,000 infraction is ridiculous. This system would make policing our roads about collecting revenue instead of enforcing safety standards. I don't like it.

I understand and empathize with the objection, but I don't see how this would encourage this sort of behavior. The vast majority of people would be paying a fairly low amount, so there wouldn't really be any added incentive for law enforcement aside from doing their job normally. Someone making that much money could easily afford it; I don't see why we should be saddling people who live paycheck to paycheck with hundreds of dollars in tickets because of minor violations.

Also, I think it's a bit naive to think that we already don't consider it a revenue scheme. This would at least make the current de facto reality more fair.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2012, 09:30:40 PM »

Yes, yes, yes, I accept the amendment as friendly.

That isn't all you have to do.

You need to post a summary statement of advocacy for this or my motion will stand. Evil Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2012, 10:55:07 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to passage of the amendment.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2012, 11:09:28 PM »

Not sure if this is legally sound.
Logged
Svensson
NVTownsend
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2012, 01:03:12 AM »

No offense intended to you, Scott, but I fail to see the point of passing the bill at all if regions can opt out of it at any time they please.

Either way, I concur with my colleagues: handling and enforcing roads is a regional issue, and unless we amend in some sort of cap on fines, the income scaling becomes positively ludicrous. While I don't rule anything out just yet, bearing in mind amendments, I do not see myself supporting this measure.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2012, 01:31:05 AM »

and unless we amend in some sort of cap on fines, the income scaling becomes positively ludicrous

Such is the nature of any progressive system..?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2012, 12:52:00 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 01:19:59 PM by Madisonian for Mittens! »

I think this may be unconstitutional under Article VI:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may view it as entirely just to charge millionaires $12 grand for a speeding ticket, but if that's not an excessive fine then I don't know what is.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2012, 01:17:15 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 01:20:44 PM by Senator Scott »

No offense intended to you, Scott, but I fail to see the point of passing the bill at all if regions can opt out of it at any time they please.

Either way, I concur with my colleagues: handling and enforcing roads is a regional issue, and unless we amend in some sort of cap on fines, the income scaling becomes positively ludicrous. While I don't rule anything out just yet, bearing in mind amendments, I do not see myself supporting this measure.

I agree, but I'm not really in favor of establishing a uniform traffic fine law especially since it would affect the Northeast Region's law.  Currently, I am still leaning against this bill.

TJ brings up another good point.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2012, 10:32:57 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2012, 10:43:09 PM by HagridOfTheDeep »

I don't see how this would encourage this sort of behavior. The vast majority of people would be paying a fairly low amount, so there wouldn't really be any added incentive for law enforcement aside from doing their job normally.

Well, if we’re getting into the semantics, the fine wouldn’t really change too much for most folks. However, the people who would see an increase would probably see big increases. That’s where I see the added incentive for law enforcement: A couple big fines would be a huge score. Moreover, the car you drive is pretty much directly related to the amount of money you have. It wouldn’t be absurd to think that people driving certain types of cars would be pulled over more often.

I think it's a bit naive to think that we already don't consider it a revenue scheme. This would at least make the current de facto reality more fair.

Sometimes it’s abused as a revenue stream, yes. You have cops wanting to “meet quota.” From that perspective, the current scheme is actually more fair because it’s harder for cops to be discriminatory in the abuse their power—depending on the infraction, each traffic ticket carries the same fine. With differing financial penalties, certain groups of people would probably be disproportionately affected by police officers wanting to meet quota. How is that fair?


States and townships and counties need to pay for the operational costs of their police services. Fines help subsidize some of these expenditures. I’d entertain the argument for abolishing fines altogether if it wasn’t for the fact that I suspect this money is needed (as I’ve said above though, it shouldn’t be “relied on” and it should be collected fairly, as a response to legitimate traffic violations).

As it stands though, fines do play a role in deterrence for, as Marokai put it, “the vast majority of people.” Does the scheme favour the rich? Sure it does. But when you’ve got enough money to be paying the big fines, losing money to those big fines isn’t going to be the end of the world anyway. The status quo seems to have the fewest drawbacks. Eliminating fines isn’t an option and implementing this bill just creates more problems.

Anyhow, I just thought I’d try to respond to some of those counterpoints. We’ve largely moved on, but better late than never.

I’m pretty firmly decided on how I’ll vote on this bill.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2012, 11:22:19 PM »

Seeing no object, the amendment has passed.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2012, 11:35:04 PM »

Hagrid and TJ have each made really good arguments here. Credit where credit is due.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2012, 12:10:24 AM »

We done here, or is there more debate/amendments here?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2012, 11:28:48 PM »

If I have to start capitalizing display names, it won't be pretty here. Angry
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.