5 ms·

Could you expand on why you think so? 1. I'm driving at 110 kph when the limit is 100. I pay $80, but I got paid $16000 after tax this month. 2. I'm driving a

by spats1990 7y ago

Could you expand on why you think so? 1. I'm driving at 110 kph when the limit is 100. I pay $80, but I got paid $16000 after tax this month. 2. I'm driving at 110 kph when the limit is 100. I pay $80, but I got paid $4000 after tax this month. Fair?

umvi 7y ago
Yes, that's fair. Please explain why you believe it is not fair. 1. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a poor construction worker which means I am now out of work. 2. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a wealthy programmer and just keep on going to work since my hands and brain still work fine. Fair? Or should the tree break my hands and give me a concussion on the way down in order to level the playing field?
- Baltasaur 7y ago
  This is such a colossally bad take. Tickets have the distinct purpose of disincentivizing dangerous driving. They don't do that if it's a flat fare and the person breaking the speed limit is sufficiently wealthy. Thus, if you want speeding tickets to affect everyone equally, you make them proportional.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >his is such a colossally bad take. Tickets have the distinct purpose of disincentivizing dangerous driving. Tickets are never treated as a revenue stream by state and local governments. /s
  - umvi 7y ago
    The fee is only one aspect of the ticket. The other aspect is demerits on your license which go toward revoking it. Dangerous driving is discouraged by the threat of getting your license revoked, not by getting a fine. Speeding tickets do affect everyone equally, by applying the same number of demerits toward revocation of the license. Hence why rich people don't drive like maniacs even though they can "afford" to from a purely monetary standpoint.
    - mamon 7y ago
      >> Dangerous driving is discouraged by the threat of getting your license revoked, not by getting a fine. If so, then why not use that exclusively and get rid of speeding tickets?
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    income is distributed exponentially. it's a very small slice of society that can get a $500 ticket and not care. I'm sure it makes the constituents happy to jack up the fines for rich people, but there are too few of them for it to meaningfully impact road safety.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Speeding tickets do not cost $500. Most are <$100.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    Despite this, it’s (judging by cars) lower income people who tend to be the idiots driving recklessly on the streets. Being passed by a shitty Honda doing 120mph is common, being passed by a new luxury car doing the same is much rarer. Why? Probably because rich people statistically tend to have better long term thinking and lower impulsivity, which is why they’re rich in the first place.
    - mamon 7y ago
      That may be true, but only for people who made their fortunes themselves - and even then you have some amount of luck involved. It doesn't work for those who inherited their fortunes, or simply won $100M in a lottery.
- mathgeek 7y ago
  > Or should the tree break my hands and give me a concussion on the way down in order to level the playing field? This is a straw man argument. It would be a decent allegory for jail terms that favor the rich, though.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  You are missing the point. What we want is for no one to drive dangerously. To discourage this, we give tickets for speeding. For rich people, the fine doesn't mean anything to them because it is not enough money to matter, so they have no incentive to stop speeding. They keep speeding, putting everyone in danger. The point of a fine (at least for something like speeding) is to discourage the behavior. If you want the DISCOURAGEMENT to be equal (because a rich person speeding is just as dangerous to other drivers as a poor person speeding, so we want to discourage them equally), then the fine needs to vary based on how wealthy the driver is.
  - umvi 7y ago
    The discouragement is "demerits on your license"[1] which go toward revoking it. Hence why you don't see rich people speeding around all the time even though the they can afford to pay the fines - they don't want to lose their license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Except rich people do speed more: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/15/wealthier-drivers-get-more-tickets-but-dont-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/15/wealthier-drivers-get-more-t...
    - luckycharms810 7y ago
      I think it might help to flip the argument on its head. If you are a low income person struggling to make ends meet - should you have to forego a meal or two ? Is it fair if a richer person does not have to do the same ? All things considered I’d bet you the higher wealth person still has the less impactful fine.
      - umvi 7y ago
        It's not like speeding tickets are inevitable. I've been driving for over 17 years and I've never been pulled over once (knock on wood). But sure, I don't mind proportional speeding tickets (I never get them), but I think it's a slippery slope of socialism where you start thinking everything should have proportional costs. Why should rich and poor both pay $3 for a gallon milk? Shouldn't the rich pay $30 for a gallon of milk? Heck, they are so out of touch with food costs anyway they probably wouldn't notice.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA
- fragmede 7y ago
  Falling out of trees isn't governed by the laws of men, but by laws of physics. The laws of man can recognize that capitalism can be very cruel to the poor. The rich are just going to laugh off the cost of the speeding ticket and save up to buy a faster car or bigger house. If you're poor and get a speeding ticket you can't afford, the choice is between going hungry or going cold for the rest of the month. That's a cruel and inhumane and for places that recognize that, the fine for the impoverished so they don't starve. In a practical manner. Sending them off to soup kitchens when they are able to feed themselves outside of the fine that's being imposed on them, is a misuse of everybody's resources.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Neither is fair. $4k for 10-over is the kind of fine you'd expect in a draconian dystopia that cuts off people's hands for theft.

umvi 7y ago

Yes, that's fair. Please explain why you believe it is not fair. 1. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a poor construction worker which means I am now out of work. 2. I'm climbing a tree when I ought not to and fall and break my legs. I'm a wealthy programmer and just keep on going to work since my hands and brain still work fine. Fair? Or should the tree break my hands and give me a concussion on the way down in order to level the playing field?

Baltasaur 7y ago
This is such a colossally bad take. Tickets have the distinct purpose of disincentivizing dangerous driving. They don't do that if it's a flat fare and the person breaking the speed limit is sufficiently wealthy. Thus, if you want speeding tickets to affect everyone equally, you make them proportional.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >his is such a colossally bad take. Tickets have the distinct purpose of disincentivizing dangerous driving. Tickets are never treated as a revenue stream by state and local governments. /s
- umvi 7y ago
  The fee is only one aspect of the ticket. The other aspect is demerits on your license which go toward revoking it. Dangerous driving is discouraged by the threat of getting your license revoked, not by getting a fine. Speeding tickets do affect everyone equally, by applying the same number of demerits toward revocation of the license. Hence why rich people don't drive like maniacs even though they can "afford" to from a purely monetary standpoint.
  - mamon 7y ago
    >> Dangerous driving is discouraged by the threat of getting your license revoked, not by getting a fine. If so, then why not use that exclusively and get rid of speeding tickets?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  income is distributed exponentially. it's a very small slice of society that can get a $500 ticket and not care. I'm sure it makes the constituents happy to jack up the fines for rich people, but there are too few of them for it to meaningfully impact road safety.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Speeding tickets do not cost $500. Most are <$100.
- larnmar 7y ago
  Despite this, it’s (judging by cars) lower income people who tend to be the idiots driving recklessly on the streets. Being passed by a shitty Honda doing 120mph is common, being passed by a new luxury car doing the same is much rarer. Why? Probably because rich people statistically tend to have better long term thinking and lower impulsivity, which is why they’re rich in the first place.
  - mamon 7y ago
    That may be true, but only for people who made their fortunes themselves - and even then you have some amount of luck involved. It doesn't work for those who inherited their fortunes, or simply won $100M in a lottery.
mathgeek 7y ago
> Or should the tree break my hands and give me a concussion on the way down in order to level the playing field? This is a straw man argument. It would be a decent allegory for jail terms that favor the rich, though.
cortesoft 7y ago
You are missing the point. What we want is for no one to drive dangerously. To discourage this, we give tickets for speeding. For rich people, the fine doesn't mean anything to them because it is not enough money to matter, so they have no incentive to stop speeding. They keep speeding, putting everyone in danger. The point of a fine (at least for something like speeding) is to discourage the behavior. If you want the DISCOURAGEMENT to be equal (because a rich person speeding is just as dangerous to other drivers as a poor person speeding, so we want to discourage them equally), then the fine needs to vary based on how wealthy the driver is.
- umvi 7y ago
  The discouragement is "demerits on your license"[1] which go toward revoking it. Hence why you don't see rich people speeding around all the time even though the they can afford to pay the fines - they don't want to lose their license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Except rich people do speed more: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/15/wealthier-drivers-get-more-tickets-but-dont-pay.html https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/15/wealthier-drivers-get-more-t...
  - luckycharms810 7y ago
    I think it might help to flip the argument on its head. If you are a low income person struggling to make ends meet - should you have to forego a meal or two ? Is it fair if a richer person does not have to do the same ? All things considered I’d bet you the higher wealth person still has the less impactful fine.
    - umvi 7y ago
      It's not like speeding tickets are inevitable. I've been driving for over 17 years and I've never been pulled over once (knock on wood). But sure, I don't mind proportional speeding tickets (I never get them), but I think it's a slippery slope of socialism where you start thinking everything should have proportional costs. Why should rich and poor both pay $3 for a gallon milk? Shouldn't the rich pay $30 for a gallon of milk? Heck, they are so out of touch with food costs anyway they probably wouldn't notice.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_higXixRA
fragmede 7y ago
Falling out of trees isn't governed by the laws of men, but by laws of physics. The laws of man can recognize that capitalism can be very cruel to the poor. The rich are just going to laugh off the cost of the speeding ticket and save up to buy a faster car or bigger house. If you're poor and get a speeding ticket you can't afford, the choice is between going hungry or going cold for the rest of the month. That's a cruel and inhumane and for places that recognize that, the fine for the impoverished so they don't starve. In a practical manner. Sending them off to soup kitchens when they are able to feed themselves outside of the fine that's being imposed on them, is a misuse of everybody's resources.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Neither is fair. $4k for 10-over is the kind of fine you'd expect in a draconian dystopia that cuts off people's hands for theft.