5 ms·

One can surely argue that for an increasingly large proportion of the public, the level of monetary punishment does not provide any deterrent from breaking rule

by aryehof 12y ago

One can surely argue that for an increasingly large proportion of the public, the level of monetary punishment does not provide any deterrent from breaking rules. Maybe I am imagining it, but (anecdotally) I tend to see mainly expensive cars parked illegally in handicapped spots. Income proportional fines seems to me like a fair way to apply a monetary deterrent to people that now get meaningless (to them) fines.

cs02rm0 12y ago
I think that's deliberate, even when applied proportional to income. It's parasitical - you don't kill the host, only take what it can afford to give, repeatedly.
gambiting 12y ago
But is it really? 10% of your income if you make $500 a month is a LOT, because it can make a difference between being able to afford rent/food or not. But 10% of your income if you make 10 million is obviously huge, but is it going to have any impact on your lifestyle? No. I love how UK does it - the fines are relatively small, but your insurance rates can go up so much you can pay a small fortune over next 3 years after getting a ticket. You get a 50 pound speeding fine,but your insurance goes up by a few hundred for years. It really really hurts. Still, this doesn't hurt "rich" people as much - but that's what penalty points are for. If you get enough of them, you will lose your licence, rich or poor.
- kilotaras 12y ago
  But the system where both pay $200 is even less fair.
- robmcm 12y ago
  Better still for some fines you are forced, or can opt (as opposed to larger fine) to go on a speed awareness course. After all the point is to make people drive safely, not make money for the state.
  - sago 12y ago
    Except that you have to pay for the course. And the cost is the same as the ticket. The only difference is you don't get the endorsements on your license.
    - RobAley 12y ago
      And this saves you a lot more money than the fine on your Insurance premiums not increasing.
      - sago 12y ago
        I guess so. I've only had 3 points and it didn't make a difference to my premiums. I guess if you get more it might though. I'd probably take the first 3 if I got caught speeding again. Four hours taking the course would be a world more hassle.
        RobAley 12y ago
        Or you could, at a push, simply not speed? That way you won't get caught and won't need to deal with points, courses, fines and the like. Just a thought.
        sago 12y ago
        Indeed. It isn't always so simple. I'd prefer to always drive 100% perfectly with 100% awareness of speed, speed limits, road conditions, and so on. Unfortunately I err from time to time. Hence the 'if' in my statement.
- zurn 12y ago
  Yes, 10% of income would be unfair to low earners. That's why, like the article explained, the system is based on disposable income. Precise formula is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland For big earners it still hurts, as you can read from the article (search for rhinos).
- onion2k 12y ago
  You get a 50 pound speeding fine,but your insurance goes up by a few hundred for years. It really really hurts. Not if you make 10 million.
  - RobAley 12y ago
    It's not quite proportionate, but a millionaires premium is likely to go up more than a few hundred as they're likely paying a much higher premium already for their 200K car.
- frobozz 12y ago
  A system could be worked out that reduces that inequity - A tiered system like income tax would be easy to apply. A system that charges based on a fixed, high percentage of your income above a certain threshold (e.g. the living wage) would ensure that offenders lose most of their disposable income for a period, regardless of their wealth, and that they don't risk eviction and starvation, regardless of poverty. Of course, if, due to your lack of spare cash, you're stuck in your mansion, swimming in your own pool, and unable to replenish your comprehensive cellar of fine wines as you drink through them (until your fine expires), it's still not as much of an impact as being stuck in your flat, unable to buy admission to the municipal pool or buy a single can of Special Brew; but it's fairer than a flat percentage, which in turn is fairer than a flat penalty.
Normati 12y ago
I wonder if perhaps it's a good thing that rich people can pay to use handicapped spots. We could just think of them as "priority parking", and the regular priority parking ticket costs $x while handicapped people get a coupon entitling them to free access. After all, the intention isn't to prevent healthy people using them, it's to prevent them becoming unavailable - a gaggle of handicap convention attendees would cause more trouble than an occasional CEO buying his own groceries.
- colin_jack 12y ago
  Some disabled people rely on access to these spaces, meaning if the spaces are full they can't do their shopping and have to go home.
  - collyw 12y ago
    While I agree with you, the situation is also abused somewhat (in the UK at least). A girl in my university class had some kind of wrist problem. She wrote slow because of it, though no slower than me - I am just a slow writer. She was officially classed as disabled and could have had access to such parking, as well as extra time in exams. Does she really need access to disabled parking spots? She was fit and healthy otherwise. The other person I spoke to who had access to disabled parking "borrowed the permit from his aunt".
    - sago 12y ago
      How is that different from abusing the system by parking in it with no permit? Except that you are not as likely to be fined? The question is, so what? Does the degree of abuse mean we should let more people park in disabled spots? Or should we enforce the rules more stringently? Also, it is unhelpful to judge whether someone is 'fit and healthy' from seeing them. There are many hidden disabilities. And people with them are often accused (to their faces) of faking it, gaming the system, etc. The UK is currently suffering under a growing culture that assumes people on 'benefit' are scroungers. As a disabled person, I rely on Mobility and Care provision through Disability Living Allowance (I work, so I claim no disability benefit, or similar), I've felt the chilling effect of the disability doubt zeitgeist.
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>One can surely argue that for an increasingly large proportion of the public Did you mean an increasingly small proportion of the public? Because income inequality statistics seem to show that the rich are few in number and they are getting richer, whereas the vast majority suffer from stagnating or even declining wages. For the latter group, receiving a $500 ticket, followed by an increase in insurance premiums once that ticket goes on the driving record, is a pretty significant financial blow.

by aryehof 12y ago

cs02rm0 12y ago

I think that's deliberate, even when applied proportional to income. It's parasitical - you don't kill the host, only take what it can afford to give, repeatedly.

gambiting 12y ago

But is it really? 10% of your income if you make $500 a month is a LOT, because it can make a difference between being able to afford rent/food or not. But 10% of your income if you make 10 million is obviously huge, but is it going to have any impact on your lifestyle? No. I love how UK does it - the fines are relatively small, but your insurance rates can go up so much you can pay a small fortune over next 3 years after getting a ticket. You get a 50 pound speeding fine,but your insurance goes up by a few hundred for years. It really really hurts. Still, this doesn't hurt "rich" people as much - but that's what penalty points are for. If you get enough of them, you will lose your licence, rich or poor.

kilotaras 12y ago
But the system where both pay $200 is even less fair.
robmcm 12y ago
Better still for some fines you are forced, or can opt (as opposed to larger fine) to go on a speed awareness course. After all the point is to make people drive safely, not make money for the state.
- sago 12y ago
  Except that you have to pay for the course. And the cost is the same as the ticket. The only difference is you don't get the endorsements on your license.
  - RobAley 12y ago
    And this saves you a lot more money than the fine on your Insurance premiums not increasing.
    - sago 12y ago
      I guess so. I've only had 3 points and it didn't make a difference to my premiums. I guess if you get more it might though. I'd probably take the first 3 if I got caught speeding again. Four hours taking the course would be a world more hassle.
      - RobAley 12y ago
        Or you could, at a push, simply not speed? That way you won't get caught and won't need to deal with points, courses, fines and the like. Just a thought.
        sago 12y ago
        Indeed. It isn't always so simple. I'd prefer to always drive 100% perfectly with 100% awareness of speed, speed limits, road conditions, and so on. Unfortunately I err from time to time. Hence the 'if' in my statement.
zurn 12y ago
Yes, 10% of income would be unfair to low earners. That's why, like the article explained, the system is based on disposable income. Precise formula is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine#Finland For big earners it still hurts, as you can read from the article (search for rhinos).
onion2k 12y ago
You get a 50 pound speeding fine,but your insurance goes up by a few hundred for years. It really really hurts. Not if you make 10 million.
- RobAley 12y ago
  It's not quite proportionate, but a millionaires premium is likely to go up more than a few hundred as they're likely paying a much higher premium already for their 200K car.
frobozz 12y ago
A system could be worked out that reduces that inequity - A tiered system like income tax would be easy to apply. A system that charges based on a fixed, high percentage of your income above a certain threshold (e.g. the living wage) would ensure that offenders lose most of their disposable income for a period, regardless of their wealth, and that they don't risk eviction and starvation, regardless of poverty. Of course, if, due to your lack of spare cash, you're stuck in your mansion, swimming in your own pool, and unable to replenish your comprehensive cellar of fine wines as you drink through them (until your fine expires), it's still not as much of an impact as being stuck in your flat, unable to buy admission to the municipal pool or buy a single can of Special Brew; but it's fairer than a flat percentage, which in turn is fairer than a flat penalty.

Normati 12y ago

I wonder if perhaps it's a good thing that rich people can pay to use handicapped spots. We could just think of them as "priority parking", and the regular priority parking ticket costs $x while handicapped people get a coupon entitling them to free access. After all, the intention isn't to prevent healthy people using them, it's to prevent them becoming unavailable - a gaggle of handicap convention attendees would cause more trouble than an occasional CEO buying his own groceries.

colin_jack 12y ago
Some disabled people rely on access to these spaces, meaning if the spaces are full they can't do their shopping and have to go home.
- collyw 12y ago
  While I agree with you, the situation is also abused somewhat (in the UK at least). A girl in my university class had some kind of wrist problem. She wrote slow because of it, though no slower than me - I am just a slow writer. She was officially classed as disabled and could have had access to such parking, as well as extra time in exams. Does she really need access to disabled parking spots? She was fit and healthy otherwise. The other person I spoke to who had access to disabled parking "borrowed the permit from his aunt".
  - sago 12y ago
    How is that different from abusing the system by parking in it with no permit? Except that you are not as likely to be fined? The question is, so what? Does the degree of abuse mean we should let more people park in disabled spots? Or should we enforce the rules more stringently? Also, it is unhelpful to judge whether someone is 'fit and healthy' from seeing them. There are many hidden disabilities. And people with them are often accused (to their faces) of faking it, gaming the system, etc. The UK is currently suffering under a growing culture that assumes people on 'benefit' are scroungers. As a disabled person, I rely on Mobility and Care provision through Disability Living Allowance (I work, so I claim no disability benefit, or similar), I've felt the chilling effect of the disability doubt zeitgeist.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>One can surely argue that for an increasingly large proportion of the public Did you mean an increasingly small proportion of the public? Because income inequality statistics seem to show that the rich are few in number and they are getting richer, whereas the vast majority suffer from stagnating or even declining wages. For the latter group, receiving a $500 ticket, followed by an increase in insurance premiums once that ticket goes on the driving record, is a pretty significant financial blow.