asshole tax

[Venetia]

I saw this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38660951/ns ... ws-europe/

Basically it's a story about a dude who was doing 180mph (~290kph) in Switzerland (? It said the guy was Swedish but then talked about it being in Switzerland idk), and was ticketed 1 million swiss francs. This is because they base their fines on the level of offense and the income level of the offender.


Now I'm fairly libertarian in the way I view financial/business politics, but this IMO is a great idea. An asshole tax.

In America, you get ticketed for speeding, and you get slapped with a basic fine, which is based only upon how many miles over the speed limit you were going. Typically it's $150 to $500, depending on what county you're in etc. If you make $20k a year, this is a horrible punishment. If you make $200k a year, it's barely a slap on the wrist--and those with $200k/year incomes are a lot more likely to own a car that will shatter speed limits.

Do you think that fines should be limited to flat fees, or should they be incrementally based on income to make the punishment an equal severity to any income bracket?

This doesn't have to end with traffic fines. It could apply to white collar crime and felonies.

Like, say, if you never break the law, you get a special tax break. But if you've committed a crime or felony within the past year or x years, you're not subject to a tax refund or you are hit with a special fine based on income? An incentive to obey the law.

Income taxes piss me off because they're like a punishment for working hard and keeping the economy rolling. But an asshole tax-- a tax on people who play the system-- I don't think that sounds like a problem to anyone but those who are playing the system.

P.S. dont spam this is kind of a symposium type topic thanks

 

[Ellie]

Absolutely. Fines are a preventative measure and to make sure you don't commit again, but with set rates, it doesn't have any effect on the richest but hurts the poor quite a bit more.

I dunno about America but in Britland we have a points system. Speeding is usually 3 points, and I think 12 points is a ban from driving for a year (I'm probably wrong on my numbers but it's the concept I'm trying to get across). You can lose points by not getting into trouble for a year, etc. THAT is a better system - although fines are still added on top.

Fines in Britland though are a fixed rate I think, which is about £60; that's what my mom and dad each paid anyway.

I think if it's something like going 200mph down a country lane it is counted not as speeding but as something more serious, like gross endangerment of life or some shit, and thus fines can be larger and criminal sentences come into play.

 

[Venetia]

here we have a point system too just the same. but for most ticketable offenses you can get the points against your license removed if you go to driving school and pass a written driving test. i think you can also potentially get the fine reduced or removed if you take the class and the test; i've never personally been fined for anything though (or pulled over).

and a cop that pulls you over is able to charge you with reckless endangerment etc if you're going crazy over the limit or weaving dangerously through traffic.

but it still doesn't really deter people much from doing it. hell just at my work i have several coworkers who've been ticketed for speeding/running red lights/etc multiple times and they just take the test, pay the fine, and keep doing it. for them it's like, "ah geez well there goes my plans for binge drinking with top shelf booze all weekend, here comes the mccormick's".

:/

 

[bacon]

To be honest, I would love to see the point system integrated better with heavier fines for multiple offends, while reduced for first time offenders. To be honest, there are some terrible drivers out there, and yet they can get away with nothing more than more fines. I think fines should be increased more drastically based upon how much points you acquire in per 10 years or something of the sort, because Im not 100% sure on this, but aren't points reset every few years. Also here in AZ at least, going 20 miles over the speed limit can be considered criminal and you can be taken in and everything.

I like the idea of fine per rate of income. That honestly would probably help more than hurt. That way, those with minimum income can afford a ticket instead of being charged a ridiculous amount that cannot be paid and those with more money will be able to pay. It would be a sting.

 

[So fist]

It's pretty standard that 20 over is considered criminal and will result in criminal fines and immediate license action. If they can prove you were racing even worse. However I think speeding should be assessed in a percentage system rather than simple mileage. This is particularly true for faster speeds. Twenty over a sixty zone is not nearly as bad as twenty over a forty zone. Just isn't. in the forty zone you are going 150% faster than a law abider in front of you whereas in the sixty you are only going 125% faster. Not to mention the fact that forty zones will be stop and go traffic and will likely have other things to look out for like pedestrians.

 

[Star]

Asshole taxes would be great. It's a good way to make people obey the law. Of course you'd think they'd be fine with giving tax cuts after they pull over a lot of people, but governments are fairly greedy when it comes to taxing so I doubt there would be very many tax cuts. First of all you gotta catch them, rich people might start taking planes or have cabs drive them. I think once they get dinged enough people will be smarter about their driving, but their won't be very much revenue of taxes if nobody's breaking the law, therefor the gay tax on working hard or Income Tax would stay in effect. Btw some people who have high paying jobs really don't work too hard, afterall the get their edumacation so they don't have to.