Pay a speeding ticket based on your income?

I completely disagree. Punishing people for being successful is a ridiculous concept.

I suppose that means you define "success" by the amount of money you make.

You assume incorrectly. Success can be measured in many ways. Money is just one of them, and it is not at the top of my list. However, since the entire premise of this argument is based upon how much money an individual makes, then yes, my use of the word "successful" refers to money in this instance.

I am by no means rich, but we do earn a comfortable income. It wasn't always that way. I started at the very bottom of my company in a blue collar position but, through hard work and dedication, have worked my way into a white collar position near the top of the company. Why should I be punished for that? I haven't changed since then. My paycheck just has a few more numbers.

Why don't we go to the other extreme? Why don't we raise the costs of speeding tickets and have an income requirement in place that in order to obtain a drivers license and own a vehicle you have to have a family income of $100,000 at minimum? Sounds ridiculous, right? But no more ridiculous than what is being proposed here.

Wealth envy is a very ugly thing. Hating on someone because they have more or looking down on someone because they have less is just wrong. Plain and simple. If you don't like your station in life, do something to change it.

First off, unless the person who gets a ticket is a millionaire, the difference between tickets on a percentage basis is likely going to be marginal at best.

Second, telling someone that, if they don't like being poor, they should do something to change it is all well and good when you're already at the top. There are certain inequalities within our society, though, so not everyone is actually given a chance to change their station. Women still only average 78 cents to a man's dollar (a great improvement over how things used to be, but still a ways to go).

Furthermore, wealth is a zero sum game, meaning there is a limited amount of money in the world, so in order for the people at the top to maintain their wealth and power, there must always be a larger number of people at the bottom. 50% of people in the US currently live below the poverty line. We have the second-highest rate of child poverty in the developed world. Unemployment is currently at 8.2% (5% unemployment is considered normal). It's not an individual problem, it's a societal problem.

Spare me this load of crap, please. If you live in the United States, you can change your station in life. You just have to want it enough and be willing to put in the work to do it. The problem is, most people who claim they can't just don't want to put in that work. People want to be paid and move up in life without breaking a sweat or getting their hands dirty and when it doesn't happen, they blame it on inequality or circumstances. That is complete and utter BS in most instances.

You say it's easy to say when you are already at the top. I'm assuming you are talking to me since you quoted me. First of all, I am not at the top. Just because I make a good living doesn't mean I'm rich and am sitting on top of an ivory tower. Most people aren't born into money. I grew up poor. I put myself through college working three jobs. When I got out, I started at the very bottom, busting my *kitten* for less than $20,000 per year. I've continued to bust my *kitten*, and it has helped me move up the ladder to a more comfortable position with a more comfortable salary. My wife has done the exact same. I'm not apologizing for it and I'll stand by my statement. You don't have to be a victim of your circumstances. And wanting to take away from those who have more than you is pathetic.

You want to stop speeding? Enact policies that are the same for everyone. Three strikes and your license is suspended for a year. Get caught on a suspended license, go to jail. Things like that. I don't care what you think, basing things on income is wealth envy, plain and simple, and it ugly.

Life is not fair and it is not meant to be played on a level playing field. If it was, where would the incentive be to ever do anything to better yourself?

You live in a happy, idyllic little world, don't you? Good for you.

P.S.

You can't have a world in which everyone is capable of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps but that is also "not fair" and not "played on a level playing field". Those two realities cannot coexist.

P.P.S.

I never said that I wanted to take away from those who have more. I said that it's in the best interest of those who have more to keep anyone from taking away from them, because there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, so for them to stay rich, someone else has to stay poor. It's a basic economic principle, not a criticism. I was trying to make a civil, logic-based argument, but, hey, name-calling it is.

I live in a reality-based world where, at least in the U.S., you can better yourself if you work at it. It's not fair and level because we are not all born into the same circumstances. We can, however, change our circumstances. You are not destined to poverty if you are born into poverty. You can rise above it. I did it, my wife did it, and countless others have done it. Unfortunately, the majority of people make the false assumption that they must be forever defined by the circumstances they are born into and resign themselves to the life that those circumstances afford.

Buy, hey, everybody cuts their own deal. If you choose to go through life complaining that you can't get ahead because of circumstances and inequalities, go ahead. That's exactly what you'll get. I learned early in life that complaining doesn't get you anywhere and that if I wanted better it was up to me to see that it happened.

Sure. Reality. We'll go with that.

I mean, it's not like it's still legal in most states to fire people based upon things like sexual orientation or gender presentation or anything. Oh, wait...

I completely disagree. Punishing people for being successful is a ridiculous concept.

I suppose that means you define "success" by the amount of money you make.

You assume incorrectly. Success can be measured in many ways. Money is just one of them, and it is not at the top of my list. However, since the entire premise of this argument is based upon how much money an individual makes, then yes, my use of the word "successful" refers to money in this instance.

I am by no means rich, but we do earn a comfortable income. It wasn't always that way. I started at the very bottom of my company in a blue collar position but, through hard work and dedication, have worked my way into a white collar position near the top of the company. Why should I be punished for that? I haven't changed since then. My paycheck just has a few more numbers.

Why don't we go to the other extreme? Why don't we raise the costs of speeding tickets and have an income requirement in place that in order to obtain a drivers license and own a vehicle you have to have a family income of $100,000 at minimum? Sounds ridiculous, right? But no more ridiculous than what is being proposed here.

Wealth envy is a very ugly thing. Hating on someone because they have more or looking down on someone because they have less is just wrong. Plain and simple. If you don't like your station in life, do something to change it.

First off, unless the person who gets a ticket is a millionaire, the difference between tickets on a percentage basis is likely going to be marginal at best.

Second, telling someone that, if they don't like being poor, they should do something to change it is all well and good when you're already at the top. There are certain inequalities within our society, though, so not everyone is actually given a chance to change their station. Women still only average 78 cents to a man's dollar (a great improvement over how things used to be, but still a ways to go).

Furthermore, wealth is a zero sum game, meaning there is a limited amount of money in the world, so in order for the people at the top to maintain their wealth and power, there must always be a larger number of people at the bottom. 50% of people in the US currently live below the poverty line. We have the second-highest rate of child poverty in the developed world. Unemployment is currently at 8.2% (5% unemployment is considered normal). It's not an individual problem, it's a societal problem.

Wrong, wealth is not a Zero sum game" tell me how one person who gets rich is keeping me from getting rich? That is such a load of bs and it is not based in reality. It's a myth that you lefties love to spread to reinforce the class warfare schtick.
People can still make it in this country, although it's harder now than it was some years ago. However, the difficulty doesn't come because of a few rich guys holding down the masses, it comes from politicians who hold the small businessman down with regulations, taxes, and laws that are not founded in common sense. It comes from Washington trying to make life fair for everyone when it cannot do so without holding everyone down. The gov cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute it.

Can everyone be rich? no, but every able bodied person can make a living if they work hard and make good decisions.


As for this topic, I say ok, but only if the lower income people pay as much in taxes as the wealthy.

Exactly. Looking at the economy as a zero sum game shows a lack of understanding in the way things work. New wealth is created all the time. The pie never stays the same size but grows and more people benefit from it. As long as government stays the hell out of the way, that's how it's supposed to work.

Couldn't agree more! That concept is an over-simplification and a mis-use of statistics. Not only is new wealth created, but it is also redistributed based upon new ideas, creativity and hard-work. It requires people to take acceptable risks and try to "make it". Consider this: You don't see very many wealthy people buying lottery tickets because that isn't a smart investment (too high of a risk) but instead you see people lined up every week that can barely support themselves buying them with their last couple of bucks. It doesn't take hard work to win the lottery, just a lot of luck.

If those same people invested that money instead, they would be improving their financial position as well as bolstering the economy. That invested money would then be used by companies to expand, conduct research, etc and thus create more jobs. Instead, these people simply look for the easy way. A financial "diet" pill instead of putting in the effort that results in success (or weightloss in this analogy). In my opinion the whole concept of wealth re-distribution is nothing more than people looking for the fast and easy way of getting ahead instead of putting in the blood, sweat and tears that it takes. Boo hoo, I can't lose weight so I will try every pill/cleanse/fad diet that comes along and then cry about it some more when I am still fat instead of putting in the hours in the gym and eating correctly. To me, both finance and weight loss are the same- no quick / magic solution, just determination and work ethic.

On another note, I stood in line behind a woman in Walmart that had a Coach purse, fake decorated fingernails and an iPhone 4- she paid for her food with WIC (think food stamps). Apparently poverty pays pretty well for some people!

People saying it is wealth envy are clearly missing the point.

Punishments are meant to be equal - that is never going to be the case with a fine. If I get caught speeding, that's £60 which I can't afford - and I don't mean it hurts a bit - I mean overdraft limit blown, therefore fees from that - vicious cycle. Then points on the licence mean insurance goes up for years - making it prohibitively expensive for me to drive, meaning I can't get to work.

That's quite a big punishment compared to what £60 to someone on a large income means, where It could be the equivalent of me buying a newspaper.

That's an imbalanced punishment. One guy carries on as normal, one has his life screwed up.

so then make sure you don't speed... Like I told my son who is getting close to driving age when he saw me going around 5 or so miles over speed limit. I can afford to pay the ticket so I take my chance, you cannot afford to pay a ticket so you better not take the chance. Making someone pay more for the same offense is offensive.

Again, missing the point- The law is not there to be broken if you can afford it. It is meant to stop people. You have just proven the point above by saying that you can afford to break the law.

As a point, do you complain that you pay more tax?

I was getting pretty bummed reading all the "let's soak the rich" responses to this topic and wondering when the people with a clue would show up. I'm glad I stuck it out to the end. Thanks travisseger, StarvingDiva, RushBabe214, fiveohmike & tquig! You didn't disappoint.

I have a novel idea - Why don't we concern ourselves with our own behavior and circumstances and STFU about controlling others behavior and circumstances. If you don't like speeders, don't be one of them. If you don't like your lot in life, do something to change it. Stop blaming others that you think are better off than yourselves and trying to drag them down to your level. What do you care what kind of a fine someone else has to pay? That is none of your business. Where is this great tolerance progressives claim to have? Maybe you should start wearing brown shirts to help us identify you. Isn't there an OWS rally somewhere you should be attending? When did people start whining so much? How pathetic.

That sounds ridiculous. I don't think that people who make less money should pay less. You know you are doing something wrong regardless of how much money you make.

This is an old tale from back home. To explain this you should know that back home, ANYONE can stop the train via a lever in every room of the train

So this father and son were traveling in the train. The kid was goofing around and pulled the lever to stop the entire train. Conductor came in and demanded an explanation. Father said "Oh he was just playing, sorry".
Conductor: "Thats no excuse, theres a 50 rupees fine for that" (about 75cents)
Father hands the conductor money and everything goes its merry way.

Few minutes later, kid pulls the lever again
Conductor: "Why did you stop the train again?"
Father: "Kid was playing...I cannot stop a kid from playing"
Conductor: "*sigh* 50 rupees please"

The train on that trip was stopped about 8 times for no reason. Each time, because the fine was so little, father just didn't cared because 50 rupees was nothing for him. It was enough to provide him let the kid have some entertainment for that much amount.

Moral, if you keep fines so little for somebody who can easily afford it, they wouldn't care about it