Pay a speeding ticket based on your income?
Options
Replies
-
Actually it started with Reagan.Punishment according to social class....what a great idea.....this obviously has no potential to be applied in other areas.
We don't need more laws to divide us, our president is doing a great job at that all on his own.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Actually it started long before Reagan and the fact that previous administrations had issues in no way offsets the fact that we are currently saddled with what will be possibly be the worst US president ever.0 -
And suspended licenses stop people from driving? Have you ever sat in on traffic court and listened to the percentage of people who are in there because of suspended licenses?
But if you CAN pay the ticket several times over with no dent in your bank account, then it's okay to keep speeding?dont agree at all ... I dont care how much money someone makes ... you speed .. you get a ticket ... rich or poor ... cant pay the ticket cause youre poor .. dont speed or dont drive .. the end
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Most states have a points system and if they continued to speed eventually their license would be suspended.
Having a suspended license MAY cause them to slow down because they don't want to lose their car if caught though, but a good attorney can get that taken care of.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Have you ever sat in the same court room and listened to the number of people that had their licenses suspended because they failed to pay a fine? You are making the assumption that poor people never speed because they can't afford the fine but that is just not the case. The fine is not a deterent for all of the poor either. Some just don't pay it, get a suspended license and continue to drive until they get caught.0 -
Seriously dude! Move to Norway, Finland, Denmark or wherever the laws are to your liking. There are no guarantees in life. There are risks in everything we do. Accidents do happen. As a kid, I rode a bicycle without a helmet, drank from a garden hose, rode in the back of pickup trucks and my first car didn't even have seat belts. I had a Daisy BB gun and nobody lost an eye. Imagine that! Somehow, without a bunch of gubmint interference, people from my generation managed to survive. You busybodies won't stop until we are all covered in bubble wrap, drive electric vehicles that can't go any faster than 3 mph and our diets consist of only gubmint approved food substitutes. Go on, show your face in your avatar. I'll bet you are really Michael Bloomberg.
Tell that to people in Finland, Denmark and Norway then since it's definitely reduced the speeding there. Not a correlation, but direct effect.
Lol, don't you think she'd rather have her legs work than sue? Guess you've never been in a serious accident involving a speeder.There is... it's called an attorney. Guess you've never heard of a lawsuit before.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh I see... so if an income appropriate law would go into effect she'd get her legs back? Your correlation is unfounded. Law doesn't stop stupid from being stupid.0 -
Please enlighten me on the other expenses. If the difference is just in % paid, it's just numbers being applied for payment.Or dumb would be not understanding that the application of this proposal to other expenses clearly illustrates how without merit this idea is.
I don't want to derail the thread, but when you speak of "wealthy" NOT affecting others, I had to bring it up (sore subject with me). Let's leave out the lines of capitalism/liberalism out of the discussion. The thread is comparing how SPEEDING was reduced because of the implimentation of % to income paid for tickets. Again, don't speed, no issue. No issue to how much people want to make either. The people this affects is SPEEDERS.And nowhere in any post in this thread did I or any other poster state that Wall Street did not do anything wrong. Why would you even bring that up in a post that had nothing to do with that? We are talking about establishing penalties based upon income. Maybe you would like to start a new thread about the impacts of Wall Street's actions.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
So down for this!!! It is not rich envy or hating the rich it is. I think a lot of you all need to take sociology 100 and open up your fricking eyes.
The elite punish the poor every single day. If we looked at the statistics of the Nordic countries and where they stand in the OECD averages of all the issues in the world like child poverty, suicide, mental health, happiness, education etc and then compare it to America, the UK, Australia, NZ then we see who is winning in initiative, equality and fairness.
Russia isn't a communist state any more dummy
China is one of the most richest countries in the world and who will we be running to went **** gets scarce???
(not saying Chinas communist regime is the best by the way lol)
0 -
Again, let's not go into politics here. Stick to the actual facts of the OP.
Actually it started with Reagan.Punishment according to social class....what a great idea.....this obviously has no potential to be applied in other areas.
We don't need more laws to divide us, our president is doing a great job at that all on his own.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Actually it started long before Reagan and the fact that previous administrations had issues in no way offsets the fact that we are currently saddled with what will be possibly be the worst US president ever.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Dude, what's wrong with trying to ensure more safety for others? While things DO happen, you can implement ways to reduce them. With more COMMUTING time longer then ever before, accidents are higher than ever.
Seriously dude! Move to Norway, Finland, Denmark or wherever the laws are to your liking. There are no guarantees in life. There are risks in everything we do. Accidents do happen. As a kid, I rode a bicycle without a helmet, drank from a garden hose, rode in the back of pickup trucks and my first car didn't even have seat belts. I had a Daisy BB gun and nobody lost an eye. Imagine that! Somehow, without a bunch of gubmint interference, people from my generation managed to survive. You busybodies won't stop until we are all covered in bubble wrap, drive electric vehicles that can't go any faster than 3 mph and our diets consist of only gubmint approved food substitutes. Go on, show your face in your avatar. I'll bet you are really Michael Bloomberg.
Tell that to people in Finland, Denmark and Norway then since it's definitely reduced the speeding there. Not a correlation, but direct effect.
Lol, don't you think she'd rather have her legs work than sue? Guess you've never been in a serious accident involving a speeder.There is... it's called an attorney. Guess you've never heard of a lawsuit before.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh I see... so if an income appropriate law would go into effect she'd get her legs back? Your correlation is unfounded. Law doesn't stop stupid from being stupid.
So you were RESPONSIBLE. Guess what? Not everyone is. You don't care if they aren't? Your anecdotes don't apply to the people who aren't responsible and shoot their BB guns at people, do insane bike stunts without helmets, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Let's stick to the facts here conservatives. Fact is that in the countries that have implemented it, it's reduced speeding. You don't speed, then there's nothing to worry about. It's a DETERRENT that works.
Don't try to derail this by making it a political stance. Stick to the facts.
No ones personal income who DOESN'T speed is affected in those countries. They still get to keep their money.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Maybe if you look at it like this, it will make more sense. Lets assume the top 10% of the driving population are wealthy. In order for your deterent idea to work, that 10% population would have to account for significantly more than 10% of the total speeding violations to really have an impact on reducing the number of infractions. That is simply illogical. A potentially better solution would be to increase the penalties unilaterally, not based upon income. Relate it to drunk driving charges. After so many , three in most states, you end up in jail. Same with the three-strikes rule for criminal convictions. They are proven deterents because they affect everyone equally, regardless of wealth.0 -
Up here in Canada, we've prosecuted idiots who speed constantly.
Tickets are the same across the board. I can see the reasoning behind this. At the same time, if you speed too often, I do believe in raising the fine with each offence.
As someone who is training to become a cop, speeding isn't an issue with me. It's the corporate fraud, the government offices who are being funded by drug money, and the rich who are abusing their privileges while the poor are becoming poorer, and the poor souls who are being jailed for simply using drugs while their dealers and pimps profit enormously and evade the law.
Also, to the people who insulted the Occupy movement, you have no idea what they're all about. Until you've been in the situation where you've spent 30,000 dollars on your degree and have even more of that in debt due to interest, and afterwards, can NOT find a job, you cannot understand.
I'm hoping they start up again.0 -
That's not the issue. If a speeding fine is say $500 dollars for 2 people (one who makes $15,000 a month and one who makes $1,500), who do you think would be deterred more from speeding again? The point is to create more deterrence. If neither speed, neither suffers.I don't agree at all. The fine should reflect the infraction not the persons income.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But your logic is faulty. You assume that the fine would deter people from speeding when clearly a law didn't. If people want to speed the will reguardless of the penalty.0 -
Well no. Because the deterrent would be that they don't want to keep forking their money over for speeding. If someone had to fork over $2000 dollars for a speeding ticket and they made $5000 a month, it's more than likely they will be very aware of the limit so they don't have it happen again. Before this the higher percentage of speeders were "higher income". It got reduced because the fines finally caught up to them.Let's stick to the facts here conservatives. Fact is that in the countries that have implemented it, it's reduced speeding. You don't speed, then there's nothing to worry about. It's a DETERRENT that works.
Don't try to derail this by making it a political stance. Stick to the facts.
No ones personal income who DOESN'T speed is affected in those countries. They still get to keep their money.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Maybe if you look at it like this, it will make more sense. Lets assume the top 10% of the driving population are wealthy. In order for your deterent idea to work, that 10% population would have to account for significantly more than 10% of the total speeding violations to really have an impact on reducing the number of infractions. That is simply illogical.
But speeding is a misdemeanor and drunk driving a felony. Regardless if it's your first time drunk driving, you're going to jail. To jail someone who may go over the speed limit by 5 miles on each infraction would cost a lot more than nailing someone who was doing 90mph in a 55mph and getting caught for just the first time.A potentially better solution would be to increase the penalties unilaterally, not based upon income. Relate it to drunk driving charges. After so many , three in most states, you end up in jail. Same with the three-strikes rule for criminal convictions. They are proven deterents because they affect everyone equally, regardless of wealth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
If the logic is faulty, then why is it working in Denmark and Norway?
That's not the issue. If a speeding fine is say $500 dollars for 2 people (one who makes $15,000 a month and one who makes $1,500), who do you think would be deterred more from speeding again? The point is to create more deterrence. If neither speed, neither suffers.I don't agree at all. The fine should reflect the infraction not the persons income.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But your logic is faulty. You assume that the fine would deter people from speeding when clearly a law didn't. If people want to speed the will reguardless of the penalty.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Haha, conservatives love to say stuff like "your logic is faulty" but won't actually attend to the facts or make a logical argument themselves. Their arguments in this thread are all emotional platitudes and unexamined value assertions. They won't look at the actual statistics, but when you do they WILL tell you that you are completely irrational and build strawmen about how you must be envious rather than construct a logical fact-based argument themselves, or even address the points you have actually made.0
-
*points and laughs at how quickly the post became political*0
-
Dude, what's wrong with trying to ensure more safety for others? While things DO happen, you can implement ways to reduce them. With more COMMUTING time longer then ever before, accidents are higher than ever.
Seriously dude! Move to Norway, Finland, Denmark or wherever the laws are to your liking. There are no guarantees in life. There are risks in everything we do. Accidents do happen. As a kid, I rode a bicycle without a helmet, drank from a garden hose, rode in the back of pickup trucks and my first car didn't even have seat belts. I had a Daisy BB gun and nobody lost an eye. Imagine that! Somehow, without a bunch of gubmint interference, people from my generation managed to survive. You busybodies won't stop until we are all covered in bubble wrap, drive electric vehicles that can't go any faster than 3 mph and our diets consist of only gubmint approved food substitutes. Go on, show your face in your avatar. I'll bet you are really Michael Bloomberg.
Tell that to people in Finland, Denmark and Norway then since it's definitely reduced the speeding there. Not a correlation, but direct effect.
Lol, don't you think she'd rather have her legs work than sue? Guess you've never been in a serious accident involving a speeder.There is... it's called an attorney. Guess you've never heard of a lawsuit before.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh I see... so if an income appropriate law would go into effect she'd get her legs back? Your correlation is unfounded. Law doesn't stop stupid from being stupid.
So you were RESPONSIBLE. Guess what? Not everyone is. You don't care if they aren't? Your anecdotes don't apply to the people who aren't responsible and shoot their BB guns at people, do insane bike stunts without helmets, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow! Then let's just take every element of danger out of our environment. That's where this is headed. Nanny staters like yourself are never satisfied. Here's an idea you will love - Let's punish the responsible people by confiscating possessions and outlawing activities that are sometimes abused by irresponsible people. No more sharp pointy objects or things that go "bang". No more fast cars or motorcycles. No more red meat. No more alcohol. No more (fill in the blank). Hell no! How about we punish ONLY the irresponsible people that abuse these things.
Exceeding the posted speed limit by itself is not necessarily a dangerous activity. A two mile long, six lane bridge with little or no traffic doesn't really need a 40 mph speed limit. Yet, it's hard to find a parking spot on either end of the bridge for all the police cars with their radars going, keeping us all nice and "safe". If someone is speeding excessively and causes an accident, especially an injury accident, they also get charged with reckless driving or worse, manslaughter. Civil penalties (lawsuits) and criminal prosecution apply too. There is your deterrent, not giving someone a $2000 ticket for driving their Porsche 56 mph in a posted 40 mph zone when there is no danger of causing an accident. But you would feel safer and I guess that's important. /s
As another poster mentioned, you would have to show proof that accidents caused by speeding were significantly reduced for wealthy drivers at the same time the accident rate remained unchanged for the great unwashed masses to give your theory any credibility. Your argument is almost entirely emotion-based, not fact-based and until you can back it up with irrefutable data, I call BS.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I am FED UP with people that think they know better than me interfering with what I do, have, say and now, even think. Live your life the way you feel is right, but keep your damn nose out of my business.0 -
Haha, conservatives love to say stuff like "your logic is faulty" but won't actually attend to the facts or make a logical argument themselves. Their arguments in this thread are all emotional platitudes and unexamined value assertions. They won't look at the actual statistics, but when you do they WILL tell you that you are completely irrational and build strawmen about how you must be envious rather than construct a logical fact-based argument themselves, or even address the points you have actually made.
But, where are the statistics from the other side? So far I've seen no studies, no statistics, no factual evidence to back up the OP's claim that this income-based deterrent is effective.
But even if the OP can produce a verifiable study it won't change my opinion that this "solution" is nothing more than a penalty on those who have more money. The so-called deterrence aspect is just a smokescreen.0 -
Doesn't sound like I'm the "emotionally" bent one here. The proposal is reasonable. Again it doesn't affect income of those who DON'T speed. If you're responsible, then why worry?
Dude, what's wrong with trying to ensure more safety for others? While things DO happen, you can implement ways to reduce them. With more COMMUTING time longer then ever before, accidents are higher than ever.
Seriously dude! Move to Norway, Finland, Denmark or wherever the laws are to your liking. There are no guarantees in life. There are risks in everything we do. Accidents do happen. As a kid, I rode a bicycle without a helmet, drank from a garden hose, rode in the back of pickup trucks and my first car didn't even have seat belts. I had a Daisy BB gun and nobody lost an eye. Imagine that! Somehow, without a bunch of gubmint interference, people from my generation managed to survive. You busybodies won't stop until we are all covered in bubble wrap, drive electric vehicles that can't go any faster than 3 mph and our diets consist of only gubmint approved food substitutes. Go on, show your face in your avatar. I'll bet you are really Michael Bloomberg.
Tell that to people in Finland, Denmark and Norway then since it's definitely reduced the speeding there. Not a correlation, but direct effect.
Lol, don't you think she'd rather have her legs work than sue? Guess you've never been in a serious accident involving a speeder.There is... it's called an attorney. Guess you've never heard of a lawsuit before.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh I see... so if an income appropriate law would go into effect she'd get her legs back? Your correlation is unfounded. Law doesn't stop stupid from being stupid.
So you were RESPONSIBLE. Guess what? Not everyone is. You don't care if they aren't? Your anecdotes don't apply to the people who aren't responsible and shoot their BB guns at people, do insane bike stunts without helmets, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow! Then let's just take every element of danger out of our environment. That's where this is headed. Nanny staters like yourself are never satisfied. Here's an idea you will love - Let's punish the responsible people by confiscating possessions and outlawing activities that are sometimes abused by irresponsible people. No more sharp pointy objects or things that go "bang". No more fast cars or motorcycles. No more red meat. No more alcohol. No more (fill in the blank). Hell no! How about we punish ONLY the irresponsible people that abuse these things.
Exceeding the posted speed limit by itself is not necessarily a dangerous activity. A two mile long, six lane bridge with little or no traffic doesn't really need a 40 mph speed limit. Yet, it's hard to find a parking spot on either end of the bridge for all the police cars with their radars going, keeping us all nice and "safe". If someone is speeding excessively and causes an accident, especially an injury accident, they also get charged with reckless driving or worse, manslaughter. Civil penalties (lawsuits) and criminal prosecution apply too. There is your deterrent, not giving someone a $2000 ticket for driving their Porsche 56 mph in a posted 40 mph zone when there is no danger of causing an accident. But you would feel safer and I guess that's important. /s
As another poster mentioned, you would have to show proof that accidents caused by speeding were significantly reduced for wealthy drivers at the same time the accident rate remained unchanged for the great unwashed masses to give your theory any credibility. Your argument is almost entirely emotion-based, not fact-based and until you can back it up with irrefutable data, I call BS.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I am FED UP with people that think they know better than me interfering with what I do, have, say and now, even think. Live your life the way you feel is right, but keep your damn nose out of my business.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
@ninerbuff - I said your theory is emotion-based. This is a feel good solution and is remarkably fact-free so far. Did it reduce overall speeding? Maybe. You say it did and I'll even concede that as a possibility. Did it significantly reduce accidents caused by wealthy people that were also speeding? If it did, the data should be readily available. That is the supposed purpose of this law, right? If you can't show this has significantly reduced injuries or deaths caused by wealthy speeders, all you have shown this to be is a revenue generating, wealth confiscation scheme. Show me the data. Provide a reference; two or three would be better. And yes, I do get passionate when do-gooders try to impact my life so they can feel better about theirs. YOU are promoting this as a solution. YOU have the responsibility to prove it with data or STFU.0
-
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!
It's economics 101, actually. There is a finite amount of wealth in the world. Yes, the pie keeps growing because the population keeps growing, but if someone takes a piece, it doesn't magically grow back. If wealth were infinite, it wouldn't be worth anything. Of course, it's possible for everyone to get a piece of the pie, and you likely wouldn't have to give up anything in order for everyone to get a decent piece of the pie, but the top 10% would. In the US, the top 10% of the population controls 2/3 of the wealth, and the top1% controls half if that. Over the past 10 or so years, that wealth has increased while the wealth of the other 90% has decreased.0 -
I think that would be a great idea..............I make eff all for money.....so I'd speed all the time and get fines that are diddly squat to pay and get around to where I want to go A LOT faster!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions