Progressive Ticketing/Fines

[Old Geezer]

The rich are being fined more for violations of the law

The goals of punishment are different than the goals of taxation.

It can be argued that progressive taxation is immoral because it punishes the producer of wealth.

But a punishment must effect the perpetrator in such a way as to have a detterrent effect. it must also pass the litmus test for justice;

"Justice means that "one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit"Ayn Rand

what are the moral and legal ramifications of progressive punishment?

[DavidV]

Obviously, this is a mockery of the entire notion of “equality before the law.”

Aside from that, there is an economic argument that the time of more productive people is worth more, and hence they should be able to pay more to drive faster. Ideally, this should be exercised via private toll roads, but in our socialized system, a busy executive whose time is worth hundreds of dollars prefers paying for speeding tickets than getting there slower – something that benefits everyone else as well, as long as the increase in traffic accidents is negligible. This is because the potential cost to traffic accident victims is smaller than the benefit gained by the busy driver. (Amazingly enough, I was taught this by the chief economist for the dept. of labor in an economics class.)

[Old Geezer]

Obviously, this is a mockery of the entire notion of “equality before the law.”

If the standard is say one percent of one's income for a particular crime, would that be different?

Aside for that, there is an economic argument that the time of more productive people is worth more, and hence they should be able to pay more to drive faster.

I dont understand how the second part of that sentence follows from the first.

a busy executive whose time is worth hundreds of dollars prefers paying for speeding tickets than getting there slower – something that benefits everyone else as well, as long as the increase in traffic accidents is negligible.

but the increase in traffic accidents is not negligible, its exponential

[Capitalism Forever]

If the standard is say one percent of one's income for a particular crime,  would that be different?

Don't forget that the government has NO BUSINESS knowing how much money you make.

(Besides, it has no business operating roads and deciding on speeding fines, either.)

but the increase in traffic accidents is not negligible, its exponential

Why do you think so? In Germany, there is no speed limit on the Autobahns, and there aren't more accidents there than elsewhere; acutally, the roads are said to be even a bit safer. Obviously, having the freedom to choose their speed makes motorists think more about how fast they should be driving in order to still be safe.

[Old Geezer]

Don't forget that the government has NO BUSINESS knowing how much money you make

For other purposes perhaps not. But one of the rolls of government is to punish criminals... if someone were to knowingly violate someone's rights (I acknowledge this not to be the case in speeding) they have forfeited all of their own, and the government's job at that point is simply determining HOW MUCH of their rights it is cost effective/smart etc to allow back.

Why do you think so? In Germany, there is no speed limit on the Autobahns, and there aren't more accidents there than elsewhere; acutally, the roads are said to be even a bit safer.

I acknowledge that Speeding isn't necessarilly a violation of rights etc so this is sort of an aside... Imade my assertion based on our domestic statistics which show that as speed limits are raised deaths go up exponentially. I am inclined to think that the "safer roads" on the Autobahn have more to do with our countrys' infatuation with Alcohol, its geographical size, the demographic shift towards the suburbs, Germany's prohibition of many things not related to driving (such as talking on cell phone), and a few other factors.

BTW I am under the impression that the Autobahn has a 130km speed limit