Do you think rich people get off easy with fines? Percent based fines!

[originalpckelly]

Instead of specifying a dollar amount, people would have to pay the same price for their wrong doing.

We could specify a percentage of someone's income. That way, the crime will always be punished equally for all people, even those who are rich.

[Lib Grrrrl]

1. It Already Is That Way In Some Countries - And I Think It's Great!! n/t

especially since I haven't got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, having had virtually no income for the past year, thank you GWB.

[Yollam]

2. Definitely.

It's $370 for running a red light in SF. Personally, I don't do that, but people do make mistakes. I hate to think of someone barely scraping by having to pay that, when that's just one spa treatment for the wealthy.

[deFaultLine]

3. One problem

They have to get caught in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people don't get pulled over for drunk driving until they kill someone. You drive a late model Cadillac, you are not going to even get looked at by the cops--even if you are all over the road.

OTOH, you drive a 20 year old car, you will get pulled over frequently. I get stopped by the cops about 6 times a year and rarely do they give me a ticket...mainly because I wasn't doing anything in the first place. I don't drink or use drugs, but they have to check me out anyway. I just have that strung out, haunted look I guess. x(

When I do get a ticket, it's devastating financially. I'm living on a shoestring right now.

So it's not a bad idea in theory to fine people based on income, you will find though that it won't be enforced like it should.

[Jazz2006]

4. I disagree with the suggestion.

For a few reasons.

These off the top of my head:

1) offences that are subject only to fines (and not jail time) are relatively minor in nature;
2) if someone has zero income (or at least zero declared income), your suggestion would appear to give those individuals carte blanche to commit as many fine-based crimes as they want, and present no incentive to obey those laws; and
3) in cases where the range for fines is great, the ability to pay is, in fact, already considered as a factor upon assessing the fine at sentencing.

Edit:

4) constitutional invalidity;
5) administrative nightmare;
6) massive court logjams; and
7) the potential for outrageous results (i.e. multi thousand or multi million dollar fines for minor offences, etc.)

[originalpckelly]

5. Listen to this

2) if someone has zero income (or at least zero declared income), your suggestion would appear to give those individuals carte blanche to commit as many fine-based crimes as they want, and present no incentive to obey those laws;

What you forgot to note, is that the rich already may commit as many offenses as they so choose because the fines are so insignificant they never affect them.

The solution to the problem you came up with a level of income which the fines flattens out at.

Say we want to have people pay no less than $200 dollars for an offense. We would simply stop adjusting the rate at $20,000 of income per year, anyone below it would pay $200, anyone making above 20,000 would pay 1% of their income.

While I understand it might seem unfair for one person to have to pay more money for the same offense, since the fine is adjusted people are really paying the same amount for their offenses.

If someone makes $10,000,000 then their fine will be $100,000. It may seem a lot, but it actually makes the offender suffer as much as someone who makes $20,000 and pays $200 for a fine.

[Nicole]

6. I also disagree with it

For this reason:

2) if someone has zero income (or at least zero declared income), your suggestion would appear to give those individuals carte blanche to commit as many fine-based crimes as they want, and present no incentive to obey those laws;

To answer your reply here:

What you forgot to note, is that the rich already may commit as many offenses as they so choose because the fines are so insignificant they never affect them.

Then increase fines for repeat offenses. The first offense should be fined at the same rate across the board.

[Jazz2006]

8. Yes, that's a good addition, Nicole

And there are ranges of fines in certain types of fine-only offences that do indeed take into consideration prior offences (e.g. driving offences where the driving record is considered, such as speeding, etc.)

It would go some way towards addressing the "repeat offender" aspect that the OP was talking about if it was added to other offences such as going through yellow lights and such for which there are currently fixed fines.

Although it would also mean that low income people would have to refrain from being repeat offenders.

[Jazz2006]

7. It won't fly

Nor should it.

(#3 was the easy one ~ the obvious answer being a mandatory minimum and then a sliding scale of some sort, but I'm glad you came up with it anyway :)

In the types of crimes that usually attract fines only and no jail time, there simply isn't sufficient justification for imposing such wildly divergent penalties ranging from $200 to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for such things as going through a yellow light. In most instances, there is a range of penalties that can be imposed, and there is room for a certain amount of leeway in assessing the appropriate penalty, and as noted previously, the ability to pay is one of the considerations in assessing financial penalties where such a range exists.

But beyond that, there are huge obstacles to the proposal as you set it out.

See reasons 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in my prior post, for example.

There are many more, but those are sufficient to ensure that it won't fly as presented. Ever.

And, you're right that I did not specifically note that "the rich already may commit as many offenses as they so choose because the fines are so insignificant they never affect them" because I do not have any evidence to support the assertion that "the rich" do so. That's a pretty broad brush you seem to be painting with there, and I am more inclined to specifics, facts and evidence.

[rucky]

10. Those aren't reasons to disagree.

Unless you disagree with the premise that fines are currently regressive, none of those are reasons to reject the suggestion. Your concerns are part of a process that starts with an idea. It's a work in progress (and a post on DU).

Brainstorming 101: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sorry if that sounds diadectic, but I hate to see original ideas continually get shot down on DU.

[SeattleGirl]

9. That's exactly the way it should be!

Should be that way for taxes too.

As long as fines, taxes, etc., keep getting presenting in "real dollars", of course it will appear that the richest among us are paying more. BUT, if you present it in terms of percentage of income/financial worth, THEN the real truth comes out, and people will see things for what they are right now: completely unfair to anyone but the very richest in this country.