Traffic Fines based on Income

[BC Landlord]

the law is to be applied equally to everyone. this seems a bit punitive to those that have been successful, and the impoverished get a break. seems like a cash grab to me...

Exactly! And not just "impoverished", but anyone who doesn't show income, such as drug dealers and career criminals. The system would be rewarding them.

[spooker]

the law is to be applied equally to everyone. this seems a bit punitive to those that have been successful, and the impoverished get a break. seems like a cash grab to me...

Exactly! And not just "impoverished", but anyone who doesn't show income, such as drug dealers and career criminals. The system would be rewarding them.

And we know how drug dealers like to get traffic tickets and draw attention to themselves ... #whataboutism

[Patron]

Exactly! And not just "impoverished", but anyone who doesn't show income, such as drug dealers and career criminals. The system would be rewarding them.

And we know how drug dealers like to get traffic tickets and draw attention to themselves ... #whataboutism

many people who are not involved in the criminal world have no problem scamming the system whenever they can and will, but the law should be the same for everyone, if someone is driving a luxury vehicle they already paid higher taxes for it and way more insurance and should they maim or kill someone, they have a much higher chance of being personally sued too. the only people who need to be hit extremely hard is anyone texting and driving, can't believe people still do that when there's other safe options.

Can't believe how many times I have had close calls because the driver was texting and a shrug of the shoulders and "me bad" doesn't cut it when you almost killed me on a Tuesday afternoon

[my5cents]

many people who are not involved in the criminal world have no problem scamming the system whenever they can and will, but the law should be the same for everyone, if someone is driving a luxury vehicle they already paid higher taxes for it and way more insurance and should they maim or kill someone, they have a much higher chance of being personally sued too. the only people who need to be hit extremely hard is anyone texting and driving, can't believe people still do that when there's other safe options.

Can't believe how many times I have had close calls because the driver was texting and a shrug of the shoulders and "me bad" doesn't cut it when you almost killed me on a Tuesday afternoon

One thing wealthy people have is lots of insurance. The person who lives hand to mouth without a pot to pee in or window to throw it out of, doesn't really need insurance, they have nothing to loose.

I don't know how/why a wealthy person would "have a much higher chance of being personally sued". They would have insurance like anyone else and I don't see a reason why they'd be more likely to be in breach of their coverage.

So many are concerned with drivers texting, but like you they focus on "need to hit extremely hard" (in other words a large fine). Nobody seems concerned that when one of these knuckleheads is involved in an actual collision, the police won't attend and investigate.

[spooker]

many people who are not involved in the criminal world have no problem scamming the system whenever they can and will, but the law should be the same for everyone, if someone is driving a luxury vehicle they already paid higher taxes for it and way more insurance and should they maim or kill someone, they have a much higher chance of being personally sued too. the only people who need to be hit extremely hard is anyone texting and driving, can't believe people still do that when there's other safe options.

Can't believe how many times I have had close calls because the driver was texting and a shrug of the shoulders and "me bad" doesn't cut it when you almost killed me on a Tuesday afternoon

One thing wealthy people have is lots of insurance. The person who lives hand to mouth without a pot to pee in or window to throw it out of, doesn't really need insurance, they have nothing to loose.

I don't know how/why a wealthy person would "have a much higher chance of being personally sued". They would have insurance like anyone else and I don't see a reason why they'd be more likely to be in breach of their coverage.

So many are concerned with drivers texting, but like you they focus on "need to hit extremely hard" (in other words a large fine). Nobody seems concerned that when one of these knuckleheads is involved in an actual collision, the police won't attend and investigate.

Since fines are meant to act as a deterrent why would one think that $167 for speeding is really of the same value to someone making $200k/year vs someone making minimum wage?

[Gone_Fishin]

It's just an excuse to grab more money from people.

The NDP never met a tax or levy it didn't like. Oh sure, you can walk around with smack in your pocket with impunity, but if you're a hard-working Canadian who did well last year, you better be prepared to sell a kidney to pay for driving in the HOV lane for more than a hundred yards.

[spooker]

It's just an excuse to grab more money from people.

The NDP never met a tax or levy it didn't like. Oh sure, you can walk around with smack in your pocket with impunity, but if you're a hard-working Canadian who did well last year, you better be prepared to sell a kidney to pay for driving in the HOV lane for more than a hundred yards.

That seems to be the reasoning claimed for anything that might cause a monetary consequence people can avoid by just making a decision that doesn't put them on the wrong side of the laws ... people want enforcement as long as it's not them being enforced ... seems that higher fines would be associated with behaviour that put more people at risk, i.e. speeding, running lights, distracted driving ... though it sounds more ominous when it's just "driving in the HOV lane"

[BC Landlord]

One thing wealthy people have is lots of insurance. The person who lives hand to mouth without a pot to pee in or window to throw it out of, doesn't really need insurance, they have nothing to loose.

I still don't understand how insurance got into this debate ..

The proposed system is about charging people traffic fines based on their T4s. That penalizes hard-working, income tax paying people, while it favors criminal types, who show no income. How is that right?

[Gone_Fishin]

Since fines are meant to act as a deterrent why would one think that $167 for speeding is really of the same value to someone making $200k/year vs someone making minimum wage?

You have absolutely no idea of what the $200K person's financial situation is. Maybe he's paying every penny he has to send a sick child for life-saving treatment at the Mayo Clinic. Maybe he's paying off a massive student loan for his education to land a job to make that $200K a year.

Meanwhile, a drug pusher who declares no income gets a reduced traffic fine.

How's that fair?

[my5cents]

Everyone continually insists on the scenario that Income Based Traffic Fines means reducing fines for the poor (or all the drug traffickers). If one thinks Income Based Fines is the way to go (and I don't), surcharging the wealthy makes more sense than reducing fines for the poor.

We just have to live with the fact that the zillionaire considers a speeding fine as important as couch change. We still have the superintendent of Motor Vehicles that will suspend driver's licenses for high amounts of violations no matter what's in their bank accounts.

[spooker]

Since fines are meant to act as a deterrent why would one think that $167 for speeding is really of the same value to someone making $200k/year vs someone making minimum wage?

You have absolutely no idea of what the $200K person's financial situation is. Maybe he's paying every penny he has to send a sick child for life-saving treatment at the Mayo Clinic. Maybe he's paying off a massive student loan for his education to land a job to make that $200K a year.

Meanwhile, a drug pusher who declares no income gets a reduced traffic fine.

How's that fair?

Is the number of drug dealers greater than the number of people who are living at the poverty level? Or are there more wealthy people gaming the system to reduce their taxable income to avoid paying their fair share as those who aren't making as much?

Or is this all a distraction from talking about the topic of this thread?

[BC Landlord]

We just have to live with the fact that the zillionaire considers a speeding fine as important as couch change. We still have the superintendent of Motor Vehicles that will suspend driver's licenses for high amounts of violations no matter what's in their bank accounts.

Charging people by the size of their wallet is a blatant money grab, which in addition is nothing short of monetizing justice. We do however have a deterrent system for repetitive traffic offenders already in place, and it's called demerit points.

The thing is, there are some people out there who would actually like to see a major crackdown on driving, and people's mobility altogether, hence these draconian ideas targeting motorists. They don't care what it takes to push their ideologies down people's throats.

[GordonH]

We just have to live with the fact that the zillionaire considers a speeding fine as important as couch change. We still have the superintendent of Motor Vehicles that will suspend driver's licenses for high amounts of violations no matter what's in their bank accounts.

Charging people by the size of their wallet is a blatant money grab, which in other words is nothing short of monetizing justice. We do however have a deterrent system for repetitive traffic offenders already in place, and it's called demerit points.

The thing is, there are some people out there who would actually like to see a major crackdown on driving, and people's mobility altogether, hence these draconian ideas targeting motorists. They don't care what it takes to push their ideologies down people's throats.

Apparently you don’t have to worry about demerit points having out of province tags.

Maybe Canada should have a nationwide Department of Motor-vehicles, so that traffic violation in another province goes back to tag province. So when that individual goes to renew their insurance they have to pay traffic violation first, oh yes if the tag province has demerits they are added to insurance bill.

Essentially level off the playing field.

[lesliepaul]

It's hard to believe that there are a number of passive (mostly male) people here on Castanet that cannot help themselves but to TELL government at every level over and over that they should come up more ways of extorting peoples money and then think their wishes will never effect themselves..........not very bright.........

[BC Landlord]

Apparently who don’t have to worry about demerit points having out of province tags.

Again, .. What does it have to do with some "out of province" thing? My understanding from the original post is that this is a BC based initiative, and for BC residents.