SB185 Traffic ticket fines based on income

[cpa]

California traffic fine calculation requires a PhD in mathematics to calculate.

The legislature has not raised the base fine for driving infractions since 1973 or thereabouts. However, there is a judicial council of some sorts that is based in San Francisco, and they meet periodically to determine the amount and applicability of the various additions to the base fine. Depending upon the location of the infraction, there are a number of bits and pieces that add up to the $300-$450 fines for driving violations. Some of these have been sanctioned by voters at the ballot box, and others have been pushed through the legislature for reimbursements, yet others are for funds to build out additional court facilities or personnel.

As others have said, traffic fines are supposed to be part punitive and part reminder for safety-first. I do not care much for this proposal. If one is indigent, there are community service programs and other similar jobs out there for the miscreant to "work off" their modest debt to society.

The paperwork to administer this program will be prohibitive. That will increase the administrative costs to the courts, which will increase the dollar amount of the traffic fine for the rest of the population to pay as determined by the judicial council.

I know weed is legal now, but I did not think our elected representatives would be indulging while on the job.

 

[kort677]

I know weed is legal now, but I did not think our elected representatives would be indulging while on the job.

the clowns in sacramento implement a lot of "looney" legislation but in typical CA style crazy laws and regs rarely generate any sort of objections but as soon as the government starts to mess with people in their cars all hell breaks loose.

 

[Evbwcaer]

I wonder about people being concerned a poor person could nearly speed without consequences under this law. Now, the inverse is true, a rich person can nearly speed without consequences.

If speed laws are about safety and there is no consequence for speeding, as is sort of the case for a rich person currentl, there is a breakdown, because there is no meaningful sanction for the rich speeder.

Just a thought...rich people often value time more than money. How about community service OR an income/wealth based fine? A plus side is people with no money may have time to give instead.

Making generalizations, just trying to think of this in a macro way.

 

[kort677]

I wonder about people being concerned a poor person could nearly speed without consequences under this law. Now, the inverse is true, a rich person can nearly speed without consequences.

If speed laws are about safety and there is no consequence for speeding, as is sort of the case for a rich person currentl, there is a breakdown, because there is no meaningful sanction for the rich speeder.

Just a thought...rich people often value time more than money. How about community service OR an income/wealth based fine? A plus side is people with no money may have time to give instead.

Making generalizations, just trying to think of this in a macro way.

levels of wealth and income should not be part of the equation when levying fines or punishment.

 

[Chopr147]

If speed laws are about safety and there is no consequence for speeding,

POINTS! If money is no object, points taking your license away will be.
Fines based on income is unamerican

 

[McRat]

The punishment is the points and insurance hassles.

The fine just pays for the traffic enforcement and courts.

How much more does it cost to pull over a Ferrari than a Hyundai?

 

[Evbwcaer]

I understand the sentiment that it is "unamerican" to have an income/wealth based fee. I also understand equal punishment under the law. $200 does not cost everybody the same, for some people that is 2 days of work, for some it is 15 minutes.
Time is one way to sanction, money is another.

I honestly don't know where I fall on this, which is rare for me.

Think link is maybe a counter point, imagine if this happened a lot.

Exotic car club members among 12 accused of driving 100+ mph on I-394

 

[NikeWings]

Super slippery slope.......

It's not that the fine is levied based on income. It's the requirement to pay 100% of it, is based on income.
Very sneaky trick to achieve the same goal. This opens up an entire spectrum of new wealth based "taxes" if state and local jurisdictions create back door "subsidies" without voter consent. Very troubling.

 

[McRat]

I understand the sentiment that it is "unamerican" to have an income/wealth based fee. I also understand equal punishment under the law. $200 does not cost everybody the same, for some people that is 2 days of work, for some it is 15 minutes.
Time is one way to sanction, money is another.

I honestly don't know where I fall on this, which is rare for me.

Think link is maybe a counter point, imagine if this happened a lot.

Exotic car club members among 12 accused of driving 100+ mph on I-394

It doesn't. Affordable 150mph cars are over 20 years old now. You can buy one for $5k. I don't even own anything that won't break 100 mph. Our old mini-vans would touch 110mph while we had them, a Civic will go faster as will a Prius. Our fastest has an official sanctioned average speed of 197+ mph, the fastest informal speed of 203mph.

This is why it was news. It is an unusual and interesting news story.

In our state, moving violations are normally over $200 total fees even for minor offenses, like slowing to 1 mph for a stop sign.

 

[brucet999]

It looks to me that this thread title is misleading. All I can see in reading the text of the bill is language allowing the courts to reduce fines as much as 80% for violators who can prove that they are indigent, and to allow indigent people to arrange a reasonable payment schedule instead of jail time for those who cannot afford to pay their fines.

It seems to be a reasonable response to the inordinate burden on the poor of large fines for traffic and other minor infractions.

 

[Evbwcaer]

It doesn't. Affordable 150mph cars are over 20 years old now. You can buy one for $5k. I don't even own anything that won't break 100 mph. Our old mini-vans would touch 110mph while we had them, a Civic will go faster as will a Prius. Our fastest has an official sanctioned average speed of 197+ mph, the fastest informal speed of 203mph.

This is why it was news. It is an unusual and interesting news story.

In our state, moving violations are normally over $200 total fees even for minor offenses, like slowing to 1 mph for a stop sign.

McRat, what do you mean by, "It doesn't?" I don't understand what you are responding to there.

Cheap cars can go 100mph, yes, but the problem that point does not address is that it is cheap to go 100mph and cheap to endanger others....if you have money.

I come at this from an economics perspective. It's is curious to me, as a result of that perspective, when people talk about "unamerican" and "slippery slope" policies which, in reality, would lead to things people equal. And, I think, the concept of equal/equitable is what people want.

If you think of "cost" not in a dollar sense, but in what resources you have to input to acquire the resource you are giving up, then the current situation is that it costs less for people with more money to speed, generally speaking.

Who would argue that richer people should have a lower cost for speeding? Almost nobody, but that is what the current situation is.

Also, if the law was, a speeding ticket costs you 1% of your income, that would still arguably be equal in the less academic take on what "cost" means, while creating a meaningful sanction for the wealthy speeder.

 

[McRat]

McRat, what do you mean by, "It doesn't?" I don't understand what you are responding to there.

Cheap cars can go 100mph, yes, but the problem that point does not address is that it is cheap to go 100mph and cheap to endanger others....if you have money.

I come at this from an economics perspective. It's is curious to me, as a result of that perspective, when people talk about "unamerican" and "slippery slope" policies which, in reality, would lead to things people equal. And, I think, the concept of equal/equitable is what people want.

If you think of "cost" not in a dollar sense, but in what resources you have to input to acquire the resource you are giving up, then the current situation is that it costs less for people with more money to speed, generally speaking.

Who would argue that richer people should have a lower cost for speeding? Almost nobody, but that is what the current situation is.

Also, if the law was, a speeding ticket costs you 1% of your income, that would still arguably be equal in the less academic take on what "cost" means, while creating a meaningful sanction for the wealthy speeder.

Do packs of exotics get busted going triple digits? Apparently it can happen. Are you likely to see one in your lifetime? Not unless you're a participant.

If you have proof you're 'broke' on paper, does that mean you don't have millions of dollars? No. Folk post on this board they don't pay enough income tax to get their $7500 credit for buying a P100DL. Or that their main source of income is not work, it's investment income.

Is a person who works two jobs, and their wife works as well, to put kids through college as 'wealthy' as a trust fund kid who was given a Lambo for their birthday? Perhaps on paper, not on the amount of sacrifice they make to gain $100,000.

There is no parity, just generalizations. Some people work hard for $100,000, others will do it simply by waking up another morning.

The entire concept of fines says it's OK to ignore laws if you can afford it financially. It's a morally bankrupt stance on crime and punishment and sends the wrong message.

 

[cpa]

The good old IRS has installment agreements and offers-in-compromise for taxpayers who wind up owing a lot of tax and who do not have the resources to pay in full immediately. Over the years the Service has become more amenable to installment arrangements--in many cases they are automatic if the taxpayer can show they have a job and can pay off the tax (exclusive of interest and penalties) within 36 months. Offers-in-compromise are a more difficult hurdle to surmount, but (anecdotally) they sometimes can be approved for 20-30 cents on the dollar. I do not provide these services as part of my ongoing practice, so I may not be an expert.

What is annoying to me about this legislation is that it seems to me to be too easy to game the system. (I admit that I did not read the entire policies and procedures--they were too much, and my eyes started to glaze over.) I do not see if the courts do any auditing or investigating to see if a person is employed and how much they earn (the EDD receives this information quarterly from all employers); the Franchise Tax Board has records of their income tax returns; every "professional" from accountants to water well drillers have some sort of license or registration with the DCA.

Then you have the basic deadbeats and grifters. A lot of people will hire on and start employment. About 4-6 months after hire, the wage garnishment orders come into the employer for payroll deductions. Once the employee is notified (as required), the employee is gone.

I also wonder if these indigent folks can even afford automobile insurance. They only need the insurance to renew their registration, and then they can cancel.

Yes, likely the majority of the people who would benefit from this legislation are decent, hard-working people who have made some really ill-advised, if not outright stupid driving mistakes. Those mistakes combined with bad money management have placed them in this predicament. There must be a better way to cut those individuals some slack.

 

[Mickie]

A new bill that passed the California senate today allows fines for traffic infractions to be based on income.

Bill Text - SB-185 Crimes: infractions.

If signed into law, California will be the first state in the US to do this.

Unreal. I thought Illinois was the lead crook in the union. I mean, it still is--but this just gave my state a full-blown chubby.

 

[Lloyd]

It looks to me that this thread title is misleading. All I can see in reading the text of the bill is language allowing the courts to reduce fines as much as 80% for violators who can prove that they are indigent, and to allow indigent people to arrange a reasonable payment schedule instead of jail time for those who cannot afford to pay their fines.

It seems to be a reasonable response to the inordinate burden on the poor of large fines for traffic and other minor infractions.

The title is totally accurate. Should it be less offensive if it benefits one group over another? It was you who incorrectly predicted that 'were gonna get those rich guys' was the gist of the law. I predict that it will not become law, but it is California.

It does, however shift the burden of fines (taxes) from those without to those with.

 

[Uncle Paul]

California has a unique situation.

If you drive a fully registered and insured vehicle, you get the maximum fine plus fees, as the State wants the income.

If you drive a vehicle with government or police plates, you can park most anywhere, and drive anything less than reckless, and are unlikely to be pulled over.

If you drive an uninsured vehicle with Font BC (Mexican plates) you can drive any way you want and park any where you wish and you will not get a ticket because the Police know you will never pay. If you get into an accident, you do not need to pay. If you leave the scene of an accident they can't track you to your home or work. You do not need to purchase insurance. You will not get a parking ticket because they know you will not pay.

Lots of different classes in California

 

[McRat]

If you ignore the 'slippery slope' part, this bill will mostly affect those who do not file taxes, such as illegal immigrants.

 

[brucet999]

It was you who incorrectly predicted that 'were gonna get those rich guys' was the gist of the law.

What are you on about? I predicted nothing.

 

[NikeWings]

Please speak up @Tanquen. We can't hear you but we sure know you were here.

 

[Chopr147]

I think he would rather just disagree with everyone silently