More options for idiots

Jim Jones said :

The measures that you’ve outlined for people to take to avoid paying the fine are all fairly complicated and involved. It’s not like tax minimisation, this is another level entirely.

Avoiding parking fines is more complicated than tax minimisation?

Wow. just… wow.

Actually maybe community work/service should be an option for all, if it actually gets done.
Many organisations would benefit from this. Hell even let to so called rich people volunteer their time rather than pay the full fine. It may actually benefit the community more.

If you raised fines for wealthier people the government would probably end up losing revenue….
Even paying off traffic fines in installments, will make it far more likely for fines to be paid. Most people obey the law, but their are some that regardless of punishment will do whatever they feel like.

devils_advocate said :

Jim Jones said :

Not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think rich people are dumb.

Regardless, stating a couple of difficulties in constructing effective policy is hardly ground for throwing hands in the air and giving up.

If it were, we would have abolished speed limits, because – you know – people still speed and don’t get caught, so why bother having them at all, right?

The idea that rich people are dumb is an inference drawn from the various posts which proceed on the basis that: rich people will just sit idly by and be subjected to another tax, even when there are fairly obvious ways to avoid it. The irony of the scheme you are suggesting is that it would probably end up being regressive – the large majority of low-medium income earners would pay the most per offence, with wealthier individuals paying little or nothing. (even though I generally park legally and obey traffic laws, maybe I should just shut up and see if this income-based fines thing gets up…)

On the implementation issues, I think it’s a significant understatement to refer to these as “a couple of difficulties”.

As for the analogy with speeding fines, I’d be happy to explain why that analogy is misguided if you can offer some options for overcoming the “couple of difficulties” outlines above. (that’s not intended as snark, I’d genuinely be interested to know).

“Another tax” – it’s not a tax. YYou’re perfectly capable of differentiating between a tax and a fine. Don’t pull that Abbot crap, it’s cheap and makes you look dumb.

The measures that you’ve outlined for people to take to avoid paying the fine are all fairly complicated and involved. It’s not like tax minimisation, this is another level entirely.

Again: there are implementation issues inherent in any policy. Difficulties or imperfection (regardless of the level) are not an excuse to throw your hands in the air and say ‘it’s all too hard, we’ll just give up’. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Maybe it would tend towards the regressive. Who knows? I’m simply stating that, at very least, it has a decent foundation and is worth exploring as an option.

Jim Jones said :

Not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think rich people are dumb.

Regardless, stating a couple of difficulties in constructing effective policy is hardly ground for throwing hands in the air and giving up.

If it were, we would have abolished speed limits, because – you know – people still speed and don’t get caught, so why bother having them at all, right?

The idea that rich people are dumb is an inference drawn from the various posts which proceed on the basis that: rich people will just sit idly by and be subjected to another tax, even when there are fairly obvious ways to avoid it. The irony of the scheme you are suggesting is that it would probably end up being regressive – the large majority of low-medium income earners would pay the most per offence, with wealthier individuals paying little or nothing. (even though I generally park legally and obey traffic laws, maybe I should just shut up and see if this income-based fines thing gets up…)

On the implementation issues, I think it’s a significant understatement to refer to these as “a couple of difficulties”.

As for the analogy with speeding fines, I’d be happy to explain why that analogy is misguided if you can offer some options for overcoming the “couple of difficulties” outlines above. (that’s not intended as snark, I’d genuinely be interested to know).

Masquara said :

No – it’s just amusing that cyclists are so insecure as to jump up and down at the merest perceived slight. Must be the roids.

Who takes roids these days; that’s so 1980’s.

It’s peptides now. Get with the program. Sheesh.

devils_advocate said :

Jim Jones said :

Not really.

The implication is that fines are a deterrent only to people on lower income levels.

Sliding scale for fines is a great idea. Increased fines for people on a higher income so that they actually notice it.

Well I set out around six arguments above as to why it’s not a good idea, but let’s leave those aside for a second. Let’s assume it’s a good idea (which I do not concede at all) and focus on the practical matters.

How are you actually going to make it work?

In your answer, I’d be especially interested to know:

a) in assessing people’s income, will you use accounting income, or taxable income? Also of relevance: accounting profits, or tax profits?

b) what stops me registering my cars in my wife’s name? (insert other low or negative nominal income family member as appropriate eg teenage son)

The wealthy people you want to target are, in general, not as dumb as you think.

Not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think rich people are dumb.

Regardless, stating a couple of difficulties in constructing effective policy is hardly ground for throwing hands in the air and giving up.

If it were, we would have abolished speed limits, because – you know – people still speed and don’t get caught, so why bother having them at all, right?

Jim Jones said :

Not really.

The implication is that fines are a deterrent only to people on lower income levels.

Sliding scale for fines is a great idea. Increased fines for people on a higher income so that they actually notice it.

Well I set out around six arguments above as to why it’s not a good idea, but let’s leave those aside for a second. Let’s assume it’s a good idea (which I do not concede at all) and focus on the practical matters.

How are you actually going to make it work?

In your answer, I’d be especially interested to know:

a) in assessing people’s income, will you use accounting income, or taxable income? Also of relevance: accounting profits, or tax profits?

b) what stops me registering my cars in my wife’s name? (insert other low or negative nominal income family member as appropriate eg teenage son)

The wealthy people you want to target are, in general, not as dumb as you think.

Aeek said :

Masquara said :

cyclist

What happened? Did one eat your first born ?

No – it’s just amusing that cyclists are so insecure as to jump up and down at the merest perceived slight. Must be the roids.

devils_advocate said :

IrishPete said :

Taxation (or at least income tax) is already based on income.

IP

Taxation policy is completely different to imposition of penalties. In fact, one could argue it’s exactly opposite.

Taxation is neccessary. Much of the effort that goes into designing tax policy is to ensure that tax does NOT act a deterrent to engaging in income-producing activity (i.e. WORK).

By contrast, the imposition of fines is (ostensibly) aimed at deterring conduct. I.e. getting people to do the right thing. Some might argue that many types of conduct that are fined (speeding at low levels, illegal parking) are in fact aimed at revenue raising, but the point is, it’s socially optimal for this conduct to not occur.

By contrast, imagine what would happen if all the wealthy people stopped working.

Your own example undermines your argument.

Not really.

The implication is that fines are a deterrent only to people on lower income levels.

Sliding scale for fines is a great idea. Increased fines for people on a higher income so that they actually notice it.

Can’t see a problem with schemes for installed payments, etc. for lower income earners. The alternatives are potentially too drastic (i.e. potentially lose employment, bankruptcy, etc.)

Masquara said :

cyclist

What happened? Did one eat your first born ?

IrishPete said :

Taxation (or at least income tax) is already based on income.

IP

Taxation policy is completely different to imposition of penalties. In fact, one could argue it’s exactly opposite.

Taxation is neccessary. Much of the effort that goes into designing tax policy is to ensure that tax does NOT act a deterrent to engaging in income-producing activity (i.e. WORK).

By contrast, the imposition of fines is (ostensibly) aimed at deterring conduct. I.e. getting people to do the right thing. Some might argue that many types of conduct that are fined (speeding at low levels, illegal parking) are in fact aimed at revenue raising, but the point is, it’s socially optimal for this conduct to not occur.

By contrast, imagine what would happen if all the wealthy people stopped working.

Your own example undermines your argument.

IrishPete said :

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

IP

Anyone not maintaining or registering their car, and not changing their tyres, is a menace on the road. MIND YOU I can fully understand people resisting the fate of turning into a cyclist through sheer poverty ….

Vix said :

IrishPete said :

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

IP

Man – where’d they buy their petrol??

They don’t, it’s your number plate they’re putting on their car.

Fuel is free, didn’t you know?

Watson said :

Jono said :

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Making a decision on whether to leave a good party or stay and let your hair down based on where you happened to have parked your car sounds terribly exciting though.

But you’re welcome. I don’t have an issue with admitting mistakes but that was one I didn’t regret. I still insist not allowing people to pay for Saturday morning parking on the Friday night increases the risk of drunk people on the roads. But thinking about strategies to prevent stupid people from making stupid decisions is clearly stupid.

Can’t have a good time without alcohol? It’s time to admit that you have a problem

IrishPete said :

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

IP

Man – where’d they buy their petrol??

Response to various previous comments:

Taxation (or at least income tax) is already based on income.

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

It is inequitable for rich people to be able to park with impunity and just pay the fine out of the change they find down the back of their sofa. You clearly want to punish poor people and that’s fine (pun intended). But you also clearly don’t want to punish rich people, and that’s not okay.

IP

Seems like Simon has got another fine – parking in the taxi zone outside Coolaman Court again perhaps? See http://www.policespeedcameras.info/index.php/en/speed-camera-information-statistics-assaults/assaults-on-operators-a-cameras/politicians-caught-speeding-name-and-shame/409-aussie-mlas-clock-up-$4247-in-fines.html

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

Hey they should try this in the tax system too so I dont have to pay a higher percentage of my wage in tax simply because I choose to work harder. I’m sure you’d agree that its inequitable for me to pay a higher percentage of my income in tax right?

If only the tax people would cotton on to this idea…imagine how easy it would make life. Still, parking on credit sounds good to me.

Jono said :

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Making a decision on whether to leave a good party or stay and let your hair down based on where you happened to have parked your car sounds terribly exciting though.

But you’re welcome. I don’t have an issue with admitting mistakes but that was one I didn’t regret. I still insist not allowing people to pay for Saturday morning parking on the Friday night increases the risk of drunk people on the roads. But thinking about strategies to prevent stupid people from making stupid decisions is clearly stupid.

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

screaming banshee said :

Watson said :

the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time).

What a pathetic whinge. You chose to drive into civic. You chose to drink to an extent which meant you could not legally drive home. There was no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to do these things. Take some responsibility for your actions.

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more? It is logical that if you want to encourage people to make the right decision when they realise they’re over the limit, give them an opportunity to leave the car without getting fined.

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

It also begs the question: a car costs more than $100 a week to run. So with all the complaints about people on welfare not having enough money for food, how come so many of these people who can’t stump up a parking fine can afford to drive a car?

Just to show how proud they are of their bus network. Making it easier to be bad and own a car for poor folk

All they will have to do is get a medical certificate (through bulk-billing) to organise no-shows for their “community service”.

And that “community service” is notoriously slack. A woman I know did hers in an art gallery, sitting on the internet for three hour stints over a few weeks.

Watson said :

the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time).

What a pathetic whinge. You chose to drive into civic. You chose to drink to an extent which meant you could not legally drive home. There was no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to do these things. Take some responsibility for your actions.

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

How are they going to be more equitable given the low income earners still have to pay the full amount??

Simple – set the fines as a proportion of income.

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

Ben_Dover said :

IrishPete said :

It’s the act which is punishable, income should have nothing to do with it.

Do you think a $100 fine will deter a rich person from parking in a disacled parking space, as much as it will deter a poor person?

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

How are they going to be more equitable given the low income earners still have to pay the full amount??

IrishPete said :

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
IP

the idea of unit fines may also have been undermined by the fact that they are fundamentally inequitable and probably counterproductive. A person engaging in some dangerous or illegal act imposes the same social cost whether they are rich or whether they are poor.

Firstly, how do you define income? Should a PAYG person pay more than a self-employed contractor, who may accumulate a lot more wealth in a given period but have little “income”?

Also, truly dangerous social conduct is subject to non-monetary sanctions (such as eventually accruing enough demerit points as to lose the legal entitlement to drive). Sure, parking infringements don’t have the same effect, but as much as it may irk you, overstaying your allocated 15 minutes or inconveniencing a disabled person isn’t actually a life-or-death decision. It’s not worth re-engineering an penalty system and introducing worse side effects to account for people that earn enough money that a $70 parking fine won’t deter them from saving 5 minutes.

In a lot of cases, wealth may reduce the social harm caused by given conduct. A brand new volvo, for example, is likely to be better at avoiding an accident (brakes, avoidance tech) so speeding becomes less dangerous for a relatively wealthy person compared with a person driving a cheaper car. Also in the event of an accident I’d rather be hit by a volvo, with it’s auto-eject bonnet to protect me from the engine block, than (say) a commodore.

To the extent that social harm is not subject to private or social insurance, wealthy individuals are more likley to be able to fully compensate the social harm their illegal acts cause.

Finally, if someone has no income, or negative income, does this mean they should get to wander around breaking the law with impunity and no financial consequences whatsoever? In fact if they have negative income (their home business or hobby farm happened to run a loss this financial year) then presumably we should be paying them to commit crimes? I don’t think so.

For these reasons, unit penalties or wealth-dependent penalties are unworkable and simply a bad idea.

IrishPete said :

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Is a disabled person less inconvenienced if a poor person parks illegally in a disabled place?

It’s the act which is punishable, income should have nothing to do with it.

Corbell is pandering to his fan base.

They’re expensive fines with a certain time frame for payment for a reason… to stop you breaking the law! How about these welfare bumpkins start obeying the road/parking rules and then they won’t get fined.
Problem solved, move on.

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

Alderney said :

So, where is the disinsentive to drive and park like a tool?

I couldn’t tell you the amount of people I knew in my younger/wilder days who got out of doing community service.

How many people get fines anyway? Certainly not me or many that I know.

Here’s an idea, how about doing the right thing in the first place so you don’t get fined. It’s driving, i.e. not that difficult.

Well aren’t you a good boy/girl.

I have contributed plenty to the ACT revenue through parking fines. For staying too long in a limited time spot. Or for not having a valid parking voucher thingy: forgot, no change, came back later than expected, or in one case when I had one too many and did the right thing and left the car in Civic to take a cab home only to find a fine on my windscreen the next morning (the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time). Near my office there is only a staff carpark that is completely full after 8.30am and 1 and 2 hour parking so if I get stuck in a meeting I make the parking inspectors happy. Again. That’s ok, no thanks needed.

I wouldn’t use it as I am not that poor and rather get it over and done with but I don’t see why you shouldn’t allow people a payment plan for their fines. Provided that the cost of implementing this is less than the revenue raised indeed.

“… may be going through a particularly difficult period in their lives,” .. it seems there’s a lot you can get away with in Canberra if you mention some difficulties around living and stuff.

According to Simon’s usual idiotic thinking, shouldn’t the shop you illegally park out the front of have to pay the fine?

So, where is the disinsentive to drive and park like a tool?

I couldn’t tell you the amount of people I knew in my younger/wilder days who got out of doing community service.

How many people get fines anyway? Certainly not me or many that I know.

Here’s an idea, how about doing the right thing in the first place so you don’t get fined. It’s driving, i.e. not that difficult.

Mickey is clearly disabled.

I love your headlines; there hasn’t been as much snark around here lately!

At ten dollars a fortnight you could well be paying twenty times that every fortnight in parking fees to avoid getting further fines…

Pandering, pandering, pandering…..

Sounds like it could cost more to administer than the income derived from the fines etc.

And of course, it still doesn’t deal with bigger issue that you have to actually have Police on patrol in order for people to get caught in the first place.