Poll of the Day > This is a perfect example of how flawed our system is.

(+) Yeah! (+)

We use fines as a deterrent for things like speeding, running red lights, parking where they say you can't etc., but then rely on the revenue from the fines to run a city. They say don't do it but also rely on people to do it in order to pay for things. It's very mixed messages. There has to be a better way.

---

It always kind of amuses me when people complain about speeding fines but then also insist that they don't want to be told what to do and continue to speed to "stick it to the man." The absolute best way to protest against speeding fines is to never speed, and to encourage everyone you know to follow suit. That way, the man gets less of your money, which is a much more meaningful attack on him than paying for the privilege to defy him.

---

I'm glad they invented taxes. Gee what a concept. Good thing I know more than Trump haters who wasted their education.

---

They use the fines to pay for the enforcement who work to enforce those fines. If fines went down so would the size of police departments and you would just be left with what tax dollars pay for.

Im 14 and this is deep

---

https://i.imgur.com/q0hTOaI.mp4

Any money generated for government winds up being relied upon for government. This is an elementary-level concept. What's your alternative? To burn the money instead of giving it to government? And in a system where people stopped doing the activity, these departments would be funded in other ways. More importantly, in a system where people almost-always obey the laws, you wouldn't need to support a large department anyway.

---

I'm am 100% not surprised by the people defending a system that says "Don't do this or you'll have to pay" when they actually want you to do it and actively work to create more finable offense to pay their salaries.

---

lol

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm am 100% not surprised by the people defending a system that says "Don't do this or you'll have to pay" when they actually want you to do it and actively work to create more finable offense to pay their salaries.

So don't do it so they don't get any money. It's very simple and the most effective way to punish them for relying on your non-compliance to fund themselves.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm am 100% not surprised by the people defending a system that says "Don't do this or you'll have to pay" when they actually want you to do it and actively work to create more finable offense to pay their salaries.

Sunny the system isn't flawed, it's broken. Maybe beyond repair if we don't start voting some of these idiots out of office. We need a complete overhaul of the legislative and judicial systems yesterday.


---

SunWuKung420 posted...

I'm am 100% not surprised by the people defending a system that says "Don't do this or you'll have to pay" when they actually want you to do it and actively work to create more finable offense to pay their salaries.

Kind of like the homicide department is happy about a lot of murders because it means job security, right? Or how hospitals love it when people get sick? Seriously, stop quadrupling down on your stupid statements. Otherwise what do you suggest as an alternative? Imprisoning anybody who speeds? Or just taking their licenses? Because imprisoning speeders just adds to costs, unless you make the speeders pay the prisons for hosting them at which point the fines get even higher.


---

Sunny probably thinks the cure for cancer exists but Big Pharma is sitting on it because it would make them less money.

---

I'm also curious what Sunny's endgame is here. Does he not want traffic laws? Or does he just want laws with no enforcement mechanism so those laws might as well not exist?

---

Zareth posted...

Sunny probably thinks the cure for cancer exists but Big Pharma is sitting on it because it would make them less money.

hes an antivaxxer so theres that at least

---

Those fines only matter to poor people, that's half the reason they are like they are right there.

People nees to be punished for breaking laws and jail/prison is sometimes too extreme. Them profiting off it is just a unfortunate byproduct. What do you suggest? Public flogging?

Fines should be income based though. It should sting without breaking a person also as said it should sting...even the rich.

---

It's more messed up when you actually work in government/law enforcement and know the ins and outs of the entire business.

These companies get cities (tax payers) to pay for installing the cameras, maintaining the cameras, operating and reviewing footage, and sending/processing fines. Then, when they actually start creating revenue those same companies take a much larger percentage than the cities/municipalities receive. Not to mention, many state constitutions require an officer to be present at the time of a violation, making many of the cameras unconstitutional at a state level.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the comapnies lease the cameras out while maintaining ownership of them most of the time as well which is how they are able to do most of this.

Zeus posted...

I'm also curious what Sunny's endgame is here. Does he not want traffic laws? Or does he just want laws with no enforcement mechanism so those laws might as well not exist?

I don't want city budgets based on the revenue from fines.

---

adjl posted...

It always kind of amuses me when people complain about speeding fines but then also insist that they don't want to be told what to do and continue to speed to "stick it to the man." The absolute best way to protest against speeding fines is to never speed, and to encourage everyone you know to follow suit. That way, the man gets less of your money, which is a much more meaningful attack on him than paying for the privilege to defy him.

I mean you could also just not get caught. In provinces with photo radar I see much less stops because they assume youll get hit by a camera. Luckily they have to place a warning sign within one kilometer of the camera.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

We use fines as a deterrent for things like speeding, running red lights, parking where they say you can't etc., but then rely on the revenue from the fines to run a city. They say don't do it but also rely on people to do it in order to pay for things. It's very mixed messages. There has to be a better way.

Voluntary taxation is the best taxation. To paraphrase Baretta, if you can't pay the fine, don't do the minor civil infraction. And, good advice when barbequing, keep your eye on the spareribs.

---

They'd raise taxes instead but you'd rush town hall with guns. Fines are easier to defend as the charged commited an offense.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They'd raise taxes instead but you'd rush town hall with guns. Fines are easier to defend as the charged commited an offense.

Inventing finable offenses isn't sustainable.

---

somebody is either stoned or drunk. such deep thoughts, sunny, ok?

---

So what will happen once self-driving cars become the norm? Since the cars won't break the law, there won't be any more speeding tickets or red-light violations. What will happen to the police departments that rely on that income?

---

captpackrat posted...

So what will happen once self-driving cars become the norm? Since the cars won't break the law, there won't be any more speeding tickets or red-light violations. What will happen to the police departments that rely on that income?

Zoning and nuisance laws? "I have to cite you, your grass is 1/2" too high". "But, Officer, give me a break, it's TALL fescue! "

---

Pointman posted...

Those fines only matter to poor people, that's half the reason they are like they are right there.

Fines matter to everybody, particularly since they also raise your insurance and count as strikes against your license.

mooreandrew58 posted...

People nees to be punished for breaking laws and jail/prison is sometimes too extreme. Them profiting off it is just a unfortunate byproduct. What do you suggest? Public flogging?

tbh, besides imprisonment and fines, I think that's the only other real option for a punishment and we don't do that any more.

umop_apisdn posted...

It's more messed up when you actually work in government/law enforcement and know the ins and outs of the entire business.

These companies get cities (tax payers) to pay for installing the cameras, maintaining the cameras, operating and reviewing footage, and sending/processing fines. Then, when they actually start creating revenue those same companies take a much larger percentage than the cities/municipalities receive. Not to mention, many state constitutions require an officer to be present at the time of a violation, making many of the cameras unconstitutional at a state level.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the comapnies lease the cameras out while maintaining ownership of them most of the time as well which is how they are able to do most of this.

But you guys should like that system because then it's not government depending on the money!

SunWuKung420 posted...

I don't want city budgets based on the revenue from fines.

If government gets money from something, it's going to rely on it. Simple as that.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Inventing finable offenses isn't sustainable.

Not having an enforcement mechanism for traffic laws isn't sustainable. And prior to traffic laws, there were far more injuries and fatalities. Even today, there are far more injuries and fatalities than there should be because people drive drunk and aren't always going to be deterred by fines so they speed and run red lights. (And there's no punishment that can completely deter an activity, not even the death penalty.)

captpackrat posted...

So what will happen once self-driving cars become the norm? Since the cars won't break the law, there won't be any more speeding tickets or red-light violations. What will happen to the police departments that rely on that income?

The income would go back to coming from taxes, duh, and people would bitch about their taxes going up. Common sense, but I know that's in short supply here.

That's assuming people don't illegally modify their self-driving cars and that the technology will ever be fully implemented. This nation has a tremendous stubborn streak, right down to people who feel so entitled that they think they shouldn't have to pay fines for breaking traffic laws and should be allowed to drive as recklessly as they like.

---

Of course zues is pro-corruption, because only the corrupt benefit from illegal activities.

---

Zeus posted...

But you guys should like that system because then it's not government depending on the money!

Did you even read my post before you replied to it? I know it must have been difficult to keep the context fresh in your mind, considering you replied to 6 different posts.

I was commenting on the corruption in the system, not on the merits of the system as whole if it was functioning as intended. It has some major flaws and needs some laws/constitutional amendments (at state levels) to make it function correctly. This would bring fines down drastically while increasing the revenue local municipalities receive.

Aculo posted...

somebody is either stoned or drunk. such deep thoughts, sunny, ok?

Sunny doesn't drink or do drugs because his brain is naturally impaired, ok?

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Of course zues is pro-corruption, because only the corrupt benefit from illegal activities.

Only Sunny could pretend that fines are corruption, and generally protest something as common-sense as traffic laws.

umop_apisdn posted...

Did you even read my post before you replied to it? I know it must have been difficult to keep the context fresh in your mind, considering you replied to 6 different posts.

I was commenting on the corruption in the system, not on the merits of the system as whole if it was functioning as intended. It has some major flaws and needs some laws/constitutional amendments (at state levels) to make it function correctly. This would bring fines down drastically while increasing the revenue local municipalities receive.

Did I read that you were bitching about third-parties collecting the money in a topic where people were bitching about government collecting the money? Yes, yes I did. My remark stands, especially when you turn around the try to pretend that it's "corruption." While letting third-parties potentially profit by offering services in the space is distasteful, they offer a functionality that would otherwise be onerous for the municipality to try to manage themselves.

---

Zeus posted...

Did I read that you were bitching about third-parties collecting the money in a topic where people were bitching about government collecting the money? Yes, yes I did. My remark stands, especially when you turn around the try to pretend that it's "corruption." While letting third-parties potentially profit by offering services in the space is distasteful, they offer a functionality that would otherwise be onerous for the municipality to try to manage themselves.

Obviously you think your "remark stands." I could use my years of experience as a liaison between the local PD and the mayor's office to educate you, but it would pointless. You are just a bored, internet troll looking for attention, pretending you know what you are talking about. No amount of facts or information would put you at ease, you want drama.

Transparent and pointless. Consider this last bit of attention a gift from me, to you.

umop_apisdn posted...

Obviously you think your "remark stands." I could use my years of experience as a liaison between the local PD and the mayor's office to educate you, but it would pointless. You are just a bored, internet troll looking for attention, pretending you know what you are talking about. No amount of facts or information would put you at ease, you want drama.

Transparent and pointless. Consider this last bit of attention a gift from me, to you.

you might get lucky, he's blocking everyone who calls him out lately, ok?

---