Michigan can suspend poor people's driver's licenses for unpaid fines: U.S. appeals court

[Billie.jeens]

(Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that Michigan may suspend the driver's licenses of poor people with unpaid traffic fines, saying it did not violate their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

By a 2-1 vote, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Michigan had legitimate interests in promoting compliance with court orders and collecting traffic debt.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michi ... spartanntp

[ReadingRainbow]

That was how it was in California also...It doesn't target poor people, it is a deterrent from illegal driving.

[TheQueenOfEverything]

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

That was how it was in California also...It doesn't target poor people, it is a deterrent from illegal driving.

[ReadingRainbow]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

That was how it was in California also...It doesn't target poor people, it is a deterrent from illegal driving.

[Deleted User 1018]

Oh well. Standard rule is pay your fines or get in trouble. My broke ass is able to come up with the funds I need to pay my fines, so I'm very empathetic of other people who can't.

[Francee89]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

That was how it was in California also...It doesn't target poor people, it is a deterrent from illegal driving.

For sure, but the point QOE is making is that the consequences for having these fines are disproportionately burdensome on the poor. If I get a $40 parking ticket, I’m momentarily irritated but it’s not the end of the world. For someone that can’t afford the $40 and who might incur late fees on the $40 they couldn’t afford in the first place trying to save up to pay for it, it’s a huge deal. Obviously people of every socioeconomic status have the option of obeying the regulations in the first place, but the consequences of not doing so are much more severe on the poor.

[Billie.jeens]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

For sure, but the point QOE is making is that the consequences for having these fines are disproportionately burdensome on the poor. If I get a $40 parking ticket, I’m momentarily irritated but it’s not the end of the world. For someone that can’t afford the $40 and who might incur late fees on the $40 they couldn’t afford in the first place trying to save up to pay for it, it’s a huge deal. Obviously people of every socioeconomic status have the option of obeying the regulations in the first place, but the consequences of not doing so are much more severe on the poor.

Everything hurts the poor more
As it should
It's an incentive not to be poor

[morgan]

Ok. But absolutely everyone who drives has the option of not speeding. Everyone has the option of using their blinker.

While ok... jackasses might park in the handicapped spot and get a ticket for it, everyone has the option of parking a little farther away if they don't have a disability.

For sure, but the point QOE is making is that the consequences for having these fines are disproportionately burdensome on the poor. If I get a $40 parking ticket, I’m momentarily irritated but it’s not the end of the world. For someone that can’t afford the $40 and who might incur late fees on the $40 they couldn’t afford in the first place trying to save up to pay for it, it’s a huge deal. Obviously people of every socioeconomic status have the option of obeying the regulations in the first place, but the consequences of not doing so are much more severe on the poor.

Everything hurts the poor more
As it should
It's an incentive not to be poor

It should be. But we give incentives for being poor.
Up is down to some, right?

[EarlGrayHot]

An incentive not to be poor? That's definitely one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Sometimes people cannot help their economic situation.

[PoplarGrove]

It does target poor people. If someone can afford the fines, it’s no more of a deterrent than the fine itself. So it’s only an additional deterrent to those who can’t afford the fines.

I read a thread on reddit (I think) a long tome ago and this one girl said something that really stuck with me. She had dated a guy from a really wealthy family and she said one thing about him was that whenever they’d be somewhere and he’d do something he wasn’t supposed to she’d notice this. Like “you can’t park there, that’s a handicapped spot.” “Oh, it’s fine, it’s just $300.” “You can’t have bring that bottle from the bar with you.” “I can, it’s only $150.” He could easily afford the fines so he didn’t see them as a deterrent, just thought of them as what it cost to do whatever he wanted.

In Finland, traffic fines are based on your income. I think that’s a much better and more equitable system. As it is now we basically have one set of laws for the poor and another for the affluent.

That was how it was in California also...It doesn't target poor people, it is a deterrent from illegal driving.

I went to school with kids who thought just like that guy. Most were kids of lawyers and successful businessmen. While I grew up in the same world my parents would have killed me if I racked up fines the way those kids did.

I like Finland's model. It would stop the rich, entitled bastards from seeing the fines as a fee to do whatever you want.