Portland city commissioner proposes speeding tickets based on income

Take a speeding joyride in Portland and you could be slapped with a $100,000 ticket if City Commissioner Steve Novick has a say in the matter. The Democrat has a progressive take on how to tax Portland residents in the future — income-adjusted fines.

During Portland’s city council’s debate over an arts tax, Novick brought transportation fines into the mix. According to him, having the Internal Revenue Service determine the amount of a speeding ticket would be the ‘ideal’ approach.

“Everybody pays the same for parking, everybody pays the same in parking tickets. Logistically, right now, it’s impractical to change that, but I wish it were otherwise,” Novick said during the work session. “I wish we had a system like Finland, where the Highway Patrol’s computers are linked up to that of Finland’s IRS, and if you’re a chief executive at Nokia and you’re caught speeding you pay over $100,000. I think that would be ideal.”

Despite more and more European cities relying on income to determine the amount of speeding fines, the U.S. still operates on a flat-fine, where a violator pays the predetermined amount.

Earlier this year, an Oregon motorcyclist received an astonishingly high ticket of $1,103 for going 130 mph in a 55 mph zone on his brand-new Ducati motorcycle. While that fee cost the speeder a good chunk of money, that is the automatic fine for anyone traveling more than 100 mph in the Beaver State.

While Novick, who is also the transportation commissioner, said that handling the city’s transportation fees in a percentage-based manner is not currently an option, he proposed the progressive tax for the city’s art tax. He believes that the current tax of $35 per year, which goes towards funding Portland teachers and art-focused nonprofits in the city, is “beyond regressive” and disadvantageous to the poor.

“Besides, it’s traditional for the rich to support the arts,” Novick wrote in a letter to the Oregonian editorial board. “If Lorenzo de’ Medici had only spent $35, or $100, or $250 a year on the arts, none of us would have ever heard of Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci.”

Related Content