In civil cases, punitive damages are often awarded to discourage people from committing similar torts. Since compensatory damages cover all harms to victims, punitive damages are really just a windfall to victims (and their lawyers).
Why not tax punitive damages at a high rate? Say 70%. This would allow 30% to cover legal fees. Victims would retain all of their compensatory damages, and the tax burden on the rest of us (non-tort committing citizens) could be lowered. If our taxes don’t go down – let’s be realistic – at least there would be less of a deficit.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spam
Add your comment
Agreed... In addition I would make sure that the company was not allowed to deduct that punitave damages from their taxes.
It is my understanding that many penalties are treated as expenses and thus the company can deduct them. I would consider a judgement against the company as an illegal act and thus it should come directly from the profits.
I am not familiar with all the circumstances of these types of cases, but if the basic concept of the idea is carried to its conclusion, the personal problems of the victim should be adequately paid for by the compensatory damages and the punitive damages are in concept congruent with a fine which should be paid to the state to discourage further actions along the same line by the party convicted. In other words, the total punitive damages should be paid into the social system. Legal fees should be in addition to the damages and paid in full by the convicted party.
Punitive damages are intended to punish only the most reprehensible conduct. When someone has been at the bad end of that conduct, I don't think the victim sees the punitive damage award as a "windfall" at all. They probably lost an arm, or a loved one, or had their life savings wiped out. Even full compensatory damages probably doesn't make that victim feel "whole" again, especially after a probably long, bitter and expensive trial. Taking the punitive damages out of their hands after they suffered the harm, seems awfully cruel.
An idea worth further consideration. Particularly in cases marginally related to disability access where a building was in fact up to code, or environmental law where harm was neither threatened nor in progress, this should help to take the "professional litigant" who earns no income by honest work out of the picture.
Collecting on a judgment after the verdict has been delivered is different than having won a judgment to collect! What strikes me to the core of my ethics is that the courts are SO competent at sticking their noses into everyone's businesses claiming that they have the jurisdiction to do so, yet they won't ever exercise their will to help the winning party to actually collect the judgment without further legal action of the winning party!
When a party wins a judgment it then needs to collect. Should the losing party not wish to pay, the winning party then has to FURTHER go through legal maneuvering to actually get that which they have actually won. This is just plain asinine and ridiculous!
So, taxing punitive damages would be a moot issue for me if damages would HAVE to be awarded at the time of the "responsible" verdict coming in against the losing party! Should they not be able to pay, other arrangements would have to be made IMMEDIATELY... not days, weeks, months, years later!