$56,000 Speeding Ticket Issued Under Finland's System of Fines Based On Income 760
HughPickens.com writes Joe Pinsker writes at The Atlantic that Finish businessman Reima Kuisla was recently caught going 65 miles per hour in a 50 zone in his home country and ended up paying a fine of $56,000. The fine was so extreme because in Finland, some traffic fines, as well as fines for shoplifting and violating securities-exchange laws, are assessed based on earnings—and Kuisla's declared income was €6.5 million per year. Several years ago another executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle. Finland's system for calculating fines is relatively simple: It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two—the resulting number is considered a reasonable amount of spending money to deprive the offender of. Then, based on the severity of the crime, the system has rules for how many days the offender must go without that money. Going about 15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12 days, and going 25 mph over carries a 22-day multiplier. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland also have some sliding-scale fines, or "day-fines," in place, but in America, flat-rate fines are the norm. Since the late 80s, when day-fines were first seriously tested in the U.S., they have remained unusual and even exotic.
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see why this is a problem.
Re:well.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In regards to your first point, the system would have to be based on the offender's net worth rather than their income in the US, due to all of the tricks that the rich have paid to create in the tax code. And then we'd need a semi-accurate way of calculating net worth. (And then, of course, once we have that, we can adjust the tax code to pay attention to changes in net worth rather than "income", which would help a lot with the tax evasion problem!)
As for your third point, the cops would have to start overenforcing and creating crime against the rich instead of the poor in order to bolster their budgets. Frankly, I think this would be a good change. The rich can fight back better, and we might actually see some meaningful change in the policies of police departments this way.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, wait wait....
Isn't the point of the fine, to enforce the concept of SAFETY?
Let's take revenue generation for the city/police/state OUT of the equation. It is a HUGE conflict of interest for those enforcing this fine to be also the beneficiaries of it.
Why not take all the money that is collected in fines for speeding, jay walking, etc.....and at the end of the year, redistribute it to all the citizens that have NOT gotten a fine that year?
The motto of the police force should not be "To Collect and Serve" after all, but yet it seems to be their primary motivating force these days. I'd venture to guess the high enthusiasm we currently see to enforce speeding laws would drop drastically if the cops didn't directly benefit from it monetarily.
But here's the way it works in most cases I see. They just want the money. In my city and I think in many others, if you are SMART, you do not automatically pay the fine and plea guilty. You take your day in court. I found out how it works at least in New Orleans. If you go to court, just before the judge comes for that day, the asst. DA takes you into his office and gives you a plea deal. Pretty much the same fine, BUT...the charge is reduced to a non-moving violation so that it doesn't go on your driving record.
So, check in your state, it may be VERY much worth your time to go to court rather than pay that fine. Me? I need to get an upgraded detector to catch the one asshole I found out there with a modern LIDAR.
That being said...lets take the direct collection of $$ away from the govt and back to the people, if this is for safety, then lets reward those that drive safely.
Overall...no, I'm not for outrageous fines for folks that are rich. It seems lately, for some reason, so many out there are treating wealth as something evil and bad. Frankly, the only reason I work is to increase my net worth. Money is the thing that allows me to live and have fun on a standard that makes my life fun. Why is everyone so inclined to try to just take as much as possible from others? Ok..maybe that's a whole new thread, but really....let's at least take the direct benefit of pulling people over out of the hands of those enforcing the law and then look at fine "balance".
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the idea is that is supposed to be more an incentive to not get a ticket, so that the sting hurts everyone equally. It would have to be carefully implemented to not be abusive.
It is probably an emotional response to seeing some rich **** flaunt the law with zero consequence to themselves, where a ticket like that could destroy someone scraping by : see http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]. I have sympathy for the idea and when I was in Germany, there were similar laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Revenue is the entire point of most traffic tickets. Look at the stats for speeding tickets, or stop light cameras, and it's as bright as a road flare. When someone does something dangerous, or actually does harm, no ticket is ever written -- when I was rear-ended, destroying my car, the idiot soccer mom that did it received no ticket at all. When you rear-end someone sitting at a stop light in rush hour traffic on a five lane highway less than a mile from the trailer park you call home -- i.e. a road you d
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a fine is supposed to be a deterrent. A below-average Joe may have trouble paying a fine of several hundred dollars while a rich guy has options.
The fine may be trivial, impounding his car may not work as he may have more than one or renting one long term isn't financially onerous - or he can just buy another new out of pocket. Or he can hire a chauffeur or even risk driving without a license.
It's not about taking from "the makers", it's about not allowing rich assholes to flout the law just because they have more money.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem you have with your system is that the fines are retained by the police, they should go into state revenue without earmarks.
That said, they're still really enthusiastic to fine speeders here; they still get to swagger and chide you like a naughty child after breaking more laws than the person they're "in pursuit" of, that hasn't actually fled.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily evil, but something that's almost alive in its own right. Wealth has a logic all of its own, and makes demands to its nominal owners which tend to be destructive to other people. Few would break into someone's house and throw the occupants out, but one wealthy person closes a factory, rendering all the employees unemployed, and then a bank owned by another repossesses their homes. Neither of th
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean rent it out to another farmer that can only make $20k from farming the land? Seriously, the progressive city dwellers really have no clue about real world economics. It's all rainbows and butterflies.
Re: (Score:3)
It only makes 20K only as long as the farmer owns it. When someone else buys it, they can bribe the local politicians to change the zoning and suddenly the land can make quite a bit more.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It hurts revenue generation for the police force because a lot of the people pulled over are in poverty and get small fines.
You're making the assumption that this would continue. Instead, it's more likely the police would target more expensive cars for smaller infractions, since a BMW going 6mph over the limit is likely to be more lucrative than a rusted-out Dodge Dart going 15mph over.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In Finland the money from speeding tickets goes to the state, not the local county/city. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the money from tickets issued by the police goes at least partially to the local county and state. If there was equally only a federal police force in the US, I don't think there would be an issue with it.
Re: (Score:3)
To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the money from tickets issued by the police goes at least partially to the local county and state
You're correct that in most (all?) of the US the local municipality gets a portion of any driving citations.
That's why many of them (at least here in SC) will often issue a "Careless Operation" ticket when they pull you over as a "favor". A speeding ticket here is often less than $100 but levies "points" against your license (ie, they make your insurance rate go up). Careless Operation runs around $250 but has no points associated, so your insurance generally isn't affected. The drivers thinks they're ge
And this is bad....why? (Score:3)
So people of wealth and means will be subject to the horrific process of policing for profit and be able to force change instead of ignoring it because to them the fines are equivalent to their meal that night instead of groceries for a month for a poor person.
Traffic fines are the number one most regressive system we have in the US. Outrageous fines is a huge trap for poor people because while they are generally law abiding citizens they simply can't pay them and get caught in a never ending cycles of fin
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen more jackasses in Hondas than I have in BMWs. Driving a less expensive car doesn't make you a better or more responsible driver, it just makes you stand out less.
Moot point (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I like to drive fast
If you like to 'drive fast' 'on the way to work or the grocery store' you probably shouldn't be driving, or at least should pay heavily for the privilege of making things more dangerous for the rest of us.
You can still have your fun while driving in the designated areas that are generally called 'race tracks'.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the law shouldn't be that its a cash machine. It's that it should discourage illegal activities. Part of the problem is that police forces proceed from the faulty premise that their job it to fund the department. It shouldn't be. It should first and foremost be to serve the public trust by upholding and enforcing the law.
Presently speeding tickets aren't a deterrent to rich people because they're absurdly low. I think a sliding scale based on income isn't just a good idea, it's the only logical idea that works fairly to discourage the act.
Focus on the big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to determine what someone's yearly income is. Some very wealthy people hide most of their income for tax purposes making this difficult.
The IRS is pretty good at this. Sure there will be some people that weasel out of some money they might otherwise owe but the it doesn't make the basic idea a bad one. In the US there are some privacy and states rights issues to work through along with a general distrust of government so I don't really see such a thing becoming common here.
It hurts revenue generation for the police force because a lot of the people pulled over are in poverty and get small fines.
Revenue from illegal activity should NEVER be used to fund policing. It simply is too big of a conflict of interest. Fines from stuff like parking tickets should be used to fund other things (education, roads, etc) but it should not be available to police.
Finland uses your declared, taxable income (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever heard the expression "money is fungible"?
If your speeding tickets go to funding the schools, the local government will just lower the school budget (since they're going to get the speeding ticket money), and raise the police budget (since th
Re:Focus on the big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to determine what someone's yearly income is. Some very wealthy people hide most of their income for tax purposes making this difficult.
Since I am a certified accountant, yeah the concept is not new to me.
If your speeding tickets go to funding the schools, the local government will just lower the school budget (since they're going to get the speeding ticket money), and raise the police budget (since that will let them write more speeding tickets to pay for the schools).
So you give the money to someone other than the jurisdiction issuing the ticket. Or have the revenue go to charity or even refunded back to the citizens. It's not actually difficult to make playing three card monte with the budget difficult.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Informative)
It hurts revenue generation for the police force
Top Tip: In Finland the police isn't depending on 'revenue'. Policing Finland as a preset, defined budget. Any fines levied are a surplus to the states income, and police forces do not benefit in any way from their law enforcing activities. Finnish police has to account for security, safety and crimes solved, not for income from speeding tickets.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I do.
15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12
The problem is fines are supposed to be for the encouragement of safe driving. It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue.
Change that multiplier to 1 and you may have something.
Also this?
"After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates."
Let me explain this to you. Reckless means an action that puts people in danger.
Driving without a license plate and or parking in a handicapped spot does not put people into danger.
It may be rude or even morally wrong but it is putting anyone in danger so it not reckless.
BTW I have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade and I do not park in handicapped spots but the use of law enforcement for generating revenue is a terrible trend and needs to be stopped.
If you want to do fines right IMHO the first fine in a year should be 1 day the second 10 days and third 50 days and the fourth 100 days.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. All fines generate revenue, and traffic enforcement counts as one of the worst offenders.
"Gee, why does the speed suddenly drop from 45 to 25 for a tenth of a mile riiight at that otherwise-uninteresting spot where cops can easily hide?"
"Safety."
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. All fines generate revenue
Fine, they all generate revenue AND they are a means of punishment.
Perhaps the ideal, then, is to keep the punishment and change how revenue generation works.
Some law enforcement agencies do not see a dime of that money directly, but it gets pooled at the state level into general funding (along with tax revenue). Law enforcement, along with all other government activities, is then funded from that general fund. This indirect funding reduces the correlation of enforcement zones (aka speed traps) to revenue
Re:well.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.
But need we all be reminded of this.... IF you have something to loose, it's a bad idea to run around doing dangerous things. So if Richie Rich was speeding and being negligent, wrecks your car and you get injured in the process, you can bet that he will be fined for breaking the law, and then found liable in Civil court for his actions. Richie will be less rich after that.
So, here in the USA, this graduated fine idea really isn't necessary. We already have an effective way to deal with such eventualities. Not to mention it supports a whole industry that keeps personal injury attorneys chasing ambulances and in business and the civil courts busy.
Re:well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
People don't speed because they're "intent on breaking the law", they speed because they think they can get away with it. Raise the fines and a lot of speeders do go away.
And no, it's not just theory. It's very visible among immigrants from my own country who move into US and other Western countries. First they drive recklessly, because they're used to the notion that fines are small, and you can usually bribe the officer anyway. This continues until they get slapped with several hundred dollars for speedin
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules. The guy in the article makes €6.5 million a year, almost €18000 a day--do you think he gives a single shit about a €50 fine? €1000?
We sort of cover this in the US with points; you can't just drive recklessly and pay for it out of petty cash forever because you'll lose your license. But the day fine concept seems like a decent way to instill the same kind of aversion in everyone, fairly. Points are ephemeral but your money is obvious.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Informative)
I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules.
You can't have one without the other. Unless you deny the entire government the money from the fines, the rich will become the only ones targeted by traffic cops. It's already bad enough that police departments prioritize money over safety. It could perhaps become bad enough that the cops ignore anyone without an extremely nice car because the revenue is not worth it.
Of COURSE you can have it both ways... (Score:4, Informative)
Just say that fine revenue above police administrative costs goes somewhere else, so the people issuing the tickets don't directly benefit.
Since these are local/state offenses, the obvious place would be the state general fund.
There's potential for abuse, of course - states might have to specify maximum admin costs.
I bet the enthusiasm for local speed traps would drop way off under such a system. Sounds win/win to me.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are targeting any minority of the population while you are supposed to be pushing "safety", you're doing it wrong. In this case, the rich get lawyers and get off, and the not-rich aren't even enforced upon because they cease to be juicy targets.
Which means there's less safety and not more.
Right now, the rich probably drive with impunity, but there are a lot fewer rich than poor. If the poor drive just as badly, and there are more of them, then despite the unfairness of the situation, you're actuall
Re: (Score:3)
Except most speed limits are complete bullshit, at least in the US.
There are highways in NYC that have a 40mph minimum and a 45 mph maximum. Think that has anything to do with the ability to fine pretty much anyone at any time?
Roads have pretty natural speed limits regardless of the imposed limit, and it would be trivial to figure them out by simply taking an average over the course of a few days. I would venture a guess for the majority of the highways it would be substantially higher than the posted limit
Re:well.. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is fines are supposed to be for the encouragement of safe driving. It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue.
Change that multiplier to 1 and you may have something.
If the goal is to encourage safe driving then the fine must have some effect on the person being fined. If it is too low they won't care.
I agree that speeding fines are not for generating revenue, but that doesn't seem to be the primary factor in determining the amount.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue
I propose that all traffic fine revenue should simply be placed into a pot, and then distributed back each year to everyone with a vehicle insured in the jurisdiction. Then its revenue neutral to the police / government / state; and its only function is to be used as a punitive / disincentive to driving poorly. I figure that solves a lot problems.
A tax increase is required to offset it though since we'd have to fund the police enforcement directly. But that's a good thing.
Driving without a license plate and or parking in a handicapped spot does not put people into danger. It may be rude or even morally wrong but it is putting anyone in danger so it not reckless.
I agree. But I also wouldn't call 1
Re: (Score:3)
BTW I have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade and I do not park in handicapped spots but the use of law enforcement for generating revenue is a terrible trend and needs to be stopped.
The way to do this is to remove the reward incentive from fines.
If the fines go to the general fund for whatever the highest political entity is (eg, if Ferguson, MO fines somebody, the money goes to the state's general fund) then you remove any financial incentive for the local police to fine anyone, because the money
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Releasing of elderly prisoners on "compassion" grounds is a lie. Elderly prisoners are released on "compassion" grounds because the elderly have lots of medical expenses at the end of their life and if you keep the elderly prisoner in prison you have to pay all his medical expenses.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.
Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.
Re: (Score:3)
This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.
Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.
To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.
Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.
I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply and demand don't exist in a post-industrial economy.
Once the manufacturing power is concentrated into the hands of a few people / corporations, collusion is easy, competition is pointless, and getting fucked is the norm. Anything sufficiently complicated (building cars, running a telecommunications network, running a taxi service, practicing law or medicine or any other enshrined "profession", etc.) is run by an established group of people with the investments, equipment, rights, and powers necessary. They then actively seek regulation, attack new players, and buyout / sue to death anyone who dares to compete in order to protect their established death grip on the sector.
Once China/Taiwan/Malaysia finish their transition, it's game over for supply/demand until someone can stabilize Africa to the point of industrializing it and exploiting it for cheap labor.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it does.
Supply is controlled so tightly by a few to the point where:
- A drop in demand has no corresponding effect on price.
- A temporary increase in demand has a long-lasting increase on price.
- Supply is artificially constrained in order to jack up profits.
Worst thing that happens? (Score:2, Insightful)
The free riders get another free ride.
Also Ferguson? The % of people being ticketed for expired plates should not be against the general pop. It should be the non-registering population.
Time is money (Score:2)
One alternative is to abolish fines, and send people to jail for an amount of time relative to the infraction. Everyone gets about 22,000 days [source: The Moody Blues] so the punishment would be equal regardless of income, right?
Re:Time is money (Score:5, Insightful)
Lower-income people can lose their jobs if they have to be away from work for even a few days, especially if it’s due to incarceration. Even if they don’t get fired, hourly workers will lose income, whereas salaried employees and people who live off of investment income won’t. And someone like Martha Stewart can go away for five months and have her media empire (which has been running profitably the whole time) waiting for her when she gets out.
So no, not equal at all. (This is also why a flat tax is unequal despite being equally applied.)
Re:Time is money (Score:5, Insightful)
So make one change - replace 'jail' with community service,
One speeding ticket = 4 hours spent picking up garbage on the side of the road.
Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you view the fines as a deterrent or a punishment, it makes sense that under a flat-fine structure, rich people will be unaffected by fines that are crippling for poor people to pay.
If a class of people can simply ignore the penalties doled out for breaking a law, that system needs reworking.
There are probably some devils lurking in the details (some very rich people have little income; is spending money a good proxy, some people live just within their means and others save quite a bit, etc etc), but the basic idea seems very sound.
Re:Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
Changing it to a percent of wealth or income would encourage more rich people to hide their assets overseas. It wouldn't fix the problem. They have plenty of money to hire fancy lawyers and accountants to make sure their wealth remains in tact. Meanwhile, the middle class would probably get hosed because they have enough to be hurt by higher fines, but not enough to defend against it or hide their assets. And what happens to the poor? They'd get zero fine because they have nothing and earn nothing? That doesn't sound like it helps anything. The best thing for speeding, IMO, is to set better limits. If 90% of the traffic on a road travels higher than the limit, the limit isn't set right.
Re:Sounds good (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with increasing the speed limits is that some people will drive over the limit no matter what the limit is, figuring that (in my country) for +10km/h you only get a warning and for +20km/h the fine isn't that big, so they can afford it.
Having more speed cameras helps (in my country the speed cameras are preceded by an informational sign announcing their presence) as people drive slower when they know that they can get their picture taken.
As for the %income fines for the zero income people, I do not know how the law is in Finland, but IMO it could be that if you get zero income then you have to spend the 12 days or whatever in jail or doing community service.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, blindly:
You're find an absolute in terms of how many days of money you lose, not how many dollars.
Kinda 50 50 on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kinda 50 50 on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever tried fighting a speeding ticket? Fuck, there are countries where all it takes is a cop saying you were speeding to make you speeding!
You can't really fight that. Any lawyer worth his salt would just shrug and say "cough it up, it's useless".
So if I'm operating at a loss (Score:2)
Speeding is a way to make money?
Tickets Are All About Revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, tickets are all about revenue. The speed limits are enforced almost entirely arbitrarily, although every so often they do actually pull over someone who's being very reckless. If they were enforced much more stringently, people would start demanding that limits be raised and revenue would dry up. If you used some technical means to prevent people from speeding, revenue would dry up (As would sales of overpowered sports cars.) Of course we can't say that, because arbitrary enforcement of a law would be unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, try Australia, where we have : fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras, hand held radar, point to point average speed cameras. There's not much speeding going on in Oz, because ultimately the demerit point system is of more consequence than the monetary value of the fine.
Re: (Score:3)
In my country, the police does not have to "earn their keep" by bringing in fines. For example, all speed cameras are preceded by a sign informing the driver of the speed camera (and the sign is far enough away from the camera that you can slow down to the speed limit unless you were driving really fast). The rationale for the signs is this: "Although not having the signs would result in more tickets, having the signs makes everyone drive slow in the vicinity of the camera, and people obeying the speed limi
Re: (Score:3)
... Except in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland, where tickets are about a deterrent.
Because you know, they collect enough taxes to properly fund their civil services like police, so that, you know, they can do the jobs they are supposed to do and not focus on being tax collectors.
As much as Jobs was a ass (Score:5, Informative)
CA regs said you have six months to plate your new car. He just bought a new car every six months so what he did was legal.
Now for parking in handicapped spots, I'm all for crushing his vehicle.
Re:As much as Jobs was a ass (Score:5, Funny)
Cut him some slack. He was morally handicapped.
How do you Determine if you are rich? (Score:2)
It gets very complicated. The reason many wealthy people get low taxes, is because they know how to move the money they are not using at the moment away from being taxable. So on paper they may be earning 50k a year. While their net worth may be billions of dollars.
However you also have people with a high net worth, but do not really make a lot of money. For example farmers, They have millions of dollars in Land and equipment, However their quality of life is rather middle class. We really need to find
Not necessary in Canada because of demerit points (Score:2)
Do not pass go (Score:2)
I had contemplated a system like this to make the judiciary more equitable (other ideas include collecting all money to be spent on a court case to be divided equally between the parties- you are spending money for the decision, not to increase your chances of winning), and ultimately had to discard it as it seemed to favor increased lawlessness among the poor (if you have essentially no money, you can commit crimes with impunity as there is little cost). You could make up a hybrid system of an equal chance
Your "for example" doesn't really work (Score:2)
After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates.
Neither of the things mentioned in the example amount to being reckless.
Better idea... (Score:4)
I know, I know, crazy talk. Won't someone think of the revenue?
Potential for abuse (Score:3, Interesting)
The potential for abuse is insane. Say I'm rich. I simply hire some poor guy with zero income to break the law when I need it done (driving me around when I'm in a hurry is a good one). If he gets in trouble I give him a bonus. If he gets caught too many times then I hire some other guy. Really, this is a stupid idea, and will further lead to bias and all kinds of issues with the police. Want to bet people driving more expensive cars get pulled over more often there? Especially in jurisdictions that rely on traffic fine income to support their infrastructure. Cops have latitude in writing tickets, etc. Only going 5-10 over? It's their choice to pull you over or not. They are not *required* to by law, and because of that, the potential for discrimination based on wealth will happen. Maybe you've just a got a cop who financially is in rough shape and he wants to stick it to the man. Well, he'll just wait for a luxury car to come along and bust them for going 5-6 over the limit.
Stupid idea.
Re: (Score:3)
I simply hire some poor guy with zero income to break the law when I need it done (driving me around when I'm in a hurry is a good one). .
I'm pretty much poor and I do that now. It's called a taxi.
What about teens without an income? (Score:3, Interesting)
They are some of the worst habitual offenders on the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Community service and points.
Get rid of the financial incentive... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you thought it was bad how cops were targeting/ticketing poor people, wait until the police realize they can fund their whole budget if they can ticket a guy like Zuckerberg once or twice!
Before a system like this is in place, the financial incentive for cops to ticket people needs to be removed. Any fines need to be given back to the community via some type of property/income/sales tax rebate, rather than back to the city (which in essence goes back to the cops that are handing out the fines). For example, if $1,000,000 in fines were collected for a town with 10,000 property tax assessments, they could knock $100 off of each tax bill.
The same needs to be done with civil asset forfeitures. If there was ever a clearer case of conflict of interest, I haven't seen it.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe fine money should be donated to charity instead of given to the police department.
Steve Jobs WAS handicapped, moron. (Score:4, Interesting)
For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots
For your reference, a liver transplant gets you qualified for parking in a handicapped spot for some time after it occurs and all sorts of time while you're waiting, as does most of the other treatments he was going through.
Steve Job's crime was not displaying his tags, not that he wasn't a handicapped placard carrier.
And if you want to be retarded about it, he could have just bought a handicapped placard, but then his personal life and medical issues would have been on public display, which he didn't want.
So we're back to ... his crime was not having tags, THATS IT.
Not Stiff Enough (Score:3)
Re:Why use income? Why not total wealth? (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually prefer they use the book value of the car.
Re:Why use income? Why not total wealth? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm there... Not that I speed but what's the fine for speeding in a '65 VW bug worth $250? Personally I think I should get a reward for getting that thing past 55 MPH anyway....
Re: (Score:2)
After all, rich, old, retired people speed, too.
Laws of that sort should include, under "income", investment income, not just paycheck income; rich, old, retired people are probably paying their bills with interest income, dividend income, and realized capital gain income.
So if all income is included, the only way to "get away with it" would be to live relatively cheaply, invest heavily in non-dividend-paying stocks, and avoid breaking traffic laws in years where you realize those capital gains you've been accumulating during the years when you've been
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because a $200 fine is really going to deter someone who makes that much money in 5 minutes, especially if speeding saves them 5 minutes on their commute.
Re: (Score:2)
The twenty minutes on the side of the road would be a deterrent.
Re:Terribly regressive penalty (Score:4, Informative)
Except, if you read even the summary, you'll discover that they're taking half of estimated spending money, not half of your income. Someone living paycheck to paycheck would get an extremely small fine, while someone earning millions will be deprived of nearly half their income.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why it says "It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two—the resulting number is considered a reasonable amount of spending money to deprive the offender of". It's not how much money they make per day, it's how much is estimated they have left over to spend.
The idea is apply the same amount of punishment, not take the same amount of money.
If you're rich, a $200 fine is like not going out for a fancy dinner.
If you're poor, a $200
Re: (Score:2)
Given that you need a certain base amount of income to live, depriving someone of 12 days of income is terribly regressive - someone living paycheck to paycheck may well not be able to eat for a while if lacking nearly 12 half-days of income, whereas someone being fined $50k or whatever because they make a few million a year will not miss it that much... though they may well decide that spending about $200k to support a candidate to run against the sheriff in that region is a worthwhile expense.
Even when Phase 2 is ???, there's still a Phase 1, so you might want to read a bit more carefully:
Re: (Score:2)
You have to put things in context.
The Finns are the worlds worst drivers.
The Finns think they are the worlds best drivers.
Think Masshole ^ 10
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, based on the number of Finnish F1 and WDC champions, they're pretty fucking good at it :P
Re: (Score:2)
"It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day"
It's estimated spending cash... not a days income... but what happens when that number is a negative as we know many people live on credit do they have to pay you?
Re:Eqaul Protection (Score:4, Insightful)
And rich people are more equal, obviously.
Only plutocratic viewpoints hold legal sway.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the IRS.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd. My country not only has that "luxury tax" but also a few other things that would make the average US person cringe, like our insanely progressive income tax, with a tax rate of 50% if you earn a LOT (trust me, I know... sigh. My taxes alone feed whole families).
Then again, I get quite a bit for my money, and that makes it ok. I can walk anywhere in our capital at any time of the day without fearing for life or possessions. That alone makes it worth it.
The last thing you may do is leave someone with not
Re: (Score:3)
TFS mentions a few times where it was tried in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't break the law then.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy your ticket today. Should be plenty of empty seats, net immigration being what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
18 Norway
25 Sweden
43 Denmark
67 Finland
comparison:
40 United States
38 United Kingdom
So far more people immigrate to Norway and Sweden per capita than the USA, and about equal with Denmark. Finland lags behind all.
What you want to do is base your opinions on reality and facts rather than bias and ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
"when losing an argument, change the subject"
Re:Sounds Horrible (Score:5, Insightful)
No amount of money should be able to excuse you for being a pillock.
If a millionaire gets fined $10, it's quite literally a joke not a deterrent. If a poor homeless guy gets fined $10, it's more than he can afford. Thus the treatment of the same crime for two people is unfair.
The alternative? You lose your licence at the same speed as everyone else. I guarantee you that in a choice between more points on your licence and a fine proportional to your income, you'll pick the fine. Because once you fill that licence, you're fucked unless you want to face the humiliation of sitting your test again.
The fine is a portion of your income. So it hurts all fairly. If you're worried about where the money goes, put it into a victim surcharge to pay towards reparations for victims of all crime.
But fuck your idea of "we should be thanking these people". I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.
Re:My income is pretty close to zero (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This type of solution seeks equality, but in reality would have a difficult time achieving it. $100,000 a year allows one to live a relatively deluxe lifestyle if you are in upstate New York and own a house outright with no dependents. But someone making $100,000 a year with 5 kids in New York city has very little cash to spare.
That's why TFA talks about basing it on "spending money", not income. If you have no "spending money", your fine is low.
Of course, this moves the "taxation" inherent in this solution into the same social engineering that the current income tax system is burdened with. I just bought a "correct" car and had some "correct" modifications to my house, so my "spending money" is pretty low right now. Also, I just now donated money to the Red Cross so my "spending money" is even lower.
Whatever the "correct" th