$60,000 Speeding Ticket
 

That's right $60K


Man in Finland gets $60,000 speeding ticket - AOL.com

Don't you have the same kind of car? Aren't you glad you don't live in Finland?

They are trying to do that here, it seems to me.

Mama's don't let your babies grow up and make money enough to own a Corvette.

👍👍👍

That does it, I'm cancelling my trip to Finland.

It is pretty obvious that offenders committing the same act but penalized based on their ability to pay should be illegal and certainly discriminatory. Finland is going to lose a lot of their wealth creators. Socialist all believe income redistribution is kool. Hope our government missed this article.

Anyone believing this is about promoting safety and not the money I hope are the same people that don't know much about bridges:smiley:

High Speed Gear was installed.

We all complain when some sports figure who makes millions of dollars a year gets slapped with a thousand dollar fine. Now we all complain that someone is being fined according to his income. Both ways are discriminatory. One way discriminates against the poor. For example, a person making minimum wage ($7.25) gets a speeding ticket for $200. His weekly income before taxes is $150, so in effect he is being fined about 1.3 weeks earnings or about 50 hours of earnings. A rich guy making $100/hr (about $200,000/year) gets the same fine and is only fined 2 hours of his earnings. How is that fair?
The other way as the OP pointed out is also unfair because it has two different penalties for the same crime. But shouldn't the fine have the same impact on both the rich and the poor person?

No. The fine is the fine, period. Should there be a sliding scale for a loaf of bread also?

I'm all for EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, not EQUALITY OF OUTCOME. Those in favor of the latter usually subscribe to a set of beliefs where the state confiscates wealth from some citizens and redistributes it to others, so as to make everything "fair". I strongly disagree with that approach.

How do you suppose that the wealthy person got wealthy????? I can tell you. Many times they eschew the frills and fancy stuff, do without a lot, save and sacrifice. I am SICK of hearing people who have lived and saved being maligned. They frequently spent years in school and in internships and post graduate degrees or worked far past eight hours a day. Wealth usually doesn't FALL on someone. Nor does just being financially secure.

http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop...&&antgrass.ram

Please go back and read my post. I didn't malign the rich person. I said that he is being fined 2 hours worth of earnings and the poor person is being fined 50 hours worth of earnings for the same crime. How is that fair?

I did read it Barry. Money is a way of keeping score sometimes. It is the same as taking the SuperBowl Trophy and giving it to the losing team, or taking the academic scholarship from someone who passed all the tests and lived an exemplary life and giving it to someone who never studied at all and smokes dope all day. Or taking a five year old's piggy bank that they saved all their money all year to buy a present for mom and giving it to a cousin who spends it on candy.

People work hard to be successful. If it turns out they are successful, they should be penalized?

Well said.

I see your point. The rich man is only mildly inconvenienced, whereas the poor man's household budget may be crippled. He may have to choose between paying the fine or paying the rent.

The whole point of a fine should be to try to change future driving behavior, not to cripple a poor man's ability to survive.

Suppose someone like Bill Gates gets stopped for speeding, how much are they going to fine him? At some point it gets ridiculous because rich people will, in effect, have a target on their back and will be under constant surveillance by money hungry authorities.

Perhaps it would be a better deterrent to penalize the rich with a reasonable fine plus so many hours of community service, like picking up trash along the roadways.

Hmmm! Maybe the prices at the grocery store should be based on how much your net worth is. A quart of milk might be anything from 10 cents to $1000. What about fuel at the gas station? Pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

I understand that what is needed is a real deterrent that penalizes the offender equally. If a cash fine doesn't accomplish that goal, something else might be explored. As someone said, perhaps enforced community service, or, incarceration.

The reasonable answer is community service instead of fines. It prevents municipalities from using tickets to balance their budgets and is an equal (more fair) headache for those committing the offenses.
Did anyone notice in the State of the Union message the part where "we need to get rid of the loophole that allows the 1% to avoid taxes on their accumulated wealth?" So, if you avoided the "champaign brunches" and the new car every year and instead saved your money you need to be taxed (again) on those savings.

I see what you're trying to say, but I think that buying food and penalties meant to deter future bad behavior are two different things. To repeat what I tried to say in my OP, both systems are inherently unfair. One way is unfair to the poor and one way is unfair to the rich. But that is the way of the world when it comes to taxes, fines, and other similiar forms of taxation. Perhaps as you've mentioned, community service is a better way.

Bravo Gracie, that was a mouthful. the ones complaining are obviously the ones that never had the wealth or made the sacrifices.
Jealousy at its best.

This is a very interesting discussion. The primary question is what is the purpose of the fine? Is it to build a tax base for the municipality? Is it to penalize? Is it to change future behavior? If it is to change future behavior, what would be a motivator for one may not be a motivator for another.

Punishment for speeding is mainly meant to be a deterrent to unsafe driving. Obviously, as one's wealth and income increase, a $50 fine becomes less and less of a deterrent. For Bill Gates, a $50 fine is not a deterrent at all. Maybe $60,000 would be, maybe not! Community service might be, but some people would not be much real help at community service they did not want to do.

When I worked for a city government (Traffic Violations Bueau) I had a drunk driver working for me doing 4 weeks of community service. When his personal phone calls looked like they might be a problem I asked if perhaps he would prefer to be outside picking up trash for his service. The calls stopped and he did a real good job for the next 3-1/2 weeks.

Think about it; our federal government goes for the big bucks when it can. Recent example: all the BILLIONS in fines imposed on the big national banks, mortgage companies, rating agencies, and brokerage firms reselling the worthless paper; all relating to the mortgage scandals. No officer, or executive, or administering employee has ever been thrown in jail because of their actions. (there is no financial return to the government in that). And very little compensation has ever made its way down to the people and investors who were actually hurt.
Tossing a few executives in jail would change the behavior of all of now and in the future.

You do the crime, you do the time or pay the fine. Finland wants the fine to hurt regardless of income. A set fine is not going to hurt someone who can afford to import a sports car. A percentage of income fine might get his attention. This law has been on Finland's books for a long time. The only difference is that now they check income tax records for income rather than having the offender simply state their income. Not sure why, but it seemed many miscreants lied about their income. DUH!

Would this work in the USA? Probably not. For one thing, we consider our income tax returns sacrosanct. For another, we are under the illusion that justice demands all be treated equally and fairly even though that rarely, if ever, happens. Personally, I like the idea of making the fine hurt a little. Not enough to force someone to choose between food on the table or paying the fine, but enough so that maybe an outing has to be skipped. We're not talking about different scales for purchases or the like, we're talking different scales for committing a misdemeanor.

It is not suppose to be fair. Justice is suppose to be blind, color race greed etc ....

The CEO of WorldCom, Bernard Ebbers, went to jail.

It's nice to imagine that penalties for speeding can be accomplished fairly and equally, but is it realistic? (Or blind justice if you prefer)

Let's say the dollar amount of the fines are reasonable and equal for both high and low income people, and the number of hours for community service are the same.

But there are a variety of community service jobs. One type of job might consist of cleaning public toilets and picking up trash along the highways on a hot summer day. Another type of public service job might be as a hospital helper in the records department, or lunch room.

Two people get caught speeding: One is a medical professional and the other is a working class person. Which one do you think will be assigned to picking up trash etc. on a hot summer day? And which one do you think will get the easier air conditioned job?

"The law,in its majestic equality,forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread"
Anatole France 1844-1924

IMO, matching the fine to income would be very fair , but probably inpractical in the US. Fairness would dictate equal impact on each offender. $60,000 might not have been enough. And then again!!!

So simple, and right on the mark!

Well, it should be based on mph over the speed limit. say 10.00 per mile over. Not rocket science? Ok some will say (mostly rich uppity types and money grubbing local, state, fed gov.) will say that's not enough so pro rate it, say 20 mph over the limit the fine triples.

Not all rich people earned it. Daddy and mommy left it to them or shelled out in weekly allowances. Some little brats will kill for it. Kind like the opposite of eat you young.
The problem with any socialist they want your money to spend, but don't want their money involved. This is where you get this outrageous BS.

Blind Justice, what does it mean?
 

Lady Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to where it says, "Blindfold....The blindfold represents objectivity,....regardless of money, wealth, power or identity...."

Sadly, justice today isn't blind, if it ever was. Money talks in the form of better attorneys, appearances more sympathetic to a judge and jury. As a very good criminal defense attorney once told me, "justice just ain't just."

:bigbow::bigbow:

You can say that again laws made by lawyers so they get paid regardless of the outcome. And money talks
BS walks