[TNLAKEPANDA]

That's right $60K


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

[graciegirl]

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.

[Cisco Kid]

👍👍👍

[Villages PL]

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

[rubicon]

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

[dewilson58]

High Speed Gear was installed.

[BarryRX]

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?

[B767drvr]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

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?

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

[BarryRX]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

AesopFables.com - The Ant and the Grasshopper - General Fable collection

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?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

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?

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

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?

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.

[Chazz]

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.

[Walt.]

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.