NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,420
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 5, 2015 15:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2015 15:38:49 GMT -5
Sweet but it won't happen here.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Mar 5, 2015 15:39:56 GMT -5
liberal freaking Finlandians.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 5, 2015 16:25:55 GMT -5
A fine can be devastating for a poor person yet not phase a rich one so in some ways this is reasonable. A girl was working her way through private college and got stopped, he passenger seat pile high in text books when the officer asked her what she would spend the money on if she didn't get a ticket, she said books. For her at that time a ticket for say $100 might have been a major budget buster. I can see making the cost hurt anyone a little but this seems excessive.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 5, 2015 16:44:14 GMT -5
This will fly the same way criminal sentencing based on life expectancy would work. Commit a crime, spend x% of your expected life in prison so that the sting will be the same for everyone. Are you young and commit a petty crime? 10% of your life expectancy in prison, the youngest get penalized the most since they have the highest expectancy left.
The logic might make sense if this were in place as a deterrent. Nobody who understand the system of traffic fines believes that. It's a money grab, just like parking fines.
The only logic I see here is to drive the economy. This opens up a whole new demand for personal drivers. If I get stopped for speeding it's $60,000. But I'm always in a hurry. So I hire some poor schlub who makes $20,000 per year to speed me around town with the agreement that I pay all fines he gets.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Mar 5, 2015 16:50:52 GMT -5
It won't hurth a bit in US! Most of those making that kind of money($6million) would have a driver paid for by the business that they work for so the fine will ultimately be based on the drivers salary. The fine then would be turned in by the rich dude as an expense to the company, unless he doesn't like his driver.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 5, 2015 16:54:30 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2015 17:02:27 GMT -5
... The logic might make sense if this were in place as a deterrent. Nobody who understand the system of traffic fines believes that. It's a money grab, just like parking fines. ... Our system of fines (in most applications) can be a deterrent for some and not at all for others. The Finnish system would be much more of a deterrent for all.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2015 17:12:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd love to see how long local mayors keep their job when the middle/upper middle class starts getting targeted for traffic stops. Doesn't seem like a great way to win reelection Just think what will happen to sells of luxury automobiles.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Mar 5, 2015 17:19:47 GMT -5
Just think what will happen to sells of luxury automobiles. I get the feeling that profiling would take on a whole new paradigm. Instead of cops hanging out near malls, schools, and bars. They'd be setting traps near the Whole Foods, Organic boutiques, and fancy restaurants Speaking as someone who shops at whole foods, and doesn't speed, I'm into it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 5, 2015 17:28:11 GMT -5
... The logic might make sense if this were in place as a deterrent. Nobody who understand the system of traffic fines believes that. It's a money grab, just like parking fines. ... Our system of fines (in most applications) can be a deterrent for some and not at all for others. The Finnish system would be much more of a deterrent for all. If our system is a deterrent for some, then I think it's pretty clear when you get on the highway how many people are deterred from speeding. I would argue that in most cases the fine is not the deterrent, it's the headache of being pulled over and being delayed from your destination while dealing with some slackjawed radar gunner.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2015 17:41:47 GMT -5
Our system of fines (in most applications) can be a deterrent for some and not at all for others. The Finnish system would be much more of a deterrent for all. If our system is a deterrent for some, then I think it's pretty clear when you get on the highway how many people are deterred from speeding. I would argue that in most cases the fine is not the deterrent, it's the headache of being pulled over and being delayed from your destination while dealing with some slackjawed radar gunner. So does this suggest we should or shouldn't move to a traffic fine system like they have in Finland, in your opinion?
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 5, 2015 18:23:30 GMT -5
While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country.
Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules.
If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 5, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -5
While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country. Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules. If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get. I don't see it as a "stick it to rich" issue. Everyone pays exactly the same percentage of their income when they choose to violate the law.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 5, 2015 20:04:28 GMT -5
While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country. Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules. If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get. While I completely agree with the gist of your argument, the fine represent .8% of his annual income. I hardly think that is 'sticking it to the rich', or a reason to leave the country.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,420
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 5, 2015 21:36:56 GMT -5
. Nor is leaving the country his only option to escape a fine like this. He could for for instance try to follow the law? I think this Finnish approach is actually something many of us with kids have probably taken over the years. I raised a "jock" and a "nerd" (when they were kids, now they are both hybrid versions   and if DS1 was punished for doing something really wrong I grounded him, DS2 on the other hand got his computer rights suspended. Had I switched their punishment, they would have shrugged their shoulders and gone "ok mom, fine" and just carried on as before. I'm reasonably sure that there are quite a few of you out there that did somthing similar. Punishment has to sting equally to have any effect. Who cares about a $350 fine if you make 10x that during your first hour working...
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Mar 6, 2015 9:33:58 GMT -5
Anyone else remember those pieces put out to garner sympathy and support for a poor person working a min wage job? They are immediately ripped to sheds because EVERYTHING they have ever done was completely in their control. So now a rich guy breaks the law and whines because the penalty is too harsh. Some posters think it is wrong that he has to actually pay the price for his actions. Yeah, no hypocrisy here.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,790
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 6, 2015 9:41:16 GMT -5
I think the percentage of income idea has some merit. Given the Ferguson thread it appears some people are totally unsympathetic to what happens if you do break a law and can't afford the fine in full.
It would be nice if we are all perfect, never screwed up and everything was clearly marked. No hidden speed signs, no iffy parking spaces, but that's not RL.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 6, 2015 9:41:59 GMT -5
While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country. Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules. If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get. While I completely agree with the gist of your argument, the fine represent .8% of his annual income. I hardly think that is 'sticking it to the rich', or a reason to leave the country. Gah, it would suck so bad to have almost one percent of my income taken for a fine. I make a good wage where I can save and that's a lot of money to me!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 6, 2015 9:49:34 GMT -5
.. Gah, it would suck so bad to have almost one percent of my income taken for a fine. ... Maybe to the point it would stop you from doing the crime?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,790
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 6, 2015 9:50:59 GMT -5
While I completely agree with the gist of your argument, the fine represent .8% of his annual income. I hardly think that is 'sticking it to the rich', or a reason to leave the country. Gah, it would suck so bad to have almost one percent of my income taken for a fine. I make a good wage where I can save and that's a lot of money to me! Since fines are currently fixed in this country, no one really seems to realize that many poor or people on fixed incomes pay more than that if they are fined.
$350 is 3.5% of a $10,000/yr. income. And that's actually worse than someone paying $3500 on a $100K/yr. income because the latter person has many affordable housing choices and budget wiggle room. The low income person does not. We are so used to being unfair to the poor in this country, we don't even realize the impacts.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 6, 2015 9:55:54 GMT -5
.. Gah, it would suck so bad to have almost one percent of my income taken for a fine. ... Maybe to the point it would stop you from doing the crime? Where it is now is a deterrent, I can do a lot for 150. Though I do go with the flow of traffic, if there is any, and that's regularly ten or so over. I think people would be less likely to speed if there was more sense to the limits. On a four lane highway there's no reason it's 20 miles at 70, 10 miles at 65, 10 miles at 60, 5 miles at 50, 7 miles at55, 8 miles at 60, 50 miles at 65. My 20 mile commute has four speed changes! It makes no sense.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,790
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 6, 2015 10:12:10 GMT -5
Some speed limit changes are due to population size in the area for some states. There are reasons. Years ago I used to see signs like urban center or similar before a speed limit drop on an interstate highway. Perhaps you could look up your speed limit laws or call the state police and ask why all the changes.
It does sound like a PITA, but hopefully there are reasons that are not merely to drive revenue.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Mar 6, 2015 10:12:05 GMT -5
Gah, it would suck so bad to have almost one percent of my income taken for a fine. I make a good wage where I can save and that's a lot of money to me! Since fines are currently fixed in this country, no one really seems to realize that many poor or people on fixed incomes pay more than that if they are fined.
$350 is 3.5% of a $10,000/yr. income. And that's actually worse than someone paying $3500 on a $100K/yr. income because the latter person has many affordable housing choices and budget wiggle room. The low income person does not. We are so used to being unfair to the poor in this country, we don't even realize the impacts.
Wow you said that so well!
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 6, 2015 10:21:45 GMT -5
Some speed limit changes are due to population size in the area for some states. There are reasons. Years ago I used to see signs like urban center or similar before a speed limit drop on an interstate highway. Perhaps you could look up your speed limit laws or call the state police and ask why all the changes.
It does sound like a PITA, but hopefully there are reasons that are not merely to drive revenue. Of course there's reasons, didn't mean they're good. Lowering speed limits on regular roads as they move into popular areas make sense, I stand by saying it makes no sense on a highway there's no one crossing the street or cars stopping to turn into parking lots - a highway exit is a highway exit. If anything having people go 20+ miles over mixing with others doing the speed limit is more dangerous than everyone going fast. There have been plenty of times I've had to go fast to avoid problems.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,790
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Mar 6, 2015 10:45:40 GMT -5
Some speed limit changes are due to population size in the area for some states. There are reasons. Years ago I used to see signs like urban center or similar before a speed limit drop on an interstate highway. Perhaps you could look up your speed limit laws or call the state police and ask why all the changes.
It does sound like a PITA, but hopefully there are reasons that are not merely to drive revenue. Of course there's reasons, didn't mean they're good. Lowering speed limits on regular roads as they move into popular areas make sense, I stand by saying it makes no sense on a highway there's no one crossing the street or cars stopping to turn into parking lots - a highway exit is a highway exit. If anything having people go 20+ miles over mixing with others doing the speed limit is more dangerous than everyone going fast. There have been plenty of times I've had to go fast to avoid problems. I don't write the laws, but very few highways actually have fences running near them, so people, deer, dogs, cats, etc. can get onto the highway and sometimes do. Maybe that's part of the reasoning, IDK. I have seen some limits of 55mph when a school was within a certain amount of yards of the highway.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 6, 2015 10:47:59 GMT -5
Of course there's reasons, didn't mean they're good. Lowering speed limits on regular roads as they move into popular areas make sense, I stand by saying it makes no sense on a highway there's no one crossing the street or cars stopping to turn into parking lots - a highway exit is a highway exit. If anything having people go 20+ miles over mixing with others doing the speed limit is more dangerous than everyone going fast. There have been plenty of times I've had to go fast to avoid problems. I don't write the laws, but very few highways actually have fences running near them, so people, deer, dogs, cats, etc. can get onto the highway and sometimes do. Maybe that's part of the reasoning, IDK. I have seen some limits of 55mph when a school was within a certain amount of yards of the highway.
The slowest parts are elevated actually. And there's fences.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 6, 2015 10:51:53 GMT -5
Since fines are currently fixed in this country, no one really seems to realize that many poor or people on fixed incomes pay more than that if they are fined.
$350 is 3.5% of a $10,000/yr. income. And that's actually worse than someone paying $3500 on a $100K/yr. income because the latter person has many affordable housing choices and budget wiggle room. The low income person does not. We are so used to being unfair to the poor in this country, we don't even realize the impacts.
So here's a question for you. Why doesn't the person who makes $10k a year not break the law? Then they would pay 0% of their income! Actually my stance is that justice should be blind. ... Answer: social pressure. What makes justice less blind when the fine is a set percentage of income rather than a specific dollar amount? The judge says guilty, pay the clerk. Justice done. Now it is just bureaucratic process to determine the amount.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on Mar 6, 2015 11:07:39 GMT -5
Since fines are currently fixed in this country, no one really seems to realize that many poor or people on fixed incomes pay more than that if they are fined.
$350 is 3.5% of a $10,000/yr. income. And that's actually worse than someone paying $3500 on a $100K/yr. income because the latter person has many affordable housing choices and budget wiggle room. The low income person does not. We are so used to being unfair to the poor in this country, we don't even realize the impacts.
So here's a question for you. Why doesn't the person who makes $10k a year not break the law? Then they would pay 0% of their income! Actually my stance is that justice should be blind. I'm really not keen on sliding scales based on income. I'm not keen on different rules being applied to the same crime (It drives me insane that a parent who accidentally leaves their child in a hot car is the victim of a tragic accident, but a bus/van driver that does it is an irresponsible negligent villain). Yes the first offense drug charge for stupid kids should have the same outcome. etc etc I can see both sides here. I agree that different rules shouldn't be applied to the same crime but a percentage of one's income is not a different rule. Doesn't that actually make it equal across the board? It allows everyone to feel the same amount of pain? How many times have we all seen celebrities with millions of dollars getting a DWI, etc. Seriously, the amount of money that DWI costs them does absolutely zero to their bottom line. I am not necessarily in agreement with the idea but I can see some validity for the argument.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 6, 2015 12:08:18 GMT -5
While I agree that there is a perverse kind of justice associated with fines that are consistent with your income, I also empathise with the offender's retort that a $60K fine is just another thing that encourages him to take his money and leave the country. Really, the rich do get tired of the stick it to the rich mentality. Unless you are a lottery winner, most rich people worked really hard, took really big risks, and made tremendous sacrifices that the rest of us didn't make in order to accumulate their wealth. To stick it to people just because they have much more income or wealth than most people seems like punishing people for exhibiting behaviors that we normally consider to be virtues. Kind of punishing people for working hard and playing by the rules. If the offender were to take his money and leave Finland, I wonder how many jobs would be lost when his businesses are shut down, how many charities would lose the benefit of his largess, and how many other people would be adversely affected by the absence of the money he would normally spend? Ain't no free lunch. When you bite the hand that feeds you, it could be the last bite you'll get. I don't see it as a "stick it to rich" issue. Everyone pays exactly the same percentage of their income when they choose to violate the law. The flip side of this discussion would be that it is unjust for one person to pay $200 as a penalty for committing the same crime that another person pays a $60,000 penalty for committing. If it's good public policy to penalize people based on their income, certainly the same would apply to the very poor and homeless, correct? Since they have no, or very, very limited income, would they be free to commit crimes with complete impunity because they have no income on which to base any penalty? Do you determie the penalty based on the severity of the crime? Or do you determine the penalty based the income of the criminal? If the penalty is based on the income of the criminal, you'd better open the doors to most of our prison cells and release all the prisoners who were poor or low income at the time of their incarceration.
|
|