$103,000 Speeding Ticket

[GL]

...for doing 47mph in a 31mph zone! Check it out

 

[tweakmm]

Wow!
They do that in finland?
I never knew that!

 

[db]

brrrrrr!

 

[crypticlogin]

I'm almost certain this is a repost but what the hey, it's a good read.

 

[Lars]

actually it is a repost of a repost

 

[Kilgor]

Typical European garbage, wealth redistribution through speeding tickets.

 

[meaty]

I just payed $340 for going 95mph in a 65mph....:|

 

[navyrn]

HA!! The one time it would have paid to be a broke college student. I drove my Mach one back then like a bat out of hades. Divide my income by what ever you like; nothing from nothing leaves......nothing.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Typical European garbage, wealth redistribution through speeding tickets. >>


Closet communism?

 

[GL]

Sorry for the repost. I tried searching but the darn thing timed out (my subscription ran out, this is painfully slow!).

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

<< HA!! The one time it would have paid to be a broke college student. I drove my Mach one back then like a bat out of hades. Divide my income by what ever you like; nothing from nothing leaves......nothing. >>



LOLOL!! So True! So true!

 

[KennyTheGreat]

repost!

 

[Jerboy]

I'm 101% against sliding scale fines :|


A fifty dollar speeding fine for some people means "oops... pulls out a $50 from under the couch", but for the low-income people it could mean "Oh MY GOD OH MY GOD, $50!!, What am I going to do? we're not gonna make it this month, we're gonna go bankrupt!"... Yeah we all know that fact. Either way, for the same offense, they should be charged the same dollars. If $50 ticket can get them to financial disaster, he shouldn't be doing something to earn a $50 ticket.

 

[Orsorum]

Gotta admit, it'd be a deterrent.

 

[Nemesis77]

If I remember correctly, this is the fourth time this is posted here...

Anyhow, the idea behind those fines is that if it were (say) 200$, would it really feel like a punishment for a millionare? It would be alot of money for someone poorer, but someone who has millions, that money is about as much as the cost of his next dinner at some fine restaurant.

And if you have no income, you still have to pay fines. So you don't get away scot-free. Naturally your fines wouldn't be as big.

Fines such as that have caused people to question the sanity of the current law, and there are plans to change the law in such way that there is a top-limit for the fines. Amount of the fine would go up with your income, but not after certain limit.

 

[LeStEr]

Wow

 

[Slacker]

Well, if you got megabucks, and a speeding ticket is only a few $$$$$ you wouldnt be too worried about it would you.

 

[meaty]

Well if you get 3 in under 18 months there goes your license ( in cali @ least )

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

what a stupid stupid stupid law. i would never live there.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< what a stupid stupid stupid law. i would never live there. >>



Why? Because it would cost you too much to break the law? O....K...

 

[Amused]

<<

<< what a stupid stupid stupid law. i would never live there. >>



Why? Because it would cost you too much to break the law? O....K... >>



No, because people are not equal under the law. Artificially inflating/deflating fines based on income makes some "more equal" than others.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

hooray for reposts

 

[Jerboy]

<< If I remember correctly, this is the fourth time this is posted here...

Anyhow, the idea behind those fines is that if it were (say) 200$, would it really feel like a punishment for a millionare? It would be alot of money for someone poorer, but someone who has millions, that money is about as much as the cost of his next dinner at some fine restaurant. >>



I thought the purpose of fines is city's revenue than anything. Being poor is no excuse for having less liability. If they demand less liability, there should also be mandatory restricted rights.

Some people are in favor of the wealthy, others are in favor of the poor's and some are neutral. it will always be like that as long as people continues to have different opinions.

I'm in neutral position, meaning fine should be neither higher or lower for the wealthy's or the poor's.







<<
And if you have no income, you still have to pay fines. So you don't get away scot-free. Naturally your fines wouldn't be as big. >>



If you have no income, you wouldn't be operating a motor vehicle, would you?

Sometimes when you cause a liability greater than you can afford, you can be put in jail.

A poor guy gets into a wreck and is found to be opearating a motor vehicle without required liability protection. Well he should know better than driving without insurance. Don't take it easy. Confiscate his possessions until it meets the damage sum he's caused to the other party and if that doesn't pay up, put him in prison.





I am in full support of flat rate fines.

 

[MrCodeDude]

It's only because he makes a lot. I doubt they'd do that to their average Joe.
-- mrcodedude

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<<

<< what a stupid stupid stupid law. i would never live there. >>



Why? Because it would cost you too much to break the law? O....K... >>



No, because people are not equal under the law. Artificially inflating/deflating fines based on income makes some "more equal" than others. >>



It depends what you mean by "equal". If you mean that how much person has to pay in fines, then this system is not equal. But this system IS equal when you look at that does the fine feel like a punishment. If you have flat-fine, a millionare can pay it with the change in his pocket without giving it a second thought. Someone poorer would have to struggle to come up with that money. In that respect, the current system puts them on the same level.

There are two different things you can mean by "equal". If you are equal in one thing, you are un-equal in another.

And you seem to forget that those extra-high fines are reserved for the very rich. I doubt none of you here make so much money that you would get 100K fines in Finland.