$103,000 Speeding Ticket

[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. >>



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. >>



Equality is not gained by treating people differently, or by stepping on the necks of successful people. That's the epitome of inequality, and for some illogical reason is the cornerstone of liberal/socialist ideology.

 

[GooberPHX420]

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



Cost doesnt matter. Thats why the have points for your license. The more offenses you commit, the more you screw yourself over. Eventually licenses get revoked and so forth..

 

[Nemesis77]

<< 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. >>



City's revenue? Ummmm, no.

Less liability for the poor? Where did you come up with that? Like I said, having for example 200$ flat-fine would mean that someone poorer would have to struggle to come up with that money ("Well, I was going to pay my bills, but I guess I have to pay fines instead..."), whereas someone rich would pay that kind of money with a snap of his fingers ("Well, I was going to buy a round of champagne at the golf-club, I guess I could skip it... Nah, I wont, I can still afford it"). Wouldn't hardly feel like a punishment eh?



<<

<< 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? >>



OK, let me re-phrase that: If you have low income. Many people require to have a car in order to be able to work.

 

[Imdmn04]

Why should the rich pay a lot more than the poor?
they probably worked thier asses off to become that rich. should the rich pay 30 bucks for a big mac?
one of the benefits to be rich is you get everything cheap relatively to others
whats the point of being rich if you have to pay a fine that will inflict the same amount of fianicial damage to you as to the poor.
remember you are rich because your worked hard, most poor people didnt (well some are unlucky, like laidoff tech workers)
So of course there should be less of a punishment to the millionaire, because he deserves the less punishment as a reward of hard work.
by less punishment, it just means you are paying the same as everybody else, which is really equal in punishment.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Equality is not gained by treating people differently, or by stepping on the necks of successful people. That's the epitome of inequality, and for some illogical reason is the cornerstone of liberal/socialist ideology. >>



But by having flat-fine, the fact remains that it would feel like a severe punishment for some people while being a nuisance at most to some. This system tries to counter that fact.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

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



Cost doesnt matter. Thats why the have points for your license. The more offenses you commit, the more you screw yourself over. Eventually licenses get revoked and so forth.. >>



We don't have points-system as such, but we do have something similar. If you break the law 4 times during 2 year period or 3 times in one year, you lose your license. The amount of time you can't drive varies from 2 weeks to 2 months (nature of the crimes among other things affect that).

 

[Jerboy]

<< OK, let me re-phrase that: If you have low income. Many people require to have a car in order to be able to work. >>



Could they absolutely not find a job that doesn't require a car? Failing that condition, many states offer restricted license for repeated traffic offenders. Add a "poors that couldn't fulfill the fines in a whole" to criteria as well. The restricted license usually strictly restricts the route, path, points A and B the person is able to use their vehicle in. Usually point A is their home, and point B is their place of employment through EXACT route specified.


And you know what? I require my car for my convenience, but until I was 16, I was forced to take the bus. I don't intentionally do anything on the road that will get me a ticket, because I need my driving previlage.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Why should the rich pay a lot more than the poor?
they probably worked thier asses off to become that rich. should the rich pay 30 bucks for a big mac?
one of the benefits to be rich is you get everything cheap relatively to others >>



Should that also be the case when it comes to breaking the law? Applied to prison-sentences, it would mean that the rich get shorter sentences by default than poor (well, that is often the case, since they can afford better lawyers). The point of a fine is to be a punishment. It's not a punishment if you can oay the fine from your loose-change.



<< whats the point of being rich if you have to pay a fine that will inflict the same amount finicial damage to you as to the poor.
remember you are rich because your worked hard, most poor people didnt (well some are unlucky, like laidoff tech workers)
So of course there should be less of a punishment to the millionaire, because he deserves the less punishment as a reward of hard work. >>



Many poorer people work just as hard as rich do, quite often even harder. Reason why they are poor can be numerous.

 

[Nefrodite]

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



as other ppl have said, its fair, the ammount only looks absurd to you because your poor. if you made enough money to get a 103,000 dollar speeding ticket i'm sure you wouldn't be quite so ticked. the fararri and porsches in your garage would easily console your wounded soul. fines if they are to be fair need to hurt all equally, fines in the US only hurt the poor and middle class. its simple and true, if you want a fine to be truely a deterent for all, you do as the fins do.



Why should the rich pay a lot more than the poor?
they probably worked thier asses off to become that rich. should the rich pay 30 bucks for a big mac?


good lord, do you even think before you post? we're talking fines that are supposed to deter one from breaking the law, not raising prices on consumer goods like bigmacs, get a clue. if a fine is a % of your salary for everyone, it hurts everyone equally. its supposed to hurt.

whats the point of being rich if you have to pay a fine that will inflict the same amount of fianicial damage to you as to the poor.


you must be kidding, if your rich you get a different level of justice? because you worked "hard"!oh yea, the 25 million dollar man worked 500 times harder then the 50k normal guy right?

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< OK, let me re-phrase that: If you have low income. Many people require to have a car in order to be able to work. >>



Could they absolutely not find a job that doesn't require a car? Failing that condition, many states offer restricted license for repeated traffic offenders. Add a "poors that couldn't fulfill the fines in a whole" to criteria as well. The restricted license usually strictly restricts the route, path, points A and B the person is able to use their vehicle in. Usually point A is their home, and point B is their place of employment through EXACT route specified. >>



If their workplace is 50 kilometers away, I would say they have a good reason to have a car. And while the public transport-system is very good in bigger cities, that is not the case in the rural area. Using public transport for commuting would be next to impossible.

 

[Nefrodite]

do a simple calculation. say a 200 dollar fine for a 50k year income. thats .4 % right? whats .4% fine that becomes 103,000 dollars? 25,000,000 income per year. ? i don't feel sorry for the guy, i don't think he missed the money at all. some of you guys make it sound like he only made 300k

 

[Jerboy]

<<

If their workplace is 50 kilometers away, I would say they have a good reason to have a car. And while the public transport-system is very good in bigger cities, that is not the case in the rural area. Using public transport for commuting would be next to impossible. >>



Then severely and strictly restricted license will do. Get caught driving for other purpose he should lose the license. Get caught driving without that license, throw his a$$ prison

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Equality is not gained by treating people differently, or by stepping on the necks of successful people. That's the epitome of inequality, and for some illogical reason is the cornerstone of liberal/socialist ideology. >>



But by having flat-fine, the fact remains that it would feel like a severe punishment for some people while being a nuisance at most to some. This system tries to counter that fact. >>



Equality does not mean fair. It means equal. It goes both ways.

Sorry, using inequality to set an artificial feeling of "fair" doesn't wash with me. Life isn't fair, but the law should treat everyone EQUALLY. No more, no less punishment regardless of your income level, race, or class.

 

[Imdmn04]

<< Equality does not mean fair. It means equal. It goes both ways.

Sorry, using inequality to set an artificial feeling of "fair" doesn't wash with me. Life isn't fair, but the law should treat everyone EQUALLY. No more, no less punishment regardless of your income level, race, or class. >>



excatly

 

[Jerboy]

<<

<<

<< Equality is not gained by treating people differently, or by stepping on the necks of successful people. That's the epitome of inequality, and for some illogical reason is the cornerstone of liberal/socialist ideology. >>



But by having flat-fine, the fact remains that it would feel like a severe punishment for some people while being a nuisance at most to some. This system tries to counter that fact. >>



Equality does not mean fair. It means equal. It goes both ways.

Sorry, using inequality to set an artificial feeling of "fair" doesn't wash with me. Life isn't fair, but the law should treat everyone EQUALLY. No more, no less punishment regardless of your income level, race, or class. >>




Equality can be put into two mathematical forms:

equal rations and equal absolute value.

n% of total income is equal ration

$xx is equal absolute value.

I am a believer of equal absolute value.

 

[Nefrodite]

its not about being fair, its about whether the law works as a deterent. if it deters only poor, then theres something wrong. if your going to make the arguement that the fine should be a set amount for all, thats not fair either. so get rid fo the law, let all speed to their hearts delite as there is no way to fairly deter people without a sliding scale.

by your arguement we should all pay say 2k in taxes per year no matter what we make

 

[Jerboy]

<< Many poorer people work just as hard as rich do, quite often even harder. Reason why they are poor can be numerous. >>



Some reasons I can think of, but these are not all the reasons out there:


lack of high school diploma

substance abuse

alcoholism

criminal record filled with multiple felonies

in serious debt due to their own stupidity

poor financial management

What is your definition of working hard? Digging dirt in physically demanding construction job is working harder than sitting in a chair doing office work that requires proper education?


Physical jobs doesn't require much communication and logical skill and even though its physically harder, its worth much less than less physically demanding job that requires intellectual skills.

 

[toant103]

i think they should do that here. Then i don't have to pay that much

 

[VTBigBear]

wow...

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

a good way to steal from the rich and give back to the poor if you ask me

 

[Evadman]

Owie

 

[beamrider]

Look at it like this, people aren't equal under the law here, either. The person who hires the best lawyer wins.

 

[DanFungus]

wwooooaaahhhhh....with my paycheck....(im 15) it'd take me FIFTY ONE and a HALF years to pay that off!!!

 

[clarkmo]

<< 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. >>


Hmm..maybe they'd end up paying you? Now that's a thought. And that's all it is.

 

[clarkmo]

<< Some reasons I can think of, but these are not all the reasons out there: >>



Tho defenthive.