a $217k speeding ticket....

[andylawcc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4233383/

watch out if you are speeding, and if you are in Finland, and if you are also very very rich :!

 

[yukichigai]

You see, that's how our traffic fines should work. That way the single, nearly destitute mother won't have to eat stuff out of the dumpster for a few months if she speeds a bit, but when the local spoiled rich kid blows through 8 red lights it will actually concern him as to what the fine is.

 

[SSibalNom]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
You see, that's how our traffic fines should work. That way the single, nearly destitute mother won't have to eat stuff out of the dumpster for a few months if she speeds a bit, but when the local spoiled rich kid blows through 8 red lights it will actually concern him as to what the fine is.

i completely agree, and the poor univ student who only works cash jobs can pay $0 instead of $195 (thanks CHP, bastards)

 

[dexvx]

I think there should be a minimum... or else bums with no income can speed and technically not pay anything.

But overall, I like that scheme.

 

[Hubris]

Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

 

[Analog]

bad!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

You need to be rich, so you can break all kinds of laws and have it make no difference to you. It's fun!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

Don't speed. Look at that, problem solved, and you will keep 70% of your disposable income. You will not get much sympathy for the idiots who do stupid things and cannot afford the penalty.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

Don't speed. Look at that, problem solved, and you will keep 70% of your disposable income. You will not get much sympathy for the idiots who do stupid things and cannot afford the penalty.

but it's ok for the rich to endanger the lives of others, just because for them the penalty isn't a deterrent?

besides, i think you are missing my point. i don't really care one way or the other, but i'm discussing fairness and how to define it.

fining everyone the same %age of their disposable income as punishment can be considered JUST as fair and equitable as fining a SET amount as punishment.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

Don't speed. Look at that, problem solved, and you will keep 70% of your disposable income. You will not get much sympathy for the idiots who do stupid things and cannot afford the penalty.

but it's ok for the rich to endanger the lives of others, just because for them the penalty isn't a deterrent?

besides, i think you are missing my point. i don't really care one way or the other, but i'm discussing fairness and how to define it.

fining everyone the same %age of their disposable income as punishment can be considered JUST as fair and equitable as fining a SET amount as punishment.

it should be set PLUS percentage.

Anyways, people who are reckless and rich probably would be just as reckless if they were poor. I think it is one of those things that follows a personality, not an income.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

Don't speed. Look at that, problem solved, and you will keep 70% of your disposable income. You will not get much sympathy for the idiots who do stupid things and cannot afford the penalty.

but it's ok for the rich to endanger the lives of others, just because for them the penalty isn't a deterrent?

besides, i think you are missing my point. i don't really care one way or the other, but i'm discussing fairness and how to define it.

fining everyone the same %age of their disposable income as punishment can be considered JUST as fair and equitable as fining a SET amount as punishment.

it should be set PLUS percentage.

Anyways, people who are reckless and rich probably would be just as reckless if they were poor. I think it is one of those things that follows a personality, not an income.

ok

i don't really care. i'm just saying, "Fairness" can be defined many ways. it just seems to me that hubris was trying to claim that only using a set fee was fair and that something based on net worth wasn't fair. that's the only thing i was disputing.

and in all honesty, i don't think that bankrupting someone for speeding really is going to serve the better good, especially if it forces that person to crime.

 

[tk149]

Take this argument to its logical extreme:

If you match an offense with how much a person can afford, then apply it to jail sentencing. A 20-year-old child molester should get (just for example) 50% of his expected lifetime remaining (expected death at age 75), which equals around 22 years. Using the same formula, A 50-year-old child molester should get 12 years.

Would all of you in favor of the Finland's graduated fine scheme also consider the above scenario fair?

 

[dman]

How about, mmm, in addition to a fine there was a points system whereby if you get a certain number of points in a limited amount of time you lose your license. Depending on the severity of the violation it could be a lifetime loss. That would be fair to both the rich and poor.

Well, the rich could afford to hire someone to drive them around, etc, but, that's the advantage to being rich. If you want to penalize people just because they have more money than you, well, too bad.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Hubris
Except that you'd have to carry your tax returns around with you, so the cop could use a sliding scale to give you a fine, or you'd have to increase man hours at the courthouse by a HELL of a lot to hear all the cases going to court so someone can determine how much people make.

Oh, and since when do the rich get penalized for being so? Last time I checked, the law is the law, and it's the OFFENSE that's punished, not the income of the person committing the offense. That's fvckcing riddiculous. I'm by no means rich (poor college student), but if I speed, knowing I'm speeding, then I shouldn't have to pay any less than someone who IS rich. I don't need that kind of patronization.

so you think penalizing someone 70% of their disposable income vs penalizing someone else .5% of their disposable income is fair??

well its not my fault if someone who is poor is speeding and has to spend 70% of there income to pay it off. life aint fair. if they dont like being poor then they need to spend more mony on the lotto!

 

[Dissipate]

I think that is ridiculous. Over $250K for speeding 10 MPH over the speed limit?! This is one reason I am totally opposed to the government knowing what my income is.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: dexvx
I think there should be a minimum... or else bums with no income can speed and technically not pay anything.

But overall, I like that scheme.

Do you mean bums with sports cars?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think that is ridiculous. Over $250K for speeding 10 MPH over the speed limit?! This is one reason I am totally opposed to the government knowing what my income is.

well if we didnt have to pay taxes i would agree with you on the fact the goverment shouldnt know my income.

NO penality for speeding, reckless driving etc should be based off income. I dont see such a thing happening in the US.

 

[Vic]

Justice is supposed to be blind... not vengeful.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think that is ridiculous. Over $250K for speeding 10 MPH over the speed limit?! This is one reason I am totally opposed to the government knowing what my income is.

well if we didnt have to pay taxes i would agree with you on the fact the goverment shouldnt know my income.

NO penality for speeding, reckless driving etc should be based off income. I dont see such a thing happening in the US.

There is a way to pay taxes without the government knowing your income. Its called a sales tax. Of course having a nationwide sales tax instead of the income tax would never fly with the collectivists who want people to answer for their "excessive production".

 

[rh71]

That's just not right. Just because you're not rich doesn't mean you have to hate the ones who are.

 

[alkemyst]

damn imagine if that was the way it was here. The roads would all be nice and smooth so we can go faster.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I think that is ridiculous. Over $250K for speeding 10 MPH over the speed limit?! This is one reason I am totally opposed to the government knowing what my income is.

well if we didnt have to pay taxes i would agree with you on the fact the goverment shouldnt know my income.

NO penality for speeding, reckless driving etc should be based off income. I dont see such a thing happening in the US.

There is a way to pay taxes without the government knowing your income. Its called a sales tax. Of course having a nationwide sales tax instead of the income tax would never fly with the collectivists who want people to answer for their "excessive production".

Well we already have a sales tax (at least some states).

But i agree. we should have a higher sales tax and stop the fedreal income tax. that way when john doe pays $2500 for a TV they pay more tax then someone who buys a $500 TV etc.

 

[CraigRT]

remind me to never go there...