I Don't Ever Want To Hear Any of You Whiners the Next Time You Get a Speeding Ticket.

[Carbo]

Now, THIS will ruin your day!

 

[Ameesh]

this is why i live in the US, none of this stupid average income crap.

 

[aphex]

HAHAHAHAHA

HOLY CRAP!

 

[RedRooster]

Finland sucks. Does that mean poor people can speed all they want, and get a $5 ticket out of it?



<< Harley Davidson enthusiast Anssi Vanjoki was caught racing his motorbike down a Helsinki street in October at 47 mph in a 31 mph zone >>



Boy, he musta had that puppy pegged, flat out!

 

[Elledan]

LOL

 

[goodoptics]

<< Unlike in many other countries, Finnish traffic fines vary according to the offender's average income. >>
:Q

 

[Amused]

Typical socialist crap.

 

[kt]

That is just about the stupidest thing I've seen. Traffic ticket based on your income? What percentage of your income? Geez, I bet there are Finnish cops on just about every street corner waiting for some "poor" millionaire driving by.

 

[Elledan]

<< Typical socialist crap. >>

Typical capitalist crap.

 

[StageLeft]

I was gonna post this. I wonder about it. On the one hand they are punishing you more for being rich, but then none of us really complain about taxes doing the same thing (lets ignore the higher tax brackets - even if we all paid same percentage richer people would pay more than poorer people even if we all paid set %).

The thing about speeding tickets is they are ultimately meant as a deterent. $250 is not a deterent to a millionaire. Until people spend jail time for things like this in that sense it does seem reasonable to punish richer people with more money (same percentage of income as a poorer person), because $100k to him might be the same as $250 to me, so we get equally punished.

 

[Beau]

ROTFL!

I'd imagine the tax evasion rate is pretty high there
(Tax-Evasion = Avoiding reporting income to government.)

 

[vi edit]

Ouch.

I still think that your fines should be multiplied by the number of occupants in a car, and then doubled again for each child under the age of 16. I see way to many f_ckwits swearving all over the damn place driving like a complete jackass with a 12 month old kid strapped into a carseat in the back. Holding them a little more responsible for their wreckless actions is needed.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Typical socialist crap. >>

Typical capitalist crap. >>



Riiight, and that's why the Fins are the most powerful people on Earth... No, wait...

 

[BreakApart]

<< Typical capitalist crap. >>




Elledan are you saying Finland isn't a Socialist/Communist Country?

World Factbook 2001
Finland:
Political pressure groups and leaders:
Communist Workers Party [Timo LAHDENMAKI]; Constitutional Rightist Party; Finnish Communist Party-Unity [Yrjo HAKANEN]; Finnish Pensioners Party


Way to show your true colors Elledan...

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<

<< Typical socialist crap. >>

Typical capitalist crap. >>



Riiight, and that's why the Fins are the most powerful people on Earth... No, wait... >>


You misunderstood me. I tried to point out in a subtle manner what a blanket statement you made.

 

[Nemesis77]

Being a finn I think I'm more or less qualified to discuss this.

fines here are set up in such way that you pay more the higher your income is. Reason being that hi-income person could easily pay 200$ fines without a second thought. "Damn, I was going to drink a cup of coffee at this hi-end coffee-shop, but I guess I'll pay my fines instead... Oh wait, I can do both!". If your income is low, even small fines hit you hard. If you have high income, those fines wouldn't be a punishment at all. What is 200$ to a person that earn 200.000$ a year? That's why fines are higher for people who earn more. With this system, the fines actually feel like a punishment, both for the poor and for the rich. No, the poor dont get 5$ fines.

As for capitalism/communism. Finland is a capitalistic country with democratic elections (even more democratic that USA is. President is elected with a dircet popular vote and we have several parties. Top three (social democrats, conservatives, center party) each having about 20-24% of the votes). Sure, we have the nordic welfare-system, but that doesn't make this country any better or worse, just different. There IS a communist party in Finland, but they didn't even get any people in to the parliament in the last elections (so they are MARGINAL). There is a leftist pary in Finland that does have aboit 9% of the votes. They even are in the government, but that hasn't stopped the goverment from selling state-owned businesses and lowering taxes.

 

[Jzero]

<< The thing about speeding tickets is they are ultimately meant as a deterent. $250 is not a deterent to a millionaire. Until people spend jail time for things like this in that sense it does seem reasonable to punish richer people with more money (same percentage of income as a poorer person), because $100k to him might be the same as $250 to me, so we get equally punished. >>


Skoorb hit the nail on the head. A fine isn't supposed to be like an admission fee that allows you to commit a crime as long as you can afford to pay it...it's supposed to be a deterrent. Ideally, the point of the fine isn't supposed to be a moneymaking venture. The fine should never be collected b/c no one wants to pay it, so they don't bother committing the violation.
Of course, that's in a perfect world.
But think about it--would you be more likely to speed if it was a flat fine, or if it was a % of your income?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< ROTFL!

I'd imagine the tax evasion rate is pretty high there
(Tax-Evasion = Avoiding reporting income to government.) >>



Well, no. Well, the rich do tend to make their living from dividends and such (assuming that they own a business). Dividends get a flat-tax of 29% here. That lowers their tax-level, but it's NOT illegal.

Actual tax-evasion is pretty low I think. Finland has been ranked as the most least corrupt society in the world.

 

[StandardCell]

<<

<<

<< Typical socialist crap. >>

Typical capitalist crap. >>



Riiight, and that's why the Fins are the most powerful people on Earth... No, wait... >>



ROFLMFAO! ahahahahah that's CLASSIC!

But like I said in the other thread: Fines like this are utterly ridiculous. They're de-facto taxes hidden behind a false premise of justice. A fine like that might cause me, as an executive, to pack my business up and move it out of Finland. If I were this guy, that's EXACTLY what I would say to the court. Why should a traffic fine be based on my income? I don't think anyone here on AT could give five good solid reasons as to why. Then again, Finland's and the rest of Europe's taxes are so totally out of control that it doesn't surprise me that they would pull BS like this. Remember - this person is running a business and employing many people. Of course, like the other guy who replied to me in the other thread said the fined guy should just obey the law. You ever question that the law or administration of punishment might be wrong? Oh I forgot...government knows best, right?

But let's look at the other half of this - 16mph over gets a USD100,000+ fine? These people need to get a realistic look at speed enforcement. Should he be punished? Sure, I can see that. Should he have a large chunk of his money taken from him? No way. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean that they deserve to lose money faster than the average person. I wonder if they set up some true radar traps in Finland just for this purpose? The more you tax, the less incentive there is to want to work and make something of yourself...and that's all there is to it...

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<<

<<

<< Typical socialist crap. >>

Typical capitalist crap. >>



Riiight, and that's why the Fins are the most powerful people on Earth... No, wait... >>



ROFLMFAO! ahahahahah that's CLASSIC! >>



Yeah, you can be most powerful people in the world when there are only 5 million of you... I think Finland has done really well considering the size of the country.



<< They're de-facto taxes hidden behind a false premise of justice. A fine like that might cause me, as an executive, to pack my business up and move it out of Finland >>



You would move out of a country, so you could break the law with lesser consequences(sp?)? Nice personality you got there buddy. Would 250$ fine really feel like a punishment to a millionare? Now, give me an honest answer. If you say no, then you see why the rich get higher fines. If you answer "yes", you are lying.



<< Why should a traffic fine be based on my income? >>



Because the rich could pay their fines from their pocket-money, while the poorer couldn't. That wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be a punishment to the people with higher income.



<< I don't think anyone here on AT could give five good solid reasons as to why. >>



read above.



<< Remember - this person is running a business and employing many people. >>



No. He works for Nokia. He's one of their execs. He directly employs no-one, Nokia does. And Nokia is not going to move away from Finland so that their execs could break the law more easily.



<< Of course, like the other guy who replied to me in the other thread said the fined guy should just obey the law. You ever question that the law or administration of punishment might be wrong? Oh I forgot...government knows best, right? >>



Let's see, the traffic-code is laid out in the finnish law. The guy was caught speeding and was punished according to the law. I see no problem there. And like I said, I see no problem with rich people paying higher fines.



<< But let's look at the other half of this - 16mph over gets a USD100,000+ fine? These people need to get a realistic look at speed enforcement. >>



There's nothing wrong with the speed-enforcement. Had he had lower income, his fines would have been lower. But since he has high income, he can easily afford the fines. But they are still high enough to actually feel like a punishment. Had it been 250$, he could have propably paid the fines with his pocket money.

For me, 250$ fines would feel big. They would feel like a punishment. For him it wouldn't be.



<< I wonder if they set up some true radar traps in Finland just for this purpose? >>



Negative. To my knowledge, there are no radar-traps in the places where the rich are more frequent (like Westend in Espoo)



<< The more you tax, the less incentive there is to want to work and make something of yourself...and that's all there is to it. >>



Maybe so. And that's why many top-execs get their income from share-dividends and such which are taxed less. But, in the end, this is not about taxes, it's about punishing people for breaking the law. If everyone got 250$ fines, the rich would get off scot-free, since they could easily afford it, while the poor would have harder time paying. It would mean that only the poor would have to obey the law, while the rich wouldn't need to. it seems to be like that in USA, and personally I don't want that in Finland

EDIT: Fixed quoting

 

[mithrandir2001]

You don't need high fines to deter wealthy people from getting caught. If you get too many speeding tickets, the state will take away your license unfortunately. Otherwise, I would consider the typical $100 speeding ticket fine as merely a "cost of driving as I see fit".

Soooo, setting the fine amount relative to income is certainly an income-theft ploy by Government. Get 'em when they live, get 'em when they die and get 'em when they drive.

 

[StandardCell]

<< Yeah, you can be most powerful people in the world when there are only 5 million of you... I think Finland has done really well considering the size of the country. >>



That wasn't my point...all I'm laughing at is the smart-ass answers. Wasn't really a rib at Finland. Trust me, I'm Greek (ethnically, born in North America), and I think the Greek government is the biggest boat anchor in the EU at the moment...



<< You would move out of a country, so you could break the law with lesser consequences(sp?)? Nice personality you got there buddy. Would 250$ fine really feel like a punishment to a millionare? Now, give me an honest answer. If you say no, then you see why the rich get higher fines. If you answer "yes", you are lying. >>



Here is my answer: it is not as cut and dry as you want to make it out to be. It's not just the fine, it's the time spent by this individual dealing with this ticket, and the demerits. Even a $250 fine isn't just $250. A person's time in dealing with it is very valuable. If they're making the equivalent of $160k/month, or $1k/hour, I'm losing more than the fine. It's called opportunity cost. So, call me a liar if YOU want, but I will not accept that particular characterization. YES, the fine, no matter what the cost of it, will be punishment.

I will also say something that I have contended to all those who think fines should be raised higher than what they are - if the real motivation is to deter traffic violators, make the demerit points on the license per infraction very very high or take away their license altogether. And that is my exact opinion on it.



<<

<< Why should a traffic fine be based on my income? >>



Because the rich could pay their fines from their pocket-money, while the poorer couldn't. That wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be a punishment to the people with higher income. >>



Which is why you jack up the demerit points INSTEAD. I assume they have that wonderful system. Demerit points are an equalizer, since being able to pay for the fine does NOT remove the demerits from your license (for three years in North America, anyway). No matter how rich you are, you cannot get away from demerits, and when you're over the limit, your license is gone. Besides that, the poor don't have to worry about getting from A to B to make multi-million dollar deals. Not having a car because of demerits would teach a REAL lesson and remove any doubt as to financial motivations from the government.



<<

<< I don't think anyone here on AT could give five good solid reasons as to why. >>



read above. >>



I'm still waiting for which five you've mentioned, because I couldn't pick them out of what's above.



<<

<< Remember - this person is running a business and employing many people. >>



No. He works for Nokia. He's one of their execs. He directly employs no-one, Nokia does. And Nokia is not going to move away from Finland so that their execs could break the law more easily. >>



He is a material PORTION of WHY the people are employed. Without his guidance, the business falters and people have their employment threatened. And, again, you imply in your language that breaking the law in a speeding ticket is some huge crime, along the same lines as commercially pirating films in the US (e.g. $250k fines). I will also reiterate - what about the demerit points?



<<

<< Of course, like the other guy who replied to me in the other thread said the fined guy should just obey the law. You ever question that the law or administration of punishment might be wrong? Oh I forgot...government knows best, right? >>



Let's see, the traffic-code is laid out in the finnish law. The guy was caught speeding and was punished according to the law. I see no problem there. And like I said, I see no problem with rich people paying higher fines. >>



You missed the nuance of my question. What I'm trying to say is that people should not blindly accept the decisions of government in administering fines. In Canada, photo radar is common. In particular, Edmonton, Alberta has the highest traffic fine collection per capita in North America. They gave out 150,000 tickets and $12M+ in fines in one year, but guess how they did it? Photo radar. The person doesn't get stopped. The person doesn't have demerits taken away. The person keep driving fast. This saves nobody if, three blocks down the road, they run over someone instead of being pulled over and handed a ticket. My point is, just because something is in the law does not make it right or fair. Edmonton has a cash grab, and it seems Finland does as well.

Unfortunately, changing this requires voting for someone else. But since traffic enforcement is not typically a major plank in an election campaign, it rarely gets addressed. But it is happening. Legislators in Washington, DC, are starting to scrutinize the use and motivation of photo radar because they view it as a cash grab. If the ultimate aim is true safety (and I can't see how anyone could say otherwise), DEMERIT THE CRAP OUT OF THE GUY. Don't fine him. Remove the danger as perceived from the road and get it over with.



<<

<< But let's look at the other half of this - 16mph over gets a USD100,000+ fine? These people need to get a realistic look at speed enforcement. >>



There's nothing wrong with the speed-enforcement. Had he had lower income, his fines would have been lower. But since he has high income, he can easily afford the fines. But they are still high enough to actually feel like a punishment. Had it been 250$, he could have propably paid the fines with his pocket money.

For me, 250$ fines would feel big. They would feel like a punishment. For him it wouldn't be. >>



But will even that stop him? Ask yourself that. Nobody can afford equal punishment under the law when it is TRUE punishment. And I will also assert that when Ms. Jane Average gets a ticket, it's not as costly in terms of an opportunity cost as for Mr. Wealthy. But I wonder - how much of this large fine will be earmarked for traffic education of offenders and new drivers? Maybe driver education should be increased using the fine money. Is it?



<<

<< I wonder if they set up some true radar traps in Finland just for this purpose? >>



Negative. To my knowledge, there are no radar-traps in the places where the rich are more frequent (like Westend in Espoo) >>



I'm talking about where there are abrupt speed changes followed by enforcement right after the speed change. But I'll assume that this isn't the case.



<<

<< The more you tax, the less incentive there is to want to work and make something of yourself...and that's all there is to it. >>



Maybe so. And that's why many top-execs get their income from share-dividends and such which are taxed less. But, in the end, this is not about taxes, it's about punishing people for breaking the law. If everyone got 250$ fines, the rich would get off scot-free, since they could easily afford it, while the poor would have harder time paying. It would mean that only the poor would have to obey the law, while the rich wouldn't need to. it seems to be like that in USA, and personally I don't want that in Finland >>



The rich have to obey the law in the US because of the demerit system. You can't just buy your way out of a mess at any time. I'm not sure what your impression of the US Justice system is, but it's not THAT bad. Particularly the way the US traffic courts work, they are tantamount to kangaroo courts where many legitimate defenses are dismissed, because the traffic fines represent significant revenue for the city, county and state. I don't see how it's any different in Finland or anywhere else when it comes down to it, particularly when the fine is so high.

So, I would propose that the most effective deterrent is to issue demerits, remove licenses for repeat offenders, and set fines at a fixed limit subject to the government's cost of prosecuting the traffic violation. Removing the financial gain for the government while making operational sanctions encourages equal and fair treatment under the law. No $100k fines needed.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Here is my answer: it is not as cut and dry as you want to make it out to be. It's not just the fine, it's the time spent by this individual dealing with this ticket, and the demerits. >>



Finland doesn't have demerit-system.



<< Even a $250 fine isn't just $250. A person's time in dealing with it is very valuable. If they're making the equivalent of $160k/month, or $1k/hour, I'm losing more than the fine. >>



Most of the rich people get their fortune from stock-options. Those are hardly affected if you take the 2 minutes it takes to pay that fine. They could cut their golf-game by 5 minutes so they could pay the fine. They wouldn't lose any money since they would pay it in their free time (they could pay it online from their home if they want to).

Let's assume for a while that he does lose large amounts of money because it takes his time to pay that fine. The poorer also lose money. Let's say it reduces their monthly income by 10% (I'm vastly simplifying and exaggarating here). For the rich it would cut his monthly income from say 50.000 euros to 45.000 euros. For a poorer person his income would drop from (for example) 2.000 euros to 1.800 euros. That 200 euros could be vital for him, while that 5.000 euros propably isn't vital for the other person. He has such a big income that he can manage even if his income temporarily drops.



<< I will also say something that I have contended to all those who think fines should be raised higher than what they are - if the real motivation is to deter traffic violators, make the demerit points on the license per infraction very very high or take away their license altogether >>



We don't use demerit-system.



<<

<< Why should a traffic fine be based on my income? >>



Because the rich could pay their fines from their pocket-money, while the poorer couldn't. That wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be a punishment to the people with higher income. >>





<< Which is why you jack up the demerit points INSTEAD. >>



Like I already said, we don't use demerit-system.



<< I assume they have that wonderful system. >>



You assume wrong



<< Besides that, the poor don't have to worry about getting from A to B to make multi-million dollar deals. >>



Maybe not, but they might need the car just as bad. They might not use it to make multi-million dollar deals. They would use it to feed their families.



<<

<< I don't think anyone here on AT could give five good solid reasons as to why. >>



read above. >>



I'm still waiting for which five you've mentioned, because I couldn't pick them out of what's above.[/i] >>



Sorry, didn't notice the part about must having 5 reasons. I think having 1 good reason is enough.



<< And, again, you imply in your language that breaking the law in a speeding ticket is some huge crime, along the same lines as commercially pirating films in the US (e.g. $250k fines). >>



No, speeding is not a huge crime. And he can easily afford the fines he was sentenced to. Had he commited more severe crime, his punishment would have been more severe. For him, 250K fines are no more difficult to manage than 250$ fines to average person.



<< I will also reiterate - what about the demerit points? >>



We don't have them.



<< You missed the nuance of my question. What I'm trying to say is that people should not blindly accept the decisions of government in administering fines. >>



I think finns are more trusting towards governemt than some other nationalities. I don't think that's automatically a bad thing. in USA people seem to be paranoid towards the government, that is not the case here.



<< In Canada, photo radar is common. In particular, Edmonton, Alberta has the highest traffic fine collection per capita in North America. They gave out 150,000 tickets and $12M+ in fines in one year, but guess how they did it? Photo radar. The person doesn't get stopped. The person doesn't have demerits taken away. The person keep driving fast. >>



We have those in Finland too. But whenever they are in place, there are warning-signs telling motorists that there are cameras enforcing the speed-limit. Even though there are signs warning of the cameras, there aren't always cameras present. Stuedies in Finland have shown that those cameras are effective way to reduce speeding and accidents.



<< But will even that stop him? Ask yourself that. Nobody can afford equal punishment under the law when it is TRUE punishment. And I will also assert that when Ms. Jane Average gets a ticket, it's not as costly in terms of an opportunity cost as for Mr. Wealthy. >>



How come? He could pay it in his free time, he doesn't get paid for his free time. It would take me about 2-3 minutes to log in to an online bank and pay the fine, I fail to see how it could take longer for Mr. Rich.



<< But I wonder - how much of this large fine will be earmarked for traffic education of offenders and new drivers? Maybe driver education should be increased using the fine money. Is it? >>



The money is not earmarked. I think it should be earmarked for road-maintenance and the like, but it's not.



<< So, I would propose that the most effective deterrent is to issue demerits, remove licenses for repeat offenders, and set fines at a fixed limit subject to the government's cost of prosecuting the traffic violation. Removing the financial gain for the government while making operational sanctions encourages equal and fair treatment under the law. No $100k fines needed. >>



The current system achieves the same results, but the government gets extra cash . That money is away from my taxes.

 

[Aelus]

I assume finland also has a very low casualty rate in traffic, partly due to this system.

i truly wish it was put into place in belgium too, but due to a horrible secretary of internal affairs, no traffic regulations get in place, because it could cost him votes.

oh well, maybe it'll happen once, before i emigrate

Aelus

 

[Nemesis77]

<< I assume finland also has a very low casualty rate in traffic, partly due to this system. >>



Let's see.... Here are statistics regarding that. Drink & driving is a problem because finns are quite heavy drinkers . Other than that, I guess the statistics look OK.

Off-topic but... Take a look at the number of fixed telephone connections in the bottom of that page :Q.In the year 2000 there were 2.847.929 fixed telephone connections and 3.728.625 mobile-phone connections.