Slashdot Mirror
$56,000 Speeding Ticket Issued Under Finland's System of Fines Based On Income
HughPickens.com writes Joe Pinsker writes at The Atlantic that Finish businessman Reima Kuisla was recently caught going 65 miles per hour in a 50 zone in his home country and ended up paying a fine of $56,000. The fine was so extreme because in Finland, some traffic fines, as well as fines for shoplifting and violating securities-exchange laws, are assessed based on earnings—and Kuisla's declared income was €6.5 million per year. Several years ago another executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle. Finland's system for calculating fines is relatively simple: It starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two—the resulting number is considered a reasonable amount of spending money to deprive the offender of. Then, based on the severity of the crime, the system has rules for how many days the offender must go without that money. Going about 15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12 days, and going 25 mph over carries a 22-day multiplier. Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland also have some sliding-scale fines, or "day-fines," in place, but in America, flat-rate fines are the norm. Since the late 80s, when day-fines were first seriously tested in the U.S., they have remained unusual and even exotic.
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
Should such a system be used in the United States? After all, wealthier people have been shown to drive more recklessly than those who make less money. For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates. But more importantly, day-fines could introduce some fairness to a legal system that many have convincingly shown to be biased against the poor. Last week, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive report on how fines have been doled out in Ferguson, Missouri. "Ferguson's law enforcement practices are shaped by the City's focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs," it concluded. The first day-fine ever in the U.S. was given in 1988, and about 70 percent of Staten Island's fines in the following year were day-fines. A similar program was started in Milwaukee, and a few other cities implemented the day-fine idea and according to Judith Greene, who founded Justice Strategies, a nonprofit research organization, all of these initiatives were effective in making the justice system fairer for poor people. "When considering a proportion of their income,people are at least constantly risk-averse. This means that the worst that would happen is that the deterrent effect of fines would be the same across wealth or income levels," says Casey Mulligan. "We should start small—say, only speeding tickets—and see what happens."
I fail to see why this is a problem.
Social justice extremism will allow for more unaccountability
The free riders get another free ride.
Also Ferguson? The % of people being ticketed for expired plates should not be against the general pop. It should be the non-registering population.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And to each according to his need.
Scandinavia is awesome.
Whether you view the fines as a deterrent or a punishment, it makes sense that under a flat-fine structure, rich people will be unaffected by fines that are crippling for poor people to pay.
If a class of people can simply ignore the penalties doled out for breaking a law, that system needs reworking.
There are probably some devils lurking in the details (some very rich people have little income; is spending money a good proxy, some people live just within their means and others save quite a bit, etc etc), but the basic idea seems very sound.
I actually prefer they use the book value of the car.
On the one hand, a scaling punishment I think is a smart idea. On the other hand, since ticket fines generally go right back into the department coffers, this will make the police target those of means far more and kinda reverse the current situation, where you'll have the average joes being more reckless because the cops don't see it as worth their time to pull them over. This will also lead to the rich guys going for clunkers to avoid being targeted. So in the end, you might actually end up with less overall safety. Now, if the departments didn't get that income, maybe we could curb that trend.
Nope, tickets are all about revenue. The speed limits are enforced almost entirely arbitrarily, although every so often they do actually pull over someone who's being very reckless. If they were enforced much more stringently, people would start demanding that limits be raised and revenue would dry up. If you used some technical means to prevent people from speeding, revenue would dry up (As would sales of overpowered sports cars.) Of course we can't say that, because arbitrary enforcement of a law would be unconstitutional.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And rich people are more equal, obviously.
Only plutocratic viewpoints hold legal sway.
Lower-income people can lose their jobs if they have to be away from work for even a few days, especially if it’s due to incarceration. Even if they don’t get fired, hourly workers will lose income, whereas salaried employees and people who live off of investment income won’t. And someone like Martha Stewart can go away for five months and have her media empire (which has been running profitably the whole time) waiting for her when she gets out.
So no, not equal at all. (This is also why a flat tax is unequal despite being equally applied.)
No amount of money should be able to excuse you for being a pillock.
If a millionaire gets fined $10, it's quite literally a joke not a deterrent. If a poor homeless guy gets fined $10, it's more than he can afford. Thus the treatment of the same crime for two people is unfair.
The alternative? You lose your licence at the same speed as everyone else. I guarantee you that in a choice between more points on your licence and a fine proportional to your income, you'll pick the fine. Because once you fill that licence, you're fucked unless you want to face the humiliation of sitting your test again.
The fine is a portion of your income. So it hurts all fairly. If you're worried about where the money goes, put it into a victim surcharge to pay towards reparations for victims of all crime.
But fuck your idea of "we should be thanking these people". I don't want a fucking idiot driving down my street too fast whether he has no money or is a millionaire. And I certainly don't want millionaires DELIBERATELY breaking the law because the consequences are so fucking pathetic to them that it will never matter.
So make one change - replace 'jail' with community service,
One speeding ticket = 4 hours spent picking up garbage on the side of the road.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If you thought it was bad how cops were targeting/ticketing poor people, wait until the police realize they can fund their whole budget if they can ticket a guy like Zuckerberg once or twice!
Before a system like this is in place, the financial incentive for cops to ticket people needs to be removed. Any fines need to be given back to the community via some type of property/income/sales tax rebate, rather than back to the city (which in essence goes back to the cops that are handing out the fines). For example, if $1,000,000 in fines were collected for a town with 10,000 property tax assessments, they could knock $100 off of each tax bill.
The same needs to be done with civil asset forfeitures. If there was ever a clearer case of conflict of interest, I haven't seen it.
You have to determine what someone's yearly income is. Some very wealthy people hide most of their income for tax purposes making this difficult.
The IRS is pretty good at this. Sure there will be some people that weasel out of some money they might otherwise owe but the it doesn't make the basic idea a bad one. In the US there are some privacy and states rights issues to work through along with a general distrust of government so I don't really see such a thing becoming common here.
It hurts revenue generation for the police force because a lot of the people pulled over are in poverty and get small fines.
Revenue from illegal activity should NEVER be used to fund policing. It simply is too big of a conflict of interest. Fines from stuff like parking tickets should be used to fund other things (education, roads, etc) but it should not be available to police.
Nations that have these laws usually also ensure that next to nobody has to live in such poverty that they can't afford a fine. The US is pretty exceptional in its callousness towards the poor.
Which line is "moronic" The line about "all taxes are regressive" ?
I do have evidence, you you care. Remember back in the 90's when Clinton instituted a "Luxury Tax" on things like Boats, Airplanes and super expensive cars? Wasn't supposed to impact anyone except the "super rich".
Well guess what, it nearly killed entire industries when the rich simply avoided the taxes, by not buying new "Luxury" items. Guess who it hurt? Yeah, those moronic workers who were laid off as demand for those items disappeared.
It was so disastrous that it was quickly repealed.
Here is why my premise is true, the rich can spend money to avoid paying taxes, the poor cannot. The poor ALWAYS get hit by taxes, even when they aren't targeted, taxes they cannot avoid. Of course, the socialists in the crowd always think that "progressive" taxes are good, because they "soak the rich" meanwhile, they simply ignore the unintended consequences (and costs) to those that cannot avoid taxes.
And remember Eric Garner? That was over "taxes", because who else cares about selling untaxed "loosies"? Why ONLY the government! (he is my proof that taxes are under threat of government guns, and chokeholds)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.