Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$56,000 Speeding Ticket Issued Under Finland's System of Fines Based On Income

Posted by samzenpus on from the can-I-just-do-the-jail-time? dept.

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."

89 of 760 comments (clear)

  1. well.. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fail to see why this is a problem.

    1. Re:well.. by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's only a problem because we have not adopted it here. This system makes a lot of sense although it comes with a few caveats:
      1. 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.
      2. It creates sensational headlines when some Rockefeller is pulled over and gets an enormous fine (that they have no trouble paying).
      3. It hurts revenue generation for the police force because a lot of the people pulled over are in poverty and get small fines.
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:well.. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I do.
      15 mph over the speed limit gets you a multiplier of 12

      The problem is fines are supposed to be for the encouragement of safe driving. It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue.
      Change that multiplier to 1 and you may have something.
      Also this?
      "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."
      Let me explain this to you. Reckless means an action that puts people in danger.
      Driving without a license plate and or parking in a handicapped spot does not put people into danger.
      It may be rude or even morally wrong but it is putting anyone in danger so it not reckless.
      BTW I have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade and I do not park in handicapped spots but the use of law enforcement for generating revenue is a terrible trend and needs to be stopped.
      If you want to do fines right IMHO the first fine in a year should be 1 day the second 10 days and third 50 days and the fourth 100 days.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.

    4. Re:well.. by khellendros1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It depends on how you measure "differently". Maybe for me, a $100 fine is no problem, but for my friend a $100 fine means that they aren't going to be able to make their rent payment on time this month. So, I get mildly inconvenienced (gotta transfer $100 into my checking account), but my friend gets evicted. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with that outcome.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    5. Re:well.. by Carnivore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules. The guy in the article makes €6.5 million a year, almost €18000 a day--do you think he gives a single shit about a €50 fine? €1000?

      We sort of cover this in the US with points; you can't just drive recklessly and pay for it out of petty cash forever because you'll lose your license. But the day fine concept seems like a decent way to instill the same kind of aversion in everyone, fairly. Points are ephemeral but your money is obvious.

    6. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In regards to your first point, the system would have to be based on the offender's net worth rather than their income in the US, due to all of the tricks that the rich have paid to create in the tax code. And then we'd need a semi-accurate way of calculating net worth. (And then, of course, once we have that, we can adjust the tax code to pay attention to changes in net worth rather than "income", which would help a lot with the tax evasion problem!)

      As for your third point, the cops would have to start overenforcing and creating crime against the rich instead of the poor in order to bolster their budgets. Frankly, I think this would be a good change. The rich can fight back better, and we might actually see some meaningful change in the policies of police departments this way.

    7. Re:well.. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments.

      Bullshit. All fines generate revenue, and traffic enforcement counts as one of the worst offenders.

      "Gee, why does the speed suddenly drop from 45 to 25 for a tenth of a mile riiight at that otherwise-uninteresting spot where cops can easily hide?"
      "Safety."

    8. Re:well.. by portnoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It hurts revenue generation for the police force because a lot of the people pulled over are in poverty and get small fines.

      You're making the assumption that this would continue. Instead, it's more likely the police would target more expensive cars for smaller infractions, since a BMW going 6mph over the limit is likely to be more lucrative than a rusted-out Dodge Dart going 15mph over.

    9. Re:well.. by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the point is not for the police departments to get Teh Phat Lootz, but to equalize the pain of violating the rules.

      You can't have one without the other. Unless you deny the entire government the money from the fines, the rich will become the only ones targeted by traffic cops. It's already bad enough that police departments prioritize money over safety. It could perhaps become bad enough that the cops ignore anyone without an extremely nice car because the revenue is not worth it.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    10. Re:well.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is fines are supposed to be for the encouragement of safe driving. It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue.
      Change that multiplier to 1 and you may have something.

      If the goal is to encourage safe driving then the fine must have some effect on the person being fined. If it is too low they won't care.

      I agree that speeding fines are not for generating revenue, but that doesn't seem to be the primary factor in determining the amount.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:well.. by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.

      But need we all be reminded of this.... IF you have something to loose, it's a bad idea to run around doing dangerous things. So if Richie Rich was speeding and being negligent, wrecks your car and you get injured in the process, you can bet that he will be fined for breaking the law, and then found liable in Civil court for his actions. Richie will be less rich after that.

      So, here in the USA, this graduated fine idea really isn't necessary. We already have an effective way to deal with such eventualities. Not to mention it supports a whole industry that keeps personal injury attorneys chasing ambulances and in business and the civil courts busy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:well.. by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of the law shouldn't be that its a cash machine. It's that it should discourage illegal activities. Part of the problem is that police forces proceed from the faulty premise that their job it to fund the department. It shouldn't be. It should first and foremost be to serve the public trust by upholding and enforcing the law.

      Presently speeding tickets aren't a deterrent to rich people because they're absurdly low. I think a sliding scale based on income isn't just a good idea, it's the only logical idea that works fairly to discourage the act.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    13. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In Finland the money from speeding tickets goes to the state, not the local county/city. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the money from tickets issued by the police goes at least partially to the local county and state. If there was equally only a federal police force in the US, I don't think there would be an issue with it.

    14. Re:well.. by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. All fines generate revenue

      Fine, they all generate revenue AND they are a means of punishment.

      Perhaps the ideal, then, is to keep the punishment and change how revenue generation works.

      Some law enforcement agencies do not see a dime of that money directly, but it gets pooled at the state level into general funding (along with tax revenue). Law enforcement, along with all other government activities, is then funded from that general fund. This indirect funding reduces the correlation of enforcement zones (aka speed traps) to revenue.

      Another possibility is to have that money go into a designated account for traffic education programs.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    15. Re:well.. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      It is not supposed to be a way to generate revenue

      I propose that all traffic fine revenue should simply be placed into a pot, and then distributed back each year to everyone with a vehicle insured in the jurisdiction. Then its revenue neutral to the police / government / state; and its only function is to be used as a punitive / disincentive to driving poorly. I figure that solves a lot problems.

      A tax increase is required to offset it though since we'd have to fund the police enforcement directly. But that's a good thing.

      Driving without a license plate and or parking in a handicapped spot does not put people into danger. It may be rude or even morally wrong but it is putting anyone in danger so it not reckless.

      I agree. But I also wouldn't call 15mph over the limit to be reckless in a LOT of scenarios. It might be reckless in some scenarios... in others it is just going with the regular flow of traffic.

      If you want to do fines right IMHO the first fine in a year should be 1 day the second 10 days and third 50 days and the fourth 100 days.

      That's not half bad. I think it scales a bit too fast for regular speeding tickets, but for reckless driving ... sure.

    16. Re:well.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As for your third point, the cops would have to start overenforcing and creating crime against the rich instead of the poor in order to bolster their budgets. Frankly, I think this would be a good change. The rich can fight back better, and we might actually see some meaningful change in the policies of police departments this way.

      Wait, wait wait....

      Isn't the point of the fine, to enforce the concept of SAFETY?

      Let's take revenue generation for the city/police/state OUT of the equation. It is a HUGE conflict of interest for those enforcing this fine to be also the beneficiaries of it.

      Why not take all the money that is collected in fines for speeding, jay walking, etc.....and at the end of the year, redistribute it to all the citizens that have NOT gotten a fine that year?

      The motto of the police force should not be "To Collect and Serve" after all, but yet it seems to be their primary motivating force these days. I'd venture to guess the high enthusiasm we currently see to enforce speeding laws would drop drastically if the cops didn't directly benefit from it monetarily.

      But here's the way it works in most cases I see. They just want the money. In my city and I think in many others, if you are SMART, you do not automatically pay the fine and plea guilty. You take your day in court. I found out how it works at least in New Orleans. If you go to court, just before the judge comes for that day, the asst. DA takes you into his office and gives you a plea deal. Pretty much the same fine, BUT...the charge is reduced to a non-moving violation so that it doesn't go on your driving record.

      So, check in your state, it may be VERY much worth your time to go to court rather than pay that fine. Me? I need to get an upgraded detector to catch the one asshole I found out there with a modern LIDAR.

      That being said...lets take the direct collection of $$ away from the govt and back to the people, if this is for safety, then lets reward those that drive safely.

      Overall...no, I'm not for outrageous fines for folks that are rich. It seems lately, for some reason, so many out there are treating wealth as something evil and bad. Frankly, the only reason I work is to increase my net worth. Money is the thing that allows me to live and have fun on a standard that makes my life fun. Why is everyone so inclined to try to just take as much as possible from others? Ok..maybe that's a whole new thread, but really....let's at least take the direct benefit of pulling people over out of the hands of those enforcing the law and then look at fine "balance".

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:well.. by TheMeuge · · Score: 2

      Except most speed limits are complete bullshit, at least in the US.

      There are highways in NYC that have a 40mph minimum and a 45 mph maximum. Think that has anything to do with the ability to fine pretty much anyone at any time?

      Roads have pretty natural speed limits regardless of the imposed limit, and it would be trivial to figure them out by simply taking an average over the course of a few days. I would venture a guess for the majority of the highways it would be substantially higher than the posted limit.

      Remember - speed doesn't kill... a line of courteous drivers, observing correct leading distance and allowing free merges can probably go 100+ on a modern road in modern cars. Recklessness, carelessness, and needless maneuvers is what kills, not to mention distraction and intoxication. Observe Germany's autobahns for an example,

    18. Re:well.. by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody is under any obligation to share their financial details on net worth with any government official. Income, yes. Net worth, no. Net worth changes every single day depending on markets for real estate, equities, bonds, equipment etc. The overhead associated with appraising everything would be enormous. Then you have classes of people who have lots of paper wealth, but little income. Say a farmer. He may be worth millions on paper, but have little cash flow, and lots of that is committed to paying off bills for seed, chemicals, diesel fuel, etc.

    19. Re:well.. by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the idea is that is supposed to be more an incentive to not get a ticket, so that the sting hurts everyone equally. It would have to be carefully implemented to not be abusive.

      It is probably an emotional response to seeing some rich **** flaunt the law with zero consequence to themselves, where a ticket like that could destroy someone scraping by : see http://www.slate.com/articles/.... I have sympathy for the idea and when I was in Germany, there were similar laws.

    20. Re:well.. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the money from tickets issued by the police goes at least partially to the local county and state

      You're correct that in most (all?) of the US the local municipality gets a portion of any driving citations.

      That's why many of them (at least here in SC) will often issue a "Careless Operation" ticket when they pull you over as a "favor". A speeding ticket here is often less than $100 but levies "points" against your license (ie, they make your insurance rate go up). Careless Operation runs around $250 but has no points associated, so your insurance generally isn't affected. The drivers thinks they're getting off lucky as the extra $150 in fines is much lower than the difference in insurance premiums would be and the police get a portion of a larger fine.

      There is actually one small town nearby here that is documented to have over 2/3 of its annual budget come from traffic citations. The "town" is little more than an intersection with a population of under 100 people, but they have a police force of exactly 1 officer who just writes tickets all day long. The speed limit conveniently drops from 55 mph to 35 mph for about 1/4 mile while driving through there. Locals know better than to speed through that area, but they mostly catch people just passing through. I've always joked with friends that its a ticketable offense to drive through there with out-of-state plates.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:well.. by swb · · Score: 2

      BTW I have not had a speeding ticket in over a decade and I do not park in handicapped spots but the use of law enforcement for generating revenue is a terrible trend and needs to be stopped.

      The way to do this is to remove the reward incentive from fines.

      If the fines go to the general fund for whatever the highest political entity is (eg, if Ferguson, MO fines somebody, the money goes to the state's general fund) then you remove any financial incentive for the local police to fine anyone, because the money leaves their jurisdiction.

      Almost all of the "policing for profit" problems seem to exist because the cops, or someone closely supervising the cops, gets the money. This creates an incentive for them to do more of the same because they get paid.

      If the money gets distributed into a larger pool, they have no incentive to collect fines outside of whatever basic incentives the police have to pursue safety.

      I'm sure there will be the usual complaints about why the police or local government should collect money for labor-intensive enforcement efforts or why the police won't bother to enforce some laws.

    22. Re:well.. by websitebroke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That all sounds great except for the me getting injured part. I'd rather Richie Rich was deterred in the first place.

    23. Re:well.. by Jiro · · Score: 2

      Releasing of elderly prisoners on "compassion" grounds is a lie. Elderly prisoners are released on "compassion" grounds because the elderly have lots of medical expenses at the end of their life and if you keep the elderly prisoner in prison you have to pay all his medical expenses.

    24. Re:well.. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'Net worth' is not always a good indicator either. Consider a farmer with a couple hundred acres. Annual 'income' of $20,000, but on paper, a millionaire, because of the land.

    25. Re:well.. by Cramer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Revenue is the entire point of most traffic tickets. Look at the stats for speeding tickets, or stop light cameras, and it's as bright as a road flare. When someone does something dangerous, or actually does harm, no ticket is ever written -- when I was rear-ended, destroying my car, the idiot soccer mom that did it received no ticket at all. When you rear-end someone sitting at a stop light in rush hour traffic on a five lane highway less than a mile from the trailer park you call home -- i.e. a road you drive every day -- you deserve to go to jail, have your license revoked, and your vehicle taken and destroyed. You've proven you cannot be trusted with a vehicle.

      As for the "day scale" for tickets, it won't have much effect on the "rich". The fines will not be the deterrent you might think. And they'll have even less effect on the poor, as this will make their tickets even less. All this will do is skew speed traps towards more expensive cars in an attempt to cash in on the income bias. (which also won't work as I know a great many "not so rich" people driving what were very expensive cars... until you run the VIN -- flood damaged, wrecked/totaled, drug/tax seizure, etc.)

    26. Re:well.. by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      If you are targeting any minority of the population while you are supposed to be pushing "safety", you're doing it wrong. In this case, the rich get lawyers and get off, and the not-rich aren't even enforced upon because they cease to be juicy targets.

      Which means there's less safety and not more.

      Right now, the rich probably drive with impunity, but there are a lot fewer rich than poor. If the poor drive just as badly, and there are more of them, then despite the unfairness of the situation, you're actually closer to safety. Even if a full 50% of the 1% drive like crazed maniacs, that's still fewer people than the 10% of the 99% who drive like crazed maniacs.

      Pull them both over and give them points on their license. Allow insurance companies to use the points to jack up their rates, if they want. Yes, the insurance companies get more money, but at least they can't control enforcement. And if you are driving a BMW, you still get charged proportionally to someone who doesn't, if you have the same risk group and driving history, of course.

    27. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean rent it out to another farmer that can only make $20k from farming the land? Seriously, the progressive city dwellers really have no clue about real world economics. It's all rainbows and butterflies.

    28. Re:well.. by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point of a fine is supposed to be a deterrent. A below-average Joe may have trouble paying a fine of several hundred dollars while a rich guy has options.
      The fine may be trivial, impounding his car may not work as he may have more than one or renting one long term isn't financially onerous - or he can just buy another new out of pocket. Or he can hire a chauffeur or even risk driving without a license.

      It's not about taking from "the makers", it's about not allowing rich assholes to flout the law just because they have more money.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    29. Re:well.. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.

      Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:well.. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      It only makes 20K only as long as the farmer owns it. When someone else buys it, they can bribe the local politicians to change the zoning and suddenly the land can make quite a bit more.

    31. Re:well.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      People don't speed because they're "intent on breaking the law", they speed because they think they can get away with it. Raise the fines and a lot of speeders do go away.

      And no, it's not just theory. It's very visible among immigrants from my own country who move into US and other Western countries. First they drive recklessly, because they're used to the notion that fines are small, and you can usually bribe the officer anyway. This continues until they get slapped with several hundred dollars for speeding, and then they become much more cautious. I've seen it happen many times.

    32. Re:well.. by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Supply and demand don't exist in a post-industrial economy.
      Once the manufacturing power is concentrated into the hands of a few people / corporations, collusion is easy, competition is pointless, and getting fucked is the norm. Anything sufficiently complicated (building cars, running a telecommunications network, running a taxi service, practicing law or medicine or any other enshrined "profession", etc.) is run by an established group of people with the investments, equipment, rights, and powers necessary. They then actively seek regulation, attack new players, and buyout / sue to death anyone who dares to compete in order to protect their established death grip on the sector.

      Once China/Taiwan/Malaysia finish their transition, it's game over for supply/demand until someone can stabilize Africa to the point of industrializing it and exploiting it for cheap labor.

    33. Re:well.. by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I've seen more jackasses in Hondas than I have in BMWs. Driving a less expensive car doesn't make you a better or more responsible driver, it just makes you stand out less.

    34. Re:well.. by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      The problem you have with your system is that the fines are retained by the police, they should go into state revenue without earmarks.

      That said, they're still really enthusiastic to fine speeders here; they still get to swagger and chide you like a naughty child after breaking more laws than the person they're "in pursuit" of, that hasn't actually fled.

    35. Re:well.. by burne · · Score: 5, Informative

      It hurts revenue generation for the police force

      Top Tip: In Finland the police isn't depending on 'revenue'. Policing Finland as a preset, defined budget. Any fines levied are a surplus to the states income, and police forces do not benefit in any way from their law enforcing activities. Finnish police has to account for security, safety and crimes solved, not for income from speeding tickets.

    36. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, looked at another way, there are over 7 billion on the planet, and that means there are more than enough "talented" people who will do it because they enjoy doing it rather than for stupid levels of financial reward. Finland is interested in looking for such people.

      That tall poppy analogy is tired and stupid. Nobody in Finland is prevented from succeeding. What they don't get is disproportionate reward.

    37. Re:well.. by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It seems lately, for some reason, so many out there are treating wealth as something evil and bad.

      Not necessarily evil, but something that's almost alive in its own right. Wealth has a logic all of its own, and makes demands to its nominal owners which tend to be destructive to other people. Few would break into someone's house and throw the occupants out, but one wealthy person closes a factory, rendering all the employees unemployed, and then a bank owned by another repossesses their homes. Neither of them sees anything wrong with this, and in fact claim they have no choice in the matter. And they are right: other choices would spread wealth around, making theirs worth less. You don't so much own wealth, as you serve it, like an idol, and this particular "god" doesn't care about mere mortals except insofar as they can be used to make more money.

      So in a way, wealthy people are high priests receiving power from their idol in exchange for willing slavery. And, sadly, their god happens to be one that demands human sacrifice. And that doesn't go too well with the pool of potential victims, even if they're typically adepts of the same cult themselves.

      Wealth isn't evil, but it's also not moral, and mere mortals keep on proving they don't have the strength to force their own will over its internal logic, but are overwhelmed and become captive servants instead.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    38. Re:well.. by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Of course it does.
      Supply is controlled so tightly by a few to the point where:
        - A drop in demand has no corresponding effect on price.
        - A temporary increase in demand has a long-lasting increase on price.
        - Supply is artificially constrained in order to jack up profits.

    39. Re:well.. by nyri · · Score: 2

      This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.

      Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.

      To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.

      Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.

      I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.

      By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.

  2. Sounds good by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: Sounds good by RobbieCrash · · Score: 2

      Agreed, blindly:

      You're find an absolute in terms of how many days of money you lose, not how many dollars.

      --
      Keep on knockin'
      https://robbiecrash.me
    2. Re:Sounds good by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Changing it to a percent of wealth or income would encourage more rich people to hide their assets overseas. It wouldn't fix the problem. They have plenty of money to hire fancy lawyers and accountants to make sure their wealth remains in tact. Meanwhile, the middle class would probably get hosed because they have enough to be hurt by higher fines, but not enough to defend against it or hide their assets. And what happens to the poor? They'd get zero fine because they have nothing and earn nothing? That doesn't sound like it helps anything. The best thing for speeding, IMO, is to set better limits. If 90% of the traffic on a road travels higher than the limit, the limit isn't set right.

    3. Re:Sounds good by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Your argument sounds compelling... until you re-read the title of this article. Then you realize that in some countries, there are other benefits to declaring your income locally that outweigh the liabilities like speeding fines.

      But the US system is so messed up that in this case, you're probably right: the IRS *already* makes tax dodging highly lucrative, as much of your tax money goes to things that don't directly affect the citizenry.

      Oh, and limits shouldn't be set by how fast people travel: I live in a place where the limits are lower than they should be in some areas, and higher than they should be in some areas -- but people almost always drive 10mph over the higher limit, no matter where they are. The area is famous for the frequency and severity of its traffic accidents and high insurance premiums. I drive out of the area to ride my bike.

    4. Re:Sounds good by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with increasing the speed limits is that some people will drive over the limit no matter what the limit is, figuring that (in my country) for +10km/h you only get a warning and for +20km/h the fine isn't that big, so they can afford it.

      Having more speed cameras helps (in my country the speed cameras are preceded by an informational sign announcing their presence) as people drive slower when they know that they can get their picture taken.

      As for the %income fines for the zero income people, I do not know how the law is in Finland, but IMO it could be that if you get zero income then you have to spend the 12 days or whatever in jail or doing community service.

  3. Re:Why use income? Why not total wealth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I actually prefer they use the book value of the car.

  4. Re:Ridiculous. Only in Europe could this happen. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Yeah, because a $200 fine is really going to deter someone who makes that much money in 5 minutes, especially if speeding saves them 5 minutes on their commute.

  5. Re:Terribly regressive penalty by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except, if you read even the summary, you'll discover that they're taking half of estimated spending money, not half of your income. Someone living paycheck to paycheck would get an extremely small fine, while someone earning millions will be deprived of nearly half their income.

  6. Tickets Are All About Revenue by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are tons of ways to make them more effective, none of which we use. We could set up speed cameras to ticket everyone who's speeding. We don't. We could just mandate in-car GPS tracking and not even allow speeding in the first place. Even the shittiest car you can buy likely has a speedometer that tops out somewhere past 100 mph. The car might not be able to actually get to that speed, but by God they're putting it on the speedometer! Hit any portion of any interstate that has a speed limit of 55 mph when it's not backed up from rush hour traffic and just TRY to do 55 mph there! You'll get a lot of hate from the rest of the traffic, which is going to be doing 70-75.

    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?

    1. Re:Tickets Are All About Revenue by labnet · · Score: 2

      Gosh, try Australia, where we have : fixed speed cameras, mobile speed cameras, hand held radar, point to point average speed cameras. There's not much speeding going on in Oz, because ultimately the demerit point system is of more consequence than the monetary value of the fine.

      --
      46137
    2. Re:Tickets Are All About Revenue by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      In my country, the police does not have to "earn their keep" by bringing in fines. For example, all speed cameras are preceded by a sign informing the driver of the speed camera (and the sign is far enough away from the camera that you can slow down to the speed limit unless you were driving really fast). The rationale for the signs is this: "Although not having the signs would result in more tickets, having the signs makes everyone drive slow in the vicinity of the camera, and people obeying the speed limit is our goal".

    3. Re:Tickets Are All About Revenue by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      ... Except in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland, where tickets are about a deterrent.

      Because you know, they collect enough taxes to properly fund their civil services like police, so that, you know, they can do the jobs they are supposed to do and not focus on being tax collectors.

  7. Re:Eqaul Protection by Scottingham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And rich people are more equal, obviously.

    Only plutocratic viewpoints hold legal sway.

  8. As much as Jobs was a ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    CA regs said you have six months to plate your new car. He just bought a new car every six months so what he did was legal.
    Now for parking in handicapped spots, I'm all for crushing his vehicle.

    1. Re:As much as Jobs was a ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cut him some slack. He was morally handicapped.

  9. Re:Time is money by LMariachi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  10. Re:Sounds Horrible by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Time is money by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I agree with this. Except jail costs the state money, while fines bring it in.

    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
  12. Re:Kinda 50 50 on this one. by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the cops start abusing the rich and powerful we might see some actual changes in the system. Of course the first change I would expect would be for the old flat rate tickets to be reinstated.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  13. Not necessary in Canada because of demerit points by CraigCruden · · Score: 2

    Demerit points are much more of a deterrent to things like speeding in Canada (speeding while going at the same speed as traffic although is typically not enforced as speeding - i.e. normal speed on 401 is about 120 - 130 while the posted limit is 100....) Caught for speeding 16+km and you lose 3 points, insurance goes up... and if you repeat you have to go to an interview... and at 15.... poof goes your license.

  14. Better idea... by pla · · Score: 3

    Get rid of artificially low speed limits.

    I know, I know, crazy talk. Won't someone think of the revenue?

  15. Potential for abuse by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The potential for abuse is insane. Say I'm rich. I simply hire some poor guy with zero income to break the law when I need it done (driving me around when I'm in a hurry is a good one). If he gets in trouble I give him a bonus. If he gets caught too many times then I hire some other guy. Really, this is a stupid idea, and will further lead to bias and all kinds of issues with the police. Want to bet people driving more expensive cars get pulled over more often there? Especially in jurisdictions that rely on traffic fine income to support their infrastructure. Cops have latitude in writing tickets, etc. Only going 5-10 over? It's their choice to pull you over or not. They are not *required* to by law, and because of that, the potential for discrimination based on wealth will happen. Maybe you've just a got a cop who financially is in rough shape and he wants to stick it to the man. Well, he'll just wait for a luxury car to come along and bust them for going 5-6 over the limit.

    Stupid idea.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Potential for abuse by gatfirls · · Score: 2

      I simply hire some poor guy with zero income to break the law when I need it done (driving me around when I'm in a hurry is a good one). .

      I'm pretty much poor and I do that now. It's called a taxi.

  16. What about teens without an income? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are some of the worst habitual offenders on the road.

    1. Re:What about teens without an income? by gatfirls · · Score: 2

      Community service and points.

  17. Re:Terribly regressive penalty by beelsebob · · Score: 2

    To be fair, based on the number of Finnish F1 and WDC champions, they're pretty fucking good at it :P

  18. Get rid of the financial incentive... by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Get rid of the financial incentive... by yeupou · · Score: 2

      "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. " So basically, every year tax bill would change. Depending on the amount of fines, people would get good or very very bad surprise. Seems like a system to put fragile people into bankrupt. "Before a system like this is in place, the financial incentive for cops to ticket people needs to be removed. " Why? Because you think a guy with millions per year cannot afford a lawyer if he's victim of crooks?

    2. Re:Get rid of the financial incentive... by schneidafunk · · Score: 2

      Maybe fine money should be donated to charity instead of given to the police department.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  19. Moot point by camg188 · · Score: 2

    We'll have autonomous driving cars in the US before this type of law widely adopted here.

    1. Re:Moot point by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      I like to drive fast

      If you like to 'drive fast' 'on the way to work or the grocery store' you probably shouldn't be driving, or at least should pay heavily for the privilege of making things more dangerous for the rest of us.

      You can still have your fun while driving in the designated areas that are generally called 'race tracks'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  20. Focus on the big picture by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Focus on the big picture by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      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.

      Have you ever heard the expression "money is fungible"?

      If your speeding tickets go to funding the schools, the local government will just lower the school budget (since they're going to get the speeding ticket money), and raise the police budget (since that will let them write more speeding tickets to pay for the schools).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Focus on the big picture by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Since I am a certified accountant, yeah the concept is not new to me.

      If your speeding tickets go to funding the schools, the local government will just lower the school budget (since they're going to get the speeding ticket money), and raise the police budget (since that will let them write more speeding tickets to pay for the schools).

      So you give the money to someone other than the jurisdiction issuing the ticket. Or have the revenue go to charity or even refunded back to the citizens. It's not actually difficult to make playing three card monte with the budget difficult.

  21. Re:Why use income? Why not total wealth? by bobbied · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm there... Not that I speed but what's the fine for speeding in a '65 VW bug worth $250? Personally I think I should get a reward for getting that thing past 55 MPH anyway....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  22. Finland uses your declared, taxable income by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What REALLY different about them is that your tax returns are a matter of public record; if I want to know what my neighbour's income is, then if I lived in Finland I could find out on line... And it's income that's used to generate the level of the fine.

  23. Re:How do you Determine if you are rich? by vanye · · Score: 2

    I agree. Who gets to decide - the majority.

    Why don't we pick on the top 2% - not just the top 1%, that's fair, they almost as rich...

    Hang on, we can get the top 10%, no - the top 49%.

    That's it - those rich 49% bastards.... They're all morally bankrupt...make them pay...

    Here's my rule - if you don't pay the tax/fine you don't get to vote on it.

    How is it fair to vote on a tax that you don't have to pay ?

    Everyone thinks that of course it will be different for them (everyone is of course above average morally) - bullshit it isn't. Just try writing a (extra) cheque to CA for $40k and see how you feel about it...its your hard-earned money that you have to hand over to the state because the majority thought it would be great to have a tax they don't have to pay... Obviously the issue isn't important enough that everyone should contribute towards it...

  24. Re:From each according to his ability by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    18 Norway
    25 Sweden
    43 Denmark
    67 Finland

    comparison:

    40 United States
    38 United Kingdom

    So far more people immigrate to Norway and Sweden per capita than the USA, and about equal with Denmark. Finland lags behind all.

    What you want to do is base your opinions on reality and facts rather than bias and ignorance.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Of COURSE you can have it both ways... by alispguru · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just say that fine revenue above police administrative costs goes somewhere else, so the people issuing the tickets don't directly benefit.

    Since these are local/state offenses, the obvious place would be the state general fund.

    There's potential for abuse, of course - states might have to specify maximum admin costs.

    I bet the enthusiasm for local speed traps would drop way off under such a system. Sounds win/win to me.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  26. Re:My income is pretty close to zero by Chalnoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. And this is bad....why? by gatfirls · · Score: 2

    So people of wealth and means will be subject to the horrific process of policing for profit and be able to force change instead of ignoring it because to them the fines are equivalent to their meal that night instead of groceries for a month for a poor person.

    Traffic fines are the number one most regressive system we have in the US. Outrageous fines is a huge trap for poor people because while they are generally law abiding citizens they simply can't pay them and get caught in a never ending cycles of fines/suspensions/warrants/etc. Most courts offer no alternatives to paying the fine like community service etc. The best they will do is offer some payment plan through a for profit company.

    Of course, you would never see such a system in the US because the poor are the only ones who gain something in that scenario and we all know about how the ruling class feel about them.

  28. Steve Jobs WAS handicapped, moron. by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For example Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots

    For your reference, a liver transplant gets you qualified for parking in a handicapped spot for some time after it occurs and all sorts of time while you're waiting, as does most of the other treatments he was going through.

    Steve Job's crime was not displaying his tags, not that he wasn't a handicapped placard carrier.

    And if you want to be retarded about it, he could have just bought a handicapped placard, but then his personal life and medical issues would have been on public display, which he didn't want.

    So we're back to ... his crime was not having tags, THATS IT.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  29. Re:Eqaul Protection by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    TFS mentions a few times where it was tried in the US.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  30. Not Stiff Enough by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    The problem is that for the poor a small fine may be more than a bit painful. In order to have the same effect some seriously high fines might need to be levied. For example Steve Jobs parked in handicapped spaces. I wonder if a 10 million dollar fine for a single incident would have cost him as much pain as a $100. fine does for many working people. We see the same thing when charges are filed against major companies. Microsoft has been fined as much as one half billion dollars for business violations over the years yet they still gained money by their wrongdoing. Business fines should always be far greater than the money made by breaking laws and rules.

  31. Re:Kinda 50 50 on this one. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Have you ever tried fighting a speeding ticket? Fuck, there are countries where all it takes is a cop saying you were speeding to make you speeding!

    You can't really fight that. Any lawyer worth his salt would just shrug and say "cough it up, it's useless".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Re:From each according to his ability by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    "when losing an argument, change the subject"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. Re:Eqaul Protection by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Odd. My country not only has that "luxury tax" but also a few other things that would make the average US person cringe, like our insanely progressive income tax, with a tax rate of 50% if you earn a LOT (trust me, I know... sigh. My taxes alone feed whole families).

    Then again, I get quite a bit for my money, and that makes it ok. I can walk anywhere in our capital at any time of the day without fearing for life or possessions. That alone makes it worth it.

    The last thing you may do is leave someone with nothing to lose. Those people are dangerous. As long as people have something to lose, they have a reason to stay out of jail.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Re:Income a Poor Proxy for Spending Power by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    This type of solution seeks equality, but in reality would have a difficult time achieving it. $100,000 a year allows one to live a relatively deluxe lifestyle if you are in upstate New York and own a house outright with no dependents. But someone making $100,000 a year with 5 kids in New York city has very little cash to spare.

    That's why TFA talks about basing it on "spending money", not income. If you have no "spending money", your fine is low.

    Of course, this moves the "taxation" inherent in this solution into the same social engineering that the current income tax system is burdened with. I just bought a "correct" car and had some "correct" modifications to my house, so my "spending money" is pretty low right now. Also, I just now donated money to the Red Cross so my "spending money" is even lower.

    Whatever the "correct" things to spend money on that get tax credits will carry over into the determination of "spending money", too, since you have to start with income and then make the right deductions to determine how much is left over to "spend".

  35. Some pointers to add as a Finn by Kekke · · Score: 2

    In Finland One also gets his Driving license suspended for a period of 1 to 6 months if you collect 3 speeding tickets in a year, or 4 in a two year time period.
    Off cource, if You're speed is 80mph on a 60mph area you lose the license instantly in most cases and court decides the time you're license will be suspended. If your speed exceeds like 30mph over the limit, you also have to do the driving school all over again.
    And in Finland at least, that's a pretty costly process.

    I was suspended for driving for period of 4 months back in days.....
    I offered the Officer my pilots license, instead of driving licence, because I exceeded the limit like 40mph
    No joy...