Author Topic: "Only in Finland".... (Read 7364 times)

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #120 on:** February 11, 2004, 02:50:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
To be honest, I really don't care crap about Finnish laws. If the people are happy with 'em, good. I was goofing on some guys who ordinarily get their jollies dissecting American politics and domestic policy. Quite fun to see them get their panties in a wad defending their traffic laws, ridiculous as they are.

Yeah the Guanantamo hijack attempt was a classic, poor Staga ran out of ammo.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #121 on:** February 12, 2004, 03:18:16 AM »

Rofl just admit you're wrong.

The fact remains, nobody is obliged to pay a DIME.

Not a damn dime. Dig on that.

Quote

His parent earned that $50mil by providing goods or services of equal of greater value to his customers in voluntary exchange - unless he was a criminal or linked to the government. That $50 million is his property and he can dispose of it any way he wants to - even give it to his child. The child may not have earned that property personally but the property was certainly earned - earned by that family though it could have been bequeted to anyone as legitimately.

I was thinking more of a distant, unknown relative who had nobody else to grant the will to. You fail to describe how Joe all of the sudden becomes more valuable to the society with his money, too. His daddy can be the roughest kick-ass businessman in the planet while the son is a drug-addict loser. Worth 50mil.

Money does not describe a persons value to the society, you got your values all twisted up.

Besides, it's a moot point as the fines are calculated by annual income, not by someone's capital wealth.

mietla · « **Reply #122 on:** February 12, 2004, 03:31:35 AM »

Does not matter what his relation was. The point is that most of the wealth is earned via a hard work (unless you are on a government payroll). The person who earned it has an inherent right to dispose of it as he sees fit. It's really a simple and fundamentally fair concept.

"A creator of wealth has a right to dispose of it".

What's you beef with this concept?

mietla · « **Reply #123 on:** February 12, 2004, 03:38:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
His daddy can be the roughest kick-ass businessman in the planet while the son is a drug-addict loser.

So what? It is his daddy's (the rightful owner's of the wealth) choice to give it to his f*ed up son, spend it on bald kittens, or even give it away to the unproductive losers.

Quote

Money does not describe a persons value to the society, you got your values all twisted up.

That is obviously true, but it has nothing to do with the rules of property ownership and distribution.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #124 on:** February 12, 2004, 04:02:26 AM »

Mietla I have no 'beef' with anyone inheriting whatever they wish.

However you can't say that said person all of the sudden becomes more of a value to the society. He still is what he is regardless of his wealth.

Many comments here are suggesting that a person should get scott free from his crimes if he has a lot of money (as he can easily pay any given fee which is disastrous to a normal person.)

Many of the rich people earned their money through deception and crime. So with your logic, Al Capone is more value to the society than a hard working factoryworker?

With your logic, Al Capone can jaywalk, speed in traffic and whatnot freely as he can always rob an old lady in order to pay the few bucks of fine.. while the hard working man will not be able to buy food to his family after receiving the same exact penalty for the same exact crime.

Now, that is TRUELY unequal treatment.

If you think about it with any logic at all, you will see that if you want to punish people equally, you must scale the punishment so that they will be similarly effected by it.

In the case of this thread both hypothetical people get a very equal treatment. The government is basically saying: Lose a certain % of your salary as punishment or do a set amount of days in jail. Choice is free.

So if the rich guy really really loves his money and absolutely cannot afford to pay the fee, he'll go in jail for a few days. The same exact thing applies to the poor guy. Only difference is, the poor guy is more prone to do the jailtime as he doesn't have capital wealth to back him up and relies solely on his salary.

Does anyone know of a case where anyone took the second option so far? Or did they all choose to pay instead.

Fishu · « **Reply #125 on:** February 12, 2004, 05:00:38 AM »

Newspaper claims he would've had to only pay 200€ in Sweden... that doesn't look quite right either.
I wouldn't be surprised if he spends more money to weekly food.

Kieren,

Quite a big difference if some countrys politics results in wars and laws which disregards the first amendment or whatever.

Wmaker · « **Reply #126 on:** February 12, 2004, 06:10:14 AM »

Didn't read the whole thread and probably aren't going to.

Basically, starding to pick on Finland because its pricey speeding tickets for the rich people isn't even original. Been done before on this very board.

Considering your home country and the stuff that is going there and over its boarders because of it...ahh simply too easy as this board has shown many many times. I won't even bother with you Rip.

Kieran · « **Reply #127 on:** February 12, 2004, 07:04:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Newspaper claims he would've had to only pay 200€ in Sweden... that doesn't look quite right either.
I wouldn't be surprised if he spends more money to weekly food.

Kieren,

Quite a big difference if some countrys politics results in wars and laws which disregards the first amendment or whatever.

Fishu, I guarantee you've spent 1000% more time blathering off about American politics and domestic policy than anyone ever has about Finland on this board.

So what, you have a stupid traffic law designed not to stop offensive or dangerous drivers, but to soak the rich for money. Anyone can see it. Why defend it? Just makes you look silly. If you really wanted to limit that type of driving, you'd jerk the licenses.

The more you guys defend this extortion the more I like it. Please, do go on.

Curval · « **Reply #128 on:** February 12, 2004, 07:13:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
To be honest, I really don't care crap about Finnish laws.

For someone who doesn't care about these and other issues, you sure ramble on about them.

Fishu · « **Reply #129 on:** February 12, 2004, 07:36:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Fishu, I guarantee you've spent 1000% more time blathering off about American politics and domestic policy than anyone ever has about Finland on this board.

So what, you have a stupid traffic law designed not to stop offensive or dangerous drivers, but to soak the rich for money. Anyone can see it. Why defend it? Just makes you look silly. If you really wanted to limit that type of driving, you'd jerk the licenses.

The more you guys defend this extortion the more I like it. Please, do go on.

Might have something to do with that nobody cares about Finland compared to US.
Most people on this board seem to be from US, also US has the most influence... it'd be funny if Finland would overtake the political discussions.

I'm getting quite repeative here as well.. I haven't really defended the laws either, but I do not either agree they should be paying only 200€, while making that much money in a single day.. without a sweat.
I really don't think that would prevent anything either... much less so.

Can't fault the goverment for all though.. they don't drive the car, do they?
IMHO someone speeding +60kph over the speed limit, should loose his drivers license for somewhile.

Tuomio · « **Reply #130 on:** February 12, 2004, 08:39:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
As said earlier, in finland the rich guy can always choose jailtime (which will be _exactly_ similar in length with the poor guy)

No they cant. Only poor people can choose the jail alternative. If you have valuable assets, they will be taken from you to cover the fee.

miko2d · « **Reply #131 on:** February 12, 2004, 09:59:43 AM »

Siaf__csf: I was thinking more of a distant, unknown relative who had nobody else to grant the will to. You fail to describe how Joe all of the sudden becomes more valuable to the society with his money, too. His daddy can be the roughest kick-ass businessman in the planet while the son is a drug-addict loser. Worth 50mil.
Money does not describe a persons value to the society, you got your values all twisted up.

It does not make any difference whether the person who legitimately owns the wealth passes it to his biological descendant or a stranger.
Wealth does not affect a persons value to the society but it is still legitimatley owned, whether earned personally or not. Confiscation of that wealth because the person inherited it violates the property rights of the previous owner as well as the intended heir.

Your values are all twisted. You perceive all individuals as slaves of the government that have to justify their existance by "benefiting the society" in the way that you approve. The fortune that rich own are the result of someone benefitting the society already.

Besides, it's a moot point as the fines are calculated by annual income, not by someone's capital wealth.

I was not talking about taxes but about your statement "What if you're Joe Millionaire who inherits $50mil? You get cash for free even though u used to drive a bulldozer".
He does not get cash "for free" - every penny was earned by someone. He has more of it so he can afford stuff like speeding fines and good food and clothes and such? Well, that was exactly the idea of the original earned of that wealth - to allow him and his designated heirs to afford more.

Your words are just not-so carefully disguised communist rhetoric of the extreme kind. You say things should cost not a set value but be equally affordable by everyone - be proportionate to income or wealth or whatever. So wealthy should pay more for the same stuff than the poor while earning the same for the value they provide - to equalise satisfaction of needs (need to speed is just one of them).

"For everyone according to his needs, from everyone according to his abilities" - where did we hear that?

miko

Fishu · « **Reply #132 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:21:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

He does not get cash "for free" - every penny was earned by someone. He has more of it so he can afford stuff like speeding fines and good food and clothes and such? Well, that was exactly the idea of the original earned of that wealth - to allow him and his designated heirs to afford more.

Your words are just not-so carefully disguised communist rhetoric of the extreme kind. You say things should cost not a set value but be equally affordable by everyone - be proportionate to income or wealth or whatever. So wealthy should pay more for the same stuff than the poor while earning the same for the value they provide - to equalise satisfaction of needs (need to speed is just one of them).

Are you saying the wealthy people should be allowed to drive more recklessly than the poor?

I don't think the wealth should give any greater rights for someone to endanger the traffic.
Better cloths, cars, houses.. etc.. does not equal to reckless driving.

Traffic laws are made for a reason

mietla · « **Reply #133 on:** February 12, 2004, 11:13:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Are you saying the wealthy people should be allowed to drive more recklessly than the poor?

Where did you find that? Read previous posts again.

A bunch of us simply believes that the penalty for fast driving (or anything else), must be the same regardless of who it is appied to.

Tayloring a penalty based on income violates fundamental principles of fairness.

I understand that the penalty can be increaded based on a person's previous record. Seventh violation may be punished with a higher fine, but income? As Miko said it is just a commu8nist retoric and class envy.

Your guy's resentment of wealthy people is remarkable. Must be taught in schools. You just can't accept that most of wealth is earned legitimately. You just have to find a case where it is not and attempt to present it as a rule.

Fishu · « **Reply #134 on:** February 12, 2004, 11:22:36 AM »

When the punishment is about money, it should be judged on the persons income.
Perhaps NOT as far as 170k euros..
but the fact remains that wealthy person can pay alot more than unemployed person and have the same loss.
200 bucks for someone unemployed is *alot* of money, perhaps more than the whole months income... while for some wealthy person it can be half a days job.

Fairness?
Fines are supposed to be a punishment after all...

Perhaps some driver license points per year would be good.. but they should be still fined and not just share the points.