Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on February 10, 2004, 12:25:58 PM
-
HELSINKI, Feb 10 (Reuters) - One of Finland's richest men
has been fined a record 170,000 euros ($217,000) for speeding
through the centre of the capital, police said on Tuesday.
Jussi Salonoja, 27, heir to his family's sausage business,
was caught driving 80 km per hour (50 miles per hour) in a 40
kph (25 mph) zone last Thursday, the police said.
Finnish traffic fines vary according to the offender's
income and, according to tax office data, Salonoja's 2002
earnings were close to seven million euros.
The final penalty could still change when the case is
eventually heard by a Helsinki court, as was the case with Nokia
executive Anssi Vanjoki, whose 116,000-euro speeding fine was
slashed by 95 percent in 2002 due to a drop in income.
If Salonoja's penalty stands, it will beat a speeding fine
of more than 80,000 euros paid by Internet millionaire Jaakko
Rytsola in 2000, and the 35,000-euro fine imposed on Nokia
President Pekka Ala-Pietila in 2001 for running a red light.
-
go look at squad forum you tart :) took some pictures for you today you might like.
(no not those kind of pictures you perverts!)
-
Does that constitute the finns' admission that wealthy are to be kept to higher standard of behavior while poor riff-raff is just mindless scum from whom not much can be expected in terms of good behavior?
miko
-
Is Finland considered a "Socialist" country? If not, whats it prime political platform?
-
I'm under the impression that many European countries base the fines for minor infractions on the income of the person involved.
-
Originally posted by ra
I'm under the impression that many European countries base the fines for minor infractions on the income of the person involved.
Class envy.
-
Actually it's class warfare.
-
I now know of 1: Finland
-
Ripsnort: Is Finland considered a "Socialist" country? If not, whats it prime political platform?
More important features of Finland’s experience are the reduction in itsgovernment spending ratio from 59% of GDP in 1993 to 45% today and other moves to greater economic freedom.
More or less so.. Doing better than many.
miko
-
Economist had a nice "Socialism Scoreboard" (my term) a couple of weeks ago. US is about 30% by comparison. I think Sweden was "#1". Sure would be nice if we could shave 15% like the Finns did.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Economist had a nice "Socialism Scoreboard" (my term) a couple of weeks ago. US is about 30% by comparison. I think Sweden was "#1". Sure would be nice if we could shave 15% like the Finns did.
0
I'd love to have a copy of that if you have it handy (Link?)
-
Originally posted by takeda
I now know of 1: Finland
From some website:
"Neighboring Sweden and Denmark do it, and so does Germany. But they set a ceiling -- $98 in Sweden, for example -- whereas Finland knows no limits."
But only Finland applies it to traffic tickets, so "only in Finland" is right.
-
Interesting point, fine for speeding, the main purpose of the fine itself is to punish for breaking the law. If so, basing such punishment on income of the criminal makes more sense then set fee.
ie: you make 100$ month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. There goes your money for fun for whole month, you WILL remember.
you make 10000$ a month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. You barely notice, who cares if you get caught again ?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Interesting point, fine for speeding, the main purpose of the fine itself is to punish for breaking the law. If so, basing such punishment on income of the criminal makes more sense then set fee.
ie: you make 100$ month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. There goes your money for fun for whole month, you WILL remember.
you make 10000$ a month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. You barely notice, who cares if you get caught again ?
I was hoping you'd use Janet Jacksons situation where she broke the law, $27,000 fine. Drop in the bucket! Now Bush is pushing for a a law that increases the fine 10 times that amount.
Glad to see you and Bush agree on something! (Even if its only a philosophical level) :)
-
ie: you make 100$ month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. There goes your money for fun for whole month, you WILL remember.
you make 10000$ a month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. You barely notice, who cares if you get caught again ?
Well, if you fine rich people more than poor people, who are the cops going to concentrate their enforcement efforts on? Cha-ching!
-
Originally posted by ra
I'm under the impression that many European countries base the fines for minor infractions on the income of the person involved.
not in mine but I think it's a good idea.
-
Rip in Finland we don't kill our prisoners. We also don't keep persons locked up for years without prosecution.
Hell only barbaric countries are killing their prisoners or keeping people in concentration camps without court's judgement.
Try a better bait next time :)
-
Staga: Hell only barbaric countries are killing their prisoners or keeping people in concentration camps without court's judgement.
How do you know that?
Before 9/11 plenty of americans would not believe either that our government would keep people in concentration camps without court's judgement.
Do you have anything beyong naive wishfull thinking to substantiate an opinion that your government would not do the same if anyone cared to attack your country?
miko
-
what is wrong to pay with the % of the income thats for true good thing.
Everyone pays what they can hardly afford for a traffic bill or whatever.
so we do in Norway too, and I kinda like that.
if not 500$ for a millionair is not the same as for a factory worker.
Let the rich fukers smell the bill too not only the rest of us :D
-
Miko if my country would do that I'd be ashamed; after all this country suffered from oppressive regiment of Russia when lots of people were transferred to Siberia to Gulags and penal colonies and I'd like to think we learned something from those times.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Is Finland considered a "Socialist" country? If not, whats it prime political platform?
youre a godamn idiot rip.
check the it out before you cry socialist please !!!
You cannot try to equal Europe vs US, you guys call our left side :socialists and our right side : "socialist light"
We have a diffrent view but you woulndt care less :)
I couldnt care much anyway cause it works for us :D
-
The only lesson anyone should learn is that any people at any time can do anything to anybody. To think that we have evolved above such things is the biggest mistake. We have not evolved biologically or morally in any way since the 14th century. Only our political systems have evolved and they are very fragile things.
-
dang I should go to finland, they'd pay ME for speeding
Schroeder get your hands off my paycheck you damdirty ape!!!:mad:
-
Staga: Miko if my country would do that I'd be ashamed;...
And I respect you for that. I also respect your country collectively for many other things it did - standing up to soviets, standing up to Hitler on the issue of anti-semitism, etc.
But crediting your country with lack of evil deeds that it has never had a chance to do and not providing a substantiation why it could not possibly have done that sounds like wishfull thinking on your part.
miko
-
Originally posted by Staga
Rip in Finland we don't kill our prisoners. We also don't keep persons locked up for years without prosecution.
Hell only barbaric countries are killing their prisoners or keeping people in concentration camps without court's judgement.
Try a better bait next time :)
Prisoners? I don't think your country ever TOOK prisoners! I think the Russians took you prisoners :)
Ya know, I say we turn all the Guantamano bay "prisoners" over the love-fest, heart warming familys in Finland. I'm sure they'll change their fanatical ways with you! :p
-
Originally posted by ra
Well, if you fine rich people more than poor people, who are the cops going to concentrate their enforcement efforts on? Cha-ching!
That's only if police has an insentive in giving tickets. Kinda like a police quote on number of tickets issued here, better not go over 55 on 31st of the month but 90+ is fine day later.
If the fine goes to say charity instead of police / city/ country's budget, then who cares ?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ya know, I say we turn all the Guantamano bay "prisoners" over the love-fest, heart warming familys in Finland. I'm sure they'll change their fanatical ways with you! :p
ROLFLLOLMALOLOLOL!!!
Hey wait a minute...
We do have working juridical system here, courts, prosecutors, defenders, prisons... everything you need to have a trial against alleged terrorists who are now in concentration camp at Guantanamo.
If your country is incapable to establish a trial against those prisoners (are they prisoners if they're not convicted?) maybe you should ask if another country could do that?
-
Originally posted by ra
Well, if you fine rich people more than poor people, who are the cops going to concentrate their enforcement efforts on? Cha-ching!
LOL so in youre country the policemen get the income by gettting the fee ?
-
This story sounds familiar.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
That's only if police has an insentive in giving tickets. Kinda like a police quote on number of tickets issued here, better not go over 55 on 31st of the month but 90+ is fine day later.
If the fine goes to say charity instead of police / city/ country's budget, then who cares ?
Unfortunately, if you create a system where police agencies are rewarded for punishing a particular group, the agencies will evolve to concentrate on those groups. Happens time and time again.
-
Originally posted by airguard
LOL so in youre country the policemen get the income by gettting the fee ?
Not always directly, but let's just say that when making funding decisions, local governments are quite aware of the amount of revenue brought in by traffic enforcement, and they allocate resources accordingly. There are numerous places in the US where bloated local governments have evolved almost entirely for the purpose of collecting "highway usage taxes" veiled as traffic fines.
-
Police officers here are public servants with monthly salary; they're not contract workers with their wage bill tied to amount of fine.
-
Same here of course.
-
Funked it sounds like you don't fully trust your police; I'm glad I can trust mine.
Police is unbiased here (IMHO) but just like in your country with money you can hire a better defender to the court.
Oh and I've been sitting in the back seat having a chat with cops, some brought me 40km closer to home and kicked me out from their car after they noticed I was sober enough to insult them...
Heh they did ask if I have any money and when I replied "More than you both have" they threw me out and told me to take a cab and go home :D
-
The problem is not so much the individual police, but the corrupt political system which controls them.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Interesting point, fine for speeding, the main purpose of the fine itself is to punish for breaking the law. If so, basing such punishment on income of the criminal makes more sense then set fee.
ie: you make 100$ month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. There goes your money for fun for whole month, you WILL remember.
you make 10000$ a month, you jaywalk - 10$ fee. You barely notice, who cares if you get caught again ?
Now you are just being silly.
-
well, let's just do it for sake of argument mietla :)
if the punishment is supposed to be a deterrent against breaking the law again, then how can it be effetive in given scenario ?
-
IMHO the income of a particular citizen is not something the government is entitled to know.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Now you are just being silly.
Silly ?? How ??
Fine is a punishment from the crime you made; how would it help to prevent you doing that same again if the penalty you had wouldn't hurt you financially at all ?
btw you don't have to pay the fine if you don't want to do that; you can also do your time in the prison.
Fines are calculated as a "day-fines"; from certain crime you get this many day-fines and the monetary value of the fine depends of your income.
Mr.Salonoja got 40 day-fines so he would do about 40 days in the prison (I believe).
In prison he would do equal time with a guy without any earnings so he can choose how to bear his penalty.
That's something others can't afford to do.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
well, let's just do it for sake of argument mietla :)
if the punishment is supposed to be a deterrent against breaking the law again, then how can it be effetive in given scenario ?
So, how do you punish the homeless dude? Beat him up?
Where is this " he can afford to pay more" commie gunk coming from? ;)
Why not the price of bread then? It should be a nickel for a poor guy and $100,000 for a loaded dude.
I have an idea, you pay for everything with a fixed percentage of your wealth. Homeless eat free.
We don't need money anymore.
Originally posted by FunkedUp
IMHO the income of a particular citizen is not something the government is entitled to know.
exactly.;)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
IMHO the income of a particular citizen is not something the government is entitled to know.
I'm quite sure your tax administration knows your income and here it's part of government.
That's where police is getting their information in here.
-
I should have said they have no right to know it. It's none of their business. Invasion of privacy. Unfortunately some idiots in 1913 decided to sign away our rights to privacy in this regard, and the resulting cash flow to DC has created a situation where we may never get our rights back without drastic measures.
PS did you know that we don't really pay taxes in the US? The government actually requires our employer to take the money out of our pay and send it directly to DC. We never see it. Land of the Free my ass.
-
Originally posted by mietla
So, how do you punish the homeless dude? Beat him up?
In here there's minimum value of day-fines so even without any incomes you're going to get a fine that'll hurt you economically.
If you can't get the money to pay the fine you're going to do the time.
-
I'm sure Funked believes that his government shouldn't have a tax system that requires them to know how much money he has.
-
Originally posted by Pei
I'm sure Funked believes that his government shouldn't have a tax system that requires them to know how much money he has.
You got it. It's absolutely none of their business.
-
Originally posted by Pei
I'm sure Funked believes that his government shouldn't have a tax system that requires them to know how much money he has.
He's not the only one.
-
Originally posted by Staga
If you can't get the money to pay the fine you're going to do the time.
Great thinking, Einstein. Punish the homeless dude by giving him a free room and 3 meals a day.
-
Okay; I'll tell you a secret...
Mr.Salonoja is owner of the Espoo Blues (http://www.blues.fi/) hockey-team and I believe the police, prosecutors, defenders and judges were either pissed to poor performance of their favorite team in Masters League of Finland or they were fans of competing team.
Or maybe it was a conspiracy to start a coup d'état in American legislation system... You never know...
Mietla how should we punish those guys then? Give them a ticket to Ibiza?
Or maybe beat them blue and leave them out in the wilderness so they could freeze to death ?
-
LOL and diana ross gets two days in jail for driving watermelon faced .
Too bad she dont live in Finland.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Great thinking, Einstein. Punish the homeless dude by giving him a free room and 3 meals a day.
yeah taking away his freedom dont count for anyone does it ?
yore living in a somkinda bubble.
1 hour with fresh air, sit in a cell for the 23 you should try it and see if its that ok :)
-
Originally posted by mrblack
LOL and diana ross gets two days in jail for driving watermelon faced .
Too bad she dont live in Finland.
In here she would face 30-40 day fines and lose her driver's licence for 4-6 months if this was her first DUI with that much alcohol in her blood.
Amount of day fines Mr.Salonoja faced was also 40 so MsRoss would have to pay a quite hefty load of money.
-
Originally posted by airguard
youre a godamn idiot rip.
check the it out before you cry socialist please !!!
You cannot try to equal Europe vs US, you guys call our left side :socialists and our right side : "socialist light"
We have a diffrent view but you woulndt care less :)
I couldnt care much anyway cause it works for us :D
Well, well, well... someone criticized the Finns, and one blew a gasket. And one of the more vocal anti-US posters, too. Sweetness!
-
Originally posted by Staga
In here she would face 30-40 day fines and lose her driver's licence for 4-6 months if this was her first DUI with that much alcohol in her blood.
Amount of day fines Mr.Salonoja faced was also 40 so MsRoss would have to pay a quite hefty load of money.
Right on!!
Well they should thow her washed up arse in the can for a month doing people laundry.
-
Well, it's simple really; equal treatment under the law. Finland apparently doesn't have it. But I do have to hand it to the Finns; they have invented a brand new way to remove wealth from the wealthy. 15mph over the speed limit? That's gonna cost you $250,000.
Yeah, makes great sense. ;)
So... your cop sees three cars speeding down an expressway... a Yugo, a Saab, and a BMW. Someone's going to get pulled over, but who? Who, who, who...
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well, well, well... someone criticized the Finns, and one blew a gasket. And one of the more vocal anti-US posters, too. Sweetness!
Even better, an ignorant yankee pig dog confuses as Norway and Finland.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well, it's simple really; equal treatment under the law.
DING DING DING
We have a winner. End of thread.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
DING DING DING
We have a winner. End of thread.
not so fast my dear Watson. The libs will argue that the "equal" is measured by pain not by equal punishment.
After all they have no problem whatsoever with wealthy paying all the income tax why poor are not only skating, but get a negative tax returns. Free money for just existing and being completely useless.
-
"From each according to how much we can extort, to each according to how much he whines."
Modern US socialist motto.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Even better, an ignorant yankee pig dog confuses as Norway and Finland.
Oops. Mea culpa. Scandinavian. Same difference. ;)
-
Come on Kieren, post something about your envy for my BMW, it was more entertaining. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well, it's simple really; equal treatment under the law. Finland apparently doesn't have it. But I do have to hand it to the Finns; they have invented a brand new way to remove wealth from the wealthy. 15mph over the speed limit? That's gonna cost you $250,000.
Yeah, makes great sense. ;)
So... your cop sees three cars speeding down an expressway... a Yugo, a Saab, and a BMW. Someone's going to get pulled over, but who? Who, who, who...
15mph overspeed? errr guy drove 200kmh at 120kmh zone in a highway which went thru the city so guess he was speeding little faster than 15mph.
I also trust to our police and their capability to catch all those drivers in that hypothetical situation of three speeding cars... Guess we've learned to trust our cops :)
btw I've heard that in some countries government can confiscate someones car in situations like those with Mr.Salonoja and MsRoss; I'm glad that kind of socialism haven't found its way in here :)
-
Staga, the story of death and torture at Guantanmo Bay detention center (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/08/wguan08.xml) Oh, the horror!
-
btw when is your government going to prosecute those people at Guantanamo?
You really should care more about your own concentration camps than if someone got a nice big fine because he drove thru the city at 200kmh at 120kmh zone (thats 124mph at 74mph zone).
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw when is your government going to prosecute those people at Guantanamo?
You really should care more about your own concentration camps than if someone got a nice big fine because he drove thru the city at 200kmh at 120kmh zone (thats 124mph at 74mph zone).
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Good one! I have written a letter to the CIC regarding sending these fine citizens to Finland where they will be welcomed with open arms! DETH TO AMEERIKA!
-
Thanks for the link Rip; Here's one for you: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng
Thing is they're not prosecuted and IIRC that's against your own laws. I'd expect something like that from a third world country but not from a country like U.S
-
"Amesty Org" Hell I didn't even open the link. Might as well sent me a PETA website.:rofl :rofl :rofl
Incidently, did you see their report in pre-GW2 war Iraq? Had you read it, you wouldn't care if they had WMD, but then again, its the hate for Boosh that drives you, not whats right or whats wrong.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Good one! I have written a letter to the CIC regarding sending these fine citizens to Finland where they will be welcomed with open arms! DETH TO AMEERIKA!
Sorry but I lost you in that one?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"Amesty Org" Hell I didn't even open the link. Might as well sent me a PETA website.:rofl :rofl :rofl
Incidently, did you see their report in pre-GW2 war Iraq? Had you read it, you wouldn't care if they had WMD, but then again, its the hate for Boosh that drives you, not whats right or whats wrong.
Yeah; that's the ticket buddy; you won this debate :aok
-
Translated:
I hate anything that Bush does that envokes the fight against terrorism because its Bush, not because its right.
Better? ;)
-
Guess we've learned to trust our cops
Just like your role models in the Reich. :)
-
Errr... Last time I checked we didn't had a concentration camp anywhere near unlike you have in Guantanamo, Funked :)
-
I'm sure Finnish forces were very kind to any partisans they encountered in WW2, gave them a fair trial or let them go free.
Give me a break.
Standard procedure in any previous war, by any country, was to execute such people upon capture, or after painful interrogation. Even if it was not official policy, it was de facto policy, battlefield justice.
-
This is really cool. If you pull the right person over, the potential for bribes to get out of the ticket has now been increased exponentially!
What a great system!
MiniD
-
BTW... how many arguing over the impact of the cost of a jaywalking ticket have ever received one? I've not seen a person get one that didn't blow a gasket at the very idea of the ticket... irrelevant of the cost.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Staga
15mph overspeed? errr guy drove 200kmh at 120kmh zone in a highway which went thru the city so guess he was speeding little faster than 15mph.
I also trust to our police and their capability to catch all those drivers in that hypothetical situation of three speeding cars... Guess we've learned to trust our cops :)
btw I've heard that in some countries government can confiscate someones car in situations like those with Mr.Salonoja and MsRoss; I'm glad that kind of socialism haven't found its way in here :)
He still invoked a quarter million euro fine for a speeding ticket where someone else doing the exact same thing may have paid next to nothing. Not much to debate on that one, is there? Curious, how much does it cost to insure cars and drivers there, and is it pro-rated by income as well? It'd about have to be, because the outlandish penalties for the wealthy almost guarantee a tier system of sorts.
Let's face it, the system is designed to separate wealth from the individual and redistribute it. That's a pretty good non-answer on my scenario as well; we both know the cop is going to bag the BMW every time in that case, because it means more money for someone. Perhaps not the cop, perhaps not the department, but it means more money changing hands nonetheless. One lone cop cannot catch three speeders at once- so he'll go for the high-price ticket. That isn't equal application of the law.
-
Originally posted by Staga
btw when is your government going to prosecute those people at Guantanamo?
You really should care more about your own concentration camps than if someone got a nice big fine because he drove thru the city at 200kmh at 120kmh zone (thats 124mph at 74mph zone).
I guess the better question is if your country cannot settle traffic violations in an equitable fashion, how can they hope to comprehend an issue as complex as Guantanamo?
-
Naah; It's all about justice.
If you do the crime you must be punished. Now how would you be sure that the penalty produces equal burden for the offenders with different income? 500€ fine is pennies for someone but can be a ticket to prison for someone else.
First guy loses some pocket money when another loses his freedom, work and maybe everything with that. Sentence would be unreasonable for the latter and that's why our legislationsystem is build like it is.
We have much less lawyers and prisoners per 100.000 habitants than you have so my guess is we're doing something right :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Naah; It's all about justice.
If you do the crime you must be punished. Now how would you be sure that the penalty produces equal burden for the offenders with different income? 500€ fine is pennies for someone but can be a ticket to prison for someone else.
First guy loses some pocket money when another loses his freedom, work and maybe everything with that. Sentence would be unreasonable for the latter and that's why our legislationsystem is build like it is.
We have much less lawyers and prisoners per 100.000 habitants than you have so my guess is we're doing something right :)
That is simply absurd.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I guess the better question is if your country cannot settle traffic violations in an equitable fashion, how can they hope to comprehend an issue as complex as Guantanamo?
Mr.Salonoja made the crime, he was in court, was found guilty and was convicted. Now he has two choices: Pay the fine or do the time.
Now if we look at your prisoners at Guantanamo: No proven crimes, haven't been in any court (civil or martian), no way to answer accusations, no knowledge if they can ever get in front of the court.
Kieran I understand that it is a hard place for a citizen of a country which promotes freedom and justice to see people put into the concentration camps without rights to defend themself in the court... You just need to face the facts buddy :)
-
Mietla oneliners like yours make you look silly; if you have something to add to this conversation please use more than four words in your next post.
Saying "simple absurd" doesn't help me understand your opinion at all and thus your post was nothing but waste of typing and space in this board :)
-
who cares? It's only Finland.
It's not like it matters to anyone what Finland does.
-
Staga, you are defending an absurd system. Want another reason you have few lawyers? Apparently your draconian system of law doesn't allow for them.
So, is car insurance pro-rated by income? Come on, do tell. And no more sidetracks on Guantanamo, you know you're just avoiding the obvious.
-
I dunno, from what I can see, they are one of the most redneck countries in Europe, so we might want to make friends with them. And they buy our fighter planes. Also if you consider their population size, they have by far the highest proportion of world class race drivers and hockey players.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I dunno, from what I can see, they are one of the most redneck countries in Europe, so we might want to make friends with them. And they buy our fighter planes. Also if you consider their population size, they have by far the highest proportion of world class race drivers and hockey players.
An ignorant quote from an ignorant person WOW theres a shocker.:aok
-
So I assume Finland has a flat tax rate then too?
-
Dude they even have drag racing, funny cars and everything. Most of the Finns who post here and AGW know their way around firearms, they like to drink a lot, hell one of them is a truck driver. On the WRC show they showed Marcus Gronholm, probably one of the richest men in Finland, enjoying his summer holiday. Fishing, boating (no water skiing, just manly powerboating), and driving a tractor on his farm. Other than the tax rates and the weather I think it would be a cool place to live. Nothing wrong with being a 'neck.
-
Funk and mietla, do you want to discuss the topic or just post one liners ?
Whole thing is simply about punishment for breaking the law. I'm not talking about insurance or taxes, to get that out of your heads.
Let me give you different example:
Let's say I'm an average human, but you funk, in all your greatness have been genetically modified to have huge tongue and live 300 years. Let's say it's a known fact, right here and now that I have another 50 years left while you have 270 more to go.
Punishment for murder is 25 year ( for example ).
I wouldn't do it, for me it' s a half of my remaining time.
For you, on the other hand, not that much of a deal, is it ? Only 1/10th ?
Punishment is supposed to deter person from doing the same thing again, it's hardly a deterent if subjected person barely notices it.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Funk and mietla, do you want to discuss the topic or just post one liners ?
Whole thing is simply about punishment for breaking the law. I'm not talking about insurance or taxes, to get that out of your heads.
Let me give you different example:
Let's say I'm an average human, but you funk, in all your greatness have been genetically modified to have huge tongue and live 300 years. Let's say it's a known fact, right here and now that I have another 50 years left while you have 270 more to go.
Punishment for murder is 25 year ( for example ).
I wouldn't do it, for me it' s a half of my remaining time.
For you, on the other hand, not that much of a deal, is it ? Only 1/10th ?
Punishment is supposed to deter person from doing the same thing again, it's hardly a deterent if subjected person barely notices it.
What happens if a guy worth 2 cents speeds in a borrowed car? What is his fine?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Let's say I'm an average human, but you funk, in all your greatness have been genetically modified to have huge tongue and live 300 years.
LOL nice example. :)
I understand what you are saying, in fact I'm not sure I ever disputed it directly. I just don't think income is any of the government's business. Assuming they have that knowledge, your logic makes sense.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Funk and mietla, do you want to discuss the topic or just post one liners ?
Brevity is a soul of wit my friend.
As I said, I consider this system to be a completely absurd and totally unacceptable. There is no point in arguing it. You either believe in a principle of equality under law or you don't. Once you accept that "equality of pain" is a goal here, there is no stopping until you get absurd.
For example, if the punishment should be a funcion of income, why not rewards. This way a wealthy person should be paid much more than a poor person (for the same job).
What should your fine be if you are poor but your parents are wealthy?
Why should we tolerate unequal hardship while buying anything? Why should bread or butter cost the same for everybody?
You see? in addition to being fundamentally unfair, it gets ridiculous in a hurry. Just like any egalitarian utopian pie in a sky beyond "equal before the law".
I just can't believe you are serious. Troll away :)
Originally posted by fd ski
Whole thing is simply about punishment for breaking the law. I'm not talking about insurance or taxes, to get that out of your heads.
Let me give you different example:
Let's say I'm an average human, but you funk, in all your greatness have been genetically modified to have huge tongue and live 300 years. Let's say it's a known fact, right here and now that I have another 50 years left while you have 270 more to go.
Punishment for murder is 25 year ( for example ).
I wouldn't do it, for me it' s a half of my remaining time.
For you, on the other hand, not that much of a deal, is it ? Only 1/10th ?
Punishment is supposed to deter person from doing the same thing again, it's hardly a deterent if subjected person barely notices it. [/B]
You yourself just showed an absurdity of this thing.
-
Reading this sometimes ill tempered debate. I have a few thoughts.
Making a speeding fine fit your income is a good idea. It's not a deterrent if the fine is less than the cost of the cigars you smoke while you drive your Maybach or Ferrari. A speeding fine that hurts me wouldn't even register for someone on 100k a year.
Having said that we have a system here like that in Britain where each speeding conviction attracts points on your licence. Get enough points and you get to ride the bus. Then your insurance goes up because the insurers think you are a risk. Works very well. Since the system was brought in last year, road deaths dropped significantly. The problem is that fines didn't really work.
Some Americans get all 'het up' about 'socialism' in European countries. Or more to the point supposed high taxes caused by 'socialism'. All these countries seem to get on quite well. Most are rich comfortable, relatively crime free with little poverty and full of smug people quick to tell you how great their country is. They pay relatively high taxes but it's all ploughed back into good services and medical cover.
If you pay medical insurance every month that is in fact a tax of sorts.
There is also the attitude among some that being poor is somehow a lifestyle choice. For some maybe but very few. Having been there at one stage I can tell you it's not and if it wasn't for the safety net of social welfare. I would have starved. Because there were no jobs at the time. period!
As it happens I live in a low direct tax country. Third lowest in the world I believe. There's a minimum wage that is so low you can't live on it. We along with the British, work the longest hours in Europe. Oddly enough the rich are getting richer and the roads are clogged with with Mercedes and SUV's but the ordinary working stiffs (who work the long hours) are worse off than they ever were. You can't buy a house on an average income and and you can't rent an apartment either.
Maybe those Europeans are onto something?
-
For example, if the punishment should be a funcion of income, why not rewards. This way a wealthy person should be paid much more than a poor person (for the same job).
Last I checked it does work this way. How much your worth has no direct bearing on how much you make, it's the other way around. I could be worth 400 million dollars, but if I got a job at McDonalds I would be making 5.50 just like everyone else. If someone were qualified enough to be CEO of Microsoft but was only worth 40,000 dollars, he would be paid just as much as any other CEO in his position.
-
Of course. I was just trying to show an absurdity of the "equal pain" premise.
-
Its primarly punishment system for being successfull and wealthy (dont forget we lived 50 years next to country that took that to the extreme, it had big influence on our political scheme), secondary its for redistributing the wealth and only after that its purpose is to give harder punishment to those who can handle more.
Its a pure jealous BS, there should be other ways to punish people, like restricting priviledges that are same to the wealthy and poor, ie. drivers licence. Overspeeding should only cost for what it costs our government, the expeses of those 2 cops and car, few bucks. I cant figure any other justification for it, money for nothing generates only corruption.
But for my understanding Staga is one of the regular finnish citizens, who believe that in the end socialistic systems generate more good than bad. They teach that happines of wealth redistribution in our schools for years and years, you will be assimilated. Wealth, age, strenght, where do you draw the line for punishment harshness tolerance and with what logic? If laws are illogical they are bad laws.
-
When I was a student a while ago, I happily consumed the money given for me to finance my studies. (studying is free in Finland, state pays it all, gives some money every month so you can pay rents etc.)
That time I thought that this system is fine, gives everyone the equal change to succeed and start careers, without your parents helping.
Now I am a working man, who pays more taxes in 2 months than I got from state whole year, so I´m a little pissed off... why bother working overtime when the state takes 50% of my income?
This whole system is build on a principle that all should be equal and have same chances and services. Also that means if you make more money you will be "punished" for being so successfull
You know where this leads..?? yep , this house of cards will crash in couple of decades.
With this little background I provided you should be able to understand why this man got so big speeding ticket. Is it wrong to drive so fast ? Hell yes! (I do that too ..)
Is it right to punish so harsly? hell no, I would get a much smaller ticket if I killed someone!!!!!
You also have to understand that in Finland the road traffic is infact a "milk cow" for the State. We got long distances between cities and people are scattered all over the country, but the cars will cost at least 2x which it costs in Germany for example...
So I agree everyone who thinks that our laws considering overspeeding should belong to Ripley´s Believe it or not....
-
Tuomio, Jarsci-
See? Perfectly reasoned and common-sense explanations of the obvious. S! to you guys for being straightforward about the laws.
We ain't perfect in America- not even close. We have our problems, as some of our Scandinavian friends love to point out (at length!). It was interesting to see it turned around on a couple of our harshest critics though, and I confess a small amount of pleasure at seeing them attempt to defend the indefensible.
-
If you pay medical insurance every month that is in fact a tax of sorts.
No, it is an expense, and in fact an optional expense. Very different from a tax.
ra
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Well, it's simple really; equal treatment under the law. Finland apparently doesn't have it. But I do have to hand it to the Finns; they have invented a brand new way to remove wealth from the wealthy. 15mph over the speed limit? That's gonna cost you $250,000.
Yeah, makes great sense. ;)
So... your cop sees three cars speeding down an expressway... a Yugo, a Saab, and a BMW. Someone's going to get pulled over, but who? Who, who, who...
It is not illegal according to Finnish law and it's not about equal treatement but more about equal punishement.
You can make a 500+post thread it won't change the FACT that it's how Finnish law punish the offender.
someone want to start yetanother abortion/gun thread ? :D
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Overspeeding should only cost for what it costs our government, the expeses of those 2 cops and car, few bucks. I cant figure any other justification for it, money for nothing generates only corruption.
These speeding fellas and the ones going through red lights probably never realise what kind of expenses it might cause when the accident happens - due to their stupidity.
If someone gets hit by a speeding moron and survives it, he'll be spending few months of his life in hospital and rehabilitation.
That will cost quite alot.
Only accordingly harsh punishments will prevent this from happening.
Like last spring I almost got run over by a speeding driver going through red lights (which had been red for a good while and excellent visibility on the traffic lights)
Had I not for some reason felt the need to carefully look around the corner, I probably wouldn't be here today.
With the speed he was going, there wouldn't been much of a chance to survive, most likely it would been fatal.
(top of it, he had to stop at the next traffic lights, behind the traffic! .. I really gave even a second thought for running up to the car and do something...)
Thats why theres laws.
I don't see why richer people should have lower barrier to violate speed limits or such, knowing they wouldn't get punished too badly.
About the case.. I don't know this guy or his wealth, at least the fine seems pretty damn high.
But if hes very rich, he sure deserves to pay more than the johnny normal.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It is not illegal according to Finnish law and it's not about equal treatement but more about equal punishement.
You can make a 500+post thread it won't change the FACT that it's how Finnish law punish the offender.
someone want to start yetanother abortion/gun thread ? :D
So... the Finnish law system is centered around PUNISHMENT rather than EQUAL TREATMENT? Whatsamatta, can't take it when attention is turned away from American law? ;)
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
When I was a student a while ago, I happily consumed the money given for me to finance my studies. (studying is free in Finland, state pays it all, gives some money every month so you can pay rents etc.)
That time I thought that this system is fine, gives everyone the equal change to succeed and start careers, without your parents helping.
Now I am a working man, who pays more taxes in 2 months than I got from state whole year, so I´m a little pissed off... why bother working overtime when the state takes 50% of my income?
This whole system is build on a principle that all should be equal and have same chances and services. Also that means if you make more money you will be "punished" for being so successfull
You know where this leads..?? yep , this house of cards will crash in couple of decades.
With this little background I provided you should be able to understand why this man got so big speeding ticket. Is it wrong to drive so fast ? Hell yes! (I do that too ..)
Is it right to punish so harsly? hell no, I would get a much smaller ticket if I killed someone!!!!!
You also have to understand that in Finland the road traffic is infact a "milk cow" for the State. We got long distances between cities and people are scattered all over the country, but the cars will cost at least 2x which it costs in Germany for example...
So I agree everyone who thinks that our laws considering overspeeding should belong to Ripley´s Believe it or not....
Thanks for your perspective Jarci. I've heard this from more than one "Non-student, working class" person from your country.
-
I think what I said earlier was not all I had to say..
First , I don´t mind paying taxes if they give someone the same chances I got , but If I have to pay some drunkards life with my money I get pissed...this is why I have to pay 40% income tax from my salary ?
ok next subject:
In overall, Finnish laws work well , usually favoring criminal/offendant even too much so that the punishments are almost ridiculously easy comparing what they have done. But that also protects people from getting judged innocently.
There are some other weird things in our law system, for example if you see someone banging someone with a steel tube and you go and kick that M-f#ckers balls to orbit, you will get a bigger sentence than the original attacker.. He has suffered so much pain and some psychologic trauma... (read BS) (this also has led to that that no-one will interfere when you get your bellybutton kicked 4am while waiting a taxi. Luckily its changing for better nowadays)
In overall Finnish laws seem to punish people more if you steal, earn or if your crime somehow concerns money. (taxes taxes fines taxes) . All crimes done with checkbook will get you into the jail. But if you rape someone and it takes only 5 secs to come, it will be considered as light rape (don´t ask me, this happened really) and you serve some time under parole...
One thing better here is that here courts doesn´t order people to pay ridiculous amounts of money as compensations. Also people here tend to take more responsibility about their own life, than to always start suing some company/neighbor. (Is it really that bad as it looks when reading articles and watching TV? :confused: ;) )
In overall Finnish legislations seems to hold money in higher esteem than peoples lifes or health. But that is only my opinion..
And 170000€ speeding ticket is ridiculous in any standards. No-one in Finland has paid such sums as fines or compensations to anyone, even if the crime is murder, manslaughter , doctors mistake which ruins your whole life etc. . Why overspeeding which only caused a DANGER would be worse crime than a manslaughter where someone has already died?
-
Other than the speeding ticket portion, I could have wrote that post Jarci.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
These speeding fellas and the ones going through red lights probably never realise what kind of expenses it might cause when the accident happens - due to their stupidity.
So, rich people then make more expensive car crashes or what?
Its just the fact that taking money is bad and corrupting way to punish somebody when that money wont go for the persons he/she has harmed.
Ie. take the licence away for a week ALWAYS and from EVERYONE who overspeeds etc. without a single possible backdoor. If such behaviour continues then add month every time. That would be equal treatment and would not corrupt our police and their supervisors.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
So, rich people then make more expensive car crashes or what?
Its just the fact that taking money is bad and corrupting way to punish somebody when that money wont go for the persons he/she has harmed.
Ie. take the licence away for a week ALWAYS and from EVERYONE who overspeeds etc. without a single possible backdoor. If such behaviour continues then add month every time. That would be equal treatment and would not corrupt our police and their supervisors.
If you didnt notice, I didn't say whether the fine in question was good or not.
Just saying that the rich people should pay enough to make them think twice whether its good to try out the cars performance on public roads.
Otherwise they'll be just speeding and knowing that IF they get caught, it won't be a big deal to get over the fine.
When someone is speeding +50kph over the speed limits, I really don't think nice of them... they're idiots who do not deserve a drivers license.
...of course its funny how crimes involving taxes or which otherwise profits the goverment, are resulting in higher punishments than even the violent crimes against inviduals.
-
You see in other countrys they dont pay the cops on how many tickets they write funked. (they do here in alot of places). Finlands ticketing system is one of the fairest in the world.
Is it really fair to fine someone who makes 20k a year 300 bucks a speeding ticket and only charge 300 bucks to someone who makes 12mill. What is the incentive for the guy who makes 12mill a year to not break the law? M. Jacksons bail should have been based on his wealth.
-
Originally posted by ra
No, it is an expense, and in fact an optional expense. Very different from a tax.
ra
Everyone needs medical treatment at some time. Hardly optional.
It's only optional if you can afford the bills without insurance and only optional if you can get medical treatment because tax money is used to provide medical care.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You see in other countrys they dont pay the cops on how many tickets they write funked. (they do here in alot of places). Finlands ticketing system is one of the fairest in the world.
Is it really fair to fine someone who makes 20k a year 300 bucks a speeding ticket and only charge 300 bucks to someone who makes 12mill. What is the incentive for the guy who makes 12mill a year to not break the law? M. Jacksons bail should have been based on his wealth.
Don't kid yourself... of course the department receives more money for operation when the state takes in more money from higher-dollar tickets. It is a potential cash cow for the state. Whether or not the policeman receives direct compensation for the higher-dollar ticket, he will receive pressure to hit a quota (as part of a job performance rating), and may very well be rated on the level of offender most commonly ticketed. This is all hypothetical of course (for Finland), but the possibility certainly must have occurred to you... didn't it?
-
your confusing on how we run our police departments compared to finland. I dont think something like this would work in america unless we change the way we run and fund our police stations. which will never happen.
-
You're certainly not suggesting the monies taken from highway fines don't help fund police in Finland, are you?
-
I am suggesting that the cops over there have no incentive to write tickets.
-
Of course they would- how are they evaluated for their work? If you are a traffic cop, it is only fair to look at how many tickets you write compared to a set standard. If you don't write enough tickets, is it because you are sitting on your can eating doughnuts? In addition, there can be no question the state would become dependent on traffic violation revenue, especially in the monetary amounts discussed. What is the yearly wage for one cop? That reported ticket probably paid for 2-3 cops all by itself.
It very obviously matters. There certainly is an incentive.
-
Frogman we have 2 cops in the family, neither of them are paid by the ticket. Never heard of such a thing.
The problem is that the government as a whole (including police) benefits from ticket revenues, and governments tend to evolve to milk revenue sources as much as they can. Unless you completely decouple the organization funding the police from the organization recieving the ticket revenues, you will see this effect.
What's the most effective department on any college campus? The parking nazis.
If the school owes you money you are entitled to, good luck getting it, a huge pain in the ass. But if you owe them money, they will damn sure track you down and extract it from you. Amazing that U of Illinois could never get any correspondence to my correct address, but when I had unpaid parking tickets, they managed to track me down even though I hadn't notified them of an address change.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I was hoping you'd use Janet Jacksons situation where she broke the law, $27,000 fine. Drop in the bucket!
Wrong (as usual for you).
They have no authority to fine her for that, she didn't break any federal laws.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The problem is that the government as a whole (including police) benefits from ticket revenues, and governments tend to evolve to milk revenue sources as much as they can. Unless you completely decouple the organization funding the police from the organization recieving the ticket revenues, you will see this effect.
That's why California has the 'basic speed law' that takes most authority away from local jurisdictions in setting speed limits.
-
As said earlier, in finland the rich guy can always choose jailtime (which will be _exactly_ similar in length with the poor guy)
Instead he will get a government housing and 3 meals a day untill he has served the time.
So in the end the people are equal in front of the law. They have the absolute freedom to choose if they'll buy their way out or not. And the price is calculated as a percentage of their annual income.
Weight on the word percentage.
Many people quote on the 'value' of the rich. How they benefit the society more than the poor guy.. They forget a scenario.
What if you're Joe Millionaire who inherits $50mil? You get cash for free even though u used to drive a bulldozer.
How does he benefit the society more than a regular bulldozer jock? He's the same guy, only now he can afford to do what he wants, breaking the law included, unless the penalty is proportional to his real wealth.
He can always do the time if he thinks he needs the buck.
//edit
Or you can pull Mr. Rytsola stunt who hired a lawyer and an accountant to prove his true income droped to zero from, what, $20mil? Cayman islands, anyone? Therefore paying less than 5% of the original fee.
-
Siaf__csf: What if you're Joe Millionaire who inherits $50mil? You get cash for free even though u used to drive a bulldozer.
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.
miko
-
The deal is, if Finland truly wanted to stop traffic violators, they would make their penalties more in the form of losing your license quicker. What you have in Finland is state sponsored extortion.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The deal is, if Finland truly wanted to stop traffic violators, they would make their penalties more in the form of losing your license quicker
But how will the Finn be competitive in WRC ?
hu ?
That's a good question no ? ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Rofl just admit you're wrong.
The fact remains, nobody is obliged to pay a DIME.
Not a damn dime. Dig on that.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well, it's useless. We just have to leave it at that. We both clearly stated our positions, and it is obvious that our fundamental definitions of fairness are diffferent and reconcilable.
Must be different teachings from parents and school system.
-
Fishu: Are you saying the wealthy people should be allowed to drive more recklessly than the poor?
They are not "allowed" to do anything. It's a figure of speech and total lying fantasy on the part of socialists that not confiscating someone's property equals to giving him privileges.
Rich should pay the same as any other people for any goods or services they buy - clothers, food, speeding.
Consider this. If a speeding person kills or disables someone - like a family bread winner, the rich will be sued for millions and will pay to replace the lost income. The rich will put his children through school and college, etc.
The poor on the other hand will pay $50 fine or few months in jail and that's it - no compensation for actual damage. That's recklessness and irresponcibility - as in not being held responcibe for results of one's actions.
What's the result of speeding? Just a number on a policemen's radar gun.
What's the result of an accident? Ruined livelihood. Rich stand to take responcibility of it while poor do not.
Are you saying poor people should be allowed to endanger people and ruin their lives more recklessly and irresponcibly?
I don't think the wealth should give any greater rights for someone to endanger the traffic.
Wealth does not give rights. It only gives opportunities. It's pure socialist egalitarian propaganda to confuse rights with opportunities or outcomes.
miko
-
For regular finn, somebody being rich is unfair for the poor. Its that simple.
-
Tuomio: For regular finn, somebody being rich is unfair for the poor. Its that simple.
According to my rough calculations - including good/service excnange and taxes, every extra $1 that a rich finn has means at least extra $1.5 that some poor man has. One would think rich would be valued and encouraged by poor.
But of course of the poor were smart and knew what's good for them, they would not be poor in the first place! :D
miko
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
For regular finn, somebody being rich is unfair for the poor. Its that simple.
Now you are talking like a communist. You mean a gifted, productive and enterpreneurial person who produces wealth (and gives you a job and food in a process) is somehow detrimental because of the sensitivities of poor unproductive losers?
Is that what they teach you in school in Finland?
The rich are feeding the poor. They deserve a gratitude not resentment.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Rich should pay the same as any other people for any goods or services they buy - clothers, food, speeding.
Consider this. If a speeding person kills or disables someone - like a family bread winner, the rich will be sued for millions and will pay to replace the lost income. The rich will put his children through school and college, etc.
The poor on the other hand will pay $50 fine or few months in jail and that's it - no compensation for actual damage. That's recklessness and irresponcibility - as in not being held responcibe for results of one's actions.
Traffic violations are not goods of some sort, those are against the law, resulting in a punishment.
Taking 200 bucks from a millionaire whos gone +60kph over speed limits is NOT a punishment... but for someone whos for it is half a months income, it is more than a punishment in comparison.
When you knowingly break the law, you should face the consequences of it aka punished.
As a millionaire, you wouldn't be punished if you're only fined couple of bucks... it'd be almost same as getting away for free or saying "sorry officer, I won't do it again"
Wheres the punishment?
If someone would drive through red lights and drive over me, I couldn't care less whether the driver was poor or rich, I'd like to only see the irresponsible jerk punished.
Preferably punished before giving him the chance to drive over someone.
There should be some limitations as to how high the fine can get for simple speeding, but in any case, not the same sum from rich and poor.
-
If you took the guy's license for reckless driving, regardless of income, you'd have an equal system. Isn't that easy to see?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
If you took the guy's license for reckless driving, regardless of income, you'd have an equal system. Isn't that easy to see?
Then again people would be complaining it'd be too cruel to take someones drivers licenses for simple speeding.
What to do for people who dont speed fast enough?
I doubt it'd cure much to take it away from people whos doing 140kph on 120kph limit.
-
Going 15k over the speed limit isn't reckless driving though, is it? Isn't the argument that a rich guy going 15k over the limit should pay exorbitant fines so he won't do it any more?
What we have here is an example of a government doing a very good job of selling a bad law. A very dangerous precedent, I might add, if the government feels like pro-rating all fines in your system of law. Lotsa money to be made from the rich, and your people seem more than willing to put up with it.
-
Originally posted by Staga
In here there's minimum value of day-fines so even without any incomes you're going to get a fine that'll hurt you economically.
If you can't get the money to pay the fine you're going to do the time.
So Finland incarcerates the poor and lets the rich walk...
and this makes the Finn system better than the USA?
-
I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here) that the US legal system operates quite similarly to the Finnish one, perhaps not in the case of traffic tickets, but certainly when punitive damages are awarded.
Wasn't it because McDonalds were a large corporation that the lady who spilt hot coffee in her lap got awarded millions? Would the damages have been the same if she had bought the coffee from an small independant cafe?
I'm sure there must be other examples.
Ravs
-
Yes, to some extent that is true, but you aren't going to find a lot of people defending it. It's stupid, and the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits is bankrupting our insurance companies, and it needs to be addressed pronto.
-
Fishu: If someone would drive through red lights and drive over me, I couldn't care less whether the driver was poor or rich, I'd like to only see the irresponsible jerk punished.
I bet your wife and children would rather have you run over by a rich person than by a poor one.
Fishu: Taking 200 bucks from a millionaire whos gone +60kph over speed limits is NOT a punishment... but for someone whos for it is half a months income, it is more than a punishment in comparison.
By the same token, a millionaire will be able to financially compensate the victim for damage to person/property while a poor man will not be able to do so.
Being hit by a poor person is much worse than being hit by a rich person, so the punishment on a poor person should be much stricter - to better deter poor persons. :)
Kieran: If you took the guy's license for reckless driving, regardless of income, you'd have an equal system. Isn't that easy to see?
A socialist would probably object that a wealthy person will be able to hire a driver while the poor one will lose his job without transportation...
miko
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So Finland incarcerates the poor and lets the rich walk...
and this makes the Finn system better than the USA?
In fact according to my perception it make the both system interchangeable .
what did I win ?
-
equal for all, is a fee for a "X" commiten crime let them pay 1 month pay of their income.
Cant be that hard to understand ?
if that gives somone a 200$ fee or a 2000$ fee it hurts them the same way.
-
Originally posted by airguard
equal for all, is a fee for a "X" commiten crime let them pay 1 month pay of their income.
Cant be that hard to understand ?
if that gives somone a 200$ fee or a 2000$ fee it hurts them the same way.
we don't have misunderstanding, we just fundamentally disagree on a definition of fairness.
-
Originally posted by straffo
In fact according to my perception it make the both systems interchangeable .
what did I win ?
enlightenment!
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I bet your wife and children would rather have you run over by a rich person than by a poor one.
Wouldn't do a difference.
This isn't US of A, where rich people gets sued for millions when they scratch someone.
Even in the way you see it, it would only be bad for the wealthy AFTER the worst has happened, otherwise they'd be merrily speeding until the **** happens.
Traffic laws are there to PREVENT the worst from happening.
-
When you hurt somebody, its more justified to have progressive fines that go to the victim. This way the victim gets his revenge.
But when you overspeed, you do not hurt anybody, you usually just slightly raise the risk for causing an accident. Even if you drove around kindergarten 200mph for two days, it doesent mean you have harmed anyone or even have had any close calls. WHEN you cause accident and have done such reckless act, you should get your bellybutton jailed for years + big $$ fines for the victim.
State is not entity that can be hurt or have feelings, thus all that its entitled to is to receive compensation for the caused physical damage. Ie. costs of involving police officers.
As have stated, there is lots of other ways to punish somebody. ALL punishment actions have PREVENTING consequenses. I dont think how much more rational punishment and prevention measure can be done against breaking the traffic laws, than suspending drivers licence + small fee and in extreme cases put behind bars.
Im all for suspending the licence from the very first violation, maybe just for day or two, it would mess your life a little. Then continous violations=months suspension, or in cases that the guy doesent care whether he has the licence or not, put him in jail.
-
Tuomio: But when you overspeed, you do not hurt anybody, you usually just slightly raise the risk for causing an accident.
Subjecting someone to harm or to the risk of harm is the same when considered from the standpoint of rigts violation.
Here is a great idea on how to address the risk. Let's say the speeding around kindergarten has a 0.001% risk of hurting two children.
The offender is put in a special chamber in front of a wall where an acomputer-controlled weapon fires twice at random spots at the wall with a probability of hitting the offender of 0.001%.
Before hand, they should be shown graphical pictures/videos of those actually shot and hit.
That would cure most people of a desire to frivolously endanger others.
An eye for an eye - an ege-old principle. Also fair and balanced.
miko
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
When you hurt somebody, its more justified to have progressive fines that go to the victim. This way the victim gets his revenge.
But when you overspeed, you do not hurt anybody, you usually just slightly raise the risk for causing an accident. Even if you drove around kindergarten 200mph for two days, it doesent mean you have harmed anyone or even have had any close calls. WHEN you cause accident and have done such reckless act, you should get your bellybutton jailed for years + big $$ fines for the victim.
Thats just absurd.
The traffic laws are made in order to decrease and prevent the accidents.
I don't want people to drive recklessly, just waiting for the accident to happen.. I'd rather see traffic laws enforced and violaters punished if they break the laws, before something happens.
The risk also increases alot, not just slightly.
If you're speeding 80khp in area with 40-50kph limit, the risk really does increase by a noticeable amount, not just slightly.
Also, if you happen to drive over someone, the person would be almost surely dead, while if you would've obeyed the speed limits, you would either have avoided it or *much* less likely killed the person.
On highways, if theres 100kph limit and you're speeding +180kph in a typical car, you're much more likely to loose control of the car, the risk does increase alot.
When you loose the control, nobody knows where the car ends up and what gets in its way.
Higher the speed, more likely it is to loose control and have more catastrophic consequences if it hits someone elses car.
Public roads are not race tracks, nor do people drive race cars, which are also equipped approriately for racing and high speeds.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Thats just absurd.
The traffic laws are made in order to decrease and prevent the accidents.
I don't want people to drive recklessly, just waiting for the accident to happen.. I'd rather see traffic laws enforced and violaters punished if they break the laws, before something happens.
YEs, but i wasnt advocating against traffic laws, but the punishment methods. Why have _cost_ for crime that does not cost anything for anybody?
Pre-crime arguments are very slippery slopes, i'm not comfortable with their logic. If the reason for traffic laws are to make people obey them, then why not just shoot everyone that breaks them? That would be equal and fairness is subjective term, so it could be taught as a fair punishment even.Now are we agreeing, that punishment should be based on the harm that the law breaking action causes? How does greater punishment for the rich fit in that reasoning?
People overspeeding should perhaps pay reasonable compensation for their insurance companies (yes that would make poor paying the same as rich, ie. 60% risk for accident would mean lots of $$$ and rightfully so). If the government acts as an insurance company, like in Finland it has health insurance monopoly, then they should use the risk based calculations for their tickets.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
This isn't US of A, where rich people gets sued for millions when they scratch someone.
And yet thay pay $250,00 for a traffic ticket??? This is nore stupid that I thought. And it just confirm our initial suspicion that the real reason for it is extraction of money for the government.
You kill someone, no gain for the governemnt. Even if the victim's family sues the perp, all the money goes to them. Also, you do not kill someone every day.
So screw civil litigation
But, if you fine rich folks $250k a pop...
1. The money goes to the government
2. you can potentially catch the same dude the next day.
Governmental extorsion, pure and simple. They just dress it up is a egalitarian sugar coating and a sprinkle of class envy, and lookie. Socialist we eat it up any time.
BTW, you've mentioned that people who kill other in accident do not get sued. But why? This would be a civil action. The victim's family against the perp.
Is the government discuraging/blocking such action?
Not enough gready lawyers?
Uninformed public?
-
Originally posted by mietla
And yet that y pay $250,00 for a traffic ticket??? This is nore stupid that I thought.
Reasoning: It goes to the government, so it is for common good. If you sue and get $$$, invidual gets rich and that is not common good, its unequality and therefor bad.
:lol
ps. Yes i know what it sounds like and it IS just that. Not my mindset tho.
-
Originally posted by Tuomio
Reasoning: It goes to the government, so it is for common good. If you sue and get $$$, invidual gets rich and that is not common good, its unequality and therefor bad.
:lol
ps. Yes i know what it sounds like and it IS just that. Not my mindset tho.
That's exactly what I I was saying from the beginning. You've replied before I edited my post.
Common good, losers will buy that any time.
-
Tuomio,
You're probably the kind of driver who I don't like at all.. doesn't take others into count at all and just thinks some speeding doesnt hurt anyone, for they're great drivers!
Mietla,
Well.. how many times do I have to say I'm not quite up to 170k $ fines?
Anyhoo... this will probably be eventually about 20% of the original, like before.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Mietla,
Well.. how many times do I have to say I'm not quite up to 170k $ fines?.
Does not matter, you've bought the principle, so from now it is only a number game.
I'm rejecting the principle, so I don't have to worry about the numbers.
Besides, since according to your reasoning the fine should depend on the income, why is $170k too much? It would obviously depend on a person, right? Bill Gates would be fined in tens of billions.
-
Another interesting observation.
To you
Common good = more money to the government
To me
Common good = less money for the government
-
Tuomio: It goes to the government, so it is for common good.
So the more people get hurt, the more "common good". :)
If you sue and get $$$, invidual gets rich and that is not common good, its unequality and therefor bad.
To get complete equality, whenever any citizen of Finland is hurt by a car, every citizen of Finland should get equally hurt. :D
BTW, when you quote the views you do not share or even oppose, use this :rolleyes: icon or use qualifiers "allegedely" or "supposedely". It will help avoid misunderstandings in abcense of observable facial reactions.
miko
-
Originally posted by mietla
Another interesting observation.
To you
Common good = more money to the government
To me
Common good = less money for the government
It's not mine nor goverments fault if someone speeding gets caught and fined.
Speeding was choice of the someone, who more than likely was and is aware how the system works.
If he wants to be driving recklessly, he should buy a race car and go drive it at the race tracks.
Especially if hes rich, it'd be no problem.
On the public roads, he should obey the common traffic laws, which are created for the safety of his and the others.
If he screws up, he might injure or kill others...
Would be no problem with me, if the only damage would happen to the driver himself.
Unfortunately it can often result in other casualties and blocked roads.
When the s*hit happens, its too late to fine anyone.
Depending on the casualties, money will not fix the damages, no matter how much someone could pay.
Too late.
The less the punishment is, the less they care whether they're speeding or not.
-
The government operates on the perverse incentive. A government bureaucrat/politician is directly interested in maximising the fine revenue and thus in maintaing the "optimal" number of violations.
There is an inherent conflict of interests between a government official duty and insentive.
That is not the case for a private property owner.
miko