"Only in Finland"....

[mietla]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[Tuomio]

For regular finn, somebody being rich is unfair for the poor. Its that simple.

[miko2d]

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!

 miko

[mietla]

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.

[Fishu]

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.

[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?

[Fishu]

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.

[Kieran]

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.

[Holden McGroin]

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?

[ravells]

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

[Kieran]

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.

[miko2d]

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

[straffo]

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 ?

[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.