Speeding tickets based on income

Finland Finland Finland, the place I quote don't want to be..

Published on May 11, 2005 By Draginol In Automotive

I read an article this month in Car & Driver that Finland has passed a law in which traffic fines are now based on your annual income. So a person going 5 over may be fined $10 or $100,000 depending on whom they are. This bit the CEO of Nokia recently when he received a $12 MILLION fine for going 15 over.

Such a thing is, hopefully, unconstitutional in the United States. In the US, we're supposed to be equal under the law. Imagine the abuse a law like that could cause. Cities looking to increase revenue simply park officers in the wealthier parts of town. Wealthy people, effectively, would have less freedom than non-wealthy people since as a practical matter, most people speed from time to time but the wealthy would disproportionately have their speed limits enforced.

I understand the argument for such a law -- to the rich guy, a traffic fine is meaningless. A $100 fine is more of an annoyance to the millionaire due to having been stopped than the actual cost (and the increase in insurance is a bigger deal anyway). But all citizens are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. The rich pay far more in taxes but still have to drive on the same roads.

If speeding is really such a serious problem that people are flaunting the speed limits then lower the number of points someone can get before their license is taken away from them. Finland's laws, and others like it, seem like pretty transparent attempts for governments to justify squeezing more from its citizens.

Comments (Page 2)

Shovelheat

on May 12, 2005

Equal under the law? IF there's one thing I've observed after over 11 years in law enforcement, it's that in reality there are two sets of laws, one for the rich and/or/both connected and one for the not.

enigmagnetic

on May 12, 2005

I'd start riding the bus just to see the fireworks start going off. I mean it's not like it's equal now anyways. This would make it funny at least. For once, the rich man would learn to fear the L.A.P.D..

ParaTed2k

on May 12, 2005

I still say we should put non violent offenders in the stocks. Say 1 hour for every 10mph above the flow of traffic? ;~D Link

Draginol

on May 12, 2005

Nicholas, the problem is that the speeding laws would no longer be equally enforced. As a practical matter, they'd just hang out near the wealthier parts of town since that's where the money is.

Furry Canary

on May 12, 2005

'Nicholas, the problem is that the speeding laws would no longer be equally enforced. As a practical matter, they'd just hang out near the wealthier parts of town since that's where the money is.'

A fair point Draginol, but at best probably only half-right. The problem is that it assumes the speeding laws are equally enforced NOW. Bear in mind Dynosoar's experience: 'It seems the owners of expensive european cars typically had good lawyers that tied up the officers in court, but a Volvo driver just paid the ticket off in shame and disgrace....' Policing is, perhaps by its very nature, a political exercise. There is very little risk of such a change resulting in a loss of equity, in that there is precious little equity to begin with. It's just tweaking a pre-existing bias.

Anonynona

on May 13, 2005

Tickets are not given to people to make them obey various traffic laws; they are simply a means for the various states, cities, counties, et al, to collect revenue. Traffic court is the furthest thing from being representative of our frayed legal system. You are guilty, unless you can prove otherwise, and even then, these traffic court "judges" can and do, simply ignore you and set a fine to pay, anyway! These kangaroo courts might straighten up, if EVERY person that got a ticket simply used their one trump, which is to have a trial by jury! Hardly anybody knows this applies to traffic courts, too, but EVERY person in this country could make a big statement by using their Constitutional right to a trial by jury. Instead, the majority simply pay rather than go to any trouble...and that's what the traffic court system expects.

Draginol

on May 13, 2005

LW,

I think it works both ways. Rich people have a lot more to lose. A rich person does something to someone else, even accidentally and they get sued for millions. Poor person does the same thing and nothing happens because they have nothing to lose.

Wealth in the US is generally not inherited. Being able to afford an attorney is definitely a big advantage. But it's not a genetic advantage, it is often the result of having worked and made enough intelligent decisions to build up enough capital to be able afford that attorney.

You could argue that the police and other civil services are already getting plenty of money out of the rich through raw taxation. It's not like the rich get to drive on special, rich person roads. Here in Michigan they drive on the same craptastic, pot-hole filled roads that the poor drive on.

There's no justification at all for punishing one person more than another. What's next? Having one murderer serve fewer years than another because one is older than the other and hence doesn't have as much life-time (the ultimate capital) to spare? Perhaps we should imprison people based on percentages of their life expectancy.

MasonM

on May 13, 2005

While I can never see this actually happening in this country, I disagree with you Brad on this one point. If the fine is based on a percentage, then technically the wealthy person isn't being punished more than the poor one. They are being punished equally in terms of a percentage.

Dynosoar

on May 13, 2005

You know, I despise, no, I hate lawyers....that is until I need one.

Lawyers are the reason my Insurance premiums are so high. They're the reason my kids can't have a trampoline in our back yard.
They're the reason why my taxes are so complicated ( 3 LLC's and 2 Sub Chapt S's ) and they're the reason the human slime that
bankrupted my last business by embezzlement is a free man( 6 mos house arrest and 5 years probation ) BUT,

Lawyers are also the reason I still have my rental property despite filing Chapt 11 and 7, they are the reason my ex-wife no longer
harrasses me, and they are the reason my driving record is still spotless...( making DWI/DUI charges go away is a terribly punitive expense in and of itself ) .

I'm not a rich man by any means, nor am I a well connected member of some "Good Ol' Boy Network", but the system is contrived to support Lawyers and understanding that will get you a long way ( and cheaper insurance premiums too )

MasonM

on May 13, 2005

the system is contrived to support Lawyers

Very true.

zergimmi

on May 14, 2005

It's an interesting idea, but 12 mil is a bit of a joke, I agree that fines are fines and should not be indexed, main reason being that income does not immediately reflect your standard of living, due to each persons circumstances being different.
It's also interesting that here in the land downunder some state govs are considering this concept, however itdoes not seem to have much support at this stage, lets hope sanity prevails and it stays that way.

joeKnowledge

on Jun 13, 2005

Great arguments!

I think that punishment based on income can only happen if there is some type of conclusion that rich people tend to speed more than anyone else. If there is some conclusion that they do so, then I am for the percentage fine increases. Otherwise, a rich person not caring about paying 100 dollars and more in insurance or being able to hire a lawyer is irrelevant (might not be fair, but...)

This is why people want to become rich so they can afford stuff like this. Remember when I wrote about how poor people pay more? This is an example. You might not pay as much in taxes, but you also can't buy in bulk, have storage refrigerators, get better quality clothing (longer lasting), and when you get in trouble... well...

Nevertheless, the idea of taking more from a rich person IS something that happens in criminal court when fines are involved or even bail, but this is because it has been discovered that without a higher penalty in those types of cases for the rich, then they are free to just say 'no problem, just pay the 100 dollars bail'.

Which lead me back to my original statement; if it can be shown that rich people break the vehicular laws more than others because they can afford to, then there should be a percentage increase. Otherwise, the new system will be abused by the State just to get more money out of people who already pay a large amount of taxes.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!