Originally posted by Teinosuke "A Finnish millionaire Jari Bär, the former owner of the Iisalmi’s company Finnritilä was handed a fine of 111,888 euros (141,661 dollars) for doing 82 km/h (51 mph) in a 60 km/h (37 mph) zone on January in Siilijärvi, Finland.
I'd love to know what sort of a bonus the officer involved received that year.
I can say one thing for certain. A system like this would mean a lot less officers in the inner cities and a lot more patrolling the rich suburbs.
Originally posted by smw6869 Ahhhh yes, can't wait for the day when a poor mass murderer gets 1 year in jail and the rich mass murderer gets a bullet in the ear. It's only fair!
GRANNY.
Well it will be a change on the current system where certain mass murderers by executive order, can still walk away looking like patriotic hero's...
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I'm not advocating this plan be implemented, I am just saying that there are reasons why it might be somewhat effective.
You do have the burden of proof to prove the statements that you did make, but hey... this is an internet discussion and most people don't make that much of an effort to retrieve stats etc... so frankly, the burden of proof isn't ju ...[text shortened]... your record outside of them expiring and having severe penalties for repetitive infractions.
One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.
A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.
Of course, some...individual... is going to come along and say that it should be "progressive" and the rich should pay 3 days or 4 days or 10 days wages because they have the ability to pay. But if you convert back to serving time instead, you see why that's unfair. Why should a poor guy spend 2 days in jail and a rich guy 10 days for the same infraction?
Originally posted by spruce112358 One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.
A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.
Of course, some...individual... is go ...[text shortened]... Why should a poor guy spend 2 days in jail and a rich guy 10 days for the same infraction?
Based on data from payscale.com
This is what 2 days pay or 2 days jail it could look like based on before tax dollars
Microsoft,
Ceo Vs Median Worker...(1.5 M /yr Vs 104.8 K/yr --> $8,200 Vs $574)
Walmart,
Ceo Vs Median Worker...(16.2 M /yr Vs 22.7 K/yr --> $88,767 Vs $124)
United Health Care,
Ceo Vs Median Worker...(101.9 M /yr Vs 58.7 K/yr --> $558,356 Vs $321)
Originally posted by spruce112358 One can debate whether we need to fine anyone who "commits" an act which harms no one. But assume we do feel that need.
A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.
Of course, some...individual... is go ...[text shortened]... Why should a poor guy spend 2 days in jail and a rich guy 10 days for the same infraction?
I'm sorry, but that's just not a good argument. You arbitrarily assume one day of wages equal to one day in jail and use that assumption to make your argument that a progressive fine system would be unjust. That assumption does not have to hold and you could set up a system where the prison sentence and fine are independent of each other.
That said, I'm not going to argue for a progressive fine system, because I do not have enough data to justify such a thing. For me, a just punishment system for traffic violations would be one in which the punishment is, as much as possible, an equal disincentive for every person. For that reason I'm not for flat fines (as they are much less of a disincentive to those who can easily pay them). I am guessing the Finnish system is a good step forward, but a system where the punishment is a temporary loss of your driving license would also work.
Originally posted by Barts I'm sorry, but that's just not a good argument. You arbitrarily assume one day of wages equal to one day in jail and use that assumption to make your argument that a progressive fine system would be unjust. That assumption does not have to hold and you could set up a system where the prison sentence and fine are independent of each other.
That said, I'm not ...[text shortened]... t a system where the punishment is a temporary loss of your driving license would also work.
I don't think it is an arbitrary assumption. Equating time and money is widely accepted -- virtually all companies pay wages and in return receive their employee's time.
However, I like the loss of driving privileges for several days even better. That is even more fair because the punishment neatly fits the crime!
Originally posted by spruce112358 A fine proportional to income (e.g. 2 days wages) is not unfair. To make the point clearer, offer each perpetrator the choice: 2 days wages in fine, or 2 days in jail. Or 1 and 1 or whatever.
Of course, some...individual... is going to come along and say that it should be "progressive" and the rich should pay 3 days or 4 days or 10 days wages because they have the ability to pay.
So basically your view on this is the same as your view on taxes, that a proportional fine would be OK, as long as it's strictly proportional. That is, at any rate, consistent.
Originally posted by smw6869 Ahhhh yes, can't wait for the day when a poor mass murderer gets 1 year in jail and the rich mass murderer gets a bullet in the ear. It's only fair!
That wouldn't be fair at all, since wealth doesn't correlate with either the value of your life, or the value of your time. It does however correlate directly with your ability to pay a fine, and that's why the system outlined above might be considered reasonable specifically in the case of a financial penalty.
Originally posted by kmax87 Difficult to determine, because the statute of limitations on his fine paying may now already be in effect.
I just wondered what your website said his payscale was since his salary was famously $1 per year. That works out to less than a penny for 2 days wages?
How would you get around the system practised by the rich in this country - engineer their finances so that they get $1 in earnings and millions in non-taxable forms?
Originally posted by Kewpie How would you get around the system practised by the rich in this country - engineer their finances so that they get $1 in earnings and millions in non-taxable forms?
Close the loopholes so that all forms of income are taxable?
I think with the flat fines there are alternative ways to make sure that income is not a factor in being able to avoid punishment. For example, making it so there is no way to get moving infractions off your record outside of them expiring and having severe penalties for repetitive infractions.[/b]
I definitely agree that we should have more severe penalties for repetitive infractions and that income should not be a factor in avoiding fines either. It just seems that we should punishing the crime and income is really not the issue in traffic fines.
Traffic fines in proportion with income
11 Jan '12 22:47
Back to Top