Fines based on wealth - do Finland have it right or wrong?

Fines based on wealth - do Finland have it right or wrong?

Author
Discussion

ian_touring

585 posts

207 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
Fine by community service = time not money?

Finlandia

7,803 posts

233 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
Rawwr said:
Do they have a points system in Finland? I didn't see mention of it.
No point system in Finland, or in Sweden, and in Sweden the speeding fine is >£150. The Finnish system is fairer IMO. Points can be good, but alarmingly often they lead into more serious PCoJ charges, and then the s172 self incrimination is also rather odd, to put it nicely, and not in use in Finland or Sweden.
The Finnish system may not be so bad after all.

SpeckledJim

31,608 posts

255 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
DJP said:
SpeckledJim said:
It has zero to do with how hard you worked. That's emotive, distracting rubbish...
OK, right you are: We should base fines on the politics of envy.

Eat the Rich.

Hurrah! wink
As a society we've decided the rich should pay more in tax. And also in fines imposed by court. Done deal. So why not basic speeding fines?

Serious question - what's the difference?

Do you think income tax is based on 'the politics of envy'? Or is it just the best way to do it?

Finlandese

542 posts

177 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
Well the Finnish system certainly has some pretty dire consequenses..

There was an IT guy who sold the company he and his brother had started up. He made the elementry mistake of investing some of the proceeds to flashy cars(Diablo Spyder (Price in Finland in 2000 was 450000 euros) & a Ferrari 360). Cue a 50 000 euro fine for "improper lane changes" (driving while rich). The ticket was determined on an income level that resulted from a sale of his lives work.

P.s. He was insolvent within two years..

otolith

56,542 posts

206 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
Do you think income tax is based on 'the politics of envy'? Or is it just the best way to do it?
Do you think the redistribution of wealth is a legitimate function of the justice system?

SpeckledJim

31,608 posts

255 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
otolith said:
SpeckledJim said:
Do you think income tax is based on 'the politics of envy'? Or is it just the best way to do it?
Do you think the redistribution of wealth is a legitimate function of the justice system?
No I don't.

Do you think the purpose of a fine is to act as a deterrent?

Jasandjules

70,012 posts

231 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
How about we go the other way? All criminal offences - fined. Sooo, want to kill someone? Certainly sir, 100k please....

No? Indeed. It is not right to punish someone according to their bank balance.


Finlandia

7,803 posts

233 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
It is not right to punish someone according to their bank balance.
All fines do though, there is always someone who struggles to pay even the smallest fine.

otolith

56,542 posts

206 months

Tuesday 15th October 2013
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
otolith said:
SpeckledJim said:
Do you think income tax is based on 'the politics of envy'? Or is it just the best way to do it?
Do you think the redistribution of wealth is a legitimate function of the justice system?
No I don't.

Do you think the purpose of a fine is to act as a deterrent?
A deterrent and a punishment.

Should people with more spare time get more hours of community service? Should middle class people with houses and careers get shorter prison sentences than those with no job, house or prospects to lose?

Lots of things in life are easier if you are wealthy - it's kind of the point.

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

129 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
The moment we get into this kind of nonsense, Law in general becomes even more questionable than in some cases it already is. Fining someone for a specific crime in relation to their wealth is very very wrong. Whatever the specific fine is for a given crime then that is the fine that must be paid regardless of whether or not the defendant is poor or wealthy.
Fining people on the basis of their `apparent and certifiable wealth is only going to affect those who declare their wealth and pay appropriate taxes. Real criminals could `appear' to be poor, but have thousands / millions in ill gotten gains stashed some where the authorities don't know about. These are people who don't stay within the law anyway, and for whom the law is just an occupational hazard, and not something they will adhere to.
If we go down this route we will just start taking ourselves down the banana republic, sleaze and corruption ridden route that some administrations elsewhere on the globe, have chosen to follow.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

206 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
[quote=Pan Pan]The moment we get into this kind of nonsense, Law in general becomes even more questionable than in some cases it already is. Fining someone for a specific crime in relation to their wealth is very very wrong. Whatever the specific fine is for a given crime then that is the fine that must be paid regardless of whether or not the defendant is poor or wealthy./quote]
But do you not accept that an equal value fine will be disproportionately harsh to some people and yet disproportionately lenient to others, depending on their means?

SpeckledJim

31,608 posts

255 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
Pan Pan said:
The moment we get into this kind of nonsense, Law in general becomes even more questionable than in some cases it already is. Fining someone for a specific crime in relation to their wealth is very very wrong. Whatever the specific fine is for a given crime then that is the fine that must be paid regardless of whether or not the defendant is poor or wealthy.
Fining people on the basis of their `apparent and certifiable wealth is only going to affect those who declare their wealth and pay appropriate taxes. Real criminals could `appear' to be poor, but have thousands / millions in ill gotten gains stashed some where the authorities don't know about. These are people who don't stay within the law anyway, and for whom the law is just an occupational hazard, and not something they will adhere to.
If we go down this route we will just start taking ourselves down the banana republic, sleaze and corruption ridden route that some administrations elsewhere on the globe, have chosen to follow.
You do know that courts already fine people according to their income???

Checks sky...not falling in. Carry on.

Finlandese

542 posts

177 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
When tickets are based on income (and budgeted), guess which car will be pulled over from the traffic flow that is going over the limit? Answer: The most expensive looking one.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

206 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
Finlandese said:
When tickets are based on income (and budgeted), guess which car will be pulled over from the traffic flow that is going over the limit? Answer: The most expensive looking one.
A good point that. We need to not incentivise such victimisation. A better "budget" (if one is required at all) would be number of tickets, rather than value of tickets.

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

129 months

Wednesday 16th October 2013
quotequote all
MRM96 - That would only be the case if the fine was not already backed up by the points system.
It makes no difference whether a driver is wealthy or poor, once they rack up the required number of points they lose their licence, Arguably it will cost a wealthy person who loses their licence a lot
more than a poorer one, to get about, after handing in their licence.
If driver who has committed a motoring offence is the one who hits / affects you, it could be worse if it is a poorer driver, who may have no insurance or any way to recompense you for your loss. There is always the chance however that a wealthier roads user will have better lawyers behind them to wriggle out of paying what might be owed.