Just saw on Yahoo, European countries are upping speeding fines for the wealthy. The "headline" said a rich person "could" wind up paying $290 for speeding in some countries.
BIG DEAL. If you believe the signs on the interstates, speeding while driving in a construction zone, or while intoxicated, can get Americans slapped with similar fines.
Someone got that particular fine wrong by several orders of magnitude, though. If it's the one I'm thinking about, it was $290,000, not $290.
There are several countries in Europe where $290 is considered a cheap speeding ticket, and there are also several countries where your car can get impounded and crushed if you're overdoing it properly.
Some guy just got a record speeding ticket in Switzerland...somehow they base your fine on how much you have as well as fast you were going.
In Ontario the fine for 30 or 40 kilometers over is $290 CDN today. Sweden is another country that I thought sets fines around the ability to pay.
DeadSkunk wrote: In Ontario the fine for 30 or 40 kilometers over is $290 CDN today. Sweden is another country that I thought sets fines around the ability to pay.
It makes sense. What a hundred dollar ticket to a bazillionaire? It may mean alot to me, but if you have seriously large amount of money, where's the incentive?
Joey
If I was facing a $290k fine for speeding I might be inclined to mention to the officer that $50k in his pocket is a hell of a good deal because I could have him off'd for something like $10k.
joey48442 wrote:DeadSkunk wrote: In Ontario the fine for 30 or 40 kilometers over is $290 CDN today. Sweden is another country that I thought sets fines around the ability to pay.It makes sense. What a hundred dollar ticket to a bazillionaire? It may mean alot to me, but if you have seriously large amount of money, where's the incentive? Joey
Are you nuts?
It doesn't make a BIT of sense, regardless of HOW you look at it.
Speeding fines are not incentives to drivers. They are opportunities for money in the coffers of the local governments. The fact that they CAN charge these amounts, doesn't mean they SHOULD.
Would you stop autocrossing if entrant fees were pro-rated according to what you make, and you had to pay a higher amount than someone else, just because you could? If it was an amount you could afford, you'd still do it.
People don't stop smoking because cigarettes are expensive either.
They are unequally applying the codes to people according to their ability to pay. In other words, the violation is worth one thing, but we are going to give you an additional fine for being wealthy.
So they are going to have a penalty for being rich. Have they considered the fact that the wealthy are the ones who own businesses and therefore create jobs? That $290K will mean 2 or 3 people will not get employed. Nothing more.
I was only 6 over on my one and only ticket. all said an done, after paying the fine, paying for "traffic school" to keep said ticket off of my record and a court filing cost I paid $300.
I think it makes perfect sense. The fine is supposed to be a punishment. I don't care if the wealthy are creating jobs, if they're breaking the law and get caught it should hurt. We saw this recently when one of those "rallies" came through town. Lambos, Ferraris and other rich kid toys playing high-speed tag and laughing about it. All the drivers were squillionaires so they didn't care if they picked up a ticket or two or three. Had the fine been big, I'll bet there would be a different attitude.
Of course, it all comes down to how you view the fine. If you think it's simply a revenue generator for the police, then it doesn't make sense to charge depending on income/net worth/quality of hairstyle. If you think it's intended to be a deterrent - and for me, it is - then scaling the fine based on the ability to pay makes perfect sense.
Of course, the $290k fine is going to be out of the ordinary. That's why it's in the press right now.
I'll bet there is at least one Swiss resident who's seriously looking at a move to Monaco.
Or the Isle of Man. Also, I don't think Switzerland is worried about their unemployment rate... or Sweden or anywhere else where they base their fines off of how much you make.
SVreX wrote: So they are going to have a penalty for being rich. Have they considered the fact that the wealthy are the ones who own businesses and therefore create jobs? That $290K will mean 2 or 3 people will not get employed. Nothing more.
Its not a penalty for being rich. The penalty for everyone is the same as its a percentage of yearly income.
Oh, and something tells me that this rich guy didnt go into work on monday and lay off a couple of employees because he had to pay a traffic ticket. Its more likely that he didnt buy his second or third ferrari this month.
Would anybody here be upset if we brought this system here and used it only for drug and prostitution offenders?
We could get Hollywood and the NFL to pay off the deficit in about a year and might even nail a few wealthy politicians. 
They are unequally applying the codes to people according to their ability to pay. In other words, the violation is worth one thing, but we are going to give you an additional fine for being wealthy.
Except that's not really how it works, this isn't penalizing people because they are wealthy. It's intent is to make the penalty have the same impact to anyone who gets it, like Keith said, so it's more of a deterrant not to violate the law.
I wonder about the ramifications if such a thing were to be attempted in America. 
EDIT: Crap, beaten to the punch!
Mmmmmmm........ socialism. Tasty.
Good points taken from another forum:
"I have a pertinant question, though. If fines for speeding are meant to be a deterrent, why don't fines for speeding start at $2,000? Surely that would keep all of us 'poor' chumps from speeding and that's what matters, right? What, not fair to the 'poor'?
The fact of the matter is speeding tickets are meant to generate municipal revenue more than anything. The real deterrent is losing your license and if you're excessively reckless behind the wheel you will lose the privledge to drive, 'rich' or 'poor'."
And:
"I personally would prefer jail time for repeat offenders but the way laws are in Europe, they can't even control drunk drivers. Luckily drunk drivers are not as rampant as here in the US but at least here the penalties are harsh when one gets caught. In Finland drunk driver gets off with a slap on the wrists even for vehicular manslaughter. Maximum penalty for murder is life in prison in which they are automatically eligible for parole in 15 years or 6 if you're a first timer. Now that is screwed up, not the traffic fines for rich people."
Now, wasn't the point of this great country to treat everyone equally under the judicial system? How exactly is this equal? This isn't about the offense, it's about the absurd amount of money collected. You all complain that tickets are merely a revenue service for the states, but you'd be ok with this coming to the US? I see a bit of a paradox there.
Socialism? How is equal treatment under the law socialist? It is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Like has been said earlier in this thread, a $200 speeding ticket to a person how makes $200,000 a year is no where near as difficult to pay as it is for someone who makes $20,000 a year.
In the US Army when you go and stay in the base "hotel" the rate you pay is based on your rank, I have not heard anyone call the military "socialist".
GlennS wrote:SVreX wrote: So they are going to have a penalty for being rich. Have they considered the fact that the wealthy are the ones who own businesses and therefore create jobs? That $290K will mean 2 or 3 people will not get employed. Nothing more.Its not a penalty for being rich. The penalty for everyone is the same as its a percentage of yearly income. Oh, and something tells me that this rich guy didnt go into work on monday and lay off a couple of employees because he had to pay a traffic ticket. Its more likely that he didnt buy his second or third ferrari this month.
No, he built a mall in the suburbs so he could drive all the mom-and-pop downtown companies out of business.
Because we all know the rich are evil, filthy bastiges and deserve more punishment because, well, just because............
DeadSkunk wrote: In Ontario the fine for 30 or 40 kilometers over is $290 CDN today. Sweden is another country that I thought sets fines around the ability to pay.
The fine in Ontario is,
0 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit, and it has nothing to do with your ability to pay.
81gtv6 wrote: Socialism? How is equal treatment under the law socialist? It is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Like has been said earlier in this thread, a $200 speeding ticket to a person how makes $200,000 a year is no where near as difficult to pay as it is for someone who makes $20,000 a year. In the US Army when you go and stay in the base "hotel" the rate you pay is based on your rank, I have not heard anyone call the military "socialist".
My point is that these tickets are NOT equal treatment under the law.
81gtv6 wrote: Socialism? How is equal treatment under the law socialist? It is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The ticket in question was issued in Switzerland...they're not too concerned about the U.S. Constitution. 
stuart in mn wrote:81gtv6 wrote: Socialism? How is equal treatment under the law socialist? It is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.The ticket in question was issued in Switzerland...they're not too concerned about the U.S. Constitution.
I'm afraid that bringing up the US was my fault, but i noticed that people were talking about what would happen if this way of dealing with speeders was brought into the US.
93celicaGT2 wrote: My point is that these tickets are NOT equal treatment under the law.
How not?
A $200 speeding ticket for a college kid may mean the difference between eating or not this week.
A $200 ticket for me means I don't get to have my panhard bar installed this month.
A $200 ticket for Bill Gates means absolutely nothing beyond the hassle of having to remind his personal assitant to remind his account to write the check.
Which of us are actually hurt by the penalty? Which of us are actually deterred from speeding?
Yep, I was commenting on bringing it here to the US.
Count me in the group that think it would be a great idea.
ReverendDexter wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: My point is that these tickets are NOT equal treatment under the law.How not? A $200 speeding ticket for a college kid may mean the difference between eating or not this week. A $200 ticket for me means I don't get to have my panhard bar installed this month. A $200 ticket for Bill Gates means absolutely nothing beyond the hassle of having to remind his personal assitant to remind his account to write the check. Which of us are actually hurt by the penalty? Which of us are actually deterred from speeding?
Well, going by the original article, the fine was so large because the subject was a repeat offender. The CORRECT thing to do would have been to issue a penalty that directly affects whether or not they can drive. Suspension, jail time, impound, etc.
What they've done here is simply raise this man's taxes. It seems to be a well agreed upon fact on these boards that the highway patrolmen as simply tax collectors, and that traffic violations are a matter of revenue and nothing more. So, they've let him loose because he just paid for a new gym in the city hall, and hope that he'll do it again so they can collect even more money.
If they're REALLY about stopping it, and giving a penalty that will effectively deter future offenses, and can apply to everyone, suspension. Jail time. Impound. Etc.
Because what this comes down to is whether or not the government gets to tell you if you're rich or not. For instance, i certainly don't want the government telling me if i'm rich or not, because i make more by myself than the average median HOUSEHOLD in this state. Some months, i'm still lucky to be able to pay the electricity bill. If i get a ticket based on my yearly salary compared to someone of the poverty level (we'll base the normal indiana $150 speeding ticket for poverty level, since you know they won't LOWER the fine), i'd be paying probably a good $600 for going 10 over.
Well, i make more, so shouldn't i have to pay more? That $600 will likely mean that i will either have to sell a car, or be homeless.
I'm not arguing that the offender in the original article is hurt by a $290k fine if he's that rich. It's not the point. They aren't doing it to deter anyone from doing anything. They're doing it to make a E36 M3load of money off of one man's indiscretions, while some deadbeat could do the same thing and get off with a $250 fine.
Trust me. I see the point you're all making, and it DOES make sense, philosophically. But as a true deterrent, this is not the best way to go.
It's not more punishment for the rich just because they're rich, it's more punishment to get them to care about the crime (speeding is a crime, get over it). Fining crimes as a percentage of income makes everyone feel the hurt from an offense the same, keeping people from feeling free to commit crimes if they can afford the punishment.
Celica, not to single you out, but if you were layed with a $600 fine for going 85 in a 50, and had to scramble and scratch together the money, and have to make some major sacrifices, it wouldn't make you think twice before going that fast again?
You'll need to log in to post.
