Big Guy Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 In Finland, traffic fines are geared to income. A motorist was recently fined over $100,000 for speeding because of his income; http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/mar/04/finland-speeding-progressive-punishment-motorist-fine I believe that there is some merit in that approach. My understanding is that in most cases where someone breaks the law, they are fined the amount of money it cost the taxpayer to process that infraction and then a certain amount as a penalty and a deterrent to others. This is similar to the idea where the loser of litigation has to pay for all court costs. If the state establishes a penalty then that penalty should impact each individual equally. For example, if the penalty is 10 lashes then every individual suffers the same. But if the penalty is financial then those who have lots of money suffers far less than those who do not. I suggest that a similar approach might be used in Canada. Establish the cost of processing an infraction - say $50 and make that the minimal fine for that infraction and then increase by a sliding scale depending on the income of the individual. The person on welfare pays the $50 minimal cost to process while the millionaire pays ... $10,000 (?) Would this be a good idea, a bad idea or do you have a better idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 What is the point of building wealth if you are expected to abide by the same rules as the riffraff? To be serious though, if the intent of a fine is to prevent infractions then a progressively tiered system is a must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Great incentive for people to cheat on their taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Great incentive for people to cheat on their taxes.How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Great incentive for people to cheat on their taxes. Wouldn't not paying taxes be more of an incentive to cheat on your taxes?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 How so? I'm assuming the only way to determine an income, in an efficient manor anyway, is using a Tax Return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I like the idea. The fine should hurt the wealthy as much as those of lesser incomes. I recall the stories of Mika Hakkinen (F1 racer) and Teemu Selanne (NHL superstar) being fined huge amounts for speeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Wouldn't not paying taxes be more of an incentive to cheat on your taxes?? Sure but if you knew the police would treat you differently entirely based on your income then it'll change people's behaviour, perhaps not buy a nice car, or not declare as much income. If governments did this, watch, Cops will only stop BMW's and Mercedes's. We all know most traffic ticketing is mostly a revenue tool, has little to do with actual public safety. If you can only get $100 from that guy driving a Cavalier but could get a few grand from the guy driving a Bentley, what decision would you make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Sure but if you knew the police would treat you differently entirely based on your income then it'll change people's behaviour, perhaps not buy a nice car, or not declare as much income. If governments did this, watch, Cops will only stop BMW's and Mercedes's. We all know most traffic ticketing is mostly a revenue tool, has little to do with actual public safety. If you can only get $100 from that guy driving a Cavalier but could get a few grand from the guy driving a Bentley, what decision would you make? So if you are taxed $500,000 you would consider a $10,000 fine to be the incentive to cheat on your taxes? Or would trying to save hundreds of thousands of dollars be more of an incentive? Speed laws are mostly enforced by camera in Finland, from what I saw... it doesn't discriminate between a Bentley and a Cavalier. Plus, how many Bentleys and fancy Mercedes are driving around compared to Peugeot 206s? (No Cavaliers in Finland!) Very few and far between... The cops would rarely catch anyone at all if they only tried to target high-value cars. Edited March 9, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Speed laws are mostly enforced by camera in Finland, from what I saw... it doesn't discriminate between a Bentley and a Cavalier. That's different then and opens another completely different debate. Do we support Photo Radar. That's a huge political hot potato and a government would have to desperate for cash to do it. Under our current system where you have to be pulled over by a cop, the only way for it to be workable would be to force drivers to carry around their Notice of Assessments with them, and who can't forge one of those? Otherwise you'll have to create another thick layer of government to actually determine what fines go with what person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I fully support photo radar. I think it should be used nation wide. With a sensitivity of 16 km/h over the speed limit and up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) That's different then and opens another completely different debate. Do we support Photo Radar. That's a huge political hot potato and a government would have to desperate for cash to do it. Under our current system where you have to be pulled over by a cop, the only way for it to be workable would be to force drivers to carry around their Notice of Assessments with them, and who can't forge one of those? Otherwise you'll have to create another thick layer of government to actually determine what fines go with what person. It seems to work quite well over there. Also, they are never in random spots and I didn't see any on freeways. Mostly where they are located is entering townships as the speed limit gets reduced on major roads. This way it forces people to slow down when they enter town. They are very predictable as to where they will be. Not to say cops never pull people over, but mostly it is left up to cameras. When BC had photo radar they would put it on nice straight roads to maximize revenue, but doing nothing for actual road safety. Edited March 9, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Even the Ontario Liberals who've never seen a tax they didn't want to take to bed with them are saying no to Photo Radar. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/09/photo-radar-not-coming-back-transportation-minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm assuming the only way to determine an income, in an efficient manor anyway, is using a Tax Return.Nope. Finnish Police tap into official tax records right there on the side of the road and see the reported income and corresponding fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I fully support photo radar.Could you articulate why you fully support it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm not totally opposed to fines scaled to income, but the arguments in this thread to not convince me. My first reaction is that a crime causes a certain amount of damage to society, and that the punishment should be scaled based on that damage, not on the affluence of the individual. I do not think an individual's ability to bear a punishment should be a consideration. If the goal is to have a ticket be a certain % of someone's income... should jail penalties then be a certain % of someone's remaining life expectancy? After all, 1 year to a 20 year old is not a very long sentence as they have 50-60+ years of life ahead, while 1 year to someone who only has a few years left to live may as well be a life sentence. I don't really buy this line of thinking. Now as for deterrence... I agree deterrence should be the goal of traffic fines. This is where I could be convinced, if we had data. Do we have any information on what proportion of speeding related accidents are caused by speeders affluent enough that normal traffic fines do not sting them? Do we even have data showing that rich people are more likely to speed? Do we have any data on how speeding levels vary (i.e. how well they are deterred) as a function of speeding ticket prices? Do we have any reason to believe that speeding-related accidents and deaths will be appreciably reduced as a result of progressive speeding ticket costs? Without digging too hard, my perception is we have no real scientific evidence to suggest public safety would be measurably improved by this change to speeding tickets. What articles I have read suggest that there are far better ways to enhance road safety... such as first setting speed limits that actually make sense for the road in question. A speed limit should be a limit... it should feel fast to be driving at that speed, not painfully slow. On a lot of highways/freeways, the posted 100 km/h or 60 mph limits often feel absurdly slow, and it is no wonder people want to go faster. It is the differences in speed that cause danger, as faster moving vehicles attempt to work their way around slower ones. Measures like BC's decision to go after left lane campers might have a much bigger impact on road safety. In short, I'd like to see a better argument for the proposal in the OP than the reflexive desire to punish rich people more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 Finnish Police tap into official tax records right there on the side of the road and see the reported income and corresponding fine.That would be illegal in Canada where the privacy act would prevent such routine disclosures. I also would have an issue giving any cop the ability to access my tax records without a warrant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 9, 2015 Report Share Posted March 9, 2015 That would be illegal in Canada where the privacy act would prevent such routine disclosures. I also would have an issue giving any cop the ability to access my tax records without a warrant.In Finland they are all public record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 Even the Ontario Liberals who've never seen a tax they didn't want to take to bed with them are saying no to Photo Radar. It's a political move, the use of photo radar was hated by Ontarians. Photo radar does make sense though. They actually do control speeding, they limit risk to both drivers and officers, plus they free up cops to perform more nuanced police work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 Agreed. I never could see the problem with photo radar. But then, I don't often speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 In Finland there are also warning signs to let you know that there is photo radar ahead... So it really is about public safety and slowing vehicles down in areas where that is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 Same in Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 Ontario does the same for red light cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 10, 2015 Report Share Posted March 10, 2015 In Finland there are also warning signs to let you know that there is photo radar ahead... So it really is about public safety and slowing vehicles down in areas where that is necessary. Same in Alberta. Manitoba also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.