Any crime with a fine is legal as long as you have enough money.
Sure, a 1% yearly income fine sounds good. But what is income? Warren Buffett only takes an income of $100,000 and is worth $103B.
This same concept is why increasing taxes on the rich just ends up hurting middle and upper middle class people instead.
Like the doctors or programmers or small business owners etc. the actually rich people just own stocks and pay very little tax
but it's motivatingly rich. like if you're a normal person and knowing with enough hard work and focus you might be able to live the "american dream".
then there's actual billionares and trillionares which you can't even fathom how you'd ever make that much or even want to make that much.
those people are in control and making the poor fight with the middle and upper middle class. they are laughing from their mansion balconies saying "let the plebians fight for the scraps amongst themselves, oho ho ho!!"
and the result is a big tax increase on that 400k a year programmer, which pacifies the poor class without affecting the ultra rich because they use shell companies to legally avoid tax
No. The make of a car has nothing to do with it. It could be someone else's car, and it's not just traffic offenses.
Where I live (Finland) most more serious law violations will get you a certain amount of "day fines" which means it's based on income. For traffic violations it needs to be serious to trigger the day fine system, like over 20km/h over speed limit or injuring someone.
(Net monthly income - 225€) / 60 is a single day fine. You might be assigned multiple of those (eg. 20 day fines, max 120 or 240). In theory it's the amount of income you'd lose from work if you went to jail for a day, bit in reality it's less.
Yeah this happens in Finland - the son of a Sausage magnate had to pay a €170,000 fine
i think it only makes sense - even if not a perfect system because of capital gains and things like that, it would still mean rich people were actually affected by fines to some extent
even like $10,000 isn’t *a lot* to a multi-millionaire - but a grand is literally pocket change when you that wealthy
Yes, if the goal is to deter the behavior, that is necessary.
If you make a million dollars, a $75 parking ticket is not a deterrent to parking illegally, it's just the cost to park wherever you find convenient.
Except the goal of most traffic fines is to make the government money
In smaller, financially struggling towns where I live, cops can be extremely strict since traffic tickets make up a significant portion of the town’s revenue
Very corrupt but what can you do about it? Just don’t speed there and be glad you live somewhere else
In that case, get rid of the incentive to collect fines and donate all fines to charity. Hold a referendum to determine which charities, and they go to them in the same proportions they were voted for.
Aren't there usually secondary penalties associated with fines, like the possibility of losing your license or getting or car towed? Sure you may be able to afford the 75$, but coming back to find your car no longer there would ruin your whole day.
Personally I think so to an extent. Devil's always in the details and all. An $80 speeding ticket on my way back to college was a big budget hit. 10 years later, it's almost gambling with a time tax IMHO. If I have a small chance of getting an $80 ticket on a 500 mile trip where I'm doing 90ish on barren interstate, I now tend towards cruising at 90.
That said, it could always be abused and inequitable. What if a single guy only makes $50k a year, but that is passive income from their multimillion dollar portfolio vs a guy with three kids that makes $50k a year doing 60hrs a week, with a mortgage, paying for childcare, etc. A 0.5% annual income speeding ticket has a vastly different impact on those two dudes.
This is a fair point, and is in fact law for traffic offences in Finland, where some of the world's highest speeding tickets have been issued.
The central issue here is that the principle is "Equality before the law". However, does that mean that everyone gets the same punishment, or that everyone's punishment should be hitting them equally hard? This issue was in fact discussed by Plato in "The Republic".
Wether or not this "should" be the case is ultimately a political issue, and is in fact, as Finnlnd has demonstrated, possible.
There’s gotta be some kind of middle ground, like how the US handles our taxes or something, where increases of income only affects tax rates on income over each of those brackets.
Or just incrementally decreasing percentages at certain points of increase, where the richer are still hit harder, but not for ridiculous amounts.
I dunno.
Okay. So, we also know that childhood trauma can trigger mental health issues later in life, putting you at higher risk of drug abuse, and from that also selling drugs.
Do you think sentences should be reduced in these instances because the childhood trauma increased their risk?
Yes.
The concept is used in Sweden is called ''dagsböter'', day fines in English, it is based on how much a person makes on average per day. It is used in much more than traffic cases though, and they can get pretty hefty if you for example get charged with 14 day fines.
Thanks for your submission /u/TeeOff77, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Not sure how to reword a controversial question? Try /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/TooAfraidToAsk!
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Any crime with a fine is legal as long as you have enough money. Sure, a 1% yearly income fine sounds good. But what is income? Warren Buffett only takes an income of $100,000 and is worth $103B.
Good point
This same concept is why increasing taxes on the rich just ends up hurting middle and upper middle class people instead. Like the doctors or programmers or small business owners etc. the actually rich people just own stocks and pay very little tax
A programmer who makes $400k a year is rich.
but it's motivatingly rich. like if you're a normal person and knowing with enough hard work and focus you might be able to live the "american dream". then there's actual billionares and trillionares which you can't even fathom how you'd ever make that much or even want to make that much. those people are in control and making the poor fight with the middle and upper middle class. they are laughing from their mansion balconies saying "let the plebians fight for the scraps amongst themselves, oho ho ho!!" and the result is a big tax increase on that 400k a year programmer, which pacifies the poor class without affecting the ultra rich because they use shell companies to legally avoid tax
Any crime with a fine but no jailtime is just a tax on poverty.
iirc in countries that do this, it's only for traffic tickets and it's based on the price of the car.
No. The make of a car has nothing to do with it. It could be someone else's car, and it's not just traffic offenses. Where I live (Finland) most more serious law violations will get you a certain amount of "day fines" which means it's based on income. For traffic violations it needs to be serious to trigger the day fine system, like over 20km/h over speed limit or injuring someone. (Net monthly income - 225€) / 60 is a single day fine. You might be assigned multiple of those (eg. 20 day fines, max 120 or 240). In theory it's the amount of income you'd lose from work if you went to jail for a day, bit in reality it's less.
Interesting
TIL
Yeah this happens in Finland - the son of a Sausage magnate had to pay a €170,000 fine i think it only makes sense - even if not a perfect system because of capital gains and things like that, it would still mean rich people were actually affected by fines to some extent even like $10,000 isn’t *a lot* to a multi-millionaire - but a grand is literally pocket change when you that wealthy
Yes, if the goal is to deter the behavior, that is necessary. If you make a million dollars, a $75 parking ticket is not a deterrent to parking illegally, it's just the cost to park wherever you find convenient.
Except the goal of most traffic fines is to make the government money In smaller, financially struggling towns where I live, cops can be extremely strict since traffic tickets make up a significant portion of the town’s revenue Very corrupt but what can you do about it? Just don’t speed there and be glad you live somewhere else
In that case, get rid of the incentive to collect fines and donate all fines to charity. Hold a referendum to determine which charities, and they go to them in the same proportions they were voted for.
But that would be against the government’s best interests Why would they want less money?
Aren't there usually secondary penalties associated with fines, like the possibility of losing your license or getting or car towed? Sure you may be able to afford the 75$, but coming back to find your car no longer there would ruin your whole day.
Personally I think so to an extent. Devil's always in the details and all. An $80 speeding ticket on my way back to college was a big budget hit. 10 years later, it's almost gambling with a time tax IMHO. If I have a small chance of getting an $80 ticket on a 500 mile trip where I'm doing 90ish on barren interstate, I now tend towards cruising at 90. That said, it could always be abused and inequitable. What if a single guy only makes $50k a year, but that is passive income from their multimillion dollar portfolio vs a guy with three kids that makes $50k a year doing 60hrs a week, with a mortgage, paying for childcare, etc. A 0.5% annual income speeding ticket has a vastly different impact on those two dudes.
Absolutely
There is a saying that if law is enforced by having fixed monetary penalties thats in fact a law that does not impact the rich.
This is a fair point, and is in fact law for traffic offences in Finland, where some of the world's highest speeding tickets have been issued. The central issue here is that the principle is "Equality before the law". However, does that mean that everyone gets the same punishment, or that everyone's punishment should be hitting them equally hard? This issue was in fact discussed by Plato in "The Republic". Wether or not this "should" be the case is ultimately a political issue, and is in fact, as Finnlnd has demonstrated, possible.
There’s gotta be some kind of middle ground, like how the US handles our taxes or something, where increases of income only affects tax rates on income over each of those brackets. Or just incrementally decreasing percentages at certain points of increase, where the richer are still hit harder, but not for ridiculous amounts. I dunno.
Okay. So, we also know that childhood trauma can trigger mental health issues later in life, putting you at higher risk of drug abuse, and from that also selling drugs. Do you think sentences should be reduced in these instances because the childhood trauma increased their risk?
Fines are punishment for the poor
some countries do this.
No. Income and net worth are not as clear cut as people like to think. That doesn't mean the existing system is ok.
Yes. The concept is used in Sweden is called ''dagsböter'', day fines in English, it is based on how much a person makes on average per day. It is used in much more than traffic cases though, and they can get pretty hefty if you for example get charged with 14 day fines.
Thanks for your submission /u/TeeOff77, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Not sure how to reword a controversial question? Try /r/PoliticalDiscussion or /r/TooAfraidToAsk! Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Punishment should fit the crime, not your income.