4 ms·

> everyone's tax return is public, and fines are based on income in your last return Not unusual for business people or anyone to have varied income from year

by gist 8y ago

> everyone's tax return is public, and fines are based on income in your last return Not unusual for business people or anyone to have varied income from year to year but also that does not relate to actual assets or (the original point 'net worth' which is ironically a better measure of what you can pay (assumes liquid of course..)) Also what about someone with an inheritance or trust money? Once again with the speeding fine it seems oppressive for the same 'crime' to charge someone $100k because they have income or assets and have that money to pay. Also from what I read the Finnish system is legacy and the way it has always been. There is a big difference in that as people grew up with it vs. in the US where it would be something newly done. Forget even the revolt that would happen. It would also (once again here, because not legacy) lead to inflation as people would all the sudden quite possibly think they are underpaid next to someone else. Now in the US many pay checks are public but people aren't typically keyed into checking the data source because it's a bit obscure and not a regular stop (key point by the way 'out of sight'). So for example if you work in NYC and you find out a trash man makes $90k per year and you make $60k you are going to feel shortchanged possibly. Once again that info is public (and the amount with overtime can be that btw) but not usually something people are accustomed to thinking about.

int_19h 8y ago
> Once again with the speeding fine it seems oppressive for the same 'crime' to charge someone $100k because they have income or assets and have that money to pay. Of course it is, and that's by design. The fine is supposed to be punitive, to act as a deterrent. Punishing someone is oppressing them like by definition. The flat fee system, conversely, is just setting a price sticker on violating the law. It's literally saying, "you can do this if you're rich enough". The proportional fine system has its issues, but between the two, I think it's a no-brainer.
dagw 8y ago
Not unusual for business people or anyone to have varied income from year to year but also that does not relate to actual assets or (the original point 'net worth' which is ironically a better measure of what you can pay (assumes liquid of course..)) Also what about someone with an inheritance or trust money? The tax people already have methods for dealing with all those scenarios for tax purposes, so it's essentially a solved problem. Once again with the speeding fine it seems oppressive for the same 'crime' to charge someone $100k because they have income or assets and have that money to pay. At least the way it works in Sweden, many fines are defined essentially in days wages and not in money. So the judge doesn't sentence you to pay $100k, they sentence you to pay 45 days wages[0] and the judge neither knows nor cares what that works out to be in actual money. So as such the fines are exactly the same for everybody. [0] The actual formula is slightly more complicated that literally your daily wage.
- gist 8y ago
  > the way it works in Sweden, many fines are defined essentially in days wages and not in money. So the judge doesn't sentence you to pay $100k, they sentence you to pay 45 days wages So explain how that makes sense because it doesn't take into account the savings of the individual? If I have a million in savings and I am retired or how do you determine 'wages' with a self employed person? I am not saying there aren't ways to answer or address this. But it is not simple and not fair the way stated other than a revenue scheme for the government. If the idea is to create a disincentive that has not been done using daily wages. (Some people live hand to mouth as well so they are particularly impacted)

by gist 8y ago

int_19h 8y ago

> Once again with the speeding fine it seems oppressive for the same 'crime' to charge someone $100k because they have income or assets and have that money to pay. Of course it is, and that's by design. The fine is supposed to be punitive, to act as a deterrent. Punishing someone is oppressing them like by definition. The flat fee system, conversely, is just setting a price sticker on violating the law. It's literally saying, "you can do this if you're rich enough". The proportional fine system has its issues, but between the two, I think it's a no-brainer.

dagw 8y ago

Not unusual for business people or anyone to have varied income from year to year but also that does not relate to actual assets or (the original point 'net worth' which is ironically a better measure of what you can pay (assumes liquid of course..)) Also what about someone with an inheritance or trust money? The tax people already have methods for dealing with all those scenarios for tax purposes, so it's essentially a solved problem. Once again with the speeding fine it seems oppressive for the same 'crime' to charge someone $100k because they have income or assets and have that money to pay. At least the way it works in Sweden, many fines are defined essentially in days wages and not in money. So the judge doesn't sentence you to pay $100k, they sentence you to pay 45 days wages[0] and the judge neither knows nor cares what that works out to be in actual money. So as such the fines are exactly the same for everybody. [0] The actual formula is slightly more complicated that literally your daily wage.

gist 8y ago
> the way it works in Sweden, many fines are defined essentially in days wages and not in money. So the judge doesn't sentence you to pay $100k, they sentence you to pay 45 days wages So explain how that makes sense because it doesn't take into account the savings of the individual? If I have a million in savings and I am retired or how do you determine 'wages' with a self employed person? I am not saying there aren't ways to answer or address this. But it is not simple and not fair the way stated other than a revenue scheme for the government. If the idea is to create a disincentive that has not been done using daily wages. (Some people live hand to mouth as well so they are particularly impacted)