Finnish man fined £83,000 for speeding because he earns £10.1 million

ScarySquirrel said:
No, it's ridiculous. How is that fair in anyway?
Click to expand...

It's fair because everyone pays the same % based on their income.

you earn more than you need to be fined relative to your income or obviously it will not act as a deterrent.


What would be unfair is if you were fined for speeding but did not break the law, you know the consequences of speeding and you can not complain when you break the law...

it's fair that some guy earning 100k pays £100 the same as someone earning 18k
? how is the £100 in anyway going to deter this person from speeding? he won't even notice it where as for a person on around 18k it could be the difference between eating or not paying a bill so they are unlikely to take the risk.

now if your earning 10million and don't want to be fined 83,000 it's simple don't speed


He earned 6.5m euros (£4.72m) that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros. The scale of the fine hasn't gone down well with Mr Kuisla. "Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed that I would seriously consider moving abroad," he says on his Facebook page. "Finland is impossible to live in for certain kinds of people who have high incomes and wealth."
Click to expand...
oh yes it's impossible to live in finland for a millionaire they should have totally seperate laws to the rest of society because they are clearly better than everyone else.

He's just mad his wealth didn't get him a free pass
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
I'm not suggesting that. We already have a points system that is fair already.
Click to expand...

An Exception said:
But isn't that just another incentive for people to be productive/successful and contribute to society. If we take away all the perks to being rich, we might as well be communist and all be lazy.
Click to expand...

I'm just taking your words in your post replying to me. You said that it was a perk of being "productive/successful" [...to avoid the fine having an equal impact on your income when you are wealthy]. So the points system is fair in your view but would you accept that the fines do not have an equal impact?

You can argue either way is fair depending on your ideological viewpoint and whether you think the fine is purely to cover the administrative costs (I'd have a reasonable guess that it doesn't for most cases that goes to court) or whether it contains a punitive element/is supposed to have an impact on the person who it is levied on. However saying that making fines a proportion of income so they theoretically impact all those fined at a given percentage is a disincentive to being "productive/successful" implicitly says that if you're wealthy it should be less of a burden than if you are not wealthy. There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question but it's worth being clear what you're arguing for.
 
We should also explore the avenue that a the wealthy should be rewarded with the fact that £100 isn't a burden to them over someone who is lazy and it is.

A flat rate fee in this case makes it fair.
 
pepsilol said:
We should also explore the avenue that a the wealthy should be rewarded with the fact that £100 isn't a burden to them over someone who is lazy and it is.

A flat rate fee in this case makes it fair.
Click to expand...

And in what circumstances would the reward be available.

I like the way you presume people who aren't wealthy are lazy. That in itself speaks volumes.
 
What do you mean reward available? The reward is it not being a burden.

I didn't say non wealthy people are lazy. I specifically spoke regarding lazy people.

Non wealthy people can be very hard workers.
 
Efour said:
Practically every " i don't know what to do at work" thread is someone moaning about their boss' incompetence. It seems to be a pretty common thing. Lots of mouthy or connected idiots get good jobs over better, good people.
Click to expand...
It's the way of the world, I've no desire to have any sort of authority at work but I've witnessed good, competent workers passed over in favour of others who are **** poor at their jobs.

The latest being my line manager who was constantly on the sick since being promoted, totally alienated part of her work force and was eventually sacked.
 
Man maths suggests this would be a fine of about 0.83% of your annual salary. I don't know if the figures are pre or post tax, but given I expect the papers want the largest numbers possible to make their headlines I'm going to go with pre tax.

So working out what 0.83% of my pre tax salary would be I can confirm that yes, it would be enough to put me off speeding more than the current system does.
 
An Exception said:
^^^
People should be punished equally. They shouldn't be punished more just because they are successful.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that fining a poor person £60 and a rich person £60 is actually in effect "equal punishment", if one if greatly more affected than the other?

Think about it.
 
Scrap fines all together (Sorry Mr G man you will have to extort your money elsewhere :p ) and increase the number of points before a ban to, lets say, 20 (That is an arbitrary figure for illustrative purposes).

Fair for everyone then. If you get caught you get points. You get more or less points depending on the severity of your bad driving and in severe cases custodial sentences or bans.
 
Richdog said:
Do you really think that fining a poor person £60 and a rich person £60 is actually in effect "equal punishment", if one if greatly more affected than the other?

Think about it.
Click to expand...

I'm on the lower pay scale band but accept if people have worked hard for more money or even inherited it, they should still pay the same amount.
In effect you're saying that when a rich person goes into a pub they should pay more for a pint or if they buy something from OCUK they should pay more.
Two years ago they were coming up with ideas for staff parking at our Trust and one idea was that those who earn more pay more - how ridiculous.
 
Richdog said:
Do you really think that fining a poor person £60 and a rich person £60 is actually in effect "equal punishment", if one if greatly more affected than the other?

Think about it.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair yes. Fairer than incentivising our police force to target wealthy people. If a person is too poor to pay a speeding ticket, that is their own fault.
If you are that destitute, a sane person wouldn't risk a speeding fine.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I think so many people saying that it's not fair might be an indication that it's an effective punishment and deterrence.
Click to expand...

it might be, if this was some untested idea... but it is something already implemented in a couple of countries - and there isn't clear evidence AFAIK that it does work

In fact Finland is worse for road safety than the UK and neighbouring countries like Norway and Sweden.
 
An Exception said:
I think it's fair yes. Fairer than incentivising our police force to target wealthy people. If a person is too poor to pay a speeding ticket, that is their own fault.
If you are that destitute, a sane person wouldn't risk a speeding fine.
Click to expand...

Great logic, ahem. The point, however, is not of someone being able to afford a ticket, but that the fine impacts them in a noticeable way. It acts as a deterrent. 60 quid to a poor person is a deterrent, 60 quid to a rich person is not.

Haggisman said:
No, he isn't, and I wish people would stop throwing out that utterly ridiculous comparison. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's Dimple... replace the D with an S and it sums him up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom