68 replies to this topic

[TT6]

Kimi Räikkönen got fined 30.000 euros for driving a car without a proper driving license.
Räikkönen was driving a car that was pulling a trailer. You need a special licence for that in Finland.

Räikkönen also didn't have an extract from car register with him.

The mirrors of the car didn't meet the requirements of a trailer pulling car.

Amount of fines is based on income of fined person and it has no upper limit. Räikkönen got 12 day-fines from which we may conclude that Räikkönen's income is 150.000 euros per month.

It seems that estimations of 10-20 million dollars per year is exaggeration.

Here's the story in Finnish

[Spunout]

It´s quite fair system, actually. Think about taxes - Bill Gates pays more than you (in fact because of progressive taxation he pays bigger per cent as well) and I cannot hear anyone complaining about Bill being punished for earning lots of money and employing lots of people. Why not apply the same system to fines?

[skinnylizard]

hasnt he shifted to Monte Carlo yet?

[Ursus]

10-20M dollars might still be correct. The finnish tax authorities just don't know about them.

[TT6]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
hasnt he shifted to Monte Carlo yet?

I doesn't matter actually.
You're fined in Finland, you fined based on your income, wherever you happen to live. Different thing is that it's quite hard for Finnish police to find out what's your income from abroad.

[BRG]

Originally posted by TT6
You're fined in Finland, you're fined based on your income,

I have no problem with the concept, but it still seems an awful lot of money for very minor infringements of bureaucratic rules. If he had been driving much too fast and putting others at risk, then OK, clobber him with a massive fine. But for not having the right bits of paper?

If I was fined the equivalent of 12 days income for such trivial infractions, I would be most unhappy.

[kismet]

For reference, I think I would've copped a 72-euro fine for that same stunt. Or I could've smiled at the police officer, said I had no idea I was breaking the law and I'd probably have been allowed to continue with a mere warning.

[mikedeering]

€30,000 just for incorrect paperwork? What's the fine for exposing yourself to a police officer?

[StephenJK]

From Helsingin Sanomat, dated 4/8/2000

Finland's largest ever fine for speeding was handed down by a court in Riihimäki to Jussi Salonoja (23), heir to millions, and owner of the hockey team, the Espoo Blues. The fine, for aggravated endangerment of traffic was FIM 233,920.
In late May Salonoja was clocked by police radar driving 200 km/h in Riihimäki on the motorway between Helsinki and Hämeenlinna late at night. The speed limit on that section of freeway was 120 km/h. Salonoja had exceeded the speed limit so much that the matter was transferred from the police to the local district court.

[skinnylizard]

man id be bribing them cops.

[TT6]

Originally posted by BRG
I have no problem with the concept, but it still seems an awful lot of money for very minor infringements of bureaucratic rules. If he had been driving much too fast and putting others at risk, then OK, clobber him with a massive fine. But for not having the right bits of paper?

If I was fined the equivalent of 12 days income for such trivial infractions, I would be most unhappy.

Actually day-fine is not equivalent of days income, it's somewhere around one third of it, depending on taxation, number of children etc.

Also if the infrigment is minor then a fixed amount of "petty fine" is applied (like 50, 100 or 200 euros).

Question is was this type of misconduct severe enough that it deserved day-fines. Probably it was on line with prevailing practice.

[kismet]

A 'day fine' is 1/60 of one's average monthly income, I think. Then there's a minimum of 6 euros for those with no income.

[Shiftin]

I think the Finnish justice system (considering this) is great and should be copied to 'all' countries..

[taran]

Originally posted by BRG
I have no problem with the concept, but it still seems an awful lot of money for very minor infringements of bureaucratic rules. If he had been driving much too fast and putting others at risk, then OK, clobber him with a massive fine. But for not having the right bits of paper?

If I was fined the equivalent of 12 days income for such trivial infractions, I would be most unhappy.

I am assuming it wasn't just for not having the right bits of paper but for towing a trailer without the necessary license. Many cyclists and pedestrians are killed because they are side-swiped by trailers. It's not a little thing to drive without really being master of the vehicle.
And not having the right mirrors just adds up to reckless endangerment IMO.

It shows indifference to others.

The fine was more than correct. The Finnish fine system based on income is a different matter.

[metz]

Originally posted by kismet
For reference, I think I would've copped a 72-euro fine for that same stunt. Or I could've smiled at the police officer, said I had no idea I was breaking the law and I'd probably have been allowed to continue with a mere warning.

Who do you think you are? BAR !

[kismet]

I am assuming it wasn't just for not having the right bits of paper but for towing a trailer without the necessary license. Many cyclists and pedestrians are killed because they are side-swiped by trailers. It's not a little thing to drive without really being master of the vehicle.

Technically, yes. However:

Personally I think the stupidest thing about this particular infringement is that Finnish roads are full of people who have basically the exact same AB driver's licence as Kimi Räikkönen apparently has but they could tow that same trailer legally because, I kid you not, there was a time when everyone with the standard B driver's licence could just walk into the appropriate police station and apply for a BE licence (which allows one to tow heavier things). No additional driving test or anything was required, just some paperwork.

So while the fine is technically legal and fair, I think it's totally laughable from the common-sense point of view.

[Shiftin]

kismet,

It's the same here in NL. Older people got the license automayically. We, younger ones have to pass a seperate license...

And my mother, who has them all, is too afraid to drive any kind of car....

[kismet]

Originally posted by metz
Who do you think you are? BAR !

Heh, just a realist. I've been run into a stone wall by a woman who thought using the lane for oncoming traffic was an acceptable way to cut a blind corner. Needless to say I was the oncoming traffic in question. The speeds were slow plus it was wintertime so the snow kinda dampened the impact, thus no bodily harm was done. The police showed up, she owned up to her misdemeanour like a good girl, they gave her a bit of a talking-to but didn't even fine her.

[TailG]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
man id be bribing them cops.

I wouldn't....

http://www.transpare...cpi2002.en.html

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by Shiftin
I think the Finnish justice system (considering this) is great and should be copied to 'all' countries..

I think this system is deeply flawed. What happened to equal justice for all? Just because each person who breaks the law is penalized the same percentage does not make the administration of justice equal when the fine imposed could vary greatly from one person to the next for the exact same infringement. Why is Kimi's improper towing of a trailer more eggregious than one who earns a tenth of his income? He should pay a higher fine simply because he CAN? The punishment does not fit the crime.

This system seems to me to be highly socialistic and contrary to basic precepts of jurisprudence.

[dai_ferrari]

Originally posted by Scudetto


I think this system is deeply flawed. What happened to equal justice for all? Just because each person who breaks the law is penalized the same percentage does not make the administration of justice equal when the fine imposed could vary greatly from one person to the next for the exact same infringement. Why is Kimi's improper towing of a trailer more eggregious than one who earns a tenth of his income? He should pay a higher fine simply because he CAN? The punishment does not fit the crime.

This system seems to me to be highly socialistic and contrary to basic precepts of jurisprudence.

Couldn't agree more! It's a bullshit system for a bullshit socialistic society.

I break the law by speeding some 15 miles over the speed limit and since I make $100,000 a year, let's say I pay 0.5% penalty, therefore $500, but the next guy does the same 15 miles over the speed limit, but lives on welfare therefore he pays what? $1 maybe? or probation? That is one of the most rediculous and stupid laws I've ever heard of.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Scudetto
This system seems to me to be highly socialistic and contrary to basic precepts of jurisprudence.

Bingo! We have a winner!!

[MaxScelerate]

Well...

It's either that (bullshit socialistic society or whatever you call it) or a system that basically sells 'license to kill' to rich Ferrari driving dorks... Hey, I'm Bill Gates, I can do 300mph every f**in day of the week for a small fee of 30,000$ a year... in your world, but in mine.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by dai_ferrari
That is one of the most rediculous and stupid laws I've ever heard of.

Actually, it's a lot like the Canadian taxation system. Those who succeed pay more proportionally of their income than those who don't. It's called a sliding scale model any you are absolutely correct in your presumption of it's unfairness. Finland much like Canada is a socialist country. **sigh** :

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by TailG


I wouldn't....

http://www.transpare...cpi2002.en.html

oh bollox to that.
i mean id try and fail it cost me a bit more. if it works i save a lotta dosh
(assuming im paying the 30.000 euro ticket not the 3 euro one

[Double Apex]

Originally posted by MaxScelerate
Well...

It's either that (bullshit socialistic society or whatever you call it) or a system that basically sells 'license to kill' to rich Ferrari driving dorks... Hey, I'm Bill Gates, I can do 300mph every f**in day of the week for a small fee of 30,000$ a year... in your world, but in mine.

I'd say there are very simple ways around that without having to fine someone a ridiculous amount. And frankly I don't know of any country in the world where some prick could get away with the kind of scenario you describe. For example take away someone's license if he keeps on speeding.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the PC?

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by MaxScelerate
Well...

It's either that (bullshit socialistic society or whatever you call it) or a system that basically sells 'license to kill' to rich Ferrari driving dorks... Hey, I'm Bill Gates, I can do 300mph every f**in day of the week for a small fee of 30,000$ a year... in your world, but in mine.

We are treading in PC territory here, but....

If you're talking about someone who goes out and uses a vehicle in a reckless manner that threatens the lives of pedestrians or other motorists, then you're talking about infractions that involve more than mere speeding, and for which there are other penalities.

However, on pure speeding grounds alone, a Golf GTI at 100 mph is just as deadly as a Ferrari travelling at the same speed. That one earns enough to drive a Ferrari in a reckless manner does not make his speeding any more criminal than the Golf driver under the same or similar circumstances.

[kismet]

Originally posted by Scudetto
I think this system is deeply flawed. What happened to equal justice for all? Just because each person who breaks the law is penalized the same percentage does not make the administration of justice equal when the fine imposed could vary greatly from one person to the next for the exact same infringement. Why is Kimi's improper towing of a trailer more eggregious than one who earns a tenth of his income? He should pay a higher fine simply because he CAN? The punishment does not fit the crime.

This system seems to me to be highly socialistic and contrary to basic precepts of jurisprudence.

Define equal justice. Let's say the fine was 100 euros regardless of the offender's income. Now, as a student with no income to speak of I'd be in some pains to cough up that much dosh, whereas if I were a bigwig at some IT company and speeding around in my fancy sportscar with an extra 5000 in my wallet, I imagine parting with a 100 euro bill wouldn't trouble me quite as much. Would that really be any more equal?

Anyway, this is Finland. I've been trawling some discussion forums and you'd be surprised how many people think the brat got off lightly. :

[TailG]

Originally posted by skinnylizard


oh bollox to that.
i mean id try and fail it cost me a bit more. if it works i save a lotta dosh
(assuming im paying the 30.000 euro ticket not the 3 euro one

Funny thing is that the fines for bribing are probably 1/10th of what Kimi got, but then again you would most like get suspended jail sentence for offering a bribe.

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by kismet
Define equal justice. Let's say the fine was 100 euros regardless of the offender's income. Now, as a student with no income to speak of I'd be in some pains to cough up that much dosh, whereas if I were a bigwig at some IT company and speeding around in my fancy sportscar with an extra 5000 in my wallet, I imagine parting with a 100 euro bill wouldn't trouble me quite as much. Would that really be any more equal?

That is absolutely more equal because two people are penalized in the exact same way for the exact same offense. When you start asking what impact a 100 euro fine will have on Mr. I.T. Bigwig, you're delving into subjective value judgements which have no place in the dispassionate eyes of the law. When you start assessing penalties based upon one's station in life, the nature of the offense has less to do with the penalty than does the comparative success the offender enjoys in life. Crimes are crimes whether you're a prince or a pauper.

[dai_ferrari]

Originally posted by Scudetto


That is absolutely more equal because two people are penalized in the exact same way for the exact same offense. When you start asking what impact a 100 euro fine will have on Mr. I.T. Bigwig, you're delving into subjective value judgements which have no place in the dispassionate eyes of the law. When you start assessing penalties based upon one's station in life, the nature of the offense has less to do with the penalty than does the comparative success the offender enjoys in life. Crimes are crimes whether you're a prince or a pauper.

Very, very well spoken.

I'd feel bad for the cash-strapped student trying to make his way through college having to pay a $150 ticket, but then maybe he should've thought about what kind of ticket he might get before he was caught doing 100 mph on the freeway and been more responsable in the first place.

That he is a hard working student with awesome grades and is hard pressed for cash is no excuse, or any reason to be let off any easier than the next guy along who happens to to bring down a $500,000 salary at a Fortune 500 company.

[MaxScelerate]

Well, time in prison is time in prison, wether you be poor or rich... That's for the criminal part of it...

Now on to the civic law, do you really think being fined a quarter of your monthly revenue (that's a 120.00$ ticket for me) is the same as being fined a 5 minutes revenue (say, a professional football player for the same 120.00$) ??

lol -- Just occured to me that no matter how long we discuss this, there never will be concensus anyway..

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Scudetto

What happened to equal justice for all?

Where exactly does that system exist?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Scudetto


That is absolutely more equal because two people are penalized in the exact same way for the exact same offense. When you start asking what impact a 100 euro fine will have on Mr. I.T. Bigwig, you're delving into subjective value judgements which have no place in the dispassionate eyes of the law. When you start assessing penalties based upon one's station in life, the nature of the offense has less to do with the penalty than does the comparative success the offender enjoys in life. Crimes are crimes whether you're a prince or a pauper.

Funny, most people look askance at the notion that there is "one law for the rich, another for the poor" - this is exactly what happens in this situation.

[kismet]

That is absolutely more equal because two people are penalized in the exact same way for the exact same offense.

But, as it is, everyone gets the exact same 12 'days' (in Kimi's case) for the exact same offence. It's only the day's worth that changes and there's nothing subjective about that, just cold objective numbers. I gather the idea is that the punishment should hit everyone equally hard, though obviously even with percentage-based fines it's still the poor who get the short end of the stick. To me that's fair and certainly more equal than a fixed $100 for everyone. But I realise we're not going to agree on this.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Spunout
It´s quite fair system, actually. Think about taxes - Bill Gates pays more than you (in fact because of progressive taxation he pays bigger per cent as well) and I cannot hear anyone complaining about Bill being punished for earning lots of money and employing lots of people. Why not apply the same system to fines?

You have obviously never spoken to someone from the American Republican or Libertarian parties!!

[Spunout]

I repeat - why does Bill Gates pay more taxes than you or me?

This is clearly a bullshit socialistic rule from a bullshit socialistic country where poor Bill is punished for being succesful.



"I break the law by speeding some 15 miles over the speed limit and since I make $100,000 a year"

Seriously speaking, dai_ferrari - make that IF you make 100000$ per year. Very few kids from elementary school make that much money. And chances are you won´t make it in the future either unless you start paying attention to what the teacher says about socialism and socialistic countries. Please save us from further displays of ignorance, ok?

[dai_ferrari]

Originally posted by Spunout
I repeat - why does Bill Gates pay more taxes than you or me?

Well, I personally don't think he should have to.

Originally posted by Spunout
Seriously speaking, dai_ferrari - make that IF you make 100000$ per year. Very few kids from elementary school make that much money. And chances are you won´t make it in the future either unless you start paying attention to what the teacher says about socialism and socialistic countries. Please save us from further displays of ignorance, ok?

Oh but I do make that kind of money, last year's I finally pushed over into a six figure income. Thank you very much, so please save me from your display of ignorance, ok?

I simply don't believe you should be punished for being successful and smart in business, or for that matter whatever it is you do for a living. I give generously to charities because I have a belief that what you give out, ultimately comes back to you in abundance. But I can decide where to give, how much and when. Governments shouldn't decide for you.

[indycarjunkie]

Originally posted by TT6
I doesn't matter actually.
You're fined in Finland, you fined based on your income, wherever you happen to live. Different thing is that it's quite hard for Finnish police to find out what's your income from abroad.

So, if I get busted for some traffic violation or whatever in Finland your cops need to find out my income before they can apply a penalty to me? Good luck to them to try, because nobody but the IRS needs to know how much I make a year.

Its a bullshit system but props to Scudetto for explaining exactly why its bullshit.

[Henrik B]

Originally posted by dai_ferrari

I simply don't believe you should be punished for being successful and smart in business, or for that matter whatever it is you do for a living.

In my ideal world, I pay 30% (or whatever!) in tax and you pay 30%. A speeding ticket is 0.1% of your income, 0.1% of mine. Simple, fair, and not very "socialistic" either. Obviously there should be (and is in Finland) a minimum limit.

A speeding ticket (or any punishment for anything!) is supposed to be a deterrent for wrongful behaviour. If no percieved penalty is awarded, there is no deterrent. If you do the crime, you do the time so to speak. With a fixed amount as fine, the rich guy gets off easier. In your system, the rich guy isn't punished for beeing successful, instead he gets _extra_ favours for beeing rich. Hang on a sec, you're a Ferrari fan aren't you...

[Cadence]

Originally posted by tifosi


Where exactly does that system exist?

Why in the "Hall of Justice" of "The Justice League" of course...

Wonder twin powers activate!

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by Spunout
I repeat - why does Bill Gates pay more taxes than you or me?

Well, income tax is properly based on a sliding scale model because if you must tax income, a sliding scale model is the only fair way to do so. Many "flat-tax" models for income don't work because levying, say a 15% flat tax on everyone's income would obviously be a greater burden on those who earn $30,000 per year versus one who earns $300,000 annually.

A better tax parallel would be sales tax on consumer goods. At 27" TV is a 27" TV whether the purchaser is taxi driver or an investment banker. But would it be fair to charge the investment banker a higher sales tax on TV merely because he earns more than the taxi driver? If the investment banker is in a rush to install his new TV and gets stopped for going 15 mph over the posted limit, should his fine be greater than the same ticket issued to the taxi driver speeding home?

[Menace]

Originally posted by dai_ferrari


Very, very well spoken.

I'd feel bad for the cash-strapped student trying to make his way through college having to pay a $150 ticket, but then maybe he should've thought about what kind of ticket he might get before he was caught doing 100 mph on the freeway and been more responsable in the first place.

That he is a hard working student with awesome grades and is hard pressed for cash is no excuse, or any reason to be let off any easier than the next guy along who happens to to bring down a $500,000 salary at a Fortune 500 company.

So you guys think taxes shouldn't be based upon once income bracket either? (Not that I would be surprised, I get caught arguing about this stuff quite often here in U.S.)

For the record, I got a lovely $750 speeding ticket not more then 2 weeks ago driving my Audi at 120+mph. In Finland I would have for sure lost my license for the same offence. Paying the minimum payment of $50 month (cause I really can't afford more with all my other payments, including my car payment and house payment) it hurts me quite a bit. Then again, a work buddy of mine who got a ticket for doing pretty much the same speed, laughed it off like it was nothing. Then again, he makes about 3 times what I make a year and he rents a small apartment.

IMHO the punishment should be proportionate to be fair. Make both of the offender feel same financial pain as those who try to make ends meet from paycheck to paycheck.




OT: But, I come from a different background... most of my friends here in U.S. think Im crazy for always giving change to the same bums on the interstate exits/entrances.

I don't care. To me it seems like the right thing to do. I don't care how many times people try to convince me that the bum really has his Mercedes parked around the corner... you try to stand around on the Interstate exit for hours at a time in pouring rain. I cant for a second fathom anybody would be doing that if they had better options.

[Menace]

Originally posted by Henrik Brodin


In my ideal world, I pay 30% (or whatever!) in tax and you pay 30%. A speeding ticket is 0.1% of your income, 0.1% of mine. Simple, fair, and not very "socialistic" either. Obviously there should be (and is in Finland) a minimum limit.

A speeding ticket (or any punishment for anything!) is supposed to be a deterrent for wrongful behaviour. If no percieved penalty is awarded, there is no deterrent. If you do the crime, you do the time so to speak. With a fixed amount as fine, the rich guy gets off easier. In your system, the rich guy isn't punished for beeing successful, instead he gets _extra_ favours for beeing rich. Hang on a sec, you're a Ferrari fan aren't you...

Agree 100%.

This just goes to show that our perception of right and wrong are very much tide into both our socio-economical, and cultural/ethnic backgrounds.

[dai_ferrari]

Originally posted by Henrik Brodin


In my ideal world, I pay 30% (or whatever!) in tax and you pay 30%. A speeding ticket is 0.1% of your income, 0.1% of mine. Simple, fair, and not very "socialistic" either. Obviously there should be (and is in Finland) a minimum limit.

A speeding ticket (or any punishment for anything!) is supposed to be a deterrent for wrongful behaviour. If no percieved penalty is awarded, there is no deterrent. If you do the crime, you do the time so to speak. With a fixed amount as fine, the rich guy gets off easier. In your system, the rich guy isn't punished for beeing successful, instead he gets _extra_ favours for beeing rich. Hang on a sec, you're a Ferrari fan aren't you...

Hmmm... I'm a Ferrari fan, therefore I'm evil? Okay smartass.....

A speeding ticket is rarely a deterrent for wrongful behaviour. Rich or poor. I think it's wrong to assume that because one is rich he or she will have a larger propensity for speeding because paying off the ticket will be no problem.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by Scudetto


Well, income tax is properly based on a sliding scale model because if you must tax income, a sliding scale model is the only fair way to do so. Many "flat-tax" models for income don't work because levying, say a 15% flat tax on everyone's income would obviously be a greater burden on those who earn $30,000 per year versus one who earns $300,000 annually.

I disagree. For the same reasons you stated as to why the Finnish law was unfair:

When you start assessing penalties based upon one's station in life, the nature of the offense has less to do with the penalty than does the comparative success the offender enjoys in life.

A similar parallel can be drawn between those who succeed in life and create real wealth and those who consume it. In your example the person making $30,000/annum would have a tax bill of $4,500 based on a 15% tax model. The person making $300,000 would have tax bill of $45,000. Proportional, fair and hardly a burden on either. In a sliding scale model the lower income earner would stay relatively where they are at 15% while the higher income earner would now be looking at a tax rate somewhere between 40-50% of their gross income (Canadian example). So now, the Higher income earner now has their net income effectively cut in half with a tax burden of $100K - $150K. This is fair??? Do we not receive the same services? I'll give you that a society must have a social conscience but, a sliding scale is hardly fair.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Cadence

A similar parallel can be drawn between those who succeed in life and create real wealth and those who consume it. In your example the person making $30,000/annum would have a tax bill of $4,500 based on a 15% tax model. The person making $300,000 would have tax bill of $45,000. Proportional, fair and hardly a burden on either. In a sliding scale model the lower income earner would stay relatively where they are at 15% while the higher income earner would now be looking at a tax rate somewhere between 40-50% of their gross income (Canadian example). So now, the Higher income earner now has their net income effectively cut in half with a tax burden of $100K - $150K. This is fair??? Do we not receive the same services? I'll give you that a society must have a social conscience but, a sliding scale is hardly fair.

JUST to play Devil's Advocate. It could be argued that the more succesful person has enjoyed the fruits of what this country has to offer moreso than the less succesful person. So he/she should pay a higher share. Just a discussion point don't start blasting me.

One thing is you arguement would make more sense if it was simply a matter of he who worked hardest enjoyed the fruits of that hard work fully. However that presupposes everyone starts out equally and had the same opportunity for that success. Since that is rarely the case you could make the arguement that one should pay a higher proportion of their income since they were able to share in a higher proportion of the overall economic out put of the society.

Again I'm not necessarily advocating any kind of super-socialist system, only pointing out "the other side of the story". Of course the silver spoons of the world are always pointing out that everyone has the exact same opportunikties in life, but one would have to be a complete imbecile to actually believe that.

[Cadence]

Originally posted by tifosi


JUST to play Devil's Advocate. It could be argued that the more succesful person has enjoyed the fruits of what this country has to offer moreso than the less succesful person. So he/she should pay a higher share. Just a discussion point don't start blasting me.

One thing is you arguement would make more sense if it was simply a matter of he who worked hardest enjoyed the fruits of that hard work fully. However that presupposes everyone starts out equally and had the same opportunity for that success. Since that is rarely the case you could make the arguement that one should pay a higher proportion of their income since they were able to share in a higher proportion of the overall economic out put of the society.

Again I'm not necessarily advocating any kind of super-socialist system, only pointing out "the other side of the story". Of course the silver spoons of the world are always pointing out that everyone has the exact same opportunikties in life, but one would have to be a complete imbecile to actually believe that.

I agree with your points tifosi and appreciate that your only playing devil's advocate. Life certainly isn't fair and not everyone has the same opportunities. Perhaps the American model is superior to what we have in Canada. Correct me if I am mistaken but, I don't think your tax rate percentages are as high as ours (of course your tax base is over 10 times the size of ours so that will definitely have an impact). As I said earlier I do believe that society must have a social conscience but, perhaps the sliding scale model goes a tad to far left of centre for my liking. :

[StephenJK]

Cadence,

It's kind of hard to compare the Canadian economic system to our American neighbours. Medicare and capital gains taxes are two examples.

The sliding scale in Canada has been kicked around for a long time with some people suggesting a flat rate would be better. From the bit I recall on the issue recently, the sliding scale is much more equitable for lower income earners. I'm not saying that I would push my way to the front of the line to pay more taxes, but all things considered, on an international comparison of tax rates we're doing OK.

[Spunout]

"Well, income tax is properly based on a sliding scale model because if you must tax income, a sliding scale model is the only fair way to do so. Many "flat-tax" models for income don't work because levying, say a 15% flat tax on everyone's income would obviously be a greater burden on those who earn $30,000 per year versus one who earns $300,000 annually."

So, it IS ok to use progressive taxation because otherwise the guy earning $30.000 has greater burden (of course it is greater burden even with progressive taxation heh), but it ISN´T ok to apply the same method to fines?

"JUST to play Devil's Advocate. It could be argued that the more succesful person has enjoyed the fruits of what this country has to offer moreso than the less succesful person. So he/she should pay a higher share. Just a discussion point don't start blasting me."

Very good point. Indeed the "fruits" go to both directions here

But again, why not apply the same method to fines?

"One thing is you arguement would make more sense if it was simply a matter of he who worked hardest enjoyed the fruits of that hard work fully."

Very good point (again). Indeed it seems lots of Americans live in illusion that money you earn is everything - the guy who gets millions from his parents for starting out his own business deserves more credit than the guy who lives in slums and works his ass off for few dollars per day. Even though our economical systems are pretty much similar, that is where typical Finnish VALUES differ from typical (?) American values: you rarely hear Finns bragging how much they earn every year (except maybe in the internet where more than 50% of the people are lying about their income/profession/age anyway - ever noticed how many wealthy people we have here?). This may be OT but my personal opinion is money and fame should not have value of their own - brainless bimbos who ask their rich parents to buy them breast implants so they could impress Hugh Hefner don´t get much respect from me. Unfortunately I´m aware some of the young Americans don´t feel the same way, and maybe this is somehow connected to the kind of "cast" system where the money (instead of heritage) is the deciding factor?

Ok enough ranting, back to the topic...

"However that presupposes everyone starts out equally and had the same opportunity for that success. Since that is rarely the case you could make the arguement that one should pay a higher proportion of their income since they were able to share in a higher proportion of the overall economic out put of the society."

That is one of the fundamental ideas behind modern economy, yes.



To some of the others: do not assume your system is the perfect one and everything that differs from it is "evil" or "bad" - compare our crime rates, level of corruption, health care, percentage of poor people, etc, and you´ll notice even if U.S.A is the light of the world even our small country must be doing something right. You don´t have to agree with this particular system, but please do back your opinion up. That´s more convincing than embarrassing your school system (and yourself) by displaying complete ignorance (re: socialism).