Yank gets a Bill 203 Lesson

[Rob MacLennan]

And following your logic, a $50 parking ticket is a much bigger impact on poorer people than someone who is wealthy. So what do we do about it? Lower them? Abolish them? Or make it proportionate to one's means/income as this poster suggested:

And the problem here, as with almost all of Canada's socialist policies (welfare, etc.) is that you create a system that disincents people getting up off the couch to go to work, or work harder to make a better living. Why don't we go a step further and price all government items according to your ability to purchase them then? Passports, stamps, sales tax, etc., all these are now priced according to your ability to pay for it. Why would I even bother to work/work harder, if all it will do is raise the price on all these items?

The ability to break the highway traffic act and pay the resulting fines is not a right in this country. If you've worked hard enough to pay these fines or the legal fees and not have it impact you, then more power to you. If you can't afford the coin, don't break the law. Simple.

You're saying that people with sufficient funds should be able to break the law with impunity, simply because there is negligible financial impact upon them? Horse hockey. It's another case of the law being on the side of the rich, not the right, and THAT just came from a fiscal conservative.

The concept seems to work well enough in Finland.

Finn's speed fine is a bit rich

It is not just Finland's successful rally drivers who put their feet down

One of Finland's richest men has been handed a record 170,000 euros speeding ticket, thanks to the country's policy of relating the fine to your income. Jussi Salonoja, the 27-year-old heir to a family-owned sausage empire, was given the £116,000 ticket after being caught driving 80km/h in a 40km/h zone.
Helsinki police came up with the figure after tax office data showed that Mr Salonoja earned close to £7m in 2002.
If his penalty stands it will beat the previous record of almost 80,000 euros.
That figure (£54,000) was paid in 2000 by Finnish internet millionaire Jaakko Rytsola, when he was caught speeding.
Yet Mr Salonoja could yet get his penalty reduced, as was the case with Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki.
In 2002, Mr Vanjoki's 116,000 euros fine was reduced by no less than 95% due to his drop in income following a downturn in the mobile phone maker's profits.

[Lightcycle]

You're saying that people with sufficient funds should be able to break the law with impunity, simply because there is negligible financial impact upon them? Horse hockey. It's another case of the law being on the side of the rich, not the right, and THAT just came from a fiscal conservative.

The concept seems to work well enough in Finland

Finland's also looking at implementing a flat-tax system. And if you implement that here, trust me, you'll have everyone up in arms once they realize that they'll have to pay their fair share of the taxes, since 52% of the taxes in Canada are paid by 10% of the top income earners. (2005 data)

The law may be on the side of the rich here, but many of the socialist policies in this country give benefits to the lowest income earners at the expense of the highest, creating a system that incents people not to find jobs or work harder. Implementing a penalty system according to income would just be another excuse to keep people on the dole, and to stifle the free market system.

[Rob MacLennan]

I'd rather see it handled through consumption taxes, myself.

[Lightcycle]

I'd rather see it handled through consumption taxes, myself.

We're already doing it. It's called the GST.

[Rob MacLennan]

We're already doing it. It's called the GST.

Hardly what I'm talking about. What I'm thinking of is a government that is almost solely funded by consumption taxes. No income tax. The math can support the idea.

[Lightcycle]

Hardly what I'm talking about. What I'm thinking of is a government that is almost solely funded by consumption taxes. No income tax. The math can support the idea.

No income tax? No interest income tax? No capital gains taxes? Utopia! Sign me up!

But I doubt the freeloaders in this country are going to appreciate the fact that their pogey cheque is not going to buy them as much beer every month.

[AdRath]

+1

Why should anyone have to pay for anything. I mean, like, REALLY! And what is up with working harder, getting a better paying job, etc? The Government should take care of everything for us.

Who said anything about not working it. I'd support this and I have a good job. I highly doubt that someone is going to purposely not succeed in order to get a lower speeding ticket. That is a little bit of a far fetched notion. Sure some people free load off the rich. Like Rob said why should the Rich break the law and pay a fine that means nothing to them? Isn't the purpose of fine to be a deterent? how is that a deterent? If the fine is a percentage of income then it effects everyone equally. You can't deny that our justice system favors the wealthy a lot of large corporations rely on that.

[Lightcycle]

Like Rob said why should the Rich break the law and pay a fine that means nothing to them? Isn't the purpose of fine to be a deterent? how is that a deterent? If the fine is a percentage of income then it effects everyone equally. You can't deny that our justice system favors the wealthy a lot of large corporations rely on that.

Pro-rating your "debt to society" based on what you have is ludicrous. Would you incarcerate a 20-year-old for 50 years for involuntary manslaughter, yet give a 60-year-old only 15 years for the same crime just because he's only got 20 years of life expectancy left? Under the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally, whether they commit a murder or park illegally. The minute justice becomes tailor-made, the slope becomes dangerously slippery.

[SteveT]

Pro-rating your "debt to society" based on what you have is ludicrous. Would you incarcerate a 20-year-old for 50 years for involuntary manslaughter, yet give a 60-year-old only 15 years for the same crime just because he's only got 20 years of life expectancy left? Under the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally, whether they commit a murder or park illegally. The minute justice becomes tailor-made, the slope becomes dangerously slippery.

Not sure if the "visible minorities" and Natives will agree with you there

[Rob MacLennan]

Pro-rating your "debt to society" based on what you have is ludicrous. Would you incarcerate a 20-year-old for 50 years for involuntary manslaughter, yet give a 60-year-old only 15 years for the same crime just because he's only got 20 years of life expectancy left? Under the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally, whether they commit a murder or park illegally. The minute justice becomes tailor-made, the slope becomes dangerously slippery.

Time is something that has equal potential value to all. Money isn't.

I don't know what it is about the various forums that I'm on these days, but I'm tending towards the use of the word "disingenuous" a hell of a lot more than I used to

[Rob MacLennan]

No income tax? No interest income tax? No capital gains taxes? Utopia! Sign me up!

But I doubt the freeloaders in this country are going to appreciate the fact that their pogey cheque is not going to buy them as much beer every month.

Those in the lowest income groups would receive an equalization payment on the current tax return date, in order to help balance the scales. The rest would all be handled via sales tax and GST. Want to save up a nice nest egg and invest? Don't buy as much crap.

[AdRath]

Under the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally, whether they commit a murder or park illegally. The minute justice becomes tailor-made, the slope becomes dangerously slippery.

Everyone is treated equally under our justice system? So someone with little to no money could mount the same legal defense against a charger as someone who is wealthy? hardly. Our system of justice is tailored for those who can afford the best lawyer. Do you think OJ would have gotten off with a public defender? Do you think a judge treats someone in a court room in plain poor clothes as well as a guy in a nice tailored suit? Traffic tickets in court are a perfect example. if you have the money to hire a paralegal or Lawyer essentially you don't get a ticket. So in our system you pay money and it treats you different. There is no slippery slope here the slope already exists I'm talking about leveling the playing field.

[Rob MacLennan]

Everyone is treated equally under our justice system? So someone with little to no money could mount the same legal defense against a charger as someone who is wealthy? hardly. Our system of justice is tailored for those who can afford the best lawyer. Do you think OJ would have gotten off with a public defender? Do you think a judge treats someone in a court room in plain poor clothes as well as a guy in a nice tailored suit? Traffic tickets in court are a perfect example. if you have the money to hire a paralegal or Lawyer essentially you don't get a ticket. So in our system you pay money and it treats you different. There is no slippery slope here the slope already exists I'm talking about leveling the playing field.

Johnnie Cochran and his damned Chewbaka Defence

[eastcoast_gsx]

The law may be on the side of the rich here, but many of the socialist policies in this country give benefits to the lowest income earners at the expense of the highest, creating a system that incents people not to find jobs or work harder. Implementing a penalty system according to income would just be another excuse to keep people on the dole, and to stifle the free market system.

If they are so advantaged why is the income gap growing at such an astronimical rate? http://www.growinggap.ca/

The free market system has been taken over by the rich or the well to do at the very least, the poor folk don't even have a chance in hell to participate in this sytem anymore (sure, you may find examples of this happening, but this is far from the norm), so who benefits day after day after day, the poor even if they did get a decent job, they would still be treading water for quite a while, it would take quite some time before they could have the resources to get in this game.

[ddusseld]

How is this the fault of somebody who can afford a good lawyer? The law is the law. The penalties for breaking the law should be the same. The old justice is blind routine.

Is it only money you would pro-rate? What about jail time? What about any other penalty? I really burns me that people want to punish others just because they are successful.

Everyone is treated equally under our justice system? So someone with little to no money could mount the same legal defense against a charger as someone who is wealthy? hardly. Our system of justice is tailored for those who can afford the best lawyer. Do you think OJ would have gotten off with a public defender? Do you think a judge treats someone in a court room in plain poor clothes as well as a guy in a nice tailored suit? Traffic tickets in court are a perfect example. if you have the money to hire a paralegal or Lawyer essentially you don't get a ticket. So in our system you pay money and it treats you different. There is no slippery slope here the slope already exists I'm talking about leveling the playing field.

[ddusseld]

Rob,

Why do you think this works well in Finland? It is absurd. Absolute garbage that they would do this.

There is no breaking the law with impunity. The consequences are just reduced. The law is not on the side of the rich. The law is the law. People with money just are able to defend themselves better. What is wrong with success giving you this ability?

Trying to adjust the penalties for breaking the law will not effect the uber wealthy. It will not effect the uber poor. It will negatively effect the typical middle class. These are the people who make good money but not enough to afford the best lawyers, pay the big fines etc.

Also, which penalties do you want pro rated to income? Just monetary? Why not adjust jail time based on income? Absurd? No more absurd then adjusting fines....

You're saying that people with sufficient funds should be able to break the law with impunity, simply because there is negligible financial impact upon them? Horse hockey. It's another case of the law being on the side of the rich, not the right, and THAT just came from a fiscal conservative.

The concept seems to work well enough in Finland.

Finn's speed fine is a bit rich

It is not just Finland's successful rally drivers who put their feet down

One of Finland's richest men has been handed a record 170,000 euros speeding ticket, thanks to the country's policy of relating the fine to your income. Jussi Salonoja, the 27-year-old heir to a family-owned sausage empire, was given the £116,000 ticket after being caught driving 80km/h in a 40km/h zone.
Helsinki police came up with the figure after tax office data showed that Mr Salonoja earned close to £7m in 2002.
If his penalty stands it will beat the previous record of almost 80,000 euros.
That figure (£54,000) was paid in 2000 by Finnish internet millionaire Jaakko Rytsola, when he was caught speeding.
Yet Mr Salonoja could yet get his penalty reduced, as was the case with Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki.
In 2002, Mr Vanjoki's 116,000 euros fine was reduced by no less than 95% due to his drop in income following a downturn in the mobile phone maker's profits.

[FZR 400]

How is this the fault of somebody who can afford a good lawyer? The law is the law. The penalties for breaking the law should be the same. The old justice is blind routine.

Is it only money you would pro-rate? What about jail time? What about any other penalty? I really burns me that people want to punish others just because they are successful.

"The penalties for breaking the law should be the same." In terms of payout they may be the same, but in terms of disincentive to do it again, they are not the same. For a wealthy person, it's a lot easier to shrug off a $700 ticket than it is for someone who lives paycheque to paycheque.

Yes money is the only thing that you would pro-rate, because time is the same for everyone, but money is not.

[WoBblyCaT]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the rich pay more than the poor for breaking the law. But just to add fuel to the fire here, even if we had income based penalties for breaking the law, the rich would still get away with it. They would hire some accountants and lawyers for some creative accounting to reduce their personal income on paper to make it look like they're living in poverty. In fact, they've probably already been doing this for years on their tax returns. Furthering this argument, our legal system doesn't have the resources to do financial background checks on every ticket.

In the above scenario, I know I'd be really mad when I would hear about these stories in the media.

[Rob MacLennan]

Rob,

Why do you think this works well in Finland? It is absurd. Absolute garbage that they would do this.

There is no breaking the law with impunity. The consequences are just reduced. The law is not on the side of the rich. The law is the law. People with money just are able to defend themselves better. What is wrong with success giving you this ability?

Trying to adjust the penalties for breaking the law will not effect the uber wealthy. It will not effect the uber poor. It will negatively effect the typical middle class. These are the people who make good money but not enough to afford the best lawyers, pay the big fines etc.

Also, which penalties do you want pro rated to income? Just monetary? Why not adjust jail time based on income? Absurd? No more absurd then adjusting fines....

I would envision only the monetary penalties would be adjusted accordingly, as I stated previously, raising the spectre of sliding internment penalties for younger people who are convicted of a crime is disingenuous debate.

This also has nothing to do with the ability to defend oneself. It's about equity of punishment under the law; a little known or used term called "justice." If collecting fines is about revenue generation, then it matters not that the rich pay the same fine as the poor. The rich will do it, and gladly. If fines are about creating an environment in which people are disinclined to commit crimes, then making the fine commensurate with the wherewithal to pay is 'just.'

Unfortunately EVERYTHING affects the middle class more. There are simply more of us. In this case it shouldn't affect us at all though, because middle income would be the benchmark around which fines would be set.

[eastcoast_gsx]

The law is not on the side of the rich. The law is the law. People with money just are able to defend themselves better. What is wrong with success giving you this ability?

Totally wrong, greed and the like have outpaced the ability of the average Canadian to defend themselves appropriately. Why is it so expensive? And the more the rich are willing to pay, the more the cost will skyrocket, leaving those without the means the ability to a solid defense.

Justice is becoming more and more expensive.

But you don't have to take my word for it try Alberta's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin : (Macleans also had a very good article on this topic a few months back....

http://www.thestar.com/article/245548


NYT Editorial Comment I like.

As Long as Money Talks, Justice Won't Be Equal
Published: March 5, 1998
To the Editor:
The poor, who Bob Herbert laments ''often find themselves represented by drunks, incompetents, crooks and clowns'' (column, March 1), cannot expect equal justice under the law until the influence of money is removed from the legislatures, which allocate money for public defenders. Why should state and national lawmakers, financed with soft money from the well to do, fix a system that gives preference to their best constituents?
Fair treatment in the judicial system comes only with fair representation, something the poor in America have yet to achieve.
HERB ALLEN
New Haven, March 1, 1998