Here in Finland, many fines are “means-tested” i.e. based on one’s income.
For example, a person gets caught speeding 30 over the limit.
Person A has monthly income of 3000, the fine is 180.
Person B has monthly income of 50,000, the fine is 100,000.
The fine is intended to inflict the same amount of pain, regardless of one’s income. For a rich person, it makes sense to just hire a chauffeur for 35,000 a year and pay their 180 fine if they get a ticket.
That last line is somewhat the problem with this. Way too many loopholes around this, many rich people barely have income on paper but work around it in other ways
Let’s clarify the objection. Is the concern that a wealthy person arrives faster? Or that they can legally hire someone to absorb a penalty designed to equalize discomfort?
Because if what offends us is that inequality persists despite mechanisms meant to neutralize it, then the issue isn’t the mechanism, it’s the expectation that justice should feel like equal suffering. That’s not justice. That’s calibrated envy.
Means-tested fines don’t eliminate structural advantage; they merely simulate fairness by scaling pain. They don’t dismantle hierarchy, they accessorize it with the appearance of equity. When a wealthy individual hires a chauffeur to avoid tickets, they aren’t cheating the system. They’re operating within it, creating employment, not evading law.
If that offends our moral instincts, we should question the instincts, not the transaction. Because a system that punishes prosperity instead of regulating behavior will always confuse justice with vengeance.
The wealthy don’t stop the behavior; they just move the liability. Someone else speeds, someone else gets fined, and the danger stays the same. That’s not a loophole, it’s how financial deterrence works when money can absorb risk.
So no, I’m not defending that outcome. I’m exposing it.
A system built on fines doesn’t stop harm; it prices it. And once something has a price, people with money will pay to bypass the barrier, whether it’s them behind the wheel or someone they hired.
You think my premise is broken? I’m saying the system already is.
Here in Finland, many fines are “means-tested” i.e. based on one’s income.
For example, a person gets caught speeding 30 over the limit.
Person A has monthly income of 3000, the fine is 180.
Person B has monthly income of 50,000, the fine is 100,000.
The fine is intended to inflict the same amount of pain, regardless of one’s income. For a rich person, it makes sense to just hire a chauffeur for 35,000 a year and pay their 180 fine if they get a ticket.
That last line is somewhat the problem with this. Way too many loopholes around this, many rich people barely have income on paper but work around it in other ways
Let’s clarify the objection. Is the concern that a wealthy person arrives faster? Or that they can legally hire someone to absorb a penalty designed to equalize discomfort?
Because if what offends us is that inequality persists despite mechanisms meant to neutralize it, then the issue isn’t the mechanism, it’s the expectation that justice should feel like equal suffering. That’s not justice. That’s calibrated envy.
Means-tested fines don’t eliminate structural advantage; they merely simulate fairness by scaling pain. They don’t dismantle hierarchy, they accessorize it with the appearance of equity. When a wealthy individual hires a chauffeur to avoid tickets, they aren’t cheating the system. They’re operating within it, creating employment, not evading law.
If that offends our moral instincts, we should question the instincts, not the transaction. Because a system that punishes prosperity instead of regulating behavior will always confuse justice with vengeance.
The concern is that the rich person endangers others.
We’re not talking about justice or punishment, but determent.
Not even sure what point you’re trying to make, but you’re starting from a wrong premise.
Exactly. That is the problem.
The wealthy don’t stop the behavior; they just move the liability. Someone else speeds, someone else gets fined, and the danger stays the same. That’s not a loophole, it’s how financial deterrence works when money can absorb risk.
So no, I’m not defending that outcome. I’m exposing it.
A system built on fines doesn’t stop harm; it prices it. And once something has a price, people with money will pay to bypass the barrier, whether it’s them behind the wheel or someone they hired.
You think my premise is broken? I’m saying the system already is.
Om not saying your premise is broken, I’m saying it’s wrong?
No idea what you’re even arguing???
I’m not arguing, I agree with you and took it further.