Aristophanes wrote:
According to the article the guy made 7 million last year, a 60k fine is only .008 of his yearly income, not even a full percentage point. By comparison take a minimum wage earner in the US (~20k a year) and in my state 15-25mph over is a $215 fine, that's .01075 of the minimum wage earner's yearly income. Yes, he paid much less of a fine than the Finn did but it hurt the minimum wage earner's finances harder than it did the Finn.
The entire point of a fine is to deter people. If the fine is so low that it has no effect on a person then it's not a deterrent. Large corporations have used this loophole for years. Get caught with a faulty pipe that dumps oil, $20,000 fine, much cheaper than the half million or so it would take to insulate the pipe properly so it doesn't rupture in the first place. It's become a minor cost of doing business for some firms, which means that the fine has absolutely no effect. Now, say the fine was .05% of net earnings for the year, that could be several million for some companies-- I guarantee you they start following the law because it's too costly if they don't.
The entire point of a traffic citation is to put money in the pockets of government to mismanage. The deterrent thing is just an excuse.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson