by Doctor Science
This article about Finnish traffic tickets has been viral on tumblr in the last few days:
Finland’s speeding fines are linked to income, with penalties calculated on daily earnings, meaning high earners get hit with bigger penalties for breaking the law. So, when businessman Reima Kuisla was caught doing 103km/h (64mph) in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h (50mph), authorities turned to his 2013 tax return, the Iltalehti newspaper reports. He earned 6.5m euros [$7.2M] that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros [almost $60K]. 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.”
Finnish tumblr user Iokheiaira explains further:
Sure, an EUR 54K fine seems high, but consider that for truly egregious speeding, if you’re earning 2100 euros/month after taxes [$2315, or about $28K/year, about the median US individual income] and have no dependents, you might get slapped with a fine to the tune of 360 euros [about $400] (according to the Finnish Police’s Sakkolaskuri in Finnish), which is about 17% of your total income that month, and while doable, will not be fun at all.
But that 360 euros for Mr. Kuisla? Petty cash. He might think it money well-spent for a fun joyride, and go on speeding with a smile.
Incidentally – charging larger fines from richer people probably helps the cops to go after all people equally, instead on focusing on poor people less likely to make a big fuss or throw their weight around. Finnish traffic cops are unfortunately underfunded and overworked anyway – and the money from the fines goes directly to the State treasury, not to the police’s own budget or the local budget (which I think helps to prevent situations like Ferguson, USA, where fines are used as a form of additional taxation/extortion).
Iokheiaira is referring, of course, to the fact that in Ferguson the municipal court was out to make money for the city, and its decisions were motivated by this goal versus public safety and that this burden falls disproportionately on the poor, who can afford it least.
Americans of all political parties agree that separating revenue generation from law enforcement is really important. But is it important enough that Republicans will be willing to raise taxes to make up for lost revenue from fines?
Or, if raising taxes is impossible, how about copying the Finnish model? — where fines can be used for revenue, but not in any way that connects the enforcer with the money. And what about also making fines a flat percentage of income? — which is still harder on the poor than the rich, because 10% of a month’s income when you’re poor is much more difficult and painful than 10% when you’re rich. But at least it’s not as regressive as a flat fee.
Iokheiaira reports that in Finland:
While people can and do argue about the finer points of proportionate fines – one of Mr. Kuisla’s arguments was that the lines drawn are somewhat arbitrary, and if he’d driven a mere 5 km per hour slower, the fine would’ve been only a fraction of what it was… people in general consider that a) if you play by the rules, you don’t need to pay fines and b) it’s always nice to see that rich people are not above the law, after all.
I wonder if that last point isn’t the real sticking point in the US — lots of Americans admire people who “aren’t afraid to break a few rules”, who “are willing to go outside the law to do what they have to.” Compared to Scandinavians, I don’t know if Americans in general really do like seeing rich people obey the laws the rest of us do — or if Americans prefer to aspire to scofflaw wealth.
Americans may be OK with someone who bends the rules to get something useful done. But that isn’t really ther same as being OK with someone who just breaks the law. If Mr. Kuisla was speeding in order to get someone to the hospital, that would be a different story. But if he was just speeding because he could? Far less OK with that.
And note that speed limits are the area where Americans are least likely to be up tight about following the rules. Anything else, and you better be able to show that you were getting something done that the rest of the population feels is worthwhile if you want to get cut some slack. Regardless of how much you make.
I was particularly struck by this, in the Dept. of Justice report on the Ferguson Police Department just came out:
Black residents make up less than 70% of Ferguson’s total, but they accounted for 85% of car stops by Ferguson police between 2012 and 2014. Black drivers were more than twice as likely as white ones to be searched during car stops, yet 26% more white drivers were found in possession of contraband.
So, they were making fewer stops, and less likely to do a search, on folks from the groups which, from their own stats, are more likely to be committing a crime. Kind of puts paid to the “more blacks get stopped by police because blacks commit more crime” thesis, doesn’t it?
is it important enough that Republicans will be willing to raise taxes?
Don’t let’s be silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26RTlPgg-tA
“Black residents make up less than 70% of Ferguson’s total, but they accounted for 85% of car stops.”
I suspect the reality is worse than this simple equation. How many Blacks in Ferguson have access to a car. The parking lots in the high density apartment complex where Brown was kill was almost devoid of cars on google earth. I know that in my neighborhood blacks disproportionately rely on walking, bicycles and public transit.
Kind of puts paid to the “more blacks get stopped by police because blacks commit more crime” thesis, doesn’t it?
Particularly considering the totally bogus nature of the “crimes” in some of the reported incidents. Remove those, and what do the stats look like?
Ferguson may end up shutting down their police department and contracting with some other PD for their law enforcement.
Snarki, are you talking about the mildly retarded kid there who has over 60 convictions for tresspassing . . . on the site of his job, and over the objections of the owner? (He was convinced to plead quilty, not having the money for a legal battle.) Certainly runs up the statistics….
<< lots of Americans admire people who "aren't afraid to break a few rules", who "are willing to go outside the law to do what they have to." >>
I think it worse than that actually. Its not just breaking rule, America as a people, worship heroes, person who because of bravery, cunning, charisma, wealth or ambition rise above other ordinary folk.
Respect for outlaw just one aspect of it. Americans believe heroes shouldn’t be bound by law, popular perception, or authority that apply to ordinary.
What can be applied in communal Finland is veryy different from what Americans will accept.
What can be applied in communal Finland is veryy different from what Americans will accept.
Ain’t that the truth.
What I take away from the Ferguson report is a continuing, head-shaking amazement that the idea of active, virulent racism toward black people in the US is even in question.
The Ferguson PD is, as far as I can tell, a virtual mafia, dedicated to shaking down black and brown people to fund the city.
Why do people riot, in their very own towns? They’re sick of being screwed over. it’s not their city, it’s just where they live.
The whole area of eastern Missouri operates pretty much the same way Ferguson has.
Black residents make up less than 70% of Ferguson’s total, but they accounted for 85% of car stops
the dreaded black culture strikes again.
I’m (unsurprisingly, I suppose) going to have to agree with wj. First off, speeding is a terrible example…most of the population speeds, and I doubt it’s because ‘we love us some outlaws.’ I think limits tend to be too low, and enforcement too spotty, but other things likely contribute. Regardless, I think other areas tell different stories. For example, look at the oft-reviled taxes:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101456854
The IRS Oversight Board’s annual taxpayer survey finds that 86 percent of Americans thinks it’s not at all acceptable to cheat on taxes.
[…]
What’s more, the vast majority of Americans—95 percent—mostly or completely agree that it’s every American’s civic duty to pay taxes.
[…]
In the 2006 tax year, the most recent data available, the IRS estimates that about 83 percent of taxpayers paid their taxes accurately and on time.
And this is in a country that is, in general, not super thrilled with our tax rates:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
Also:
Black drivers were more than twice as likely as white ones to be searched during car stops, yet 26% more white drivers were found in possession of contraband.
I think this is entirely consistent with data from stop-and-frisk:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/new-york-nypd-stop-frisk-lawsuit-trial-charts
But I’m a little skeptical of this interpratation, at least without more data:
So, they were making fewer stops, and less likely to do a search, on folks from the groups which, from their own stats, are more likely to be committing a crime.
The data could also imply that the bar for stopping a white individual is probably far higher, so those stopped are more likely to actually posses contraband. Or at least, I view that as more likely than race being a predictor of criminal activity.
One could of course argue that blacks, knowing that they are preferred targets, will be less likely to carry contraband around, while whites, knowing that the police will be reluctant to check them when blacks are available, might be less careful.
But whites can also act suspicious. Classmates of mine (white Germans) on holiday in the US were stopped by the local sheriff in a Southern state for walking in the early evening. White people do not walk but use a car even for distances that take less than 5 minutes on foot. Walking is what black people do (they get stopped when driving). So their behaviour was suspicious enough to justify a police check. That was in the late 80ies.
As an aside, Germans draw puzzled views in many countries for volontarily walking (or using a bicycle) where the locals go by motor vehicle. 😉
The data could also imply that the bar for stopping a white individual is probably far higher, so those stopped are more likely to actually posses contraband. Or at least, I view that as more likely than race being a predictor of criminal activity.
Well, it could mean that. But if the PD found that was happening, wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to lower the bar on stopping whites? I mean, the apparent purpose of the Ferguson PD was to raise revenue. And if you don’t start stopping and searching more whites, you’re missing a serious revenue opportunity.
On the Nightly Show, the talk was about marijuana legalization, and one of the panelists suggested that the reason it is being talked about now is that meth is generally a white problem, which they highlights the problems of the war on drugs, or actually the war on certain ethnic groups that use drugs. Saying it baldly would probably get a lot of pushback, but to me, it offers a glimpse into why the bar wasn’t lowered for whites, because it would force the PD to confront what they are doing. Coates is good on this
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/The-Gangsters-Of-Ferguson/386893/
and Henry Farrell makes some further points
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/04/fergusons-government-was-run-like-a-racket/
“As an aside, Germans draw puzzled views in many countries for volontarily walking (or using a bicycle) where the locals go by motor vehicle. ;-)”
During my business visit to Germany last year, I caused shock and amazement by walking to work each day. (A bit over 2Km each way.) They couldn’t believe an American would voluntarily walk such a distance.
It was a bargain with my wife: Walk to work, and eat whatever I wanted.
Well, it could mean that. But if the PD found that was happening, wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to lower the bar on stopping whites?
I think the sensible thing is to not stop people without a good reason, regardless of race.
Beyond that, I don’t really know what you are asking. The data, I think, reveals a pattern of racial bias, likely produced by bias of individual officers and an institutional culture that didn’t correct that, or even encouraged it.
Asking, ‘shouldn’t they have pulled over more whites to maximize revenue’ just seems kind of off the wall to me, no offense intended.
Asking, ‘shouldn’t they have pulled over more whites to maximize revenue’ just seems kind of off the wall to me, no offense intended.
I think that was kind of the point. It’s not wj’s goal, but the Ferguson PD’s.
Because of their racial bias, they’re not even managing to futher their own off-the-wall goal.
I think the sensible thing is to not stop people without a good reason, regardless of race.
I completely agree. My point was that their approach to stopping people without good reason, specifically stopping blacks more, was wrong even given their obnoxious goal of maximizing revenue. Just as it would have been wrong if their goal was to maximize arrests, or to find and punish crime.
It was, not to put too fine a face on it, bad policy. Which had nothing to recommend it other than racism.
….wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to lower the bar on stopping whites?
From the perspective of the racist white power structure, obviously not. From a racist power perspective, this is seen as eminently reasonable, right, and just.
I think the sensible thing is to not stop people without a good reason, regardless of race.
This is eminently reasonable. However, we observe all-to-common departures from this ideal. From a public policy perspective the question then becomes, “whattayah gonna’ do about it?”
That’s where the rubber meets the road.
wj: (reply from ‘way back) thinking more about the guy sitting in his car, cooling off after a basketball game.
But there sure seems to be plenty of “cops charging people with totally bogus violations” going around in Ferguson.
I wonder, if you reversed racial roles (black PD hammering on white community), how long it would take before the citizens broke out the RPGs. I’m betting on about a week.
From the Justice Department report as quoted by Coates:
“The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities…
Partly as a consequence of City and FPD priorities, many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominantly African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue…”
Utterly damning stuff.
If the driving force in Ferguson was truly just revenue, they’d stop more whites.
My gut reaction to the pattern is, “slave state”. Because this is a watered-down version of what happened under slavery: black people are impoverished, and yet also viewed as the proper source of revenue. And also thought of as naturally shiftless & lazy by people who don’t hesitate to rob them and to dodge their own responsibilities.
the sensible thing is to not stop people without a good reason, regardless of race
Nonsense. Where’s the money going to come from, then? Raising taxes?!?
It’s not just racism. Jurisdictions in eastern Missouri with black leadership have been taking about the same approach to raising revenue as Ferguson.
I completely agree. My point was that their approach to stopping people without good reason, specifically stopping blacks more, was wrong even given their obnoxious goal of maximizing revenue.
Which, imo, is somewhat of a random point to make. Again, no offense intended.
Those stats reflect a bias. Racism of the beat officers and institutional culture is likely a large component (imo) of why that bias exists. Discussions of which racial group most effectively converts stops into court fees are probably not contributing to that problem. Or at least, I haven’t seen any evidence presented to that effect.
Municipalities using fines to support operations is a problem, because it provides incentive for the Muni to work against the interests of the people (trumped up, bogus charges, etc).
Racism and classism is also a problem, because the weight of bad policy (such as those above) falls on minorities, the poor, and the disenfranchised.
I’m guessing we’re roughly in agreement on those two points.
Where I disagree is that you seem to be conflating both these problems into a conscious decision by Ferguson PD to revenue generate by targeting blacks, which I think is a way of looking at it that doesn’t lend itself to solving either problem.
In other words, I don’t think pointing out they’re converting white stops into court fines more efficiently really gets to the heart of either problem nor suggests a solution.
In short, I find it likely that the racial bias would exist without the revenue pressures and the revenue pressures would exist without racial bias, and convolving the two into the vague ‘they should be more sensible with their evil!’ is kind of a weird place to go.
Again, no offense meant. It was a really minor point that rubbed me the wrong way, nothing more.
Doctor:
My gut reaction to the pattern is, “slave state”.
I think ‘tax plantation’ came up on ObWi recently. But either way is a fairly accurate
Nonsense. Where’s the money going to come from, then? Raising taxes?!?
While I want smaller government overall, I have no major problem with a revenue neutral shift from fine-funding to tax-funding.
I’ll pick the revenue-negative fight a different time. 🙂
More practically, I think there are some problems with ‘other taxes’ levied by municipalities. Sales tax is an option, and I think you can’t get to far out line with neighboring munis without driving the tax base away. Property taxes can end up fairly regressive, depending on how they are implemented. Income tax I think is a reasonable option, but I’d guess that it’s probably fairly difficult for smaller munis to collect.
I’d agree the revenue should be replaced with a tax of some kind…did you have any specifics kind of tax?
It’s not just racism. Jurisdictions in eastern Missouri with black leadership have been taking about the same approach to raising revenue as Ferguson.
I’m not trying to be snarky, but I’m afraid that is racism as well. Malcolm X talked about house and field. Those jurisdictions with black leadership are house, the people they are stopping are field.
In short, I find it likely that the racial bias would exist without the revenue pressures and the revenue pressures would exist without racial bias, and convolving the two into the vague ‘they should be more sensible with their evil!’ is kind of a weird place to go.
I think there was some irony intended. If anything, wj’s point isn’t a convolution, but a demonstration of how the two aspects of enforcement (i.e. racism and revenue-generation) are at odds with one another. Racism is retarding their ability to fully realize their revenue potential, which goes to show how strong that racism actually is.
That one might exist without the other does nothing to lessen wj’s point, which is that they’re racist enough to forego some amount of revenue.
I think ‘tax plantation’ came up on ObWi recently. But either way is a fairly accurate
So do racism and revenue-generation go hand-in-hand or are they completely separate, independent things?
They are clearly separate. But I think where they come together is in their ability to generate revenue without raising taxes, at least on those running things.
There may also be a risk/reward element involved too. If you stop and search a white without something approaching probable cause, you may have a greater risk of victimizing someone who may be related to or otherwise connected to someone who could have you called on the carpet or fired.
Well, it could mean that. But if the PD found that was happening, wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to lower the bar on stopping whites?
Depends on your definition of “sensible.”
I think that Thompson’s interpretation of this particular bit of data is almost surely correct.
hsh:
I think there was some irony intended.
Not to speak for wj, but that’s possible. Irony rubs me the wrong way, sometimes, especially when the topic is something important. Like I said, it was a minor thing.
So do racism and revenue-generation go hand-in-hand or are they completely separate, independent things?
I’ll take ‘often coexistent’ for $500. There is a lot of daylight between hand-in-hand and completely separate.
a conscious decision by Ferguson PD to revenue generate by targeting blacks, which I think is a way of looking at it that doesn’t lend itself to solving either problem.
If it’s actually true, I’m not sure there’s much value in trying to pretend it’s not, whether that solves either problem or not.
Sometimes blame is deserved.
If it’s actually true
If wj wanted to make that argument, I’m more than willing to hear it. Otherwise, I’m going assuming ironic commentary.
The only irony intended was that their racism was undermining their goal of maximizing revenue.
I suppose that it’s possible that the racism was the goal, and the revenue merely a fringe benefit. But considering how big fines loom as a revenue source, it seems unlikely to be the current case — although it could have been originally.
thompson:
I’d agree the revenue should be replaced with a tax of some kind…did you have any specifics kind of tax?
The only fair and effective way I can think of is for the *state* to set income or property tax levels for the munis to collect. That’s the only way to prevent munis competing against each other to lower taxes, leaving local fines as the only option to make up the deficit.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong, necessarily, with a Finnish-style “proportional fine” system — as long as the amount the munis get back from the fund doesn’t depend on how much they send to it. But I think that might depend on more trust between munis and the state govt. than is common in the US.
The only irony intended was that their racism was undermining their goal of maximizing revenue.
I think you’d have a point if maximizing revenue was the only goal of the FPD.
But the FPD had multiple goals. Reducing crime, not getting hurt, and generating revenue, etc. And through all that, there is individual and institutional racism (unconscious and conscious) that informs how those goals get executed in interactions with the populace.
As the situation is far more complex than ‘whites are a more efficient source of revenue’, I still find “wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to lower the bar on stopping whites?” not sensible. The sensible thing would be to find a different source of funding. The sensible thing is to try to root out the sources of racism in FPD.
DocSci:
The only fair and effective way I can think of is for the *state* to set income or property tax levels for the munis to collect.
What about the state facilitating the collection of income taxes, but not setting rates? I think local taxes are probably one of the best ways for the populace to influence how they want to live…libraries, schools, snow plows, parks, etc. in addition to core activities like police and fire.
I think fixing those rates would really cripple how effectively local governments can be responsive local needs.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong, necessarily, with a Finnish-style “proportional fine” system
I don’t really have a problem with proportional fines either, although I prefer options like community service. I think my primary problem with fines for things like speeding, is they tend to be randomly assigned at a rate far, far below the actual infraction rate. I think that kind of selective enforcement is ripe for allowing prejudice and abuse into the system.
The sensible thing would be to find a different source of funding. The sensible thing is to try to root out the sources of racism in FPD.
Which would be quite true . . . if the government in Ferguson shared your values. Which, it would seem, they did not.
While the topic here mentions only speeding as a reason for proportional fines, the system (Wikipedia link) also covers other crimes punishable by fines.
The really minor crimes don’t warrant a day-fine but a fixed fine. Speeding under 20 km/h carries a constant fine of 50-120 euros depending on the speed. Peeing on the street carries a fine of 20 euros, as well as walking against a red light.
On the other hand, some crimes punishable with fine are pretty major. In my neighbourhood, a woman fetching mail from her mailbox was driven over by a female driver. There was no evidence of overspeed, and it was an early morning, on a badly kit street but anyhow, if a driver kills a pedestrian, it cannot be but criminal negligence. The driver of the car was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment of traffic to 30 day-fines. For her, it was some 1500 euros. For Mr. Kuisla, the same would have been hundreds of thousands of euros.
And you might ask how the system affects the poor: the day-fine is, at minimum, six euros. If you cannot pay, the fine goes to execution as an unpaid debt. If there is no property to sell or income to take, there are two possibilities: fines given summarily by the policeman are forgiven but fines convicted by a court of law are commuted to prison time. One day in prison is equivalent of three day-fines.
I just don’t see what’s so hard about this idea that IF (all caps!) the FPD weren’t as racist – consciously or unconsciously, institutionally or individually – they would be able to generate more revenue by stopping more whites.
It’s not a good idea, mind you. It would simply be more effective at generating revenue. (I don’t think anyone here is challenging the notion that it would be better if they simply did that which is in the interest of public safety, without race or revenue coming into it.)
AFAICT, making the point about whites as a source of additional revenue simply underscores the racism at work. And that’s all (to belabor a minor point … in keeping with the theme of dead horses receiving blows delivered by feet).
making the point about whites as a source of additional revenue simply underscores the racism at work.
The stats demonstrate racism at work. Underscoring the point that targeting blacks don’t serve one of the many objectives of FPD demonstrates very little.
If someone from FPD was shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘damn, that racial bias is unfortunate, but its the only way we can get revenue’ I think wj’s point would be a counter.
If someone was making the point that racism was acceptable because of revenue generation, wj’s point would be a counter.
Nobody is making those points (that I’ve seen). Leaving me to still think the point is somewhat random.
IMO, but as I noted, and you note, this is a minor point that has been belabored enough.
In case people haven’t been watching the Selma coverage today, Obama’s speech is a must-see. I’m so grateful for him. Also, this is good. I’m sure there is a wealth of articles that I haven’t read yet.
I’m posting this on multiple threads, so please forgive the redundancy.
Over on Crooked Timber, we had a nice discussion thread (as of when I left it), in which a certain troll kept trolling, but nobody answered him.
100% troll ignoring, and it helped – the conversation was productive an informative, and not threadjacked.
I strongly recommend it here – ignore him – whomever that troll is 🙂
Ah, liberalism. Where “conversation was productive” means, “there was none of that nasty diversity of opinion”.
“there was none of that nasty diversity of opinion”
Damn, that’s funny. Troll or performance artist?
I prefer to think of myself as living in the intersection of serious conversationalist and performance artist, actually. But a lot of people have such tight epistemic closure that they shout “troll!” at the first hint of dissenting opinion.
I prefer to think of myself as living in the intersection of serious conversationalist and performance artist, actually
Look man, do what you gotta do.
No interpretive dance. That’s where we draw the line.
😉
Slashdot reported on a similar high-income big-fine Finnish (Swedish?) speeder a decade or so ago. That time, the guy was completely unresentful (“I was driving very fast. I make this much money. That’s the law. I’ll be OK.” sort of thing.) Change of Finnish norms? Just this current guy?
First guy sounded a lot more dateable.