The reverse - it creates a society that properly punishes lawlessness. If you're a millionaire, then paying say a 100EUR fine isn't going to bother you in the slightest - there's just no deterrant effect. Prison time for the lesser offences might similarly be a poor use. Far better to punish someone an equal amount, and to achieve that with a fine, it needs to be based on their income. Punishing a poor person by taking away 10% of their disposable income is going to have a far greater effect than punishing a rich person by taking away 0.0001% of their disposable income. Make them both pay a % of their income though and you've got an effective deterrant for both of them. The rich person still gets to earn more money by being successful, and keep that money, but if they break the law, they should face a meaningful punishment the same as anyone else.

Afterall jail time operates on a similar system - the cost to a rich person of 1 day in jail in monetary terms is vastly more than a poor person. The rich person might earn say 40k EUR a day, the poor person wouldn't even make 40 EUR. The rich person with 1 day in jail gets punished effectively with a 40k EUR fine, while the poor person with 1 day in jail gets punished with effectively a 40 EUR fine. If anything having a fixed level of fine regardless of the persons income while having equal jail times creates a massive inconsistency, with one method of punishment varying according to the target's income and another failing to take it into account.

So all the fine system is doing is saying 'you can either spend 1 day in jail, or you can pay 1 days income and stay out of jail'. I wish such a system was implimented here.

The truth is, there is a huge double standard in how rich folks are treated when they commit crimes in most countries, and believe me it is in their favour.

By the way, I'm not talking "I have a million or two in the bank" rich, I'm talking a couple hundred million or billionaire rich. Look at Bernard Madoff.

This fellow STOLE approx 50 billion dollars and quite literally ruined the lives and futures of thousands of hardworking folks.

Now, if ol Bernie had robbed a few thousand from a bank and was dirt poor, you can bet that uncle Sam would turn over every financial rock in his life to get as much of the money back from  him as they could- he wouldn't see a red cent until  his debt had been repayed (or spent years in prison or a work release program through that prison)

Instead, he is filing to legally hold on to 60 million in cash and a multi-million dollar penthouse.

So, rob a couple thousand, you get taken to the cleaners.

Rob 50 billion, meh, get a couple mil in consolation!

Interesting concept, so because someone has more money they should be punished much harder. I wonder, should this concept be applied to everything? Shoul people pay the same amount for a Whopper with cheese? Should a 46" Plama TV be cheaper for me? What about gas prices? Does this make any sense? I too undwerstand the point, but this is not equality, this is "I hate you cause you got more than me" belief.

Well I think the concept here is that they want the punishment to have the same effect on people.

But the problem with that is that is assumes wealth generation is somehow unfairly distributed in the first place.  That is, they seem to assume the rich Finn unfairly got his wealth versus the poor on and thus the punishment focuses purely on the cash.

The problem with most socialists is that they have stopped equating income to labor. That is, when I am getting taxed at 40% or whatever, I don't look at the cash as much as I look at how many months I'm being forced to work for the government.

In a Social democracy like Finland, one has to ask: What constitutes the difference between being rich and being poor there? In the United States, there's a very direct relationship between hours worked per week and wealth (and it's not linear obviously).  

Thus the net effect of such income based fines is that one person is putting in more forced labor for the government than the other. And I find that pretty immoral.

What do you expect when rich lawyers write the rules?

Ever see Witness?

Why not punish people by forcing them to do social work of some kind for a fixed number of hours?

That would still punish the productive more, regardless how rich they are, because they have less time. But they could combine this with unemployment benefits.

Instead of fining speeders 100 bucks (or 100,000 bucks if they are rich) they could force them to work in a soup kitchen for 10 hours (or 20 hours if they are on the dole).

No you're not.

Two people make $10 per hour.

Person A works 50 hours a week and thus earns $500 a week.

Person B works 20 hours a week and earns $200 a week.

Person A and B get a ticket. Because Person A makes twice as much, he is fined $100.   Person B is only fined $40.

Thus, person A is forced to labor 10 hours for the government, person B is only forced to labor 4 hours for the government.

Again: like most left-wing societies, Finland is making the assumption that the main difference in wealth is unequal pay.  But statistically (at least in the US but probably even more so Finland) differences in earnings come from hours worked.

The poorest Americans aren't poor because they aren't paid enough. They're poor because they aren't working (for whatever reason).

Hence, the idea of having speeding tickets based on income is punishing those who work harder and rewarding those who choose not to work. 

It's an article of leftist faith that all are due the same because all have the same 'intrinsic' worth.

Touche.  Wonder if Alec Baldwin is willing to act for GM assembly line wages.

Alright lets compare it to the status quo:

Three people, A, B, C, make $10, $200 and $200 per hour.

Person A works 50 hours a week, earning $500 per week.

Person B works 20 hours a week, earning $4,000 per week.

Person C works 50 hours a week, earning $10,000 per week.

They all commit a crime which has a punishment of $500 (or with an earnings linked system, max{500,1weeks income}.

Current system: A gets punished $500, and is deterred from committing the crime since it's a weeks income.

B gets punished $500 and it is of little deterrent seeing as it's only 12.5% of their weekly income.

C gets punished $500, and it's of almost no deterrent, being just 5% of their weekly income.

Alternative system: A gets punished $500 and is deterred.

B gets punished $4000 and is also deterred.

C gets punished $10k and is also deterred.

So the principle aim of the punishment, to deter people from doing it, is met. Now lets look at the less important side, the 'equity' issue:

Current system:

A is punished 1 weeks income, or 50 hours of labour

B is punished 12.5% weekly income, or 2.5 hours of labour

C is punished 5% of weekly income, or 2.5 hours of labour

Alternative system:

A is punished 1 weeks income, or 50 hours of labour

B is punished 1 weeks income, or 20 hours of labour

C is punished 1 weeks income, or 50 hours of labour.

It's not perfect - B is still being punished in fewer 'hours of 'labour' than A (or now C), but the difference is greatly reduced under the new system. Furthermore it is actually a deterrent in the new system, while it isn't in the old system. To focus on the problems with the new system while ignoring the even greater issues with the current system isn't consistent. Now maybe you might want to improve on it by having the fine look at someones hourly income, and take into account wealth, but you also have to bear in mind the practicalities of that, which might make such an approach too complicated and not worth it. That doesn't mean that the deterrent and equity benefits of the new system should be ignored.

this is really the best of both worlds, it is not a class warfare / punish the rich type deal, nor is it a tiny fixed fine that is unfelt by the rich.

For crimes that don't merit prison time, you should get community service instead of a fine. Or forced to work at minimum wage job for X hours to pay a fine, no matter what your dayjob is.

There are always government jobs to do- raking leaves, cleaning up rest areas, picking up trash.....