Norwegian billionaire given US $30,400 drunken driving fine

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

Peter and mulveling, you bring up some very good points, about amount of fines and punishing differently in that respect, which are worth thinking about. This is a useful discussion to have.

Yet in terms of jail time and loss of license vs. monetary fine, the problem is that I don't trust the system with doing time either. The super-rich often get off free, because the system is rigged, they can afford the best (whatever that term may entail) lawyers etc.

NorthStar said:
She was driving drunk, no accident, no one hurt, but she got caught and given a drunk driving fine...

mulveling said:
Man, some of this thinking is nuts. It's one thing if she actually hurts someone.

Now that is not an argument, in my view. If someone didn't hurt anybody, that is simply luck for everyone involved, or in this case, not involved. Merely driving in a (here, measurable) state of mind that has the severe potential to have lethal consequences is the same moral, and should be the same legal, offense if it does have lethal consequences or not. Or perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

I know that not everyone has the same susceptibility to impairment by alcohol (I'll freely admit my personal threshold is low, I won't play the childish pretend "manly man" card here), but I think a supposedly higher subjective threshold is a weak argument to make as defense. I do think, however, that a level of 0.08 is no the same as one that is guaranteed full impairment/intoxication. The latter, upon the subject driving, must be punished to the fullest extent possible.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

NorthStar said:
Methinks that if you get caught driving while intoxicated or stoned, you must pay the price. But it just doesn't happen in our society here in America.
They wait till your car is @ fault, and it kills someone before blaming you of drinking and driving.

That's a large part of the problem.

NorthStar · Nov 21, 2017

A fair balance is needed in life. Not all drunk drivers are bad, not all drug addicts are addicted.
The ones who lose control are the ones to watch for; better put them in jail before they kill someone.
And how do we determine that? Ah, that's what everyone on Tweeter says they know how. Ya, right.

By the way, while I was typing, this just came up:
• http://theweek.com/articles/735913/tropical-forests-are-now-producing-more-carbon-dioxide-than-soak

PeterA · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
Peter and mulveling, you bring up some very good points about amount of fines and punishing differently in that respect that are worth thinking about. This is a useful discussion to have.

Yet in terms of jail time and loss of license vs. monetary fine, the problem is that I don't trust the system with doing time either. The super-rich often get off free, because the system is rigged, they can afford the best (whatever that term may entail) lawyers etc.

A discussion is certainly worth having, but I am not sure this is the proper forum. Should illegal immigrants who drive drunk and harm others be deported or protected? Should drunk drivers be charged fines if they don't have any money or be put in jail so that they can not provide for their families? Drug addicts are now viewed as victims and get treatment often paid for by society. Should drunk drivers be put on chain gangs for hard labor as Northstar suggests? If banned from driving, then one may not be able to get to work and may need government assistance to support a family. We give phones to people who can't afford them so that they can schedule job interviews and caseworker interviews. What constitutes drunk? What constitutes being high? States are loosening drug laws. Is this a state or federal issue? What about sanctuary cities or states protecting criminals over victims?

These are societal issues, and it seems to me that what may be effective in Norway or North Korea may not be effective or able to be implemented here. I agree with mulveling. We must be cautious about the potential abuse of power by the authorities and strive for the equal treatment of all citizens.

The lovely young woman is deplorable because she inherited money from her family who manufactured cigarettes. She should be shamed. Someone, somewhere should decide to ban cigarettes and confiscate her inherited wealth to be redistributed to victims of drunk drivers and cancer. Then her children will have to work and contribute to society and the world will be a better place and we will no longer be able to hold people like her up as poster girls representing the ills of society.

Someone told me this morning that people with her wealth should never drive themselves. They have too much to lose.

DaveC · Nov 21, 2017

mulveling said:
Man, some of this thinking is nuts. It's one thing if she actually hurts someone. THEN we can get the lawsuits and lawyers and millions of dollars involved. But she didn't. So a flat fine plus a time penalty is reasonable. Suspension of license, OK. Absolutely, more severe jail time should be doled out for obscene recklessness, like severe inebriation and/or extreme speeding. But there's a LOT of gray area around the 0.08 intoxicated level. $30K for that? At some point you guys should just advocate to ban all driving, then nobody would get hurt for sure!

And what if a broke kid does the same thing she did? What should he get penalized? The $10 and small baggie of weed in his pocket, and serve soup for 2 weekends? And that's OK to equate to a $3 million fine for her? Hmm...vastly different penalties for the same crime depending on who you are... seems like that might violate some kind of rights the constitution affords citizens in America. And that's a lot of power for local officials to yield! I'm sure those $$$$ "they can afford it" fines won't be misappropriated. I'm sure this power will never be used inappropriately.

When you're 3x the legal limit as she was, there is no more grey area.

I own a breathalyzer device as they are around $20 or so these days. I very rarely drink but was interested in what different BAC levels feel like so I know better where I'm at. After some "research" I agree .08 or so is a good limit. Here we have progressive penalties and lower levels of BAC are given an impaired driving ticket (DWAI) instead of a full driving under the influence (DUI). DWAI starts at .05, DUI is .08. I do think if you're over .1 or so you're too drunk and you should know it.

I also agree with time penalties, take away drivers license and make them do community service. Rich people won't care about cash penalties even if it's several million, what's that to a billionaire? Pocket change they'll never miss...

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

PeterA said:
I agree with mulveling. We must be cautious about the potential abuse of power by the authorities and strive for the equal treatment of all citizens.

I think that's the crux of the issue. What constitutes equal treatment?

Let's say we should have a flat tax, where everyone pays the same proportionally, according to their income (and let's say it's real, i.e. not with the super-rich getting some "exemptions" like they always seem to). I think even most conservatives would think a flat tax may be a good idea (I am on the fence, but I can see the merits), and that it may be a fair tax system. So if people are taxed according to their income, and that is fair, shouldn't they also be fined according to their income? Wouldn't that be fair and equal too?

Let me tell a true story. In the city I live in, cars need to be parked off the street during a snowstorm. There used to be the custom that people were allowed to park their car on the sideway, as long as it was fully parked there, with the street being kept free for the snow ploughs. I even asked a policeman once before a snowstorm while in the act of parking such, and he specifically said, o.k,, you can park your car on the sidewalk.

Then the recession hit, and during one of he snowstorms in early 2009 cars suddenly were towed if their were not in designated parking spaces or lots -- including the ones that previously had parked on the sideway. The city needed money, so they "changed the rules". Result: we had to pay $ 200 for our two towed cars. A nuisance with some financial consequences, but still just a nuisance for us. But what about families with a much lower income? For some of those a towing fee of $ 200 could have amounted to a financial catastrophe, since everything was tight for them to begin with. As they say, during a recession it is always the poorest that get hit hardest.

So was that fair, that everyone had to pay the same fine, regardless? Who here wants to say straight into my face that this was fair? Because it wasn't. So here I think we have a compelling case for fines being progressive.

You pay taxes according to your income, fine. You're equal. Then you should also pay fines according to your income. You're equal then too. Or not? Try to make a compelling case against that argument, apart from the perhaps potential issue of profiling the rich -- which I am not quite certain how serious to take, but perhaps there is something to it.

jeff1225 · Nov 21, 2017

I see no similarity between a progressive income tax and a progressive fine system for traffic violations. If you run a red light or drive intoxicated, a poor person causes as much damage as a rich person.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

jeffrey_t said:
I see no similarity between a progressive income tax and a progressive fine system for traffic violations. If you run a red light or drive intoxicated, a poor person causes as much damage as a rich person.

...and the rich person, even though she causes just as much damage, pays much less -- proportionally to what she is able to. She pays pocket change, not a fine. The poor person on the other hand pays a substantial fine that hits their finances hard.

And by the way, a flat tax (paying the same % of your income, regardless) is not usually deemed a progressive tax.

EDIT: maybe I should have called it more accurately, a flat tax rate.

jeff1225 · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
...and the rich person, even though she causes just as much damage, pays much less -- proportionally to what she is able to. She pays pocket change, not a fine. The poor person on the other hand pays a substantial fine that hits their finances hard.

And by the way, a flat tax (paying the same % of your income, regardless) is not usually deemed a progressive tax.

EDIT: maybe I should have called it more accurately, a flat tax rate.

So by that logic, should rich people be forced to shop at special stores where they pay $1,000 per pound for a $10 a pound steak?

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

jeffrey_t said:
So by that logic, should rich people be forced to shop at special stores where they pay $1,000 per pound for a $10 a pound steak?

No, because shopping for a steak is not a societal issue.

Taxes and fines are.

In other words, buying a steak, prospering in a free society and possibly amassing wealth is free market economy, the only economic system that works and that rewards effort and risk (communism and price engineering have been tried and failed).

Taxes and fines on the other hand are about contributing a fair share to society. Unfortunately, lots of rich people think they are above that, in their arrogance ignoring that they could only be rich because they live in a society that provided an opportunity for them to become wealthy. You have a thriving business? You didn't build that road that makes transporting of your goods possible. And so on.

NorthStar · Nov 21, 2017

PeterA said:
The lovely young woman is deplorable because she inherited money from her family who manufactured cigarettes. She should be shamed. Someone, somewhere should decide to ban cigarettes and confiscate her inherited wealth to be redistributed to victims of drunk drivers and cancer. Then her children will have to work and contribute to society and the world will be a better place and we will no longer be able to hold people like her up as poster girls representing the ills of society.

Someone told me this morning that people with her wealth should never drive themselves. They have too much to lose.

The 22-year old she is just like you and I; never asked anything the day she was born.
@ 22 I was a good looking young man and I was driving a super cool car, and life was fun living on the beautiful lane. She reminds me of me @ her age.

She made the news because in part the tobacco industry is big time the cause of cancer/death for millions of people. The tobacco manufacturers are truly terminators of human health. ...No doubt.

But her, she didn't ask for it, she unfortunately inherited it from her Dad's; so that he could save millions in taxes, on the back of her young daughter. The articles are quite clear about it.

Our discussion is cool because we compare the laws from European countries in the vision of our own North America. We even go further than just drink and drive and the penalties to pay, but we examine the consequences when fatalities/deaths are caused by drunk drivers.

It's a big social issue, and education issue, an extremely important issue because when people are dead, it's for life. And the people who are causing those death, our very very poor system of education and unfair justice through unfair laws created by unfair lawmakers...it is where we all fail very miserably.

It is very simple; we know that drinking and driving is not only dangerous and contagious, but it can kill very very easily. So, why even permit it by giving small sanctions?
A car is not a tool to defend your property and your person and your family, a car is not a gun for hunting rabbits, a car is a vehicle to transport humans and goods. Alcohol has no place in a car, if we want to drink there are millions of bars all over the world where alcohol consumption is provided for your pleasure. Or even @ home with our friends we can drink freely and walk around naked if we feel like it.
Taxi cab drivers they hang around bars, because it's the best place to get customers and make few bucks...and save lives. I cannot emphasize this last part strongly enough.
When we go to bars, we go in cabs, or if we drive there, we leave our cars in a parking garage all night and we can get it back next time we are sober, with a friend or a cab.
Another solution is to have a non-drinking friend who can drive the drinkers around.

I'm sure that the young woman had time to reflect, just as we are doing right now. But it's not that tobacco thing that should make her more deplorable..., that, is totally out of her hands and wishes.
She's a normal young woman who is unfortunately rich from involuntary wish. She still remains a person of dignity and respect in this society we all created.

In Norway they take drinking and driving very seriously. ...And smoking tobacco too.

In Canada we take those seriously too, very. But we are not as advanced and sophisticated as in Norway; in my sincere and admitted opinion. The beautiful young woman is just a normal kid like anyone else...with a heart and soul.

PeterA · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
I think that's the crux of the issue. What constitutes equal treatment?

Let's say we should have a flat tax, where everyone pays the same proportionally, according to their income (and let's say it's real, i.e. not with the super-rich getting some "exemptions" like they always seem to). I think even most conservatives would think a flat tax may be a good idea (I am on the fence, but I can see the merits), and that it may be a fair tax system. So if people are taxed according to their income, and that is fair, shouldn't they also be fined according to their income? Wouldn't that be fair and equal too?

Let me tell a true story. In the city I live in, cars need to be parked off the street during a snowstorm. There used to be the custom that people were allowed to park their car on the sideway, as long as it was fully parked there, with the street being kept free for the snow ploughs. I even asked a policeman once before a snowstorm while in the act of parking such, and he specifically said, o.k,, you can park your car on the sidewalk.

Then the recession hit, and during one of he snowstorms in early 2009 cars suddenly were towed if their were not in designated parking spaces or lots -- including the ones that previously had parked on the sideway. The city needed money, so they "changed the rules". Result: we had to pay $ 200 for our two towed cars. A nuisance with some financial consequences, but still just a nuisance for us. But what about families with a much lower income? For some of those a towing fee of $ 200 could have amounted to a financial catastrophe, since everything was tight for them to begin with. As they say, during a recession it is always the poorest that get hit hardest.

So was that fair, that everyone had to pay the same fine, regardless? Who here wants to say straight into my face that this was fair? Because it wasn't. So here I think we have a compelling case for fines being progressive.

You pay taxes according to your income, fine. You're equal. Then you should also pay fines according to your income. You're equal then too. Or not? Try to make a compelling case against that argument, apart from the perhaps potential issue of profiling the rich -- which I am not quite certain how serious to take, but perhaps there is something to it.

Hi Al,

In my view a flat tax is fair, but it is certainly not equal. Those with higher incomes still end up paying a far greater share of the cost of running the government. Fair is fine, but do not believe everyone pays equally. Paying fines according to ones income may also be fair, but it is certainly not equal. Treating everyone equally seems the most fair.

Is it fair to send one's children to private school and then to also have to pay for the public schools through property tax? Should a single person living in a house next to a family of six living in a similar house pay the same property tax to support the neighborhood school when the single guy has no children and the other guy has four?

A friend of mine once told me as we were shopping in our local grocery store that he thought I should pay more for my gallon of milk and half a dozen eggs. His argument was that I make more money than he does. Was his need for those groceries any different than my need? Should an employee be paid according to his need or according to his value to his employer? Should the guy with four kids and a sick mother at home be paid more for the same job than the single guy living alone? Surely his basic needs and expenses are greater. If I could buy things according to a percentage of my income, I would have bought a Ferrari for $1,000 right after college.

Should the parking fine be based on income or assets? What percentage and who decides? How about the price of a loaf of bread? Should we extend the proportional parking fines and taxes to everything we purchase? What about donations? Are consumption taxes in Europe flat or progressive? Some argue the effect is regressive. I would prefer lower and flat income tax rates and higher flat consumption taxes because that is more equal but perhaps not fair. What would happen to the incentive to work and to save and to give to others if everything we do is based on the same percentages of income or assets? Everyone would be able to do and buy the exact same things. Everything would be relative to what we earn and save, but instead of having different things based on what we can afford, we would all suddenly be able to have the same stuff. Things might be more equal and fair, but the world would be a very different place.

Fines and taxes could be based on percentages of income and assetts, but what would come next?

jeff1225 · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
No, because shopping for a steak is not a societal issue.

Taxes and fines are.

In other words, buying a steak, prospering in a free society and possibly amassing wealth is free market economy, the only economic system that works and that rewards effort and risk (communism and price engineering have been tried and failed).

Taxes and fines on the other hand are about contributing a fair share to society. Unfortunately, lots of rich people think they are above that, in their arrogance ignoring that they could only be rich because they live in a society that provided an opportunity for them to become wealthy. You have a thriving business? You didn't build that road that makes transporting of your goods possible. And so on.

The Obama you "didn't build that" could have only been said by a person that never had a job and never built a business. Absolutely ridiculous!!!

The government didn't build the roads, canals, railroads, airports in the USA....individual entrepreneurs built them. The railroads are still totally owned and maintained by the railroad companies, one of the reasons we have the most efficient goods and raw materials transportation system in the world.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

PeterA said:
Hi Al,

In my view a flat tax is fair, but it is certainly not equal. Those with higher incomes still end up paying a far greater share of the cost of running the government. Fair is fine, but do not believe everyone pays equally. Paying fines according to ones income may also be fair, but it is certainly not equal. Treating everyone equally seems the most fair.

Is it fair to send one's children to private school and then to also have to pay for the public schools through property tax? Should a single person living in a house next to a family of six living in a similar house pay the same property tax to support the neighborhood school when the single guy has no children and the other guy has four?

A friend of mine once told me as we were shopping in our local grocery store that he thought I should pay more for my gallon of milk and half a dozen eggs. His argument was that I make more money than he does. Was his need for those groceries any different than my need? Should an employee be paid according to his need or according to his value to his employer? Should the guy with four kids and a sick mother at home be paid more for the same job than the single guy living alone? Surely his basic needs and expenses are greater. If I could buy things according to a percentage of my income, I would have bought a Ferrari for $1,000 right after college.

Should the parking fine be based on income or assets? What percentage and who decides? How about the price of a loaf of bread? Should we extend the proportional parking fines and taxes to everything we purchase? What about donations? Are consumption taxes in Europe flat or progressive? Some argue the effect is regressive. I would prefer lower and flat income tax rates and higher flat consumption taxes because that is more equal but perhaps not fair. What would happen to the incentive to work and to save and to give to others if everything we do is based on the same percentages of income or assets? Everyone would be able to do and buy the exact same things. Everything would be relative to what we earn and save, but instead of having different things based on what we can afford, we would all suddenly be able to have the same stuff. Things might be more equal and fair, but the world would be a very different place.

Fines and taxes could be based on percentages of income and assetts, but what would come next?

All points well worth considering, Peter, but I think I have addressed the gist of the issues to a significant extent (though not in detail) in my last post which I may have edited while you were still writing yours.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

jeffrey_t said:
The Obama you "didn't build that" could have only been said by a person that never had a job and never built a business. Absolutely ridiculous!!!

The government didn't build the roads, canals, railroads, airports in the USA....individual entrepreneurs built them.

Right. To a large part on government contracts. So no, the Obama you "didn't build that" isn't ridiculous after all.

And even if a substantial part is done on just private money: who contributes for a substantial part to allowing the workers to live a life of security, a life that is worth living? Society. Society provides national defense, social security, Medicare etc.

Or are workers just dispensable goods, non-humans with no dignity that are just a means to amass wealth for the rich? Are we to go back to the days of slavery and child labor? Is that what capitalism is about? I would hope not.

jeff1225 · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
Right. To a large part on government contracts. So no, the Obama you "didn't build that" isn't ridiculous after all.

I'd read about the founding of the railroad system in the USA, you'd be fascinated as to the complete lack of government assistance other than the granting of worthless land in the west. Remember the government of the 1900's was back by gold, couldn't take on large debt and the Federal Reserve didn't exist.

I'd do a little more research before you make additional comments. There's also the excellent "Men Who Made America" docudramas that AHC put out.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

I edited my post while you wrote yours.

And roads? What about the interstate highway program? No federal funding? Really?

jeff1225 · Nov 21, 2017

Al M. said:
I edited my post while you wrote yours.

I agree with your edits.

I vote for Obama, twice, but thought that his comment regarding entrepreneurs was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There was real disdain and hate in his tone, I believe this comment drove many centrist entrepreneurs away from the Democratic party.

It's like Trump discussing poor people: zero knowledge, understanding and empathy.

Al M. · Nov 21, 2017

jeffrey_t said:
I agree with your edits.

Glad you do.

I vote for Obama, twice, but thought that his comment regarding entrepreneurs was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. There was real disdain and hate in his tone, I believe this comment drove many centrist entrepreneurs away from the Democratic party.

Interesting. I never remotely perceived what Obama said that way, but I respect the difference of opinion.

It's like Trump discussing poor people: zero knowledge, understanding and empathy.

I agree with you on Trump.

Overall, I think we agree on fundamental points. If I understand correctly, we both want to live in a society with a free market economy that rewards effort and risk, but also want society to provide certain safeguards to the economic well-being and dignity of its people. That we may disagree on many details of implementation is only natural.

NorthStar · Nov 21, 2017

Steaks I like, Twitter less. Drinking and driving should be banned, period. ...In any advanced society from any advanced country. ...Top first class leading countries.

Norwegian billionaire given US $30,400 drunken driving fine

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Member