I think it would be a good idea to reduce the fines of those in or close to poverty and subsidize that by increasing fines for the wealthy. That said, what Finland is doing is ridiculous. A fine for speeding shouldn't cost several times the cost of an accident. It also gives police the wrong incentives. Why bother pulling over a beater car when they aren't going pay a fine? Might as well tailgate a Rolls Royce and cite them when they inevitably make a minor infraction.
> A fine for speeding shouldn't cost several times the cost of an accident.
Why not, assuming that laws against speeding exist for public safety? (That's a dubious assumption, but if it's untrue then the speed limits need to be changed until it is.)
The cost of an accident can end up being lives, not just money, so it's hard to talk about "the cost of an accident." Even if you take a hard-nosed economically rational position and assign a monetary value to each life, the typical value is something like $10 million.
The point of these fines is to deter the behavior. If you put a cap on the amount of the fine, then sufficiently wealthy people are no longer deterred. You're essentially making it so that they can break this law with impunity because they're rich.
As for giving the police the wrong incentives, if they have any incentives related to the amount of money they bring in through fines, they already have the wrong incentives. Money from traffic tickets should never end up anywhere near the police budget.
