Fines based on wealth - do Finland have it right or wrong?
Discussion
Matt UK said:
kiethton said:
Rawwr said:
I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?
but you would care about the attached points if you did it too oftenTotally OTT in my opinion, just because the guy has worked hard and done well for himself why should he suffer disproportionately for a crime with no victims?
Just another envy tax IMO.
I say keep the money out of it - driving is a priviledge twunt behaviour should mean that the priviledge gets curtailed / removed. This levels the rich and poor.
Of course, it only works from an ideology point of view. If you are government in change of the rules and punishments, you may decide that you need to bring money into it in order to make ends meet...
kiethton said:
but you would care about the attached points if you did it too often
Totally OTT in my opinion, just because the guy has worked hard and done well for himself why should he suffer disproportionately for a crime with no victims?
Just another envy tax IMO.
Its not disproportionate though is it? Totally OTT in my opinion, just because the guy has worked hard and done well for himself why should he suffer disproportionately for a crime with no victims?
Just another envy tax IMO.
It's exactly the opposite. Proportionate.
For your position, you need to argue that the fine system should be disproportionate.
Good luck with that.
It's a tough one.
If punishment was based purely on fines then, in theory, anyone rich enough would effectively be immune from punishment.
OTOH, why should you pay more just because you, perhaps, worked harder and earned more?
Either way, £60k seems a bit rich.
Or perhaps we should bin fines altogether and just stick to points – it's the same for everyone then.
If punishment was based purely on fines then, in theory, anyone rich enough would effectively be immune from punishment.
OTOH, why should you pay more just because you, perhaps, worked harder and earned more?
Either way, £60k seems a bit rich.
Or perhaps we should bin fines altogether and just stick to points – it's the same for everyone then.
Is it generally the case that we adjust the punishment so that the effect on the recipient's life is equalised? Certainly if I were sent to prison for six months it would have a much more serious effect than doing the same to a young person with no responsibilities, would that be taken into account?
northwest monkey said:
Rawwr said:
I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?
Probably not, but presumably that's where the points system comes in?Parking on double yellow lines, for example, may yeild a £50 fine which is reduced by half if paid promptly. This is leading to people thinking "Hmm, £25 to park wherever I want for a day. That's not bad value for money." And they are actively parking one the lines and not caring, as the fine is inconsequential to them.
I think there is an argument to make fines proportional to disposable income so that it does act as a proper deterrent. Indeed, if you go to court for speeding instead of getting a FIXED penalty notice, then you'll find the fines are means tested, but capped.
But lets be careful what we wish for, because if it's means tested then it may lead to a situation where benefits
With insurance companies making money on people speeding which I believe is totally wrong (I do understand the risk / statistics element), I sometimes feel that a pure fine based on income would be better. That way the country makes more money from fines to be put back into the system and the insurance companies don’t earn out of it.
Don’t want a situation like the people who park outside Harrods in Lambos that have so much cash that paying a ticket isn’t a problem so some sort of ban system would need to remain.
Don’t want a situation like the people who park outside Harrods in Lambos that have so much cash that paying a ticket isn’t a problem so some sort of ban system would need to remain.
DJP said:
It's a tough one.
If punishment was based purely on fines then, in theory, anyone rich enough would effectively be immune from punishment.
OTOH, why should you pay more just because you, perhaps, worked harder and earned more?
Either way, £60k seems a bit rich.
Or perhaps we should bin fines altogether and just stick to points – it's the same for everyone then.
It has zero to do with how hard you worked. That's emotive, distracting rubbish. Whether you inherited it or grafted 24/7 for it, the principle is the same: A £60 fine is zero deterrent to a multi-millionaire. If punishment was based purely on fines then, in theory, anyone rich enough would effectively be immune from punishment.
OTOH, why should you pay more just because you, perhaps, worked harder and earned more?
Either way, £60k seems a bit rich.
Or perhaps we should bin fines altogether and just stick to points – it's the same for everyone then.
So if we agree with the principle of fines as deterrents, we have to agree that a £60 fine for a millionaire is a 'miss'.
The idea of relying solely on points is a reasonable one logically, but of course, politics says no.
looks like we ganged up on poor Rawwr.
mmm-five said:
You have to ask yourself what the point of the fine is in the first place.
If it's just an admin fee, then it should be the same for everyone.
If it's a punishment, then it needs to have the same effect on everyone, so for someone earning £1000 a week a £100 fine might hurt them enough to make them think twice. However if you're on £10000 a week, that £100 probably wouldn't have the same penalising effect on you - so it seems fair to take it to a £1000 fine, so that it's the same percentage of income.
However, I wouldn't like to see that come in over here as while my income seems a lot to some people, it's very sporadic and an average over the last 4 years would be about 1/4 of the average over the last 12 months - and the 'spare' cash I've got at the end of the month would not currently cover a 10% 'weekly gross income' fine.
Maybe a proper means tested fine would work? So that if you could provide genuine evidence that what you have left of weekly earnings is minimal, then your fine should be 50% of that
This is a good point, and could possibly be a good solution for this, although I feel that there should probably be a cap on the fine up to a point, it mentions in the article that someone once received a fine of £180,000 I think that that is taking it a bit too far no matter how much you earnIf it's just an admin fee, then it should be the same for everyone.
If it's a punishment, then it needs to have the same effect on everyone, so for someone earning £1000 a week a £100 fine might hurt them enough to make them think twice. However if you're on £10000 a week, that £100 probably wouldn't have the same penalising effect on you - so it seems fair to take it to a £1000 fine, so that it's the same percentage of income.
However, I wouldn't like to see that come in over here as while my income seems a lot to some people, it's very sporadic and an average over the last 4 years would be about 1/4 of the average over the last 12 months - and the 'spare' cash I've got at the end of the month would not currently cover a 10% 'weekly gross income' fine.
Maybe a proper means tested fine would work? So that if you could provide genuine evidence that what you have left of weekly earnings is minimal, then your fine should be 50% of that
great idea.
If i was late for work i wouldn't dream of using a bus lane to get me there quicker because £80 would be a majority of my days salary.
If i was a footballer, i would routinely use bus lanes, because £80 wouldn't even notice.
You can't enforce a law without a sense of consequence for breaking it.
If a footballer was fined £10,000 for traveling in a bus lane (half his daily £20,000 pay) it might have more of an impact on them doing it again!
If i was late for work i wouldn't dream of using a bus lane to get me there quicker because £80 would be a majority of my days salary.
If i was a footballer, i would routinely use bus lanes, because £80 wouldn't even notice.
You can't enforce a law without a sense of consequence for breaking it.
If a footballer was fined £10,000 for traveling in a bus lane (half his daily £20,000 pay) it might have more of an impact on them doing it again!
kiethton said:
Matt UK said:
kiethton said:
Rawwr said:
I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?
but you would care about the attached points if you did it too oftenTotally OTT in my opinion, just because the guy has worked hard and done well for himself why should he suffer disproportionately for a crime with no victims?
Just another envy tax IMO.
I say keep the money out of it - driving is a priviledge twunt behaviour should mean that the priviledge gets curtailed / removed. This levels the rich and poor.
Of course, it only works from an ideology point of view. If you are government in change of the rules and punishments, you may decide that you need to bring money into it in order to make ends meet...
Rawwr said:
Type R Tom said:
With insurance companies making money on people speeding which I believe is totally wrong (I do understand the risk / statistics element)
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Do go on.I know the insurance companies say the odds of you claming have increased but I would much rather see a large fine that goes back into the system than insurance companies increasing your premiums and therefore their profits.
Also I’ve never been caught speeding and have had 1 minor claim in 14 years so this isn’t sour grapes.
Whilst it is true that someone with a lot of cash would easily pay the fine, they would not avoid the points so fining people based on their wealth seems more a cynical ploy to extract more cash from the event, than as an actual deterrent. Losing a licence when one has several very nice machines in your garage which cannot then be used seems like a useful deterrent. Of course the rich could just hire a driver, so this is where points will have the most effect, as that is c going to cause a lot of extra expense, and inconvenience, but lets face facts, if you are loaded enough, nothing is really going to be r too much of a problem, even an increased fine based on your wealth.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff