Fines based on wealth - do Finland have it right or wrong?

[johnster1991]

After seeing this story in today's Metro (linked) it got me thinking, is this a good or a bad thing that a fine would be based on wealth? Surely driving 48mph in a 30mph zone doesn't warrant a £60,000 fine just because you're rich?

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/15/multi-millionaire-fi...

[dave7692]

Don't really agree with that to be honest, I know everyone likes to have a go at the richies but this is a bit far, crime is crime and the punishment should reflect the crime not the financial status of the person who did it.

You can still drive like a tt and risk killing somebody whether you have £6 or £6 million in the bank

[Rawwr]

I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?

[kiethton]

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 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.

[J4CKO]

Rawwr said:

I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?

Thats I guess what the points are for.

[johnster1991]

Rawwr said:

I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?

True, £60 would mean that you would happily do it again without thinking I guess

ETA - as others say though, points could mean you would lose your licence eventually anyway

[northwest monkey]

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?

[Podie]

dave7692 said:

Don't really agree with that to be honest, I know everyone likes to have a go at the richies but this is a bit far, crime is crime and the punishment should reflect the crime not the financial status of the person who did it.

Playing devil's advocate here - but if you wish to impose a fine, you want it to smart so as to act as a deterent.

A £60 fine for someone earning £12k pa is going to smart a lot more than someone earning £2m pa - all the Finnish have done is make it appropriate based on wealth.

It's like when footballers get a £120 fine for something when they earn get paid £120k a week. It's pointless and no deterent.

[northwest monkey]

Everyone had the same idea then!

[iacabu]

Rawwr said:

I can see the point. If I had an obscene disposable income, would I care about a £60 speeding fine?

True, I didn't think about it that way.

However, I still don't think that the punishment should be more severe for the same crime just because of your bank balance.

[Rawwr]

Do they have a points system in Finland? I didn't see mention of it.

[Rawwr]

If it was the UK, I'd ditch the points system altogether and go with fiscally-crippling fines.

[otolith]

When a community service sentence is imposed, should an unemployed person with lots of spare time receive a stiffer sentence than someone who works long hours?

[Rawwr]

otolith said:

When a community service sentence is imposed, should an unemployed person with lots of spare time receive a stiffer sentence than someone who works long hours?

No, the unemployed people should be shovelled into a large furnace to heat my home.

[Matt UK]

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 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.

True - but the other side of the coin is that you may have someone with wealth endangering others with excessive speed because the fine is toffee money.

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...

[Podie]

northwest monkey said:

Everyone had the same idea then!

looks like we ganged up on poor Rawwr.

[roystinho]

Do they operate a points system in Finland?

Also, does this 'fine based on wealth' stretch further than speeding? i.e. does it go to things like parking fines? Not that I agree, but it would make more logical sense. If I was filthy rich I'd just park anywhere and suck up the fine

[mmm-five]

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

[Rawwr]

Podie said:

looks like we ganged up on poor Rawwr.

Popular opinion is not often the correct one

[Synchromesh]

For us, isn't it the points (and the subsequent insurance hike) rather than the fine which is the deterrent? I mean £60 isn't even a tank of petrol.