yeah that's what i'm saying there.
Should goverment fines/penalties be set in conjuntion to how much you earn ?
- Thread starter Things change I've changed
- Start date
yeah that's what i'm saying there.
It should be a factor.
afaik this is already done to some extent anyway...
Judge has the option to choose maximum fine or lowest possible fine within the band. They should take into account the full circumstances of the crime and also the circumstances of the offender.
Perhaps the bandwith should be increased to give the Judge more options to decide on the level of punishment though.
Keep the fine level the same but if it is a repeat offender (because if the fine is so cheap to rich folk then they dont bother about it ergo repeat offender) then introduce much much higher fines and graded to the persons's income level.
e.g.
driving offence 1 = £50 fine (e.g. speeding)
driving offence 2 = £50 fine (speeding again)
driving offence 3 = Percentage based fine based on income level (speeding)
Why? Because obviously the first 2 times the driver committed the offence didnt get the message through to them.
Driving is probably a bad example? Maybe automatic suspension of licence after the 3rd offence?
I think something like that already exists
How the hell would it be beneficial! If eveyone were rocket scientist nothing would ever get done, who would remove your trash, serve you coffee, cut your hair... i could go on....
Robots develloped by rocket scientists ?
The wage would automaticly raise for the jobs where a lot of people are required but don't want to work. If 50% of all people collecting trash would quit, and nobody wants the job, the wages should raise automaticly to lure more people into the job.
for some people though this could actually be less than 50 or just something like £60
I would be better to have the 3rd either prison (if there was room :/ ) +ban +massive fine regardless of income.
If your speeding 3 times that's 3 times you have deliberately endangered the lives of other human beings therefore just cause your poor/rich/black/white/male/female doesn't mean you should get off.
No, because this country has already went far enough in encouraging people to sit on their ass and sponge from the hard workers. A country that penalises those who work hard and earn more and rewards those who sit on their ass and do nothing, is on a slipperly slope to nowhere - as is evident in society today, particularly among the "working" (hah!) class.
Punishments should be fair and set at a fixed amount. What our government has to realise is that issuing fines is not always a suitable method of punishment.
So say something carried a fixed fine of £100. Why should a very rich person be able to commit that crime at will because he can afford to pay the fine over and over again? Why should they practically escape punishment compared to someone to whom £100 is a significant percentage of their earnings?
I cannot agree that the AMOUNT should be fixed, I think the PUNISHMENT should be fixed. The significance of the fine should be decided and that significance should then be applied to all. If someone earned £2k a week and the fine was decided to be 25% of their monthly salary then they should be fined £2k whereas someone on £200 a week should only be fined £200.
Encouraging anything other than that is in fact the start of the slippery slope.
They shouldn't. Hence why a fine is not a suitable punishment. Charging them 10x more than a dole scrounger because they have worked 10x harder to earn 10x as much is unfair.
I disagree entirely. It is unfair and penalises those who work hard. It gives no incentive to make something of yourself - another nail in the coffin of work ethic.
Again, I disagree.
There are two muderers who commit identical crimes. One murderer is 20, the other is 60. They both rape a young girl and slit her throat. The young lad obviously has more time available before he dies, roughly about 40 years. Should the older murderer serve a proportionally shorter sentence? The young guy get's 20 years in prison - should the older guy get two thirds knocked off his sentence, i.e. a 7 year sentence instead?
It boils down to the same idealogy.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
Erm, no you're not judging them for their wealth, you're simply basing a fine on income brackets.
You couldn't change prison sentences based on wealth, but I think those who earn more should pay a higher fine.
Yes, they didn't try hard enough to get a good paying job, or to get a raise.
Not my fault someone with a low education starts working as a trashman, imo he didn't work hard/well enough to become an CEO or start a good company like Spie has or become a Plastic surgeon.
Choose a job you like: fine.
Tbh it's leaning to socialism and even a bit to communism, as if that works, see what happened in eastern europe because some people thought everybody should have the same ammount of money.
Making the rich pay more is only negative imo, as they're already milked out a lot more (even in terms of percentage) than poor people on their income.
Oh yeah because the Eastern Bloc under post Stalin rule is a perfect example of socialism/communism? Much like the U.S. is an example of capitalism working perfectly?
I'm sorry but saying that poor people 'haven't worked hard enough' if absolute rubbish. It's so unfortunate that people actually hold this belief. Just as well people like you never get into power.
Socialism is a good balance and I think we should head towards it a bit to be honest. Backward conservative ideas like yours are taking us nowhere. Britain was the country closest to socialism anyway and we did fine
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Fine him, using your car key
the guys is obviously a drug dealer and a gangster, im pretty sure any idiot trying that would end up in the boot of the M3
err that is judging someone by their wealth its giving a harsher punishment for the same crime purely because they have more money.
What would happen if you gave black people harsher punishments/fines for the same crime.
why couldn't you change prison but can change fines?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
Because that's a judgement based on race. Let's say a fine was 10% value of the car.
Rich man £20k, £2000 fine
Poor man £3k, £300 fine.
No judgement, same punishment. Suited to the crime. Both a financial annoyance and thus likely to deter them at the same time.
Dealing out a punishment based on skin colour is a different scenario to the one i've given. The point of a fine is to act as a deterrent. What's the point in fining a rich guy a measly £100? It's nothing to him, unlikely to deter him from doing it again if he's megabucks.
Rich man £20k, £2000 fine
Poor man £3k, £300 fine.
No judgement, same punishment. Suited to the crime. Both a financial annoyance and thus likely to deter them at the same time.
Dealing out a punishment based on skin colour is a different scenario to the one i've given. The point of a fine is to act as a deterrent. What's the point in fining a rich guy a measly £100? It's nothing to him, unlikely to deter him from doing it again if he's megabucks.
Exactly. If hard labour were still in force, a negro should work longer hours because he can stay out in the sun for longer.
Fair is fair. Socialists and hippies are happy enough to harp on about fairness until they have to make a sacrafice in the name of fairness.
Finland uses this system for issueing speeding tickets, and hence brought about the worlds most expensive speeding ticket of 116,000 euros when one of the directors of Nokia was caught doing 75km/h in a 50km/h road.
/edit for the record I agree there should be some scaling with regards to income, but a reasonable proportion.
/edit for the record I agree there should be some scaling with regards to income, but a reasonable proportion.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,449
- Location
- Londontown
Guess i'll never be able to win arguments with you dirty conservatives
I'd be happy to pay more tax as a sacrifice.
but the punishment isn't the same, just because a person earns more does not mean they have more spare cash, they will have a mortgage higher bills probably spend more on their families and on education.
Your just upping the punishment based on a purely random statistic about a person.
We have a justice system so that every man and woman is treated the same for the same crime, if a CEO goes out and shoot a man in the face in public, he gets the same time as a random guy from the dole line.
Yes, fines should be linked to earnings.
The obvious example is footballers and things like speeding fines or whatever. OH NOES TWO HUNDRED POUNDS.
In Finland they use something called a "day fine". There's a minimum fine, then an extra amount depending on how much you earn.
Wiki link.
The obvious example is footballers and things like speeding fines or whatever. OH NOES TWO HUNDRED POUNDS.
In Finland they use something called a "day fine". There's a minimum fine, then an extra amount depending on how much you earn.
Wiki link.
points would be a much better thing, like 3 times caught speeding then that's it 2 year ban + have to retake your test before you can drive again.
points would be much better for traffic offences they affect everyone the same.