Should goverment fines/penalties be set in conjuntion to how much you earn ?

[Vonhelmet]

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.

Read the wiki link I posted about the Finnish system. There's a bit about how the maths is worked out.

Also, damn a persons mortgage, bills, etc. If they break the law, they should be punished. If a poor person has to suffer losing 5% of their income or whatever, then why shouldn't a rich person lose 5% too? The loss is comparable, so assuming expenditure increases linearly with earnings, which it should do, then the punishment should likewise be able to increase linearly without anyone suddenly failing to meet their mortgage payments.

 

[snowdog]

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?
Yes, the eastern bloc is a perfect example.

Imo the US works fine, if you get a job there ( I know it's hard ) then you're in perfectly, the problems start when you don't have a job in the US.

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.

Everybody hasn't worked hard enough, as I've said before, it's incredibly hard, almost impossible, to work hard enough and really become rich by it.

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.

Socialism is barbaric imo, people who work hard are just taxed to the death, their wealth is stolen by the gov, and given to the poor & forigners, of wich part of them, don'r want to work while they can.

Conservative in terms of economy, safety and education is best imo:
No more whining about the envoirement but good old fashioned new tarmac.
Economy> Envoirement.
Police more power, nobody should disrespect them. Hard criminals ( Rapists, Murderers, Mafioso's ) should deserve death. Higher penalty's for other crimes.
Teachers should become the students's masters again, not just teachers who can't do **** against misbehaving children (more discipline to the youth).
Lower taxes.

Britain was the country closest to socialism anyway and we did fine

What about all these immigrants & labourers from abroad wich you want to get rid off ( or a lot of people on ocuk anyhow) then? A socialistic party would basicly open it's arms wide and give them money, do you like paying for tens of thousands of foreigners ?

Fine?
You declared war on half the world ( lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and post modern era: India for example...), all I hear on OcUK is people complaining about voilent chavs and everybody in the motors forum is complaining about the costs of motoring ( fuel tax). You've got major traffic problems in the south. Your country is mostly a non producing country but mostly services (or so I've heard ?).

( This doesn't just apply to the UK, I'm on about most western europe, don't really like it personally )

Imo China & the US are doing much better.

 

[Tefal]

Read the wiki link I posted about the Finnish system. There's a bit about how the maths is worked out.

Also, damn a persons mortgage, bills, etc. If they break the law, they should be punished. If a poor person has to suffer losing 5% of their income or whatever, then why shouldn't a rich person lose 5% too? The loss is comparable, so assuming expenditure increases linearly with earnings, which it should do, then the punishment should likewise be able to increase linearly without anyone suddenly failing to meet their mortgage payments.

but why should you look at it in % ?

if a poor person has to suffer losing £50, why should a rich person have to lose £500?

 

[Vonhelmet]

but why should you look at it in % ?

if a poor person has to suffer losing £50, why should a rich person have to lose £500?

Why shouldn't you look at it in %? If a fine has no effect on a person, how is it a deterrent?

 

[Tefal]

Why shouldn't you look at it in %? If a fine has no effect on a person, how is it a deterrent?

money's money all the same. £50 from a poor person is worth just as much as £50 from a rich person.

Altering the punishment for no good reason is just wrong, it would also encourage a lot more corruption.

 

[Vonhelmet]

money's money all the same. £50 from a poor person is worth just as much as £50 from a rich person.

It's worth the same amount to the receipient, sure, but when you're dealing with fines as a punishment, you have to consider how it feels for the person giving the money, and people feel very differently about money depending on how much of it they have.

For example, I have to think long and hard about tipping £2 on a meal, but Matt Damon tipped £500 for a coffee the other day.

The value you place on money depends a hell of a lot on how much of it you have.

Altering the punishment for no good reason is just wrong, it would also encourage a lot more corruption.

Firstly, it is a good reason, as I have explained above. Secondly, how would it encourage corruption?

It's possibly worth mentioning that Finland has a lower crime rate than we do. I'm sure the day fine isn't the only reason, but it'll be in the mix somewhere.

 

[PureAppleJuice]

Imo the US works fine, if you get a job there ( I know it's hard ) then you're in perfectly, the problems start when you don't have a job in the US.

Ok fair point. But why should someone suffer because they don't have a job? Perhaps they can't for one reason or another?

Everybody hasn't worked hard enough, as I've said before, it's incredibly hard, almost impossible, to work hard enough and really become rich by it.

Yes but stating that some people are poor because they don't work hard enough is simply ludicrous. Circumstances make a big diffrent to people, some people don't know the value of money because they are raised with a silver spoon up their arse. Some people have worked incredibly hard for their money. Either way, people need a helping 'hand' up the 'ladder' of capitalism.

Socialism is barbaric imo, people who work hard are just taxed to the death, their wealth is stolen by the gov, and given to the poor & forigners, of wich part of them, don'r want to work while they can.

People who work hard are taxed FAIRLY to help the community. Stolen by the government? HAH. If they don't like it, they can move to another country.

Help foreigners? Good. Helping other nations is in the best interests of everybody. Keeping wealth within a country and having an economy of protectionism is simply not beneficial in the long term.

Conservative in terms of economy, safety and education is best imo:
No more whining about the envoirement but good old fashioned new tarmac.
Economy> Envoirement.

A conservative economy worked very well a long time ago but I don't think it will anymore. Conservative education? Not really sure what you mean by that per se. But I think liberal attitudes should bet taken with education, completely free.

Police more power, nobody should disrespect them. Hard criminals ( Rapists, Murderers, Mafioso's ) should deserve death. Higher penalty's for other crimes.
Teachers should become the students's masters again, not just teachers who can't do **** against misbehaving children (more discipline to the youth).
Lower taxes.

Nobody should deserve death. A better punishment (albeit for the sane) master criminal is to sit in torment at their own guilt and thoughts. I think sentencing should be less lenient for murderers and the like.

I like the way you added 'lower taxes' at the end of that.

What about all these immigrants & labourers from abroad wich you want to get rid off ( or a lot of people on ocuk anyhow) then? A socialistic party would basicly open it's arms wide and give them money, do you like paying for tens of thousands of foreigners ?

I think across OcUK it is fair to assess that people strongly dislike immigrants. In my opinion immigration is only a good thing, though I remain unsure what to do with those who are of illegal nature and those who commit crimes with no real reprimand. I am happy for my tax money to go towards the benefit of 'foreigeners'. I also think we should fully join the EU. Nationalism/patriotism, whatever you want to call it is beneficial for nobody.

Fine?
You declared war on half the world ( lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and post modern era: India for example...), all I hear on OcUK is people complaining about voilent chavs and everybody in the motors forum is complaining about the costs of motoring ( fuel tax). You've got major traffic problems in the south. Your country is mostly a non producing country but mostly services (or so I've heard ?).

I didn't declare war on half the world. My ancestors or those in charge of the country did.

Unfortunately motoring is certainly expensive in this country, perhaps if that old cow Thatcher hadn't nationalised the rail we wouldn't be in this pickle as public transport would be more viable!

As for 'major' traffic problems, not so sure. London has always been busy. I'm in the south but haven't noticed anything extreme or major.

( This doesn't just apply to the UK, I'm on about most western europe, don't really like it personally )

Imo China & the US are doing much better.

Much better with what? :S

Annnnnnnnnnd back on topic.

Vonhelmut has the right idea. Tefal, I think you're missing the point. The punishment remains the same. The point of a punishment, is, well, that it's a punishment. £50 is £50 to the fining people. £50 is a lot to someone strapped for cash. £50 is nothing to someone with lots of money.

Purpose of punishment = Act as detterent.

 

[DRZ]

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.

No, it doesn't. Every single person can make a year of their life count the same as any other to them or their families. A unit of time is the same across all people, whereas the value of money is not. To someone with £10m in the bank, a £100 fine is pathetic but to a minimum wage shelfstacker, £100 could be a vast sum of money. To BOTH of those people, irrespective of age, a year of your life is a year of your life and so the punishment is the same. "Remaining lifetime" is not the same as money in a bank.

 

[Tefal]

No, it doesn't. Every single person can make a year of their life count the same as any other to them or their families. A unit of time is the same across all people, whereas the value of money is not. To someone with £10m in the bank, a £100 fine is pathetic but to a minimum wage shelfstacker, £100 could be a vast sum of money. To BOTH of those people, irrespective of age, a year of your life is a year of your life and so the punishment is the same. "Remaining lifetime" is not the same as money in a bank.

sure it is, a person with 50 years left may well be more willing to lose one than someone with only 5-10. just like the guy with £10m is more willing to loose £100.

The price of a fine is determined by the severity of the crime, how is it fair that a person could pay more for a speeding offence than another pays for assault?

And it would encourage corruption cause as with that finish example of the 116,000 euro ticket, it soon becomes far cheaper just to bung a couple of hundred to the policeman pulling you over, or the traffic warden.

Fines need to be low because it makes it easier to pay than to get around, a traffic warden wouldn't risk it for £50, but £500?

 

[Scuzi]

"Remaining lifetime" is not the same as money in a bank.

For the purpose of this example it is. Penalising someone to a greater extent because they have a greater reserve of time/money or whatever other medium is used as penalty.

Another point. It is not a case of "money in a bank" either. A higher earner is not necessarily wealthier than his less well renumerated counterpart.There are people out there pulling in £100k a year who have less money left over at the end of the month than someone pulling in £30k. Circumstances play a big part as does lifestyle. There are plenty of millionaires out there who don't have a job and as such don't have 'earnings' per se. Yes they may have investments but how do you measure the earnings from those? That's a very big minefield that is more trouble than it's worth walking into.

Like most socialistic ideaology, their utopian view of perceived "fairness" is deeply flawed and highly impractical. You have to be realistic about this. It would require highly complex and tactile implementation and would likely be followed with resounding protest and uproar.

As I initially suggested, hitting the law breakers in the pocket isn't necessarily the most effective penalty. Another method needs to be sought out, one that penalises fairly regardless of which demograph you belong to. The perfect punishment, if you will.
The 'free spirits' who dreamt up this wonderful concept of salary based penalty fines seem to have a knack for coming up with perfect ideas - any suggestions?

 

[AngeluiMorte]

As I initially suggested, hitting the law breakers in the pocket isn't necessarily the most effective penalty. Another method needs to be sought out, one that penalises fairly regardless of which demograph you belong to. The perfect punishment, if you will.
The 'free spirits' who dreamt up this wonderful concept of salary based penalty fines seem to have a knack for coming up with perfect ideas - any suggestions?

On a completely ridiculous level the most simple punishment for any crime whether it be speeding, assault or murder would be DEATH. It would bridge all demographics, regardless of wealth or position.

I do not agree with the death sentence but if you knew that getting home 10 minutes earlier by breaking the speed limit by 10mph would result in your life being terminated if you got caught would you really risk it?

I know that the idea of bringing back the death sentence in this country is unlikely nor do I believe it should be brought back, but if the only punishment for breaking the law was such, clearly no matter what demographic you were a part off the punishment would be equal. The area it would hit hardest is families as the loss of a spouse or parent would have series repercussions to those remaining.

In regards to the OP IMO variable fines but would be a good idea, especially with a fixed base rate. As already mentioned if this works in Finland why couldn't it also work over here.
Yes fines are no where near the perfect way of dealing with people breaking the law, but if they are in place to deal with more minor infractions of the law they should be relative to this person who is being fined. If someone can afford to tip £500 for a coffee do you really believe they are going to care about paying a £100 fine for being illegally parked while they had the coffee? In the same respect someone who only earns £150 a week is going to be affected more severally by the same £100 fine.

 

[RDM]

In my opinion immigration is only a good thing, though I remain unsure what to do with those who are of illegal nature and those who commit crimes with no real reprimand.

Your opinion is wrong. For immigration to only be a good thing would mean it has no negatives, you have already mentioned one negative and there are others. Even if they don't outweigh the positives it still means immigration is not "only a good thing".

I am happy for my tax money to go towards the benefit of 'foreigeners'. I also think we should fully join the EU.

If instead of taxes there were foreign supporting charities only then you could happily give as much as you like without forcing your view on others?

 

[andyp]

Fine him, using your car key oh and dent the door, cost a lot more to sort that out on an M3 than a cheap car

Nah, I'll bide my time

 

[Things change I've changed]

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.

Could you reiterate this differently for me please because it sounds like your saying that the working class in particular "sit on their ass and do nothing" and are "on a slippery slope to nowhere", and to top it off you say ""working" (hah!) class" as if to make a mockery of the working class which I don't understand why you would do that tbh unless you really believe that the working class are a bunch of lazy individual's that just reap that benefits off the rich .

 

[Bear]

People who work hard are taxed FAIRLY to help the community. Stolen by the government? HAH. If they don't like it, they can move to another country.

The only people that come out with that sort of garbage are people that dont earn very much thus are going to benefit the most from that sort of idea or young enough not to actually know what they are talking about. Most people that pay a lot of taxes would more than likely say they would like to keep more of their own cash.

 

[Samtheman1k]

Purely theoretical of course as I imagine the infrastructure to implement this kind of system would be very complex.

Do you think the amount you get fined should be set according to how much you earn ?, I can't help feeling that it would be the most fair thing to do really because the effect it has on a low-income earner is greater than a high earner so simply put the punishment that either class (low/mid/high) endures because of their mistake is not the same, take prison for example, rich or poor the punishment is equal, you both have to endure that same conditions for the same period of time, perfectly fair, but the effects a small fine can cause on a low income earner compared to a high income earner can be drastically different, I've seen some good people with family's suffer hard because of fines, for some it can change their lives, for a high earner the fine is the same but the punishment is not,

what are your thoughts on this.

Just because I earn more than someone doesn't mean that I devalue money any more than the next person. £30 is still something I don't want to lose regardless of how much I earn. Besides, basing it purely on salary doesn't take account of your outgoings, high earners have bigger mortgages etc and thus often have little 'disposable' income as poorer people.

 

[Samtheman1k]

Nobody should deserve death. A better punishment (albeit for the sane) master criminal is to sit in torment at their own guilt and thoughts.

You are assuming that people show remorse for their crimes, which isn't true. I don't thin Osama is sitting in his cave feeling guilty over how naughty he was a few years back...

In my opinion immigration is only a good thing, though I remain unsure what to do with those who are of illegal nature and those who commit crimes with no real reprimand.

That doesn't make sense as it is contradictory...

 

[Things change I've changed]

The only people that come out with that sort of garbage are people that dont earn very much thus are going to benefit the most from that sort of idea or young enough not to actually know what they are talking about. Most people that pay a lot of taxes would more than likely say they would like to keep more of their own cash.

Don't you think that a poorer person would also like to keep more of their own cash ?, they are having just as big hit on their income in relation to how much they earn, when I was working on minimum wages I was earning around £720 a month, of that I was paying around £160 tax a month, do you not think having some of that back would have made a big difference ?, even though I was paying a large some of tax (in relation to how much I was earning), even though it left me with hardly enough to pay the rent I was proud to pay that money, was that wrong ?, so your saying a low income earner can't be proud to pay his/her taxes even though they take as big a hit in relation to how much they earn and how it effects their lives, (more so even), it's only the poor rich folk that are hard done by because they've worked so much harder than everyone else lol and they deserve not have to pay as much tax , yet the poorer working class man/woman who paying tax effects them more is proud to pay (well I was) into the system, I can't help feeling from the tone of people in here that the working class are the ones with the better work ethic, just opinion my opinion mind.

 

[Tefal]

People who work hard are taxed FAIRLY to help the community. Stolen by the government? HAH. If they don't like it, they can move to another country.

may i ask why it is fair that a doctor have to give more of his money away, than a shop assistant?

 

[snowdog]

may i ask why it is fair that a doctor have to give more of his money away, than a shop assistant?

Not just ''more'', an actual higher percentage too, unfair I know.


Poor people should pay the same percentages as rich people in income tax.

Then fines should remain the same as they are.