Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I still don't understand why you're comparing criminal laws and the deterrents that come with them with tradable goods. Apples and oranges.
£180,000 speding fine . . .
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Fiscal detterents for speeding offences are pointless. If speeding is dangerous, then repeat offenders should be removed from the road and not just fined.
That is why our scheme largely works - I won't drive up the M5 at 130mph in the middle of the night even though it'd seriously cut down my journey time and my car is easily capable of it. Why? Because I don't want to lose my license. If it was just a fine I'd take the risk.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
It isn't about fairness - it is about a deterrent, and the fine no longer becomes a deterrent when you're very wealthy.
So clearly, fines are an inappropriate detterant. The answer is find a new detterant not fine you more the harder you work.
Exactly, why stop?
If a fine doesn't provide an equal deterrent to breaking a law to Person A on £18k a year as it does to Person B on £500k a year then it is failing in its entire point of existance. Though even JSA provides enough income that a fine of £1 is sensationally low.
Flat rate fines just don't make sense in many situations.
£30 to park on a double yellow - it may as well be called a fee with it being flat rate because to someone with a huge amount of wealth, it might be worth the £30 fine to you to just park on a double yellow and save yourself a ten minute walk from a car park. To someone like Person A though it can mean a fair bit more inconvenience to have £30 gone like that.
Flat rate fines are just not suitable for many uses - they either need to be adjustable to provide equal deterrent or they need to be replaced with something else that provides an equal deterrent to more of the population.
Goods are another matter entirely.
You earn a lot money? Awesome, you probably deserve all the massive TVs, superfast cars, powerful PCs and so on that you can afford. You worked hard to earn your right to such luxuries. It should not however also give a person the ability to pick and choose which laws they have to obey because they could afford to ignore any fine attached to a certain action.
Last edited:
From where do you get the idea that the Swiss millionaire was being penalised for working hard
I was under the impression that he was penalised for persistently breaking the law.
Switzerland is not generally known for its dislike of the rich and successful, is it?
I don't know how you always manage to miss the point. It's gotta be deliberate, there's no way anyone could actually be so obtuse.
Clearly he's not being penalised for working hard, directly. But in just a couple of simple steps (working earns money, ergo working harder earns more money, ergo if you work harder, you have more money, all things being equal), levying a massive fine because of the convicted's wealth is penalising those who work hard more than those who don't.
So.. person A works for 10 hours a day and earns £400/week. Person B works for 5 hours a day and spends the other 5 hours watching TV, and earns £200/week. Supposing person A was fined £200 for speeding. Do you really believe person B should only be fined £100 for the exact same offence - simply because he's lazy?
In absolute values he is being fined less, but in theory the impact on his life would be similar - 50% of his weekly salary, thus it would be a similar level of financial impact to both people and thus provide a similar level of a deterrent to commiting an offence.
Ideally, deterrents shouldn't be based on financial punishments for the very reason that this argument exists but so long as they do, ultimately they would be more effective if they provide similar deterrent to everyone rather than enabling people to care less about breaking the law the richer they get.
License points for example are a much better system - getting 3 points on your license is quarter of the way to losing it whether you are on JSA, £18k a year or £18m a year and thus it impacts and deters all offenders equally.
Last edited:
Lots of fines in the UK are already linked to earnings. It is a punishment and I have no idea why some of you are trying to compare it to goods or services.
If we did not have points, speeding fines would almost certainly be income based.
If we did not have points, speeding fines would almost certainly be income based.
[TW]Fox;15682090 said:
whats the point in a standard fine if it means nothing to wealthy people? surely the point in a fine is to discourage an activity.
its a joke in our country when some football ****** gets caught speeding on the motorway doing 150mph or whatever and they get a 100quid fine yet often they are earning more than 5k a week.
its like some chav breaking the speed limit and beeing charged the price of a bus ticket
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
And more importantly - a deterrent.
Likewise - boggles the mind. As I said before, they're playing the Straw man.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
For accuracy's sake, they'd get an instant ban, so it isn't directly comparable to a fixed fine penalty notice. But your point still holds.
If a footballer was caught doing 150mph on the Motorway he would be banned from driving. Just like you and me. Far more of a detterant than money - its why I wont do 150mph on the Motorway at least.
Which is exactly what would happen under means tested fines!
Because like goods and services, fines are a fact of life. I do not know a single person who hasn't been fined for a motoring offence, so clearly they are not working as a deterrent, even for those less well off.
So let's stop kidding ourselves that means tested fines are equitable. It's just another way for Governments to raise cash from easy targets. As motorists you should all be concerned about that.
Fines are a poor detterant. Points/demerit system/whatever is far better and removes the earnings issue altogether.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I'd be glad to hear of a precedent you have for this being 'what would happen'. Obviously, the bar would be set as it is now - so that the minimum fine is painful for the least wealthy.[TW]Fox;15683761 said:
[TW]Fox;15683761 said:
Yes but the impact on his daily life would be equally as negative as to someone who was very wealthy.
If the fine was 20% of your annual income then you would see speeding drop substantially. You only need to look at something like the Gumball Rally, where we have very rich folk flaunting the speeding laws and laughing it off because they can pay it off without a second thought.
There are not many people driving for whom a £60 fine is painful. As I keep saying, most people are not bothered about fines, its the points. Which is the way it should be. There is no need to have means tested fines - because points do the job better.
Only because he's made something of us life and the other person hadn't.
But these people are foreign nationals so such fines would not apply to them
