Finnish man fined £83,000 for speeding because he earns £10.1 million

Dolph said:
Terrible idea, but no doubt popular with the jealousy driven on the forum who don't understand that the punishment should not vary based on irrelevant factors to the crime.
Click to expand...

Err, Dolph the punishment does vary based on irrelevant factors to the crime because if you are rich and the financial penalty is equal then there is no real punishment. :rolleyes: See quite simples.
 
I'd be annoyed if I got an 80k fine for doing 3mhp over a limit


Seems stupid to me.

Milk and money comes to mind

If I was that rich it wouldn't mean I would speed "because i can afford it " I would still be worried about loosing my licence
 
amigafan2003 said:
You already get very well off people parking where they like as the fines are pocket money to them:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-supercars-wealthy-playboys-flock-London.html
Click to expand...

bit irrelevant to the point I was making - and anyway they load their cars on shipping containers and send them back home at the end of summer... they're foreign registered, you're not getting their income to means test in the first place and you'll likely not get the fine paid regardless of how much it is... in fact they have often been known to simply abandon vehicles that get seized in London


then again plenty of western ex-pats ditch super cars in Dubai etc.. before fleeing the country so as not to spend time in prison for bouncing a check or some other nonsense you can get charged with in an arab legal system
 
Last edited:
The purpose of a punishment should be to deter repeat offending. In order for monetised punishments to be equally effective they should be relative to the income of the offender.
 
Elixir said:
Uncapped? I don't think it's fair. I think the fines could be proportional to earnings within certain limits, but getting fined six figures for what could be a simple mistake/oversight just because you earn a lot is not particularly logical.
Click to expand...

It's completely logical. The consequence of being caught of committing a crime should contain elements of punishment and a deterrent.

A fixed £80 fine (or whatever it is nowadays) impacts the benefit claimant far more than it does to the millionaire. The real deterrent and punishment that everyone fears is racking up enough points to get you banned, which is a level playing field regardless of income. The fine though is more punitive the less you earn.

Imagine extending fines to all crimes. A billionaire could murder someone as they could afford the million pound fixed fine. Now clearly I using a wildly exaggerated example there, but the principle is the same.
 
Dolph said:
Terrible idea, but no doubt popular with the jealousy driven on the forum who don't understand that the punishment should not vary based on irrelevant factors to the crime.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that it should provide an incentive not to do it again. £60 is not an incentive to someone for whom that amount of money holds no value. £83k probably is.

I would go as far to say it is actually damn fair to proportionally charge people according to wealth.
 
estebanrey said:
A fixed £80 fine (or whatever it is nowadays) impacts the benefit claimant far more than it does to the millionaire. The real deterrent and punishment that everyone fears is racking up enough points to get you banned, which is a level playing field regardless of income. The fine though is more punitive the less you earn.
Click to expand...

Why is a benefit claimant driving a car? If they can own a car they don't need benefits. I don't want my tax being spent in that way. Make them take a bus.
 
Richdog said:
I think the point is that it should provide an incentive not to do it again. £60 is not an incentive to someone for whom that amount of money holds no value. £83k probably is.

I would go as far to say it is actually damn fair to proportionally charge people according to wealth.
Click to expand...

POINTS
£80 isn't a deterrent for most people. It's more like an admin charge than punishment.
 
George Hincapie said:
Why is a benefit claimant driving a car? If they can own a car they don't need benefits. I don't want my tax being spent in that way. Make them take a bus.
Click to expand...

Ah a Daily Mail reader.

Don't worry if you're disabled on DLA, Georgie here says you can't have a car, all you dirty scroungers can hop on the bus in your wheelchair!
 
Last edited:
** Quote removed **

This isn't a tax that people are discussing, it is a driving offence which is easily avoidable and therefore not comparable.
 
Good idea.

How many times have you heard about footballers (or rich people) smashing cars up for driving to fast? Some probably think there invisible. This will put the straight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom