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

Evilsod said:
I hardly think the differences between someone earning 20k a year and someone 40k a year are going to cripple someone economically (and shouldn't he not be speeding in the first place?).

The differences between someone earning 20k a year and 10,000k a year however? 80k fine seems fair to me. At the end of the day, if the person earning 20k a year gets banned from driving he is in serious trouble with regards to getting to work and such more than likely. The other guy just pays someone to do it for him.
Click to expand...

All you succeed in doing is creating further class divisions.

Also, why do you feel that someone earning 100k a year is any more able to afford a £100 fine at a moments notice than someone earning 20k a year? You don't know them or their personal circumstances. So it is a really shaky foundation to start applying a policy decision.

In my example earlier - my brother earns double what I do on paper. But:
  • He has a wife and two kids to support on that single wage as well as the house to run and the car he needs in order to get to work.
  • He is in a higher tax band for a larger proportion of his wages.
  • He has more personal debts.

Even though he actually earns double what I do, I actually have more disposable income because:

  • I get taxed less.
  • We have 2 wages coming in every month and no kids.
  • We have less personal debts.

So if you look at us two in court and make a decision based purely on earnings it would be a dubious decision. Ergo - for this kind of policy to be successful you would have to introduce means testing to all but the most wealthy which would create a huge mess, cost time and money and probably not be very easy to apply in real terms or that effective in general.

Forget about the top 1% of earners, just stop and think how it would also effect everyone else.
 
Xire said:
This is terrible.

Why should the rich be penalised more for being more successful?
Click to expand...

What is more fair, say a £200 fine for everyone, or a fine that equals a weeks wages?

£200 would be the equivalent to something like two-three weeks income for someone on JSA, yet be less than some people spend on a single bottle of wine or a round of drinks on an evening out.

So scaling the fine based on the income means that the level of punishment and deterrent is much fairer.

Most UK court fines are actually worked out in a similar method, you have a tariff for the fine based on multiples of the persons income (I think after essentials such as their rent).
As it's deemed quite important that fines should actually be feasibly affordable by the person who has committed the crime, but at a level that makes the point that they're being punished.

As I say, going back to the introduction of the mobile phone ban some people were racking up loads of fines for using them whilst driving, and just writing them off as a business expense.
The change to points + fine meant that those people could no longer just shrug their shoulders and treat it the same as the cost of their petrol or a new tyre.
 
This is why I quite like the idea of corporal punishment. 5 strokes of the lash hurts the same for everybody. It is cheap and quick to administer, and causes minimal economic damage.

Fines are unfair, not only because of the comparative hardship problem (which is what this thread is all about) but even more so because they cause (sometimes very significant) hardship for innocent bystanders (Family and dependants)

I am also pretty sure that it would be a very effective deterrent. even the most determined "Boy Racer" would probably only ever get flogged once! :D
 
Sounds like a good idea to me. Even with such a drastic fine it's still no where near proportionate to the effect of a £70 fine (or what ever it is) on me.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
What hurt more, the points on your license, or the increase in your insurance premium? That is your answer. Losing money hurts, points themselves aren't a problem until you get enough.
Click to expand...

the fact that the points are a recurring fine every year for 5 years vs a one off.

id have happily paid a 200 quid fine an got no points.
 
Orionaut said:
This is why I quite like the idea of corporal punishment. 5 strokes of the lash hurts the same for everybody. It is cheap and quick to administer, and causes minimal economic damage.
Click to expand...

not really, you should come to an S&M club some time.
 
Tefal said:
not really, you should come to an S&M club some time.
Click to expand...

Anybody found "Enjoying" punishment will, of course, be declared insane! :D

Ideally I would prefer a more sophisticated approach with a punishment that didn't actually cause any physical harm.

(Imagine the "Box" from Dune)

Indeed, one could imagine having the penitent hooked up to biometric sensors so that the amount of pain inflicted is corrected to each individuals level of endurance so that the unpleasantness of the experience can be standardised.

(And of course, to ensure that the punishment wont actually kill them)

:D
 
Mat said:
Would it not be possible and/or prudent to double the fine each time it is received?

If I have 0 points on my license, I get the standard fine and points.
If I get caught again, with 3 points from speeding already on my license, the fine is doubled and I get another 3 points.
If I get caught again, the fine is doubled again and I get another 3 points.
Etc.

This could deter repeat offenders over and above the points system as it becomes exponentially expensive.

Just a thought...
Click to expand...

If you also stick to the 12 points = ban* position then say the standard fine is £80 your suggestion doubling of the fine each time gets you to £640 before they're banned. At which point the marker presumably resets and you begin again once you regain your license. If you don't stick to a 12 points = ban then arguably you're just taxing speeding and allowing the wealthier members of society to break the law repeatedly because they can pay for it. It's also worth noting that for someone who is wealthy that £640 probably isn't sufficiently high to affect them - you can adjust the point at which it cuts in but it's still liable to affect poorer motorists more drastically than the wealthy ones.

*I'm aware that some people have more than 12 points and are still driving so theoretically the fine could continue to rise, perhaps even into the low thousands but even at that level it might not be particularly noticeable depending on how wealthy the individual is.
 
Glaucus said:
To avoid the points. And yes having 3 points is a bother as your much close to losing your license.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I got an SP30 last year, and while the points are a shame the fine hurt more. The points on their own haven't cost me anything.

The point of the fine is to serve as a deterrent and act as immediate financial penalty. If you're on a low income, that's a far higher penalty than someone earning £4K a month.
 
Haggisman said:
Points aren't really going to be much of a deterrent to someone earning that much either, let's face it, he could easily afford a chauffeur...
Click to expand...

Kind of surprised it took that long for someone to make this post, but it's worth repeating. OMG POINTS! The great leveller for everyone. Except that if you're making £10m a year, you can probably chuck some money at someone to drive you around for a bit.
 
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...

A fixed proportion of income is not a varying punishment.

An Exception said:
It'd be better for govt to raise the minimum requirements of vehicle manufacturers brakes. Then up the speed limit. That guy was probably driving a car that could stop WAY quicker than an average car, so wasn't likely putting anyone in increased danger compared to an average car traveling within the speed limit.
Click to expand...

In a lot of accidents the brakes are not even used, people crash before they even know what's happening.
 
Last edited:
Feef said:
Kind of surprised it took that long for someone to make this post, but it's worth repeating. OMG POINTS! The great leveller for everyone. Except that if you're making £10m a year, you can probably chuck some money at someone to drive you around for a bit.
Click to expand...

If I had money I'd have somebody to drive me around now but points will upset most people with nice cars because they like to drive them otherwise what's the point of having a nice expensive car?
 
Having a comfortable ride to and from wherever you're going? Feeling a bit of a kick from acceleration? Beyond that, I'm fairly sure there are tracks available for people who want to buy expensive cars and push them.
 
Alternatively you could get a really good lawyer like Robbie Savage did then get done for speeding and get off by claiming you can't use public transport because everyone hates you and get away with a slap on the wrist.
 
ThePirateHulk said:
Anybody who thinks a £100 fine to somebody on minimum wage is an equivalent punishment to somebody earning 6 figures is seriously deluded.
Click to expand...

Anybody who thinks a six month prison sentence for a middle class professional earning 6 figures is an equivalent punishment to somebody on the minimum wage is seriously deluded. :p

If we are advocating differential fines one way, we should also be advocating differential prison terms for more serious offences the other.

Are the advocates of differential fining willing to go there though? :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom