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

[SexyGreyFox]

I have no interest in driving and would love to be chauffeured everywhere.

You are missing the point.
My car was used 40 times last year so I also hate driving however if I was the type to buy a very expensive car I would also be of the mind set that's it's for me to drive and points on my license would be a blow.
I don't know why but people love those bits of metal that get them from A to B.

 

[Tefal]

but if I had an expensive car I'd want to drive it and not sit in the back.

nice car though could be very comfortable to sit in the back of.

I have no interest in driving and don't really like it, so id take chauffeur if i had to take a car and was rich, or if i was rich one of the many many bikes I'd own lol.

 

[Efour]

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.

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? :/

i disagree i dunno if you were benign sarcastic its early for me today lol

losing 6 months of your life is 6 months, no matter who you are.

If you argue they have more to lose, well obviously but its still 6 months of a complete loss of your liberty.

Easy solution dont break the law.

 

[Efour]

You are missing the point.
My car was used 40 times last year so I also hate driving however if I was the type to buy a very expensive car I would also be of the mind set that's it's for me to drive and points on my license would be a blow.
I don't know why but people love those bits of metal that get them from A to B.

No i think i had the point, then posted the exact opposite of what you have now elaborated on

But yeah i dont see the pleasure in driving too !

 

[Tefal]

i disagree i dunno if you were benign sarcastic its early for me today lol

losing 6 months of your life is 6 months, no matter who you are.

If you argue they have more to lose, well obviously but its still 6 months of a complete loss of your liberty.

Easy solution dont break the law.

6 months in prison for a middle class person could be the end of their career.

for an unemployed doley career criminal it's just an occupational hazard.

 

[Efour]

6 months in prison for a middle class person could be the end of their career.

for an unemployed doley career criminal it's just an occupational hazard.

And so it should be, depending on the crime. I say bring back the Noose for all crimes !

 

[wordy]

They are being penalised for breaking the law and speeding not for being rich.

And there we have it, Xordium has won the thread. Congrats!

 

[Tefal]

And so it should be, depending on the crime. I say bring back the Noose for all crimes !

but the punishment is not equal is it?

one is a 6 month prison sentence the other is a 6 month prison sentence + a multimillion pound fine over the persons life time.

 

[Orionaut]

but the punishment is not equal is it?

one is a 6 month prison sentence the other is a 6 month prison sentence + a multimillion pound fine over the persons life time.

Also, the effect on the mans family and dependants will be very much more severe, possibly catastrophically so. How is that fair?

 

[Efour]

I guess that's why proportional penal sentences don't exist but can easily work with fines.

If the career "*****" doesn't care about doing 6 months bird, why should the millionaire care about the 100 quid ticket? Seeing as speeding or parking tickets are not usually punished with prison sentences the only sensible next step is scaled fining or 100s of hours community work.... You can argue that messes up a £100K career mans lifestyle too.

There is no perfect answer or it would already be in position. I really think scaling fines are a deterrent on all levels.

 

[Efour]

Also, the effect on the mans family and dependants will be very much more severe, possibly catastrophically so. How is that fair?

Pretty good deterrent then ? Like possibly the best ever for a sane person to consider ?

 

[An Exception]

Reaction times stay the same.

At 60mph my car stops in 30m. If your car performs like this graph, you are effectively putting peoples life at a much greater chance of injury or death, even if you are at the speed limit, and I'm speeding. This.. even taking into account reaction time.

Untold lives could be saved just by improving brakes so they stop effectively and don't fade much rather than setting up speed cameras to slow people down.
One method generates money for the government, the other doesn't.

 

[An Exception]

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.

But isn't that just another incentive for people to be productive/successful and contribute to society. If we take away all the perks to being rich, we might as well be communist and all be lazy.

 

[stockhausen]

Let the punishment deter the offender

Income proportionate fines seem to me to be an obvious measure. Fines should hurt the same whether you’re a pensioner or Bill Gates. But beyond speeding fines, the real place this sort of thing is needed is in corporate fines, e.g. for breaches of banking regulation,Health & Safety, etc.

A fine should not be just a minor cost of doing business for a big Bank like Barclays or HSBC. Fines for serious corporate infractions should be enough to turn a quarterly profit into a quarterly loss. *That* will get the shareholders clamouring for better corporate behaviour.

 

[Efour]

Yes the perks of being rich include flaunting the law and safety of all other citizens of the country in which you reside

 

[elmarko]

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.

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? :/

Of course it is, a father of two on minimum wage will still suffer the same social consequences, may likely loose his job & have no freedom.

In reality his punishment is still likely to be worse as he's unlikely to have any savings to fall back on once he's out (unlike the other). He's lost six months earning potential, the other has also lost six months earning potential.

Absolute figures in the context here are still meaningless, but don't worry - I'm sure your point sounded much better in your head.

 

[Efour]

I love you - in an ideological sense

 

[An Exception]

Yes the perks of being rich include flaunting the law and safety of all other citizens of the country in which you reside

No they are not flaunting the law. The perks of being rich are being able to afford the fines. It seems there are a few 'have nots' in this thread who are jelly of the 'haves' in the world.
The reason they are 'haves' and you a 'have not' are because they or their family did something you or your family didn't. In most cases they were smarter and/or worked harder. I don't 'have' much, but then I'm not envious of others who 'have' more.

 

[An Exception]

Of course it is, a father of two on minimum wage will still suffer the same social consequences, may likely loose his job & have no freedom.

In reality his punishment is still likely to be worse as he's unlikely to have any savings to fall back on once he's out (unlike the other). He's lost six months earning potential, the other has also lost six months earning potential.

Absolute figures in the context here are still meaningless, but don't worry - I'm sure your point sounded much better in your head.

This is the harsh end of darwinism. If I was in that dad's economic position and had children to provide for, I wouldn't be speeding.

 

[Efour]

No they are not flaunting the law. The perks of being rich are being able to afford the fines. It seems there are a few 'have nots' in this thread who are jelly of the 'haves' in the world.
The reason they are 'haves' and you a 'have not' are because they or their family did something you or your family didn't. In most cases they were smarter and/or worked harder. I don't 'have' much, but then I'm not envious of others who 'have' more.

I totally disagree and think the viewpoint you stand from is very odd.

Laws and punishments are meant to be applicable to all members of society: Rich, poor old or young, race, colour creed religion. If you can negate a punishment for what ever reason, it isn't a punishment or deterrent. That is a Perk ??!? No i think that's a rubbish law.

I have "loads" relatively and i'm not envious of a system that can make people suffer more when they break the law because they haven't earned money to pay for it ?!?!

Strange viewpoint...

There may well be a few people who are have nots, (as you call them) and their small minds cant get past a sum of money but i don't think the debate is really about that.