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

[An Exception]

^^^
People should be punished equally. They shouldn't be punished more just because they are successful. Let's be honest speeding tickets are mostly about revenue generation anyway, and this system just looks like a scheme to thicken the revenue stream rather than a truly moral action. Like I said, if this was all about saving lives, cars wouldn't still be manufactured with crap brakes.
Uprated brakes would save far more lives, but no, let's just fine the rich more, even though they equate to a tiny percentage of the population and thus won't have hardly any impact on road safety.

 

[Efour]

Well that's another can of worms, but yeah its a bit sinister sometimes.

 

[dowie]

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.

I'm sure yours did too

father of two on minimum wage by default is going to be reliant on welfare, his home won't disappear while he is inside, the mother and kids will still be covered by housing benefits and the chances of getting a minimum wage job after having served 6 months in prison, though diminished, are still much higher than the chance of the other getting anywhere near 6 figures again... assuming all other factors are the same, wife & kids still there, he can come out of prison, go on benefits and his lifestyle won't take too much of a hit in comparison to what it was anyway on minimum wage. And he could probably pick up a minimum wage job again given time

assuming the same scenario for the person earning six figures, he likely has a mortgage and stands to lose his house, he's not likely getting a six figure salary again if he was in any form of profession or high salary role - perhaps he'd have a shot if he was a small business owner/tradesman... but for most in that earnings bracket a prison sentence is going to give them a permanent lifestyle change going forwards... for someone on benefits earning minimum wage the after effects in terms of reduction in lifestyle are not nearly as severe

 

[Efour]

So assuming Mr/Mrs £100k lose their job through their own stupidity and disregard for the law cant they move to the council house and benefit support lifestyle that Mr/Mrs "have not" already live?

Wheres the problem ? I'm sure there are many people eager to fill his/her shoes at the top if they are that capable/family linked/connected they would easily bounce back, even from a minor jail sentence for an arguably minor crime.... Many Directors have CCJs and other legal penalties stopping from them officially owning a company. Sign it to the wife and business as usual.

How on earth do these Mythical people get themselves in Jail for speeding anyway? Don't you have to be caught doing massive in excess speed on multiple occasions ?

That's a very risque game to play!

I think i understand now: You/some all seem to see this from the top down where as im looking from the down > up of the scenario. Maybe. I dunno !

 

[markweatherill]

A speeding offence dealt with in court in the UK will incur a means-tested fine, don't forget.

And if speeding fines were all about generating revenue, then we wouldn't ban drivers for speeding offences, would we?

 

[Xordium]

^^^
People should be punished equally.

And that is what everyone is saying ...

They shouldn't be punished more just because they are successful.

They aren't they are being punished for speeding with a fine that is scaled to what they earn.

Let's be honest speeding tickets are mostly about revenue generation anyway,

In your opinion ...

and this system just looks like a scheme to thicken the revenue stream rather than a truly moral action.

Again in your opinion ...

Like I said, if this was all about saving lives, cars wouldn't still be manufactured with crap brakes.

False dichotomy.

Uprated brakes would save far more lives,

Unsubstantiated again in your opinion ...

but no, let's just fine the rich more,

Appeal to emotion ...

even though they equate to a tiny percentage of the population

Congratulation you've made one valid point that you could actually back up!

and thus won't have hardly any impact on road safety.

Unsubtantiated and in your opinion ...

 

[arknor]

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.

I didn't realise the perks of being rich were speeding and parking without worrying about that pocket money fine.

no wonder no bankers get prosecuted when they break the law it's a perk of being rich, you can rob millions from insider trading, launder billions of pounds for terroists and drug cartels...

but if your poor and dealing weed or whatever your funding terrorism and get a nice jail sentence FACEPALM.JPG


it always makes me laugh when the wealthy on the forums act like for poor people prison is a holiday and everyone loves it


your also suggesting if you arent rich then you are not

productive/successful and contribute to society

which is bs

 

[dowie]

So assuming Mr/Mrs £100k lose their job through their own stupidity and disregard for the law cant they move to the council house and benefit support lifestyle that Mr/Mrs "have not" already live?

perhaps, though short term they'd be moving to rented accommodation

Wheres the problem ?

there isn't a problem, just pointing out that the other poster isn't off base with his comments, the punishment will have a bigger impact on someone with more to lose

I'm sure there are many people eager to fill his/her shoes at the top if they are that capable/family linked/connected they would easily bounce back, even from a minor jail sentence for an arguably minor crime.... Many Directors have CCJs and other legal penalties stopping from them officially owning a company. Sign it to the wife and business as usual.

You seem to be under the impression that people earning six figures are either very well connected or are super talented and anyone would give them a shot... there are lots of people out there on six figures, most are neither. Most are just salarymen who have joined a profession or climbed up a corporate ladder and a criminal conviction will kill that for them in an instant.

How on earth do these Mythical people get themselves in Jail for speeding anyway? Don't you have to be caught doing massive in excess speed on multiple occasions ?

I'm making the point in a general sense, doesn't have to be confined to speeding... a fine has a bigger effect on lower income groups, a prison sentence has a bigger effect on higher income groups

 

[Xordium]

and a criminal conviction will kill that for them in an instant.

Maybe then they should be aware of their actions can impact their career then. They could place that into consideration of the consequences of breaking the law. I have wanted to do things that may deemed 'immoral' throughout my life but I had not done because I've thought through the consequences. If people don't do that they have only themselves to blame.

 

[dowie]

yes maybe they should and indeed lots of them probably do - people in positions of responsibility with lots to lose obviously have that incentive and indeed only have themselves to blame, I'm not arguing that any of that needs to be changed... and likewise maybe people for whom fines are going to have a big impact... don't poor people also have themselves to blame when they break the law and get fined etc..?

my only argument was simply pointing out the other poster was correct in that a prison sentence can easily have a much bigger impact on the life of someone in that position, just as set fines have a bigger impact on people with less funds to pay them

 

[Efour]

You seem to be under the impression that people earning six figures are either very well connected or are super talented and anyone would give them a shot... there are lots of people out there on six figures, most are neither. Most are just salarymen who have joined a profession or climbed up a corporate ladder and a criminal conviction will kill that for them in an instant.

Yep true i neglected to include them. Not a hater just absent minded.

 

[An Exception]

Snip..

Unsubstantiated again in your opinion ...

Not it's not unsubstantiated. It's simple logic. If you are able to stop before you hit someone, it will prevent injury and death. You sir, just don't want to acknowledge simple logic because you have taken an emotional position instead of a logical one. Now you lack the emotional detachment required to alter your flawed viewpoint.

On a side note, I haven't seen anyone mention that such a policy would incentivise un-impartial and un-fair policing. Police/local authorities will now have financial incentive to point their gun at certain vehicles over another, or police certain areas over another, rather than to simply concentrate on known accident hotspots. This incentive for unfairness will be especially alluring in times of budget cut's.

 

[An Exception]

Maybe then they should be aware of their actions can impact their career then. They could place that into consideration of the consequences of breaking the law. I have wanted to do things that may deemed 'immoral' throughout my life but I had not done because I've thought through the consequences. If people don't do that they have only themselves to blame.

Let me translate that for you. You have wanted to do morally bad acts throughout your life which implies you are probably not a good person. The only reason you haven't done bad things is because you were afraid of being caught. So you are a law abiding citizen through cowardice or lack the intelligence required to avoid justice.

I'm mostly a law abiding citizen through good conscience, rather than because of the possible consequences enforced by law.

 

[Xordium]

Not it's not unsubstantiated. It's simple logic. If you are able to stop before you hit someone, it will prevent injury and death. You sir, just don't want to acknowledge simple logic because you have taken an emotional position instead of a logical one. Now you lack the emotional detachment required to alter your flawed viewpoint.

On a side note, I haven't seen anyone mention that such a policy would incentivise un-impartial and un-fair policing. Police/local authorities will now have financial incentive to point their gun at certain vehicles over another, or police certain areas over another, rather than to simply concentrate on known accident hotspots. This incentive for unfairness will be especially alluring in times of budget cut's.

The logic comes into it when you've taken something that is reasonably sound and then extrapolated it to something broader. That is not logical thinking. You would have to demonstrate that for it to be take as a fact.

Let me translate that for you. You have wanted to do morally bad acts throughout your life which implies you are probably not a good person. The only reason you haven't done bad things is because you were afraid of being caught. So you are a law abiding citizen through cowardice or lack the intelligence required to avoid justice.

I'm mostly a law abiding citizen through good conscience, rather than because of the possible consequences enforced by law.

You don't seem to be very good at this logical thinking lark do. Once again you've extrapolated something beyond it's original context and added in an ad hominem attack too! Congratulations! Good conscience is some we develop by weighing the respective negative and positives of any potential situation to determine the "right" outcome. It's not my problem if you lack the capacity to break down how we actually perform that process.

 

[An Exception]

your also suggesting if you arent rich then you are not "productive/successful and contribute to society" which is bs

Who contributes more to society statistically. A group earning 10k a year, or a group earning greater than 10k an year?
As a general rule, the more you earn, the more you contribute.
Obvious is obvious.

 

[An Exception]

The logic comes into it when you've taken something that is reasonably sound and then extrapolated it to something broader. That is not logical thinking. You would have to demonstrate that for it to be take as a fact.

So it is not logical to assume that if a car can break faster, that it is not safer?
If that's what you are saying, there is no point talking to you.

 

[An Exception]

You don't seem to be very good at this logical thinking lark do. Once again you've extrapolated something beyond it's original context and added in an ad hominem attack too! Congratulations! Good conscience is some we develop by weighing the respective negative and positives of any potential situation to determine the "right" outcome. It's not my problem if you lack the capacity to break down how we actually perform that process.

Apologies. From your previous post it suggested you wanted to do bad things but didn't due to the consequences YOU would face. If that's the case that has nothing to do with conscience and more to do with self preservation. Good conscience would be when you consider the consequences to OTHERS.

 

[hyperseven]

On a side note, I haven't seen anyone mention that such a policy would incentivise un-impartial and un-fair policing. Police/local authorities will now have financial incentive to point their gun at certain vehicles over another, or police certain areas over another, rather than to simply concentrate on known accident hotspots. This incentive for unfairness will be especially alluring in times of budget cut's.

Don't see a problem with this, if you don't break the law then how would this even matter?

And why do you keep double posting, there is an 'edit' button

 

[An Exception]

^^^
So you wouldn't have a problem with police saying "hey, let's pull over all the black drivers we see". After all, if they don't break the law, would this even matter?

Well most people don't want the police to target one group of people over another for any reason. Doing so doesn't make for a fair society.

 

[Etheco]

Disagree with the fine increase, the fine is more administration fee then anything else.

The points are the deterrent to not doing it again, to many points gets a ban no matter how wealthy you are.