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

Dimple said:
I'm on the lower pay scale band but accept if people have worked hard for more money or even inherited it, they should still pay the same amount.
In effect you're saying that when a rich person goes into a pub they should pay more for a pint or if they buy something from OCUK they should pay more.
Click to expand...
What a load of rubbish.

I'm sorry but that's one of the poorest thought out lines of reasoning I've read since our resident furry posted it earlier.

The price of a pint is related to the total cost of manufacture/sale with supply & demand.

A fine isn't a good, it's a punishment or a deterrent - the principles are simply not equal. The fixed price of a good is fixed because of the cost to make it. A speeding fine doesn't have a cost to produce, is not sold & therefore is a terrible point of comparison whichever way you spin it.

Nobody is saying that, it's just something you've erroneously added on & assumed.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
it might be, if this was some untested idea... but it is something already implemented in a couple of countries - and there isn't clear evidence AFAIK that it does work

In fact Finland is worse for road safety than the UK and neighbouring countries like Norway and Sweden.
Click to expand...

You can't really take the figures of the UK and Finland at face value given they have much harsher winters than we do. I think if we faced similar sort of winters then our figures would be far worse. Actual driving standards there are generally much higher overall and you honestly don't get mister typical Audi/BMW storming past at warp speed nearly as often as you do here. The police presence there is also much, much higher than in the UK, both on the roads and around town centres.

As for Sweden it's probably this plan they put into place that's bringing their figures down:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16
 
An Exception said:
Capital Punishment for jaywalking would also be an effective punishment and deterrence. Perhaps you would also be supportive of that?
Click to expand...
Because capital punishment for jaywalking is comparable to a percentage income based fine for speeding. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Hang on a moment.....

....

...

..

.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
BuffetSlayer said:
I would imagine if they were that destitute, they wouldn't even own a car.
Click to expand...

Well they don't need to worry about paying a ticket do they. For everyone else who drives but can't afford £60, then don't speed. For the impoverished single parents out there speeding knowing full well they can't afford a £60 fine, they are not fit parents.
 
mccarf said:
You can't really take the figures of the UK and Finland at face value given they have much harsher winters than we do. I think if we faced similar sort of winters then our figures would be far worse. Actual driving standards there are generally much higher overall and you honestly don't get mister typical Audi/BMW storming past at warp speed nearly as often as you do here. The police presence there is also much, much higher than in the UK, both on the roads and around town centres.

As for Sweden it's probably this plan they put into place that's bringing their figures down:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16
Click to expand...

true, but I'd still be interested to see if there have been any studies that can show the means testing fines have an increased deterrent effect

there is also Norway for comparison and they've got safer roads than Finland

If anything it shows that we should perhaps be looking to Sweden and their model rather than trying to implement some fines on the basis of some subjective opinion of 'fairness' and some hope that they have a deterrent effect
 
I can see the reasoning behind the policy and support it in principle but with an upper end cap at an inflation linked £10k, tbh it would be equally good used across the board with all fines.
 
elmarko said:
What a load of rubbish.

I'm sorry but that's one of the poorest thought out lines of reasoning I've read since our resident furry posted it earlier.

The price of a pint is related to the total cost of manufacture/sale with supply & demand.

A fine isn't a good, it's a punishment or a deterrent - the principles are simply not equal. The fixed price of a good is fixed because of the cost to make it. A speeding fine doesn't have a cost to produce, is not sold & therefore is a terrible point of comparison whichever way you spin it.

Nobody is saying that, it's just something you've erroneously added on & assumed.
Click to expand...

I know, its hilarious how far people will go out of ther way to deliberately misunderstand something just to make a completely worthless point.

Its more in line with things like Tax, which are, just like this, based on a %age of salary! Rich people pay more towards the upkeep of roads, the funding of speed camera schemes, and the funding of the authorities who govern and enforce the rules, so why should they not pay bigger fines when they break the rules too?
 
elmarko said:
Because capital punishment for jaywalking is comparable to a percentage income based fine for speeding. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Hang on a moment.....

....

...

..

.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The only bad things about forums is I can't look people in the eye and laugh at them. I wonder if An Exception even has any inkling of how utterly ridiculous he sounds when he writes tripe like that.
 
thep02 said:
I can see the reasoning behind the policy and support it in principle but with an upper end cap at an inflation linked £10k, tbh it would be equally good used across the board with all fines.
Click to expand...

If that kind of thinking became mainstream in this country, then all it would do is further incentivise the brightest and highest achieving people who contribute the most tax that pays for NHS, schools etc. to just leave the country and contribute elsewhere. It just wouldn't make sense to live here if you get fined £83k or even just £10k for every misdemeanor.

What next, £100k parking tickets???
What a joke..
 
An Exception said:
No but 'effective punishment and deterrence' alone does not make a law justified and in the public interest.
Click to expand...

There's an implicit term of reasonableness that is utterly missing from your example - it is simply unreasonable to propose capital punishment for jaywalking and completely disproportionate to the offence. If you can show why variable fines for driving offences based on an individuals income is unreasonable and disproportionate then perhaps your analogy would hold more validity.

dowie said:
true, but I'd still be interested to see if there have been any studies that can show the means testing fines have an increased deterrent effect

there is also Norway for comparison and they've got safer roads than Finland

If anything it shows that we should perhaps be looking to Sweden and their model rather than trying to implement some fines on the basis of some subjective opinion of 'fairness' and some hope that they have a deterrent effect
Click to expand...

Worth noting for your point then that Sweden also have variable fines for speeding. It may be that variable fines have comparatively little impact on road deaths or as a deterrent but there is (apparently) nothing in the example of Sweden which suggests they shouldn't be implemented for the reasons we've had mooted so far.
 
An Exception said:
If that kind of thinking became mainstream in this country, then all it would do is further incentivise the brightest and highest achieving people who contribute the most tax that pays for NHS, schools etc. to just leave the country and contribute elsewhere. It just wouldn't make sense to live here if you get fined £83k or even just £10k for every misdemeanor.

What next, £100k parking tickets???
What a joke..
Click to expand...

Or perhaps just incentivise them not to drive like ****s and park where they shouldn't?

There are plenty of "normal" people who manage to go through life without ever getting a parking ticket or speeding fine, so are the "brightest and highest achieving" people really that thick that they are unable to understand the link between "doing something you shouldn't" and "being punished"? Or are they just so arrogant that they believe the law doesn't apply to them? :rolleyes:
 
semi-pro waster said:
There's an implicit term of reasonableness that is utterly missing from your example - it is simply unreasonable to propose capital punishment for jaywalking and completely disproportionate to the offence. If you can show why variable fines for driving offences based on an individuals income is unreasonable and disproportionate then perhaps your analogy would hold more validity.
Click to expand...

83k for a speeding ticket is disproportionate. That's why it made headlines.
 
An Exception said:
83k for a speeding ticket is disproportionate. That's why it made headlines.
Click to expand...

Disproportionate to what?

If you start making claims like that, you're going to have to qualify them.

I'd be inclined to argue the opposite, an £83k fine for someone who earns 10million a year is completely proportionate when compared to a £100 fine for someone who earns £14k a year
 
semi-pro waster said:
Worth noting for your point then that Sweden also have variable fines for speeding. It may be that variable fines have comparatively little impact on road deaths or as a deterrent but there is (apparently) nothing in the example of Sweden which suggests they shouldn't be implemented for the reasons we've had mooted so far.
Click to expand...

point still remains that there is nothing to suggest they should other than subjective opinions of 'fairness'

Norway is safer than Finland too - though they have given the police powers to revoke licenses and they're quicker to implement short prison sentences
 
Skeeter said:
Its more in line with things like Tax, which are, just like this, based on a %age of salary! Rich people pay more towards the upkeep of roads, the funding of speed camera schemes, and the funding of the authorities who govern and enforce the rules, so why should they not pay bigger fines when they break the rules too?
Click to expand...

Why should they? Just because they can pay more doesn't mean they should pay more. I will never accept this utterly flawed reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom