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

Haggisman · 29 May 2015 at 13:36

George Hincapie said:
Why should they? Just because they can pay more doesn't mean they should pay more. I will never accept this utterly flawed reasoning.

So what do you think would happen if they didn't? If everyone in the country paid £3k tax/£2k NI, regardless of earnings*?

(based on national average of £26k salary)

Also, they should pay more towards society because they benefit more from society.

It's at about this point you'll trot out the tired old line of "yes, but they use less NHS etc. services and don't claim benefits, so they don't benefit more from society", and you'd be right. To a point.

Except how would these people have become "rich and successful" except by working on the backs of the people below them? A stable economy and "safe" modern society is what allowed them to get to the position they are in. Without the lower paid workers building the roads, preparing the food, keeping the gas, electricity and water flowing, policing the streets, cleaning the toilets, etc. that these people use every day, they would be nothing.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 13:40

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.

That story happened in Switzerland ?

I just asked a mate and he says they still have a fixed fine in Sweden but it can rise depending on the amount you went over the limit.

But they have harsher fines/penalties on breaking urban limits compared to motorway driving. (seems sensible?)

You can also lose your liscense on the 1st offence if you are driving like a maniac

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:40

Haggisman said:
So what do you think would happen if they didn't? If everyone in the country paid £3k tax/£2k NI, regardless of earnings*?

(based on national average of £26k salary)

If we are now discussing Income Tax, then I am a very strong supporter of a flat rate. That would be the 'fairest' position; everyone pays the same %, if you earn more you still pay more, but you're better off than under the current progressive system which effectively penalises professional success.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:41

Haggisman said:
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

Well as I am not a communist or someone with greeneye, I think £83k is disproportionate for a misdemeanour offence. People like you claim that it's about financial deterrent. It isn't, you are lying to us or yourself or both. The guy in question can easily afford this fine, I highly doubt this will actually deter him from speeding.

No if people like you were actually concerned with the 'deterrent' aspect, you would be calling for more penalty points for speeding. This would mean more driving bans, and less speeders on the road.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:43

George Hincapie said:
If we are now discussing Income Tax, then I am a very strong supporter of a flat rate. That would be the 'fairest' position; everyone pays the same %, if you earn more you still pay more, but you're better off than under the current progressive system which effectively penalises professional success.

This. Being self employed, when I get to the 40% mark, I just stop working.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 13:44

Percent based system + more points lost ! Sounds good +1 to that!

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 13:45

Haggisman said:
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

Amusing that people use the term
disproportionate when describing a punishing that is entirely proportional.

They may deem it to be excessive, but the financial aspect is entirely proportionate - it's based on a ration & in relation to another figure.

Haggisman · 29 May 2015 at 13:45

An Exception said:
Well as I am not a communist or someone with greeneye, I think £83k is disproportionate for a misdemeanour offence. People like you claim that it's about financial deterrent. It isn't, you are lying to us or yourself or both. The guy in question can easily afford this fine, I highly doubt this will actually deter him from speeding.

So if it's not for a financial deterrent, then why have a fine at all?

An Exception said:
No if people like you were actually concerned with the 'deterrent' aspect, you would be calling for more penalty points for speeding. This would mean more driving bans, and less speeders on the road.

Except as has already been posted several times, a) if you're that rich you can afford a chauffeur, b) it's entirely possible to go over the "limit" and keep your licence.

Try again. :rolleyes:

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:47

An Exception said:
Well as I am not a communist or someone with greeneye, I think £83k is disproportionate for a misdemeanour offence. People like you claim that it's about financial deterrent. It isn't, you are lying to us or yourself or both. The guy in question can easily afford this fine, I highly doubt this will actually deter him from speeding.

No if people like you were actually concerned with the 'deterrent' aspect, you would be calling for more penalty points for speeding. This would mean more driving bans, and less speeders on the road.

I think your view is right. Punishment should be the same regardless of background. Thankfully, this entire thread is moot, because the fact is that we don't have an income based approach to dealing with speeding offences in the UK and that's unlikely to change.

The Dread Pirate · 29 May 2015 at 13:47

Perkele!

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 13:47

George Hincapie said:
If we are now discussing Income Tax, then I am a very strong supporter of a flat rate. That would be the 'fairest' position; everyone pays the same %, if you earn more you still pay more, but you're better off than under the current progressive system which effectively penalises professional success.

How coincidental that what you deem to be fair also results in a net financial gain to yourself.

BuffetSlayer · 29 May 2015 at 13:48

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.

Does anyone think it is actually reasonable to be fined tens of thousands of pounds for an SP30 offence?

Is that proportionate to the offence? For example, if I earn 10m a year is it proportional or reasonable to fine me £50k for doing 45 in a 40? If we applied such extreme differences in punishment, then surely jail tarifs would have to follow suit?

For example a man on the dole could assault someone, and they get a couple of week of community service at most but for the same crime the person earning £10m gets ten years in jail? It is the same principle.

Surely the basis of the punishment has to be based on the severity of the crime and it should be reasonable and proportional to said crime? I dont think anyone of sound mind could argue that giving someone 10 years for assault is reasonable.

Just like, in my opinion, fining someone £50K for going 5MPH over the limit is not reasonable. Whether they are rich and can afford it or not, it is not reasonable punishment for the offence. It is way OTT and a little bit like locking someone up for life for not paying their TV licence.

Additionally - for the very wealthy is a £50k fine going to actually be a deterrent? They can pay their way out of trouble. Losing their car, or their licence may be more of a deterrent.

Personally I think the best way of serving a deterrent is to use points and driving bans that cannot be reversed with money. It levels the playing field in terms of 'justice' but it seems like a lot of people here just like to hate the rich and expect them to financially carry everyone else just because they are fortunate enough to be wealthy.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:48

Haggisman said:
Except how would these people have become "rich and successful" except by working on the backs of the people below them? A stable economy and "safe" modern society is what allowed them to get to the position they are in. Without the lower paid workers building the roads, preparing the food, keeping the gas, electricity and water flowing, policing the streets, cleaning the toilets, etc. that these people use every day, they would be nothing.

By being clever. By using their brain and inventing something the toilet cleaner is incapable of.

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:48

Haggisman said:
So if it's not for a financial deterrent, then why have a fine at all?

To cover administrative costs.

mccarf · 29 May 2015 at 13:48

dowie said:
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

Quite a few websites are stating Norway goes up to 10% of your income, which is even higher.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 13:48

An Exception said:
This. Being self employed, when I get to the 40% mark, I just stop working.

50% of something is still earning more than 40% of nothing...

I understand what you are trying to say when you cross an income tax threshold but dont you only go upto 50% (i don't even know what it is in the UK anymore) on the extra earnings over the lower bracket?

So out of touch !

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:50

elmarko said:
How coincidental that what you deem to be fair also results in a net financial gain to yourself.

It's a net financial gain to everyone who manages to achieve financial success surely? I really don't see why any rational person would disagree, unless it's just bitterness and jealousy...

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:50

Haggisman said:
So if it's not for a financial deterrent, then why have a fine at all?

Admin fee.

Haggisman said:
Except as has already been posted several times, a) if you're that rich you can afford a chauffeur, b) it's entirely possible to go over the "limit" and keep your licence.

Try again.

Oh boohooo. Ever heard of survival of the fittest?

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:51

Efour said:
50% of something is still earning more than 40% of nothing...

I understand what you are trying to say when you cross an income tax threshold but dont you only go upto 50% (i don't even know what it is in the UK anymore) on the extra earnings over the lower bracket?

So out of touch !

That doesn't make it any better. It's still wrong. It still penalises success.

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 13:51

An Exception said:
By being clever. By using their brain and inventing something the toilet cleaner is incapable of.

Do you believe that everybody in society can be wealthy given the right skills & determination?.

/gets popcorn.

An Exception said:
Oh boohooo. Ever heard of survival of the fittest?

Yes actually. Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest') attempted to hijack Darwinian theory to justify his social views, pretty much like you are.