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

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:53

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

/gets popcorn.

We've been down this road in the election thread already. Go read my comments there if you want to learn my views.

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 13:53

George Hincapie said:
We've been down this road in the election thread already. Go read my comments there if you want to learn my views.

Thanks for that, but I wasn't actually replying to you.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:54

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

A flat rate is a fairer policy. If you want to earn more, you work more.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 13:54

BuffetSlayer said:
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.

Its been discussed at length that you cant have jail time/custodial sentencing on the % scale that's why this is about MONEY and solely MONETARY fines -

Trying to bring nonsensical, as you clearly demonstrate, punishments to custodial sentences isnt what this is about. The law is meant to be a leveler in a land not create a tiered system (which is what you have now)- thats WHY a %fines are the ultimate fair factor.

We are going in such a stupid roundabout fashion here, well i am at least

time to get off!

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 13:55

An Exception said:
A flat rate is a fairer policy. If you want to earn more, you work more.

This applies on a varied rate system also.

If you want to earn more, you work more. Please try harder.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:56

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

/gets popcorn.

With the right skills & determination. Not everyone has those or is capable of acquiring them.

BuffetSlayer · 29 May 2015 at 13:56

Efour said:
Its been discussed at length that you cant have jail time/custodial sentencing on the % scale that's why this is about MONEY and solely MONETARY fines -

Trying to bring nonsensical, as you clearly demonstrate, punishments to custodial sentences isnt what this is about. The law is meant to be a leveler in a land not create a tiered system (which is what you have now)- thats WHY a %fines are the ultimate fair factor.

We are going in such a stupid roundabout fashion here, well i am at least
time to get off!

Or no fines at all and driving bans and points on your licence proportionate to the offence?

Surely in terms of what is fair that is the fairest way of all?

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:57

elmarko said:
This applies on a varied rate system also.

If you want to earn more, you work more. Please try harder.

With a varied rate system, it encourages people to be less productive and work less. Maybe it's a good thing, as they don't spend all their time working and instead more time enjoying life.

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:58

elmarko said:
This applies on a varied rate system also.

If you want to earn more, you work more. Please try harder.

An unfair comparison. Higher earners pay more tax under a progressive system than a flat rate system.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 13:59

BuffetSlayer said:
Or no fines at all and driving bans and points on your licence proportionate to the offence?

Surely in terms of what is fair that is the fairest way of all?

No apparently it is not. Some here think it's unfair because the rich can afford chauffeurs. :rolleyes:

George Hincapie · 29 May 2015 at 13:59

An Exception said:
With the right skills & determination. Not everyone has those or is capable of acquiring them.

That's life. To suggest everyone should be the same and have the same is just not reality.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 14:01

George Hincapie said:
That doesn't make it any better. It's still wrong. It still penalises success.

Well tax reform isn't anything i will even pretend to know about even in GD

So i cant argue the merits of a flat rate over a tiered system. Seeing as most Western democracies )i think) favor a tiered system i guess it must be better for society? (though one must believe in such a thing as society which it appears some don't?)

There is always going to be a few lower end, high earners, that get screwed, but its not really aimed at those peasants is it?

Its aimed at the real wealth owners, where we are talking about millions and billions of $£ income that make up the majority of the real richest people, Not IT contractors, Consultants and Salesmen.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 14:08

BuffetSlayer said:
Or no fines at all and driving bans and points on your licence proportionate to the offence?

Surely in terms of what is fair that is the fairest way of all?

Well then you could have the first 3 for free? (3pts x 3 isn't it it ? - 12 to be stripped of your license?)

Not really a deterrent on its own, so no.

The threat of hurting someones pocket is a really the only logical option, isn't it ? That threat has to be somehow (money) a deterrent to all.

How else do you deter people from breaking the law without violence and a cloud of peppar spray nightstick beatings?

Haggisman · 29 May 2015 at 14:08

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

In the dark? Somehow fitting it in between doing their own cleaning and growing/cultivating their own food? With a shotgun under the desk to keep away the roaming gangs?

While suffering from various diseases caught from drinking dirty water?

And then how will they manufacture and sell their invention without factory workers and retail staff? Not to mention the lack of distribution due to there being no roads to speak of...

Efour said:
How else do you deter people from breaking the law without violence and a cloud of peppar spray nightstick beatings?

I get the impression some of the posters in here would prefer that to an hour's wages... I'd be more than happy to volunteer as a nightstick beater

Anyway, I'm out, as clearly there are some very naive people in here who live in cloud cuckoo land :rolleyes:

BuffetSlayer · 29 May 2015 at 14:21

Efour said:
Well then you could have the first 3 for free? (3pts x 3 isn't it it ? - 12 to be stripped of your license?)

Not really a deterrent on its own, so no.

The threat of hurting someones pocket is a really the only logical option, isn't it ? That threat has to be somehow (money) a deterrent to all.

How else do you deter people from breaking the law without violence and a cloud of peppar spray nightstick beatings?

No - because you can alter the points system to make it tougher. If you remain at 12 points till a ban, you could make a standard SP30 = 6 points and make it stick to your licence for 6 years (or more). If you get banned from speeding it is an automatic ban for 24 months, more if the speeding was excessive.

IE - in the case of an SP30 you get one for 'free' and the second time you get caught - you are out!

I am sure there would be lots of people driving far more carefully for fear of being caught a 2nd time and for 99% of people that is a real deterrent.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 14:23

Haggisman said:
In the dark? Somehow fitting it in between doing their own cleaning and growing/cultivating their own food? With a shotgun under the desk to keep away the roaming gangs?

While suffering from various diseases caught from drinking dirty water?

And then how will they manufacture and sell their invention without factory workers and retail staff? Not to mention the lack of distribution due to there being no roads to speak of...

A robot will soon be doing those jobs. Every year a slightly less simple job is lost to a machine or robot. How long do you think most of the remaining Tesco till workers have left? Self serve has already made huge swathes of the staff redundant.

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 14:24

An Exception said:
With the right skills & determination. Not everyone has those or is capable of acquiring them.

Avoiding the question.

Possessing skills & determination are not guaranteed prerequisites for success.

elmarko · 29 May 2015 at 14:25

George Hincapie said:
An unfair comparison. Higher earners pay more tax under a progressive system than a flat rate system.

How is it an unfair comparison?, it's factually correct. In all systems the more you work the more you will earn, the difference is to what degree.

Why do you keep quoting my posts in response to somebody else & then reply like it was mean to retort your previous musings?. I was in response to his assertion that the 'more you work, the more you should earn'.

This is factually correct in either a progressive or flat system.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 14:27

BuffetSlayer said:
No - because you can alter the points system to make it tougher. If you remain at 12 points till a ban, you could make a standard SP30 = 6 points and make it stick to your licence for 6 years (or more). If you get banned from speeding it is an automatic ban for 24 months, more if the speeding was excessive.

IE - in the case of an SP30 you get one for 'free' and the second time you get caught - you are out!

I am sure there would be lots of people driving far more carefully for fear of being caught a 2nd time and for 99% of people that is a real deterrent.

It would cost the tax payer to much money. There would be too many driving bans, too many people/families losing their jobs and homes. Too many new benefit claimants driving up the budget deficit leading the country to bankruptcy. We would end up being the next Greece.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 14:31

elmarko said:
Avoiding the question.

Possessing skills & determination are not guaranteed prerequisites for success.

No I answered the question.

Oh, and nothing in life is guaranteed. I'm not really sure what point you are actually trying to make. It sounds like you are trying to point to an exception to disprove a rule. Like saying, not everyone who smokes get's lung cancer, so smoking can't be the cause of lung cancer. Sounds like you are clutching at straws. It's less sad if you just concede.