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

An Exception said:
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.
Click to expand...

But at least it would be a level playing field for 99% of people :)

The point of this topic is deterrent and I feel that points and bans serve as more of a deterrent and removes the tiered system we currently have where if you can afford £160 you can go on a speed awareness course and avoid points. It boils down to getting away with it if you are wealthy enough. Fining richer people more is a straw man - likely because they will shrug it off and recoup the loss through some form of tax juggling.

Using points and bans and removing the fines removes the benefits and loopholes that people with more disposable income enjoy over those with less. In essence it levels the playing field and makes justice fairer for the majority of people.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
But at least it would be a level playing field for 99% of people :)

The point of this topic is deterrent and I feel that points and bans serve as more of a deterrent and removes the tiered system we currently have where if you can afford £160 you can go on a speed awareness course and avoid points. It boils down to getting away with it if you are wealthy enough. Fining richer people more is a straw man - likely because they will shrug it off and recoup the loss through some form of tax juggling.

Using points and bans and removing the fines removes the benefits and loopholes that people with more disposable income enjoy over those with less. In essence it levels the playing field and makes justice fairer for the majority of people.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. It's just the powers that be would rather not ban half the motorists off the road. Instead they prefer to offer 'awareness courses', so you avoid points and they can keep on taxing you.
 
An Exception said:
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.
Click to expand...
The point I'm saying is that not everybody can be wealthy, you can't simply assert that 'people need to work hard' when in reality we require people at the bottom for people to exist at the top.

It's a matter of distribution.

There is nothing to concede because you failed to see the point (multiple times), which frankly I don't find that surprising considering the poorly thought out tosh you've peddled so far.
 
dowie said:
I wouldn't necessarily apply this to all fines though... a parking ticket on the other hand perhaps wouldn't be so fair to means test, at least not to such a high degree, as though they're not supposed to local authorities tend to use those fines for revenue generation
Click to expand...
It may have already been covered, but I'd say parking fines are the one area where it's particularly pertinent. There is no negative to parking fines other than financial, Manchester has quite a few footballers etc who will routinely park on double yellows/pavements while they go shopping, £30 to park is insignificant to them and they have the benefit of parking closer to where they want to go.
 
elmarko said:
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.
Click to expand...

The quote was a mistake, I'm sorry.

You are right to say you earn more under both systems, I should have phrased it differently.
 
elmarko said:
The point I'm saying is that not everybody can be wealthy, you can't simply assert that 'people need to work hard' when in reality we require people at the bottom for people to exist at the top.

It's a matter of distribution.

There is nothing to concede because you failed to see the point (multiple times), which frankly I don't find that surprising considering the poorly thought out tosh you've peddled so far.
Click to expand...

It is a case of people just needing to work hard (or smarter). On a local level, if a poor person is determined to work harder/smarter than someone else in order to better their life they can. It will mean however that he/she displaces someone else who is less determined/talented and of course deserving.
The same applies on a national level. If people were more determined en masse to better their lives, the UK will become more competitive internationally, and we would displace other countries. In effect that would raise the tide in the UK, and a rising tide lifts all boats.
 
An Exception said:
It is a case of people just needing to work hard (or smarter). On a local level, if a poor person is determined to work harder/smarter than someone else in order to better their life they can. It will mean however that he/she displaces someone else who is less determined/talented and of course deserving.
The same applies on a national level. If people were more determined en masse to better their lives, the UK will become more competitive internationally, and we would displace other countries. In effect that would raise the tide in the UK, and a rising tide lifts all boats.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Dimple said:
Why is it different?
Why should you fine a rich person more because they have done well for themself?
It's a terrible way to think.
Click to expand...

Why exactly is it a terrible way to think? Actually describe why.

The rich person is being fined because they broke the law not because they did well for themselves. You also assume that they are rich because they have done well for themselves - empirical evidence shows this is largely not the case and money begets money.

For any given offence if there is a punishment then it has to be consistent for all offenders in the degree of punishment with all other mitigating factors being equal. Punitive fines at a set level do not offer equal finanical punishment they offer equal amount. The punitive component has to to consider the applicability the amount.
 
Dimple said:
Shocking.
So once again, if you are earning £100,000/year and I'm earning £20,000/year why should you pay 5x the amount for the same offense?
Click to expand...

because otherwise it's not an equal deterrent and people who can afford to flout the law will :confused:

the only people arguing against a fair system are the ones who want to take advantage of it

Maybe a better system would be a fixed percent based on the value of your car :D
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
because otherwise it's not an equal deterrent and people who can afford to flout the law will :confused:

the only people arguing against a fair system are the ones who want to take advantage of it

Maybe a better system would be a fixed percent based on the value of your car :D
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be an equal deterrent? You can't expect equality in some areas of life but not others. Be consistent.
 
arknor said:
because otherwise it's not an equal deterrent and people who can afford to flout the law will :confused:
Click to expand...

Points are an equal deterrent and to say rich people will get a chauffer is a load of tosh.
If I bought a Bugatti Veyron I wouldn't want to be a passenger in it.

People are also assuming that a rich person lives a richer life.
I have a mate who is on £80,000/year and he lives in a normal semi detached and drives a £3000 car.
So let's say I get fined £1,000 and I'm earning £20,000 and that would really eat into my lifestyle but my mate gets fined £4,000 and all he would have is less savings, it wouldn't hurt him one bit but 3 points on his license would.
 
Xordium said:
Why exactly is it a terrible way to think? Actually describe why.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, it's just a tax and it's always going to be popular with people who have a freeloader mentality. You know, the people who just want to keep taxing people who are more successful than them.
You see there are allot of spiteful people out there. Just because they can't have something, they don't want others to either so they look for every opportunity to relieve them from of their hard earned. Of course they don't actually say it as such, they cloak their feelings in an argument of fairness.
It's the same shtick that made communism so popular back in the day, and we've seen how that plays out.

When a group of people go out socially, they don't split the check according to % of what everyone in the group earns. People are expected to pay their way even if they earn less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom