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

Yamahahahahaha · 29 May 2015 at 18:53

An Exception said:
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.

Most wealthy people were born into money. Only one out of the top 10 wealthiest Brits can be considered 'self made' and that's James Dyson. If you think it's fair that people's success should be dictated by birth right then that's up to you. I don't think it's fair personally.

'Capacity to pay' fines work better than flat fines for the exact reasons Dimple has pointed out.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 18:56

Burnsy2023 said:
Because the impact of the punishment needs to be the same.

No it doesn't and not even a proportional fine achieves that.

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 18:58

Yamahahahahaha said:
Most wealthy people were born into money. Only one out of the top 10 wealthiest Brits can be considered 'self made' and that's James Dyson. If you think it's fair that people's success should be dictated by birth right then that's up to you. I don't think it's fair personally.

'Capacity to pay' fines work better than flat fines for the exact reasons Dimple has pointed out.

It's irrelevant how they get their money. So what if their parents provided well for their offspring. That's their right to do so, and something any good parent would do.

dowie · 29 May 2015 at 19:21

Abraham said:
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.

My issue with parking fines rather than speeding fines s that they're used by local authorities for revenue generation. If you bring in the powers to make that more lucrative then you'll start changing the behaviour of those in authority, rather than enforcing laws/regulations they're just incentivised to bring in revenue however they can - for an example where that can go full retard in general look at civil asset forfeiture laws in the USA:

I guarantee if you introduced the idea of 5 figure parking fines you'll get numerous spurious tickets issued - anyone with an expensive car then becomes a potential revenue target by the private companies contracted to give out tickets on behalf of local authorities.

dowie · 29 May 2015 at 19:23

Burnsy2023 said:
Having a proportional fine IS consistent.

and so is having a fixed fine

the concept of 'fairness' here is entirely subjective and just down to personal opinion

An Exception · 29 May 2015 at 19:50

dowie said:
My issue with parking fines rather than speeding fines s that they're used by local authorities for revenue generation. If you bring in the powers to make that more lucrative then you'll start changing the behaviour of those in authority, rather than enforcing laws/regulations they're just incentivised to bring in revenue however they can - for an example where that can go full retard in general look at civil asset forfeiture laws in the USA:

I guarantee if you introduced the idea of 5 figure parking fines you'll get numerous spurious tickets issued - anyone with an expensive car then becomes a potential revenue target by the private companies contracted to give out tickets on behalf of local authorities.

That's what I've been saying. It seems so many here can't grasp the corrupting concept of making it extremely lucrative to target certain people and their property.

semi-pro waster · 29 May 2015 at 20:04

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

You say disproportionate, others say entirely proportionate. The likely reason it makes headlines is simply because of the absolute value of the fine being high - you don't hear about the other Finnish motorists who pay the same percentage of a fine for speeding yet it theoretically impacts them exactly the same.

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

Ok but aside from the fact the story happened in Switzerland and not Sweden as Efour points out so it's not particularly relevant here unless we want to start comparing the number of road deaths in Switzerland as well. I'm not actually arguing that it does have a noticeable deterrent effect, that's often quite hard to quantify but I'm probably arguing with the people who perceive unfairness here - as you say it's subjective but that does mean this is not necessarily less fair and arguably a variable fine has the potential to impact on people at different income levels in the same way.

Efour said:
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

Absolutely right, it's a Swiss thing. My mistake, I was in a rush but remembered the story was about a Swedish motorist and for some reason thought it was actually in Sweden.

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.

They're not quite the same thing - being deprived of your liberty is being deprived of your liberty whatever your circumstances before you went to prison. Extending the prison sentence because of income is not a comparable point. Being fined for a misdemeanour where the fine has a punitive element could imply that it should vary according to income otherwise the punishment is deeply unequal between wealthy and non-wealthy.

So the argument is also if they're so wealthy they can afford a huge fine easily that losing their license will bother them? If they're that wealthy then having a chauffeur is hardly going to be a prohibitive expense either - a bit more inconvenient perhaps and it does deprive them of the pleasure of driving (and speeding personally) but so it would for the man who is banned and has to take the bus.

Efour · 29 May 2015 at 21:05

dowie said:

John Oliver is brilliant

That couldn't happen in the UK or any Normal European country.. Not like that... I refuse to believe its possible

Caged · 1 Jun 2015 at 23:08

Efour said:
John Oliver is brilliant

That couldn't happen in the UK or any Normal European country.. Not like that... I refuse to believe its possible

Land of the free

Orionaut · 1 Jun 2015 at 23:36

dowie said:

There is a reason why a sizeable proportion of the US population actually loathes the US Government.

The one thing I remember most about 9/11 was the (very obvious, Palpable even) sense of relief once they realised that this had been carried out by a bunch of middle eastern "Rag-heads" rather than a domestic "Tim McVeigh Peoples Militia"

George Hincapie · 1 Jun 2015 at 23:57

Orionaut said:
The one thing I remember most about 9/11 was the (very obvious, Palpable even) sense of relief once they realised that this had been carried out by a bunch of middle eastern "Rag-heads" rather than a domestic "Tim McVeigh Peoples Militia"

Don't open that can of worms; it's not at all clear who is responsible for 9/11.

dowie · 2 Jun 2015 at 00:36

George Hincapie said:
Don't open that can of worms; it's not at all clear who is responsible for 9/11.

eh? there is some rather clear footage shot by plenty of independent witnesses showing the planes crash into the buildings... they know who the hijackers are, they've even arrested the bloke who masterminded it and he is currently awaiting trial.... Seems pretty clear to me.

SexyGreyFox · 2 Jun 2015 at 07:34

George Hincapie said:
Don't open that can of worms; it's not at all clear who is responsible for 9/11.

I'll go for those people who celebrate it every year as their greatest victory.

Abraham · 2 Jun 2015 at 10:53

dowie said:
My issue with parking fines rather than speeding fines s that they're used by local authorities for revenue generation. If you bring in the powers to make that more lucrative then you'll start changing the behaviour of those in authority, rather than enforcing laws/regulations they're just incentivised to bring in revenue however they can - for an example where that can go full retard in general look at civil asset forfeiture laws in the USA:

I guarantee if you introduced the idea of 5 figure parking fines you'll get numerous spurious tickets issued - anyone with an expensive car then becomes a potential revenue target by the private companies contracted to give out tickets on behalf of local authorities.

That's fair enough, I suppose I take more issue with the recordless nature of parking fines rather than the amount itself. At least with speeding fines you have to pay a fancy lawyer to get you out of the points, with parking fines like I said it's possible to just pay them as if that's what parking costs.

The areas where I'm talking about in Manchester can see you paying £15+ to park so £30 for a parking fine which has no non-financial negatives is an easy choice if you've got cash to splash.

balky12 · 2 Jun 2015 at 13:02

Quite a lot of jealousy for those who have more to play coming from this forum. Maybe some people should spend less time on this forum and work harder!

Deterrent is the points. Fine is for admin costs...

'Rich people should pay more!!!!!' - they already pay more tax than you, now you want them to pay more in fines for the same offence?

What next, make them pay more for everything? It will make them appreciate their purchases more!! Just like poor people! Not fair that poorer people in society save for years to afford that car and rich people can buy it in a month. :rolleyes:

Efour · 2 Jun 2015 at 15:34

Could that be more cliche ^

Minstadave · 2 Jun 2015 at 15:43

balky12 said:
Quite a lot of jealousy for those who have more to play coming from this forum. Maybe some people should spend less time on this forum and work harder!

Deterrent is the points. Fine is for admin costs...

'Rich people should pay more!!!!!' - they already pay more tax than you, now you want them to pay more in fines for the same offence?

What next, make them pay more for everything? It will make them appreciate their purchases more!! Just like poor people! Not fair that poorer people in society save for years to afford that car and rich people can buy it in a month.

Someone is a bit late to the thread.

Burnsy2023 · 2 Jun 2015 at 15:45

balky12 said:
Deterrent is the points. Fine is for admin costs...

Which kinda proves the opposite point. The fine should be a financial penalty not for admin costs. If people don't find it an appropriate penalty, it's not doing it's job.

George Hincapie · 2 Jun 2015 at 15:47

Minstadave said:
Someone is a bit late to the thread.

Yet manages to succintly capture all of the relevent issues that others are unable to grasp.

balky12 · 2 Jun 2015 at 15:51

Burnsy2023 said:
Which kinda proves the opposite point. The fine should be a financial penalty not for admin costs. If people don't find it an appropriate penalty, it's not doing it's job.

Maybe so. But the actual deterrent is the points. I am sure every drives finds 3 points appropriate.

Everyone knows most 'fines' cover supposed admin costs.

What next? Longer sentences for younger people because they have more years ahead of them?