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

Minstadave said:
Nonsense, it's about making an ineffective fine effective. It's nothing about rich vs poor, it applies to everyone and anyone.
Click to expand...

Then increase the fines for everyone.

How dense can people be? People who have very little still speed. Even if this £60 hits them hard. They still offend.

The fine isn't the main punishment or deterrent. It's the points. Get enough of then, you're banned.
 
Fines for illegally parking should be having your car lifted onto the back of a truck and dropped off in a yard somewhere. Getting it back should be the costs incurred having to remove it.

The rich person has their life of busily earning money to pay taxes to literally save everyone less fortunate than them from certain death (because they own a business don't you know) disrupted, the poor person doesn't have a fine that is stupid.

Speeding should get your tyres slashed. Nice proportional cost for everyone.
 
Minstadave said:
Fining everyone an amount so it has a financial impact makes the fine have said impact - yes.
Click to expand...

I'll go back to a post I made somewhere above.

Let's say I earn £20,000/year but get fined £1,000, that will have a serious impact on my lifestyle.
My mate earns £80,000 so gets fined £4,000 but he has a very modest lifestyle and all he ends up with is less savings.
The more people have the less of an impact it will have, in his case you would probably have to fine him £60,000 to have the same effect £1,000 has on me.
 
Dimple said:
I'll go back to a post I made somewhere above.

Let's say I earn £20,000/year but get fined £1,000, that will have a serious impact on my lifestyle.
My mate earns £80,000 so gets fined £4,000 but he has a very modest lifestyle and all he ends up with is less savings.
The more people have the less of an impact it will have, in his case you would probably have to fine him £60,000 to have the same effect £1,000 has on me.
Click to expand...

This assumes the most basic of means testing.
 
You lot are basically arguing for discrimination against rich people.

£100 isn't trivial for a lot if people that do speed. So what evidence have you got to argue for a massive hike in fines against rich people will be more of a deterrent? It's absurd.

Now someone who's single no kids earning a million can afford the fine more than someone who is on a million who has a wife and kids. They could probably afford it more than someone who is in a million and is divorced with 4 young kids who need child support.

What so now you measure it in disposable income? It gets ridiculous.

Person A who is a millionaire gets caught speeding. Fined £100. Is now £100 out of pocket.

Person B who is on 20k p.a. Gets caught speeding. Fined £100. Is now £100 out of pocket.

Both people have been caught speeding. Both have same punishment. £100 out of pocket. Same offence. Same punishment.

It's just part and parcel of being rich in afraid. Got to be some upsides surely? If some of you get your way there wouldn't be any point of being rich. It would just be fined or taxed from you till you're an average joe!

Edit: we really want to live in a place that looks at what's left in your bank account as a measurement of justice?
 
Last edited:
I think the upside is that you have a ton of money :confused:

balky12 said:
Edit: we really want to live in a place that looks at what's left in your bank account as a measurement of justice?
Click to expand...

It's just the other side of the coin from people claiming that what people earn and therefore presumably pay in taxes is a measurement of the worth of that person. Everyone involved in this pointless debate is making the same argument.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
This assumes the most basic of means testing.
Click to expand...

But you are also assuming rich people live extravagant lifestyles and it will hit their pocket if they are fined more.
How exactly do you means test an individual so that you can accurately hurt them financially next to a person on minimum wage?
There are way more factors than just a % of their income.
 
Dolph said:
Terrible idea, but no doubt popular with the jealousy driven on the forum who don't understand that the punishment should not vary based on irrelevant factors to the crime.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what you're in favour of - you are arguing in favour of the idea that the amount of punishment for a crime should be dependent on how much money the person committing the crime has.

The essence of a punishment is the adverse effect it has on the person. That's pretty much what a punishment is.

For any fixed fine, the amount of adverse effect it has on the person depends on how much money that person has. So with a fixed fine the punishment varies based on how much money the person have. Even with a proportional fine it still won't be equal punishment because a poorer person requires a higher proportion of their income for survival than a richer person.

I think this fine is excessive, though I agree in principle that fines levied as punishment should be proportional to income and thus at least somewhat closer to being an equal amount of punishment for each person.
 
Things i still personally find mind blowing highlighted by the thread.

A) Using the word jealousy. I think that shows how deeply and personally people abhor other people that succeed financially. Psychopathic tendencies there.

B) How a % based fine/deterrent is "Unfair" and punishes the rich.... It could not be fairer. 5% is 5% is 5%.... Of course 5% of £10m is more than 5% of £20k - duh.
(The guys argument was that he earned a lot of money in that Tax year previous, that didn't reflect in his lower earnings in this tax year and time of the estimation)

c) Money should give you the right to flaunt/avoid/ignore the Law because you have "earned" it. Money already buys you justice and the best legal representation in the UK

If you have issues with any of these 3 i wouldn't set foot in Scandinavia.
 
Efour said:
Things i still personally find mind blowing highlighted by the thread.

A) Using the word jealousy. I think that shows how deeply and personally people abhor other people that succeed financially. Psychopathic tendencies there.

B) How a % based fine/deterrent is "Unfair" and punishes the rich.... It could not be fairer. 5% is 5% is 5%.... Of course 5% of £10m is more than 5% of £20k - duh.
(The guys argument was that he earned a lot of money in that Tax year previous, that didn't reflect in his lower earnings in this tax year and time of the estimation)

c) Money should give you the right to flaunt/avoid/ignore the Law because you have "earned" it. Money already buys you justice and the best legal representation in the UK

If you have issues with any of these 3 i wouldn't set foot in Scandinavia.
Click to expand...

I would only have issues with B. If the idea of a fixed % is fair (and I don't disagree with the principle), then the tax system with stepped percentages must be unfair as it is not consistent
 
Efour said:
It could not be fairer. 5% is 5% is 5%.... Of course 5% of £10m is more than 5% of £20k - duh.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it.
5% would seriously impact on most people earning 20K but 5% on 10 million would leave that person shrugging their shoulders saying 'So what?'.
You would have to fine the millionaire a lot more % to hurt them in the same way you would the lower wages person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom