Fines related to income

Lockstep

nesf wrote: »

Source?

Once again; I was quoting Tippman's claim.

nesf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Once again; I was quoting Tippman's claim.

You're interpreting it arseways. The tax take doesn't include all that income (and it's a lot) that's earned underneath the tax band and that is covered by tax credits. Taxable income is far more evenly spread than the tax burden is.

seamus

S-Murph wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how prevalent it is for those on higher incomes to 'risk' getting a parking fine. Say, a survey of how many parking fines are issued as a proportion of social class.

Fixed parking fines obviously must be more of a deterrent to low income people.

I don't know if the figures would back the assertion up though. There's a whole lot more at play than how much a fine is worth to someone's bottom line.

Crime as a whole is more prevalent at lower wage brackets. This is mainly due to educational and socio-economic factors. It's fair to say that the majority of people driving around long-term without tax and insurance (for example) are people in lower wage brackets. But both of these offences will result in a fine. So if that money meant more to those on a lower wage, then lower wage brackets would have less incidence, right?

But wage brackets have nothing to do with these offences. It's about honesty -v- dishonesty. The more honest a person, the less likely they are to get a parking fine. And the opposite is also true. And on paper, those who are more honest, "officially" earn more than those who don't.

Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that people lower wages are less honest than those on higher wages. It's about general trends, and the lower wage brackets have higher incidence of crime and of people who just generally don't give a ****.

Lockstep

nesf wrote: »

You're interpreting it arseways. The tax take doesn't include all that income (and it's a lot) that's earned underneath the tax band and that is covered by tax credits. Taxable income is far more evenly spread than the tax burden is.

How evenly is taxable income spread so?
Remember that sales tax accounts for more of the exchequer revenue anyway.

nesf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How evenly is taxable income spread so?
Remember that sales tax accounts for more of the exchequer revenue anyway.

Gini co-efficient* of 0.30 in 2008 down from a high of 0.34 in 1997 lower numbers are better with Gini, so income inequality lessened over the latter stages of the Celtic Tiger. (data)

We've got the same score as Germany, are equal to the Euroarea average and better than the EU-27 average.

The US is much worse at 0.45 (which is far higher than pretty much every other developed nation) and the likes of Haiti are up in the 0.59s and so on. The best country is Slovenia at 0.23, followed by Sweden at 0.24.

There's a map of countries coloured by Gini co-efficient here though the data for Ireland and much of the EU is out of date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png


*The Gini coefficient is a very simple measure of income inequality. 1 is extreme inequality (i.e. one person has all the wealth) and 0 is perfect equality where everyone has the exactly the same amount of wealth). Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

It's not perfect and has its flaws but it's the easiest way to judge income distributions versus other countries and shows up the US for exactly how miserable that system is (i.e. developed nation GDP per capita but developing country income distribution).

Overheal

I think the only time I heard about a rich guy flaunting the system it was an Urban Myth about a guy on the M50 with a ferrari and nightvision at 3AM during a blackout. Correction: Urban Legend. Because that would be awesome.

I know under US Law at least, this idea was ironed out Centuries ago, and is currently enshrined in the Eight Ammendment:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Under the same reasoning though you can walk out of traffic court with a lighter fine/fine-with-Terms if you can demonstrate to the court that you can not reasonably pay. A Third of my month's take home earnings, was certainly excessive. Add to that the inevitable insurance rate hike.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... Crime as a whole is more prevalent at lower wage brackets.

Agreed.

This is mainly due to educational and socio-economic factors.

Also agreed. One of the socio-economic factors is that people in the lower wage brackets are short of money.

It's fair to say that the majority of people driving around long-term without tax and insurance (for example) are people in lower wage brackets. But both of these offences will result in a fine. So if that money meant more to those on a lower wage, then lower wage brackets would have less incidence, right?

Your case starts to crumble here. One of the reasons why they might not insure or tax their cars is that they don't have the money in the first place. [I am not excusing those who do not tax or insure their cars, because I believe that they are wrong; I am simply trying to recognise their motives.]

But wage brackets have nothing to do with these offences. It's about honesty -v- dishonesty. The more honest a person, the less likely they are to get a parking fine. And the opposite is also true.

I'm not sure many people treat parking as an honesty issue; it's more a matter of compliance with law and regulation and of consideration for others.

And on paper, those who are more honest, "officially" earn more than those who don't.

That's too broad a generalisation to be useful.

Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that people lower wages are less honest than those on higher wages. It's about general trends, and the lower wage brackets have higher incidence of crime and of people who just generally don't give a ****.

Justice is an individual thing. You should not be treated more harshly because your neighbours or your social peers include a higher percentage of dishonest people than average.

bmaxi

I spent a lot of years travelling the roads of this country and it is my experience that motorists driving high end vehicles are more likely to flaunt the RTA. IMO this is an attitude problem, whether it can be solved by imposing higher fines is moot.
Proper enforcement of the law and wider and more severe imposition of penalty points for repeat offenders might be a better option If they're not on the road they can't break the law.

hugoline

bmaxi wrote: »

Proper enforcement of the law and wider and more severe imposition of penalty points for repeat offenders might be a better option.

+1

IIRC in case of Switzerland, there are additional measures, like the automatic deduction of any fines (or debts once it's gone trough court) from your pay-slip. This also applies to social welfare payments and minimum wage (just imagine the uproar this would cause in Ireland)

Overheal

Im not sure if its as big an issue as is being made out though: you're still discussing this within the confines of the Points System. Even if said billionaire [We all know its you, Bono] decides to shirk the law because he can afford the going rate for a speeding ticket, he's only going to be able to do this a few times before he lands himself in jail.