Should the rich pay higher fines ?

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How is being fined a % of ones income anything other than fair?

Because it differentiates between people based on their income when the break the law.

Capt'n Midnight

dotsman wrote: »

Um, you do realise that the richest people don't get a weekly wage?
...
How do you define their weekly income? .

Just apply the usual means test rules, where your assets excluding the family home are judged to capable of providing income, it's not rocket science and doesn't need new rules.

As for tradespersons, if they aren't declaring income then the usual rules of tax evasion apply.


Maybe we could make a rule that repeat offenders have to undergo a tax inspection ? :pac:
Scare the living bejasus of some people

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

Because it differentiates between people based on their income when the break the law.

And taking 20% of a person's wage as opposed to 1% isn't?

storker

oldyouth wrote: »

If everything in life was in relation to your earnings, where's the incentive for people to better themselves. Why should a wealthy person have to pay more for a fine?

Two possible reasons might be (a) because they're still better off and (b) if they get fined it's because they were doing something they shouldn't anyway.

Stork

Suryavarman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How is being fined a % of ones income anything other than fair?

How is giving two people different punishments for the same crime fair? It kind of makes a mockery of the whole concept of equality before the law.

juan.kerr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And taking 20% of a person's wage as opposed to 1% isn't?

Nothing like a spurious exaggeration or prove a point.

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And taking 20% of a person's wage as opposed to 1% isn't?

What are you referring to?

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

Nothing like a spurious exaggeration or prove a point.

So imposing an €80 fine on a person with a weekly wage of €300 is equitable with taking €80 from a weekly wage of €900?

gaf1983

oldyouth wrote: »

If everything in life was in relation to your earnings, where's the incentive for people to better themselves. Why should a wealthy person have to pay more for a fine?

Well fines are an incentive to behave well, if you like, so making a fines a proportion of one's earnings should incentivise everyone to behave within the law, not just those who are going to be hit more badly through a proportionately higher loss of earnings.

storker

Sindri wrote: »

Because it differentiates between people based on their income when the break the law.

Call me crazy, but if people don't want to be differentiated on based on income, they always have the option of..um...not breaking the law...

Stork

storker

promethius42 wrote: »

Perhaps some sort of means tested fine? Then again this may be seen to be discriminatory toward the higher earners. For something the likes of speeding, a low earner speeding and a high earner speeding are in equal proportions of wrong so why would it be justifiable to charge the high earner more imply because they can afford it?

For the sake of deterrence, which is what fines are supposed to be all about.

Stork

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

What are you referring to?

A flat amount fine is a proportionately a bigger burden on someone on a low wage than it is for someone on a high wage.

The Swiss have a wealth related fine system.

A Swedish motorist caught driving at 290km/h (180mph) in Switzerland could be given a world-record speeding fine of SFr1.08m ($1m; £656,000), prosecutors say.

The 37-year-old, who has not been named, was clocked driving his Mercedes sports car at 170km/h over the limit.

Under Swiss law, the level of fine is determined by the wealth of the driver and the speed recorded

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

juan.kerr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So taking €80 from a weekly wage of €300 is equitable with taking €80 from a weekly wage of €900?

Hardly 20% vs 1%. Regardless, who's fault is it that the first guy earns €300? Let's tax the wealthy more purely out of begrudgery.

PCPhoto

Suryavarman wrote: »

How is giving two people different punishments for the same crime fair? It kind of makes a mockery of the whole concept of equality before the law.

each case must be taken on its merit.....how many times have the courts seen different scumbags up on similar assault charges....each time the accused gets different sentences.....sometimes we'll see someone who earns more money or has a higher social status getting a lesser sentence for the same or a similar offence.

Who said the law is fair ?

(I can give examples if you wish... a former munster rugby player ...dangerous driving etc etc)

juan.kerr

storker wrote: »

For the sake of deterrence, which is what fines are supposed to be all about.

Stork

Are poor people 'deterred' by the current fines? If so why are they still committing the offences?

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

Let's tax the wealthy more purely out of begrudgery.

Ah that ol' well polished misrepresentation of an argument 'begrudgery' - such a weak and baseless argument.

Suryavarman

PCPhoto wrote: »

each case must be taken on its merit.....how many times have the courts seen different scumbags up on similar assault charges....each time the accused gets different sentences.....sometimes we'll see someone who earns more money or has a higher social status getting a lesser sentence for the same or a similar offence.

Who said the law is fair ?

(I can give examples if you wish... a former munster rugby player ...dangerous driving etc etc)

That isn't an example of the law being unfair, it is an example of the being applied unfairly. In an ideal situation people committing the same crimes would get the same punishment. Sadly this doesn't happen because some judges operate differently to others.

Robdude

Blazer wrote: »

Absolutely not...what's to stop all the scumbags paying fúckall because they're on welfare?????

Plus I imagine it potentially could become an equality issue as well....I mean why should I pay more than Joe Soap just because I earn more...if that's not discrimination I don't know what is..
Isn't it enough I hand over about 51% of my income on tax?

Do you really hand over 51% of your income? That seems awfully high to me.

juan.kerr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah that ol' well polished misrepresentation of an argument 'begrudgery' - such a weak and baseless argument.

No better or no worse than random figures plucked from nowhere to back up an argument.

No one seems willing to address my question. Are the current fines a deterrent to the less well off? If so why do the less well off continue to commit offences that are punishable by fines?

storker

juan.kerr wrote: »

No better or no worse than random figures plucked from nowhere to back up an argument.

No one seems willing to address my question. Are the current fines a deterrent to the less well off? If so why do the less well off continue to commit offences that are punishable by fines?

That's certainly a consideration. Maybe they're not high enough for the less well-off either.

In any case, no punishment will deter all crimes. If it did, the US would be crime-free.

Stork

Robdude

juan.kerr wrote: »

Hardly 20% vs 1%. Regardless, who's fault is it that the first guy earns €300? Let's tax the wealthy more purely out of begrudgery.

Don't we already?

juan.kerr

Robdude wrote: »

Don't we already?

Not enough by the sounds of things.

I'm starting to worry about what people on boards class as wealthy...

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A flat amount fine is a proportionately a bigger burden on someone on a low wage than it is for someone on a high wage.

The Swiss have a wealth related fine system.

Yes it is but the alternative is discrimination. If you break the law you should be penalised the same as everyone else (now that doesn't always happen) but if we did not penalise everyone equally then the law is not equal and basically what our society relies on (equality) goes in the bin.

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

No better or no worse than random figures plucked from nowhere to back up an argument.

Although random the figures were used to make a point. Whining about begrudgery is just... whining and not adressing the core point.

No one seems willing to address my question. Are the current fines a deterrent to the less well off?

I'm sure they are a deterrent for everyone in some way. If there are no penalty points involved then I guess fines are less of a worry for those who can easily afford them.

If so why do the less well off continue to commit offences that are punishable by fines?

Some people are just idiots I suppose.

juan.kerr

So for 'fairness' I think we can all agree that we should focus on penalty points for motoring offences rather than fines.

Some people are just idiots I suppose.

Regardless of whether they are welathy or not...

mossyc123

Link Motor fines to the value of the car.

*peers outside at '90's registered banger



:pac:

Chuck Stone

juan.kerr wrote: »

So for 'fairness' I think we can all agree that we should focus on penalty points for motoring offences rather than fines.

Definitely more equitable imo.

Regardless of whether they are welathy or not...

oh for sure. No arguments there.

dotsman

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just apply the usual means test rules, where your assets excluding the family home are judged to capable of providing income, it's not rocket science and doesn't need new rules.

As for tradespersons, if they aren't declaring income then the usual rules of tax evasion apply.


Maybe we could make a rule that repeat offenders have to undergo a tax inspection ? :pac:
Scare the living bejasus of some people

So, by means testing, your saying it has nothing to do with weekly income per se, more to do with existing capital. Therefore, someone who has been sensible and saved their money has to pay a bigger fine than someone who earns more than them, but blows it all on coke and hookers

-Brilliant...

With regards tradesmen (and most other self employed/small business owners), my point is that they do not have a defined weekly income, they will have lucrative weeks/months, and dry weeks/months. What figure should the court use to determine a weekly wage?

Finally, the courts system is already overly bureaucratic and wasteful, you think a tax audit (possibly costing hundreds/thousands of euro) should be used to determine whether someone should pay €80 or €160?

oldyouth

Two points

1. The law sets a figure to reflect the offence
2. How would anyone assess the individual amount? Can you imagine handing it to civil servants? Years to calculate the amount and costing 3 times the revenue it brings in to administer.

Doctor Jimbob

RichieC wrote: »

Reminds of the speeding tickrt from CA were some 25 yo got a 200 dollar fine for doing 220 mph in a bugatti veyron.

That should be jail time.

Wish I could do 220 mph in a veyron

Icepick

oldyouth wrote: »

If everything in life was in relation to your earnings, where's the incentive for people to better themselves.

ask the Finish millionaire

Ellis Dee

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I can remember a time when the fine for speeding here was £50 and was treated as a business expense.

In Finland if you break the law you can get fined fixed penalty and all that.
If you take the piss then the fine is proportional to your income.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. In Finland (and also in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and several other countries), fines for most traffic offences are proportional to income. The same applies to fines for numerous other offences as well. It makes no difference whether a driver who have been stopped and fined "takes the piss" (i.e. tries to be a smart arse to the police officer), because the fines are denominated as "day fines" (päiväsakot/dagböter) or so and so many days at so and so much. The "so and so much" depends on the level of income the person had in the last fiscal year for which figures have been finalised. The traffic police can not impose fines for more serious offences, which can result in prison sentences, and these are always dealt with by courts.:)

A person who is dissatisfied with a fine imposed by the traffic police always has the option of taking the case to court, but is unlikely to succeed unless the police have clearly and demonstrably made a mistake.;)

One example of a relatively successful appeal involved a Nokia director about eight years ago. He was caught doing 44 km/h on a motorbike in a 30 km/h zone in a Helsinki suburb and fined €116,000. He appealed, arguing that his gigantic income the previous year had been the result of his having deferred income for many years and taken it all at once. His appeal was allowed and the fine was reduced to only €5,000.

Compare that with the case of Michael O'Leary a few years ago. he overtook a dozen cars or so despite a double white line and was fined, if I recall correctly, €1,500. In Scandinavia someone with the kind of income I suppose he has could have added two zeroes to the amount of that fine.:eek:

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

One big problem I can see here is that a lot of rich people here don't declare their income fully. Look at how many Tax Amnesty's and tribunals we've had. :mad:

I'm not talking just about speeding, but about stuff where there are clear signs where existing fines are not a deterrent to those who can readily afford them and where they are completely taking the piss. Like the weights and measures on petrol stations. Or serial repeat evaders.

This is not a problem in Finland, because every traffic police car has a laptop computer that is connected via the Internet to a database containing the income data for everyone in the country.

Only a few years ago, the then Speaker of Parliament fibbed a little (well, actually a lot) about his income and was promptly caught out and disgraced in the media.

It is only right that the pain of a fine (punishment) should be felt as equally as possible by all. Therefore, the guy on €500,000 a year should get a bigger fine than the fellow on €40,000 for the same offence.

Another thing, traffic fines are not a deductible tax expense in the Nordic countries. They have to be paid out of the perpetrator's own pocket.

Eric Cartman

RichieC wrote: »

Reminds of the speeding tickrt from CA were some 25 yo got a 200 dollar fine for doing 220 mph in a bugatti veyron.

That should be jail time.

No, It shouldnt. The veyron was designed to be capable of those speeds, even at 220mph, the veyron would stop in a shorter distance than some clapped out corolla doing 70mph with ****ty brake pads and bald tyres (which is not uncommon in Ireland at all)

and the fines are set out as a fixed amount for a good reason , if it was based on income as stated above, youd have drug dealers in new mercs paying 5 euro fines because the computer said 'hes on the dole'

saywhatyousee

Ellis Dee wrote: »

This is not a problem in Finland, because every traffic police car has a laptop computer that is connected via the Internet to a database containing the income data for everyone in the country.

That is one of the most disturbing things i have read for a while on the internet.

Chuck Stone

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and the fines are set out as a fixed amount for a good reason , if it was based on income as stated above, youd have drug dealers in new mercs paying 5 euro fines because the computer said 'hes on the dole'

That's because of prohibition. Blame the state for creating the conditions for that black market revenue stream.

Capt'n Midnight

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
.. "takes the piss" (i.e. tries to be a smart arse to the police officer),

Fixed fines for small breaches, it happens if you aren't careful
but where someone is going well above the limit the proportional fine, where you have to be deliberately out of your way or just not caring at all

In the case where yer man was 2Kmhr over the fixed penalty

Capt'n Midnight

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, It shouldnt. The veyron was designed to be capable of those speeds, even at 220mph, the veyron would stop in a shorter distance than some clapped out corolla doing 70mph with ****ty brake pads and bald tyres (which is not uncommon in Ireland at all)

http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4/technology/deceleration.html

400-to-0-km/h deceleration is a matter of less than 10 seconds.

at 400Km/h you'd do 1.11Km/h in 10 seconds

Stopping distance is going to be at least 500m
on a good day, on a good road, with a good driver, in a well maintained car.

Reaction time of one second would mean another 111m travelled.

and the fines are set out as a fixed amount for a good reason , if it was based on income as stated above, youd have drug dealers in new mercs paying 5 euro fines because the computer said 'hes on the dole'

tax evasion is a different ball game

like I said you could have a tax audit as part of the fine