How on earth can Mr Blair justify charging two people who have commited the same crime,two massively different fines?

Figures quoted have indicated that an offence carrying a fine of £200 at the present time would be increased to £750 for the better off.

Surely the fine should reflect the type and severity of the crime and not a persons income.

Quite easy to justify.

How "strong" a punishment is depends on how much inconvenience it causes to the "punishee".

You cannot possibly claim that a £200 fine is just as severe a punishment to someone who is reasonably well of as to someone who has to watch every penny to feed themselves.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with fines on an "income tax" basis, but I can see the logic behind it.

It does imply that richer people need to be punished more (or poorer people less), it all sounds a bit mad.

Originally posted by nick2
It does imply that richer people need to be punished more (or poorer people less), it all sounds a bit mad.

The concept of money is confusing to a lot of people.

Money is not what makes you happy (unless you are a rather twisted idividual), its what you do with it.

£100 is not the same to a millionaire as it is to the rest of us.

If everything becomes means tested and proportional to income though, where is the incentive to study/work hard in order to earn the higher income?

I know this is a strange analogy, but...

...when Eire changed from the Punt to the Euro, and Portugal changed from the Escudo to the Euro, and (well, you get the idea) everything got more expensive...

...I just get the impression that if the fines were variable we would ALL pay more.

Cynical, paranoid, me ?

:suspect:

T020, I think the incentive is to commit less crime, then you get to keep all your money.

Originally posted by nick2
T020, I think the incentive is to commit less crime, then you get to keep all your money.

:lol: That's not quite what I meant, but ok. I was speaking more generally, i.e. if everything becomes means tested, everyone will have the same relative income and wealth, hence losing the incentive to earn a higher income.

Originally posted by nick2
T020, I think the incentive is to commit less crime, then you get to keep all your money.
Unless you haven't got any money, then you may as well just go and nick (sic) it, and what can they do ?

Can't fine what isn't there.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Quite easy to justify.

How "strong" a punishment is depends on how much inconvenience it causes to the "punishee".

You cannot possibly claim that a £200 fine is just as severe a punishment to someone who is reasonably well of as to someone who has to watch every penny to feed themselves.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with fines on an "income tax" basis, but I can see the logic behind it.

Well then why not go the whole hog................ charge the wealthy double for their groceries, double for their dental treatment...... you get the idea.

There should be a combination ...

You get fined a fixed amount + a small percentage of your yearly income.

totally fair, for example where i used to work, the manager would just park outside the office on double yellows as it was closer to the office, he used to phrase it as "i dont care if i get a ticket, its only £30" where as if the fine was lets say £100 he would be less likley to do it.

Originally posted by Mo
Well then why not go the whole hog................ charge the wealthy double for their groceries, double for their dental treatment...... you get the idea. 3

Precisely! That's what I was getting at too. If everything goes means tested, who will bother working hard for a good job? The financial incentive would be lost.

Originally posted by t020
:lol: That's not quite what I meant, but ok. I was speaking more generally, i.e. if everything becomes means tested, everyone will have the same relative income and wealth, hence losing the incentive to earn a higher income.

It would be nice if everyone had the same relative income and wealth, provided everyone had enough to live on.

Better still ... punishment for crime shouldn't be financial.

You could fine them x amount of hours of community service ... same amount for all royalty and tramps alike.

Or cut off fingers etc ...

Originally posted by Jamie
Better still ... punishment for crime shouldn't be financial.

You could fine them x amount of hours of community service ... same amount for all royalty and tramps alike.


Thats a better idea, everyones free time is valuable to them, and you can't put a money value on that.

Originally posted by nick2
It would be nice if everyone had the same relative income and wealth, provided everyone had enough to live on.

How would it? Why would anyone bother putting themselves through university, training, etc, to get a well paid job when relatively speaking it would become am equally paid job? What do you want, a communist state?

Well perhaps the solution is community service? If a wealthy person's time is worth more?

And the disgrace associated with it would be greater in the case of the wealthy.

My concern with the higher fines is that it wouldn't be based on disposable income, so it would conceivably be the middle bracket people who suffer most, as it's probably these who have struggled to pay a mortgage on a small place of their own. (Assuming poor = benefits/rented accommodation+housing benefit & wealthy=more than most of us earn)

Originally posted by t020
How would it? Why would anyone bother putting themselves through university, training, etc, to get a well paid job when relatively speaking it would become am equally paid job? What do you want, a communist state?

Well I guess people would go to university to improve their minds and abilities not their bank balances.

I't not going to happen, I just think it would be nice to live in a world where money is obsolete.

Originally posted by nick2
Well I guess people would go to university to improve their minds and abilities not their bank balances.

I't not going to happen, I just think it would be nice to live in a world where money is obsolete.


It's a good job it's not going to happen. Society would collapse.

Originally posted by Mo
How on earth can Mr Blair justify charging two people who have commited the same crime,two massively different fines?

Figures quoted have indicated that an offence carrying a fine of £200 at the present time would be increased to £750 for the better off.

Surely the fine should reflect the type and severity of the crime and not a persons income.
i know compensation works like this doesnt it? the more money you earn the more you get. Maybe its a loss of earnings thing? i think we should all have same fine, but increase them.

Originally posted by t020
It's a good job it's not going to happen. Society would collapse.

I don't think it would. I think it would be much better.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think it would. I think it would be much better.

OK then, explain how your model of society would work, in a new thread if necessary. Then we can discuss whether it would work much better.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think it would. I think it would be much better.

Who would bother going to work?

Originally posted by t020
It's a good job it's not going to happen. Society would collapse.

"there is no such thing as society" - Margret Thatcher.

Nomme

Originally posted by t020
OK then, explain how your model of society would work, in a new thread if necessary. Then we can discuss whether it would work much better.

I haven't given it that much thought, and you obviously like things the way they are now, but I think it would be nice if your motivation in life wasn't just having more money than the next man.

Everyone will think thats stupid, but thats what I feel.

Originally posted by Jamie
Better still ... punishment for crime shouldn't be financial.

You could fine them x amount of hours of community service ... same amount for all royalty and tramps alike.

Even that has potential flaws, lets think about a "fine" of say 10 hours per week, and two case histories:

1) Woman setting up her own buisness, working 70 hours per week, and desperately trying to spend more time with her two children.

2) Unemployed 19 year old, living with parents, all meals cooked by mother.

Who do you think is going to be "fined" more by this "equal" 10 hours per week.

Originally posted by nick2
I haven't given it that much thought, and you obviously like things the way they are now, but I think it would be nice if your motivation in life wasn't just having more money than the next man.

Everyone will think thats stupid, but thats what I feel.

It's not my motivation in *life*, but in all honesty it is my motivation (and I suspect most peoples motivation) to bother working. If everything was relative to income like you propose, I'd become a professional couch potato and spend all my time doing what I wanted to do rather than working.

Originally posted by t020
It's not my motivation in *life*, but in all honesty it is my motivation (and I suspect most peoples motivation) to bother working. If everything was relative to income like you propose, I'd become a professional couch potato and spend all my time doing what I wanted to do rather than working.

People managed ok before money was invented and some tribes still don't have money now, I guess it's just a case of being part of a community and pulling your weight for the common good, if you just sat on your arse all day doing nothing they would probably take you out into the snow and leave you there.

Originally posted by nick2
People managed ok before money was invented and some tribes still don't have money now, I guess it's just a case of being part of a community and pulling your weight for the common good, if you just sat on your arse all day doing nothing they would probably take you out into the snow and leave you there.

Before money, people still traded using other forms of currency, e.g. meat, cloth, etc. Money is just a more sophisticated and flexible means of trading.

Originally posted by t020
Money is just a more sophisticated and flexible means of trading.

I think money is a lot more than that these days.

Originally posted by nick2
I think money is a lot more than that these days.

Please, elaborate...

Originally posted by t020
Please, elaborate...

Well, people don't have vast fortunes to trade with, they just hoard the money for no real purpose, I don't begrudge people having a fortune but I do start to wonder why they keep going after they have a certain amount.
What motivates Bill gates to keep working when he is the richest person in the world, it can't be the need for more money, it must be something else.
And money gives you power, you can buy better justice than other people, you get to go places other people can't go, you get better healthcare etc.

Originally posted by t020
Please, elaborate...

I think people often compute their worth based upon things such as how much money they have. We do seem to be fed that notion too, in school, through the media etc.

It would be nice to live in a world where you're valued just because you're human / alive / here (on planet earth) ... can't see that happening though.

Originally posted by nick2
And money gives you power, you can buy better justice than other people, you get to go places other people can't go, you get better healthcare etc.

Think of all the worthwhile things you don't get (or can't get) by having too much money ........

Originally posted by nick2
Well, people don't have vast fortunes to trade with, they just hoard the money for no real purpose, I don't begrudge people having a fortune but I do start to wonder why they keep going after they have a certain amount.
What motivates Bill gates to keep working when he is the richest person in the world, it can't be the need for more money, it must be something else.
And money gives you power, you can buy better justice than other people, you get to go places other people can't go, you get better healthcare etc.

But by the same token, in times before money, having more sheep gave you power - you could trade more for it. People were still rich and poor before money, just in a different kind of currency.

As for what motivates Bill Gates, I suppose you'd have to ask him. However, he does donate a lot of money to charity and, through his corporation, has provided a vast number of jobs for people. He has created wealth for other people as well as himself.

Like I said, money is just a more sophisticated and flexible means of trading. I stand by this definition since "sophisticated" covers aspects like earning interest on hoarded amounts, and "flexible" covers being able to spend it on pretty much anything rather than having to find someone willing to swap some clothing for a shank of ham.

I just worry that people think they can't be happy unless they are rich, and haven't achieved anything unless they have loads of money in the bank, which is not true.

Originally posted by nick2
I just worry that people think they can't be happy unless they are rich, and haven't achieved anything unless they have loads of money in the bank, which is not true.

No, it's not true. But you can't blame peoples' inferiority complexes on a system of trading. Before money, people will probably have had similar feelings about how many sheep they kept.

Originally posted by t020
No, it's not true. But you can't blame peoples' inferiority complexes on a system of trading. Before money, people will probably have had similar feelings about how many sheep they kept.

I'm trying to say what i think but I can't get it into words.
I'm thinking that (in my opinion) a nurse is as valuable to society as a lawyer, but the lawyer gets paid more and therefore has access to things the nurse doesn't, you see what I'm getting at, it's the money that has made that so unfair.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm thinking that (in my opinion) a nurse is as valuable to society as a lawyer, but the lawyer gets paid more and therefore has access to things the nurse doesn't, you see what I'm getting at, it's the money that has made that so unfair.
No, it's not the money, it's the lawyers !

Originally posted by Mo
How on earth can Mr Blair justify charging two people who have commited the same crime,two massively different fines?

Figures quoted have indicated that an offence carrying a fine of £200 at the present time would be increased to £750 for the better off.

Surely the fine should reflect the type and severity of the crime and not a persons income.

Makes good sense to me, if a fine was a percntage of the fined person income then everyone who got this punishment would feel they have been equally punished,

A £1000 fine to some one who earns £200 a week is a lot more damageing to them than the same fine to someone who earns £1000 a week.

Makes loads of sense to me.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Makes good sense to me, if a fine was a percntage of the fined person income then everyone who got this punishment would feel they have been equally punished,

A £1000 fine to some one who earns £200 a week is a lot more damageing to them than the same fine to someone who earns £1000 a week.

Makes loads of sense to me.

Again, consider two case histories:

1) Re-married man with 2 kids (to 2nd wife) with a £1000 income, but £500 mortgage, and £400 CSA payments (for kids to 1st wife)

2) Unemployed 19 yr old with £200 income, single, living at home with parents

Case 2 has more *disposable* income, and would find the £1000 fine far easier to pay than Case 1.

It's not as simlpe as just income.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Again, consider two case histories:

1) Re-married man with 2 kids (to 2nd wife) with a £1000 income, but £500 mortgage, and £400 CSA payments (for kids to 1st wife)

2) Unemployed 19 yr old with £200 income, single, living at home with parents

Case 2 has more *disposable* income, and would find the £1000 fine far easier to pay than Case 1.

It's not as simlpe as just income.

That example is why everyone gets fined the same amount, it would take forever for the judge to do all the calcuations required to work out a variable fine.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm trying to say what i think but I can't get it into words.
I'm thinking that (in my opinion) a nurse is as valuable to society as a lawyer, but the lawyer gets paid more and therefore has access to things the nurse doesn't, you see what I'm getting at, it's the money that has made that so unfair.


I see what you're saying, but wages are driven by market forces, and this isn't some evil force at work. Wages of nurses are dependent on how much people are willing to pay in tax, and wages of lawyers depend on how much people are willing to pay for legal services when required. I think this reflects more on people more than it does on a method of trade.

Enjoyed reading all this, To20 makes a lot of sence.

Originally posted by t020
I see what you're saying, but wages are driven by market forces, and this isn't some evil force at work. Wages of nurses are dependent on how much people are willing to pay in tax, and wages of lawyers depend on how much people are willing to pay for legal services when required. I think this reflects more on people more than it does on a method of trade.

But one job is seen as being "better" than the other, mainly because you make more money.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Again, consider two case histories:

1) Re-married man with 2 kids (to 2nd wife) with a £1000 income, but £500 mortgage, and £400 CSA payments (for kids to 1st wife)

2) Unemployed 19 yr old with £200 income, single, living at home with parents

Case 2 has more *disposable* income, and would find the £1000 fine far easier to pay than Case 1.

It's not as simlpe as just income.

I imagine they would take out goings into account, fair point with the csa, but your mortgage is your own problem, I would imagine that the big earners would not get into as many situations that merit a fine any way. Unless it is car related.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Again, consider two case histories:

1) Re-married man with 2 kids (to 2nd wife) with a £1000 income, but £500 mortgage, and £400 CSA payments (for kids to 1st wife)

2) Unemployed 19 yr old with £200 income, single, living at home with parents

Case 2 has more *disposable* income, and would find the £1000 fine far easier to pay than Case 1.

It's not as simlpe as just income.

Fair enough, but surley you are just highlighting that the means test is based on *disposable* income and not just income.

From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4174673.stm

Courts already consider an offender's ability to pay when setting fines.

But BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said: "The new scheme will include a more explicit calculation of the offender's daily disposable income."

Mr Goggins promised that the system of calculating offenders' disposable income would be a "credible" one which undertook "careful calculations."

Nomme

Originally posted by nick2
But one job is seen as being "better" than the other, mainly because you make more money.

By whom?

Originally posted by t020
By whom?

Generally, by the general public, I think one job gets you more respect (guess which) but the other is seen as being better as it's more likely to bring you the things you must have to "succeed".

Originally posted by nick2
Generally, by the general public, I think one job gets you more respect (guess which) but the other is seen as being better as it's more likely to bring you the things you must have to "succeed".

It depends what measure you use for success. If money is used as the measure, then lawyers are more successful than nurses. There are other ways to measure success though and I don't think it's up to you to assume how the whole country perceive certain jobs. And again, this isn't the fault of money its the fault of people.

Originally posted by t020
It depends what measure you use for success. If money is used as the measure, then lawyers are more successful than nurses. There are other ways to measure success though and I don't think it's up to you to assume how the whole country perceive certain jobs. And again, this isn't the fault of money its the fault of people.

What I'm saying though is that money is usually the measure of success.

I'm not assuming for the whole country, just saying how it appears to me.

I think I'm fairly right on which of those two jobs would get you more respect from the average person though.

Originally posted by nick2
What I'm saying though is that money is usually the measure of success.

I'm not assuming for the whole country, just saying how it appears to me.



So you're saying that YOU measure success by how much someone earns then?

Originally posted by t020
So you're saying that YOU measure success by how much someone earns then?

No, I'm saying it appears to me that society in general does.

I think you missread what i put, I never said how I measure anything.

just dont break the law... simple as that!

Originally posted by nick2
No, I'm saying it appears to me that society in general does.

I think you missread what i put, I never said how I measure anything.

Ok, but society is just a collection of people. Therefore if that's how society perceive things, it is the fault of people and not money.

I think it quite acceptable to make the better off pay higher fines. Fines should set on a sliding scale, directly linked to income levels.

Why should Joe Bloggs earning £8,550 per annum pay the same speeding fine as £90,000 per annum Charles-Dingbat Smythe?

Beats me.

And if we all behave ourselves, then we can all keep our money.

How's that. Sounds fair to me.

Nick2 - So it's capatalism which you seem to disagree with, rather than money per se.
As T020 is saying, the amount a job is worth is whatever the market determines it's worth.
How much respect people attach to that job is up to them.

I was under the impression that lawyers were generally considered to be scum of the earth blood sucking leaches. Whereas nurses are generally considered to be hard working, slightly hard done to by the government public servants.

I know which I respect more.

As to given the choice between entering either profession (and having the ability to actually perform in either), i'd choose lawyer. Because money (or an increased ability to trade) won't bring happines, but it makes finding it in my own time a lot easier.

As to variable fines. It makes perfect sense to me (disagreeing with T020 now). There's no point in fining someone who earns a lot £30 for a parking ticket. They just don't care. Whereas someone who lost their job and is temporarily on income support might have to go hungry for a week to pay it.
In this case the punishment although numerically equal, is in no way actually the same on both people.
Maybe if some people have more time than money and others vice versa fines should be allocated in units which can be paid off with % points of net disposable income or with hours of community service.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Even that has potential flaws, lets think about a "fine" of say 10 hours per week, and two case histories:

1) Woman setting up her own buisness, working 70 hours per week, and desperately trying to spend more time with her two children.

2) Unemployed 19 year old, living with parents, all meals cooked by mother.

Who do you think is going to be "fined" more by this "equal" 10 hours per week.
Now this is a very interesting scenario because it actually makes sense, but it has 2 flaws in asocial sense.

1. The unemployed 19 yo can afford more time, so would have a higher fine than the woman with her own business.

..and...

2. The Government is actually using this to create more revenue via a form of stealth income tax.

Cynical? oooo noooo! :suspect:

Originally posted by Sam Miguel
I think it quite acceptable to make the better off pay higher fines. Fines should set on a sliding scale, directly linked to income levels.

Why should Joe Bloggs earning £8,550 per annum pay the same speeding fine as £90,000 per annum Charles-Dingbat Smythe?

Beats me.

And if we all behave ourselves, then we can all keep our money.

How's that. Sounds fair to me.

Well said miguell.

Originally posted by Sam Miguel

Why should Joe Bloggs earning £8,550 per annum pay the same speeding fine as £90,000 per annum Charles-Dingbat Smythe?

Beats me.


Because they've done the same crime.

Your status should have no bearing on the fine imposed on you,a Lawyer gets caught speeding=points and fine,a bakery worker gets caught speeding=points and a fine simple equation and fair as well.

means testing fines would (I think) encourage an attitude of ill commit the offence as I know Ill pay less for it.


Again it does not matter who you are, you have committed a crime and should pay.

From all this it sounds as if it could quite possibly happen that a high earner dropping litter may be fined more than an unemployed person found guilty of drink driving.

It is a recipe for ludicrous outcomes

For me there are still two key issues why this is a bad idea:

1) People are *very* good at hiding information when it suits them. The whole idea of fining people in line with what they can afford is just open to a massive amount of abuse (you'd be amazed what low wages some comany directors are on, "it all gets ploughed straight back into the firm you see your-honour").

2) I just *do not* trust the government, they *will* use this as an excuse to get *more* money out of *all* of us (on average).

So, the idea is both fatally flawed, and, just another stealth tax.

In short, I don't agree with it (or had you noticed that already).

so lawyers can park wherever they like because a parking fine is irrelevant to them on their income (lawyers getting it in the neck in this thread :clap: ), whereas low paid workers can't because the fine means something to them.
It's also nothing to do with status, you seem to be confusing income and status.

T020 - the crime is the same, and the suffering inflicted by a variable fine is the same.

tango2 - fines would go up for high incomes, not down for low ones. You could argue that keeping it as it is now encourages rich people to break the law as they know they'll be fined peanuts.

Originally posted by tango2
Your status should have no bearing on the fine imposed on you,a Lawyer gets caught speeding=points and fine,a bakery worker gets caught speeding=points and a fine simple equation and fair as well.

means testing fines would (I think) encourage an attitude of ill commit the offence as I know Ill pay less for it.


Again it does not matter who you are, you have committed a crime and should pay.

Originally posted by Mo
From all this it sounds as if it could quite possibly happen that a high earner dropping litter may be fined more than an unemployed person found guilty of drink driving.

It is a recipe for ludicrous outcomes

Mo has a very good point here.

I would be very miffed if I was fined more for parking in the wrong place - once, than shelf filler Gazza (repeat offender) doing 90 in his £150 Nova down Manor Lane without tax and insurance. Simply because I might get paid more for working harder than him.

Can't agree with this.

It's tantamount to telling the down and outs to go out and thieve, which advice they will eagerly take up.

Originally posted by Cyclone

T020 - the crime is the same, and the suffering inflicted by a variable fine is the same.


Yes but crime and income are mutually exclusive. Why should a fine be linked to income? It's punishing people for earning more. The fine should be linked to the seriousness of the crime, not to the amount of income earned by the offender.

What next? Means tested grocery shopping??

I think that higher income folk are less likely to skip payment of their fines than those on lower incomes so hey presto a nice little earner for the government.

Originally posted by Mo
I think that higher income folk are less likely to skip payment of their fines than those on lower incomes so hey presto a nice little earner for the government.

Yes, as Tony mentioned, this seems more like just another example of a New Labour stealth tax.

Originally posted by t020
Yes but crime and income are mutually exclusive. Why should a fine be linked to income? It's punishing people for earning more. The fine should be linked to the seriousness of the crime, not to the amount of income earned by the offender.

What next? Means tested grocery shopping??

yes the crime and income aren't linked.
But if the punishment is meant to actually punish people to the same degree then it has to take into account income.
Fines set by the court do take into account income, it's not a novel idea, they are just applying a standard legal technique to what is a relatively new idea (fixed penalties).

I do agree with the concerns about it being another stealth tax, as i'm pretty sure i'll qualify for an increased fine if it is introduced.

You're just being absurd asking if grocery shopping should be income linked. Pricing for goods is determined by the market. Punishment is determined by the judiciary, the two are in no way related.

Maybe since we're being silly you think that means tested taxing is rather unfair and that we should all just pay a flat rate amount of tax, not flat %, just a fixed amount. Otherwise you're getting penalised for earning more right?

Aw, come on now. That's not fair. Now I don't agree with that at all. That is an awful sterotypical statement against the less-earned sector.

I could fight back for the less fortunate and would probably back my life's savings on the fact that whenever there is a big charity appeal, (such as the tsunmai one right now) the less well-off pump more into it than the well-off.

The well-off are well-off because they keep their money to themselves.

Actually, they should donate their empty fridges to help a good cause.

Originally posted by Mo
I think that higher income folk are less likely to skip payment of their fines than those on lower incomes so hey presto a nice little earner for the government.

Originally posted by Cyclone
yes the crime and income aren't linked.
But if the punishment is meant to actually punish people to the same degree then it has to take into account income.
Fines set by the court do take into account income, it's not a novel idea, they are just applying a standard legal technique to what is a relatively new idea (fixed penalties).

I do agree with the concerns about it being another stealth tax, as i'm pretty sure i'll qualify for an increased fine if it is introduced.

You're just being absurd asking if grocery shopping should be income linked. Pricing for goods is determined by the market. Punishment is determined by the judiciary, the two are in no way related.

Maybe since we're being silly you think that means tested taxing is rather unfair and that we should all just pay a flat rate amount of tax, not flat %, just a fixed amount. Otherwise you're getting penalised for earning more right?


People on lower incomes are statistically more likely to commit crimes anyway. Presumably, fines for people on low incomes will go down, stay the same for average incomes, and rise for high incomes? How will lower fines deter the people already more likely to commit crime?

Now that is total rubbish. Come on now!

Organised crime is is, organised, because, due to the nature of the adjective in question, unorganised people cannnot be organised.

The less money you earn, the less likely you are to perform leaps through windows and daring escapes through car parks with the shadow of the police helicopter looming above you.

But give the organised criminal a map into Fort Knox, and hey presto, 120,00 dollar per year, pounds, euros, sheckles or even ToyTown money. They'll come out with much more than a couple of DVD players and some sentimental jewelery.

And anyway: who said anything about lower fines for the less-well off?

It's the well-off who should pay more. The less well off are paying the going rate now.

And while I'm at it: : I'd make them lot pay more for food and mink coats and... arghhhhh!!!

om Originally posted by t020
People on lower incomes are statistically more likely to commit crimes anyway. Presumably, fines for people on low incomes will go down, stay the same for average incomes, and rise for high incomes? How will lower fines deter the people already more likely to commit crime?

I think it's just that the sort of crime is different, low income people don't have the chance to steal millions from peoples pension funds, that's white collar crime.

There's no reason the lowest level of fine has to be any lower than the current level, just make it go up for higher incomes.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think it's just that the sort of crime is different, low income people don't have the chance to steal millions from peoples pension funds, that's white collar crime.

There's no reason the lowest level of fine has to be any lower than the current level, just make it go up for higher incomes.

Well, it was a presumption based on it being "means" tested, i.e. the mean income paying the mean fine, and made lower for lower incomes and higher for higher incomes. Obviously though the government will want to make as much as they can do from it.

Originally posted by nick2
Thats a better idea, everyones free time is valuable to them, and you can't put a money value on that.

Good idea. Maybe they could punish people by getting them to pick up all the crap that people throw on the floor. All the litter and the dirty furnature all over the roads. That way you get punishment and a cleaner environment all in one.

Originally posted by Cyclone
You're just being absurd asking if grocery shopping should be income linked. Pricing for goods is determined by the market. Punishment is determined by the judiciary, the two are in no way related.

I think that may well be EXACTLY what would been created - a 'market' for fines.

For example, if I drove a Porsche, would it make me a more attractive target for parking and speeding fines than if I drove a beat up uninsured old banger?

Originally posted by Tony
I think that may well be EXACTLY what would been created - a 'market' for fines.

For example, if I drove a Porsche, would it make me a more attractive target for parking and speeding fines than if I drove a beat up uninsured old banger?

fair point.

T020 - Means tested means that it's testing your means, not testing the mean. I think that 'your means' and 'the mean' are just coincidentally phonetically similar.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Maybe if some people have more time than money and others vice versa fines should be allocated in units which can be paid off with % points of net disposable income or with hours of community service.

Seems like a very good idea to me.

People are fined to discourage them from committing a crime (again) - if someone has £1000 disposable income a week then a £30 parking fine is hardly going to put them off doing it again whereas a larger sum might do. As it is they are a novelty for people with large disposable incomes.

I think means tested fines are a good idea. when i was a student i always worried about getting speeding fines because of the £60 fine. Now i still worry about getting them but its more because of the 3 points. If the fine was more like £200 it would be more of a deterent. Just for the record i don't speed intentionally and yes i was once a student with a car (see previous threads).

Originally posted by Jamie
Better still ... punishment for crime shouldn't be financial.

You could fine them x amount of hours of community service ... same amount for all royalty and tramps alike.

Or cut off fingers etc ...

Just throw them all in jail..............

The thing is though that someone could be paying a much higher fine for a far less serious offense than someone else, purely because they earn more. Is this punishing the crime or punishing a person for having a higher income?

Originally posted by t020
The thing is though that someone could be paying a much higher fine for a far less serious offense than someone else, purely because they earn more. Is this punishing the crime or punishing a person for having a higher income?

I agree, so what kind of message is the Government sending out to people?

What is the incentive to better yourself in life?

Originally posted by ALEX1995
I agree, so what kind of message is the Government sending out to people?

What is the incentive to better yourself in life?


The same message that any Labour government sends out to society - don't try too hard, the state will always fund you.

Originally posted by t020
The same message that any Labour government sends out to society - don't try too hard, the state will always fund you.

Yes, unfortunately we have created a society of scroungers. who can blame people not wanting to better themselves or go out to work, when they can receive more money from benefits????

Lets face it, what incentive is there for anyone to better themselves in the UK today? If you own your own house and you lose your job, you don't get any financial help from the state, but if you are in rented property or council property you do?

You work all your life to pay off your mortgage and then the Government forces you to sell your property to pay for your care home, when someone in the next bed might never have paid a penny to the state in tax, yet will still receive the same care as you???

Where is the incetive in all of that? No wonder the Government is raising retirement age from 60 to 65, someone has to pay for all of this....us the tax payer!

They might as well dig a grave and as soon as you retire from work...push you into it. Happy times!

Originally posted by ALEX1995
I agree, so what kind of message is the Government sending out to people?

What is the incentive to better yourself in life?

are you arguing that because fines will be higher there is no incentive to increase your disposable income.

That argument only works if you assume that someones disposable income is always all spent on fines, which is clearly ludicrous.

Originally posted by Cyclone
are you arguing that because fines will be higher there is no incentive to increase your disposable income.

That argument only works if you assume that someones disposable income is always all spent on fines, which is clearly ludicrous.


It might be "clearly ludicrous" but more and more things are becoming means tested, so sooner or later it won't be worth earning more money because the means testing will ensure you have proportionally higher expenditure.

Originally posted by Cyclone
are you arguing that because fines will be higher there is no incentive to increase your disposable income.

That argument only works if you assume that someones disposable income is always all spent on fines, which is clearly ludicrous.

No I am not arguing that because fines will be higher there is no incentive to increase your disposable income?

What has income got to do with the crime? If this was the case, then people on high incomes would be getting bigger fines for 'peeing' in the street, than people on lower incomes causing GBH?

Originally posted by ALEX1995
No I am not arguing that because fines will be higher there is no incentive to increase your disposable income?

What has income got to do with the crime? If this was the case, then people on high incomes would be getting bigger fines for 'peeing' in the street, than people on lower incomes causing GBH?

GBH is not punished by a fine for a start.

But try looking at it from the other angle.

Someone on a high income laughs at the fixed penalty fines received because he spends more on a roll of (gold plated) bog roll than the fines.

The punishment is not equal in kind, it is only equal numerically at the moment.

Courts already take income into account when setting fines, why shouldn't previously "fixed" penalties become variable penalites?

Originally posted by t020
The same message that any Labour government sends out to society - don't try too hard, the state will always fund you.
And conversely, if you try too hard the State will always find you. :(

Originally posted by ALEX1995
What has income got to do with the crime? If this was the case, then people on high incomes would be getting bigger fines for 'peeing' in the street, than people on lower incomes causing GBH?

It already happens that some people get fined more for urinating in a public place than someone who has stolen a car stereo etc. - just check the court report in the Star for proof. As has already been pointed out lots of fines are means tested anyway, this is just extending the idea to fixed penalties.