Reply to: Speeding fine: calculation of weekly income

[WTFH]

Silly suggestion, but how about "don't go over the speed limit"?

[Hobosapien]

If you're that rich you don't need to speed, in a car.

[WordIsBond]

It's too nice a day to argue if you can't see the difference between a financial penalty and jail time.

LOL. Familiar with reductio ad absurdum?

It's an interesting philosophical question, whether the justice system should administer equal penalties or try to establish equality of deterrent.

But if the latter, why only for fines? And why is it capped at £1000/£2500? That's not enough to be a deterrent for some people.

Catch Roman Abramovich or Richard Branson or Donald Trump speeding and you could completely eliminate the deficit. Wasted opportunity here.

But if you wanted a real deterrent, you could make Donald Trump listen to his own political speeches and fact check himself until he found 25 provably false statements. It might not take long but it would be a deterrent. For the other two, you could make them listen to the same speeches and find 25 provably true statements. They'd never speed again.

[psychocandy]

Lucky I only get £74 a week JSA then.

[GreenMirror]

I will ask my chauffeur and get back to you.

[Old Greg]

I don't follow your logic here.

Seems to me that:
1) The threat of jail time is a significant deterrent to committing certain crimes.
2) You are arguing that financial penalties should vary by ability to pay so that they will hurt enough to be a deterrent.
3) If that view of penal justice is accepted, it should also apply to time penalties. A lot of pensioners are bored with nothing to do and 3 days behind bars wouldn't matter to them as much as it matters to me. If you are trying to equalise deterrent effect, equalise it.

Besides the fact that those 3 days behind bars would cost me a lot of money and cost the pensioner no money at all, probably. Lock him up for a month and stop his pension for that month so that the deterrent can be more equal.

Income is not an effective equalising measure, anyway. If you are going to equalise, you should equalise using wealth. Someone with loads of dosh in his bank account but doesn't have a high income could pay less than the guy with a large family and ill parents, who may have a good income but little to spare.

It's too nice a day to argue if you can't see the difference between a financial penalty and jail time.

[WordIsBond]

Except for your last point about jail time, although that is a bit silly and irrelevant when talking about deterrence.

I don't follow your logic here.

Seems to me that:
1) The threat of jail time is a significant deterrent to committing certain crimes.
2) You are arguing that financial penalties should vary by ability to pay so that they will hurt enough to be a deterrent.
3) If that view of penal justice is accepted, it should also apply to time penalties. A lot of pensioners are bored with nothing to do and 3 days behind bars wouldn't matter to them as much as it matters to me. If you are trying to equalise deterrent effect, equalise it.

Besides the fact that those 3 days behind bars would cost me a lot of money and cost the pensioner no money at all, probably. Lock him up for a month and stop his pension for that month so that the deterrent can be more equal.

Income is not an effective equalising measure, anyway. If you are going to equalise, you should equalise using wealth. Someone with loads of dosh in his bank account but doesn't have a high income could pay less than the guy with a large family and ill parents, who may have a good income but little to spare.

[Hobosapien]

Not much of a deterrence when many aren't even aware of the fine being based on income.

If they want to discourage speeding then make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving has become and apply similar penalties (i.e. temporary bans, even if it's only a week or two for minor offences) if it's about safety and not stealth taxation.


Surprised they haven't rolled out similar income based rules to parking fines.

[Old Greg]

No.

Taxation need not be equal but justice should be. Punishment should fit the crime, not the impact on the perpetrator.

Richard Branson shouldn't pay any more for a speeding fine than I should.

Somebody who is retired shouldn't go to prison longer than I should just because he has more time to spare.

I disagree.

Except for your last point about jail time, although that is a bit silly and irrelevant when talking about deterrence.

[WordIsBond]

There is meant to be deterrent factor in fines, so it makes sense to fine wealthier people more.

No.

Taxation need not be equal but justice should be. Punishment should fit the crime, not the impact on the perpetrator.

Richard Branson shouldn't pay any more for a speeding fine than I should.

Somebody who is retired shouldn't go to prison longer than I should just because he has more time to spare.

[Old Greg]

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/l...peeding-fines/

Most normal offences, where you are caught exceeding the limit by a small amount over any tolerance at discretion of the fuzz on the day (e.g. 10% + 2 mph) will be the normal fixed penalty notice of £100 + 3 points. If it goes to court for any reason then that's where they can fine up to £1000 (or £2500 for motorway offence) based on weekly income.

Not sure how they calculate weekly income if say you are using typical minimum salary plus dividend approach, whether they look at salary only as dividends are not paid often enough to be predictable and guaranteed income.

Just another way for the 'hard working families' to pay disproportionately more than those playing the benefits system. Why do only fools and horses work, it's a mugs game.

There is meant to be deterrent factor in fines, so it makes sense to fine wealthier people more.

[Hobosapien]

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/l...peeding-fines/

Most normal offences, where you are caught exceeding the limit by a small amount over any tolerance at discretion of the fuzz on the day (e.g. 10% + 2 mph) will be the normal fixed penalty notice of £100 + 3 points. If it goes to court for any reason then that's where they can fine up to £1000 (or £2500 for motorway offence) based on weekly income.

Not sure how they calculate weekly income if say you are using typical minimum salary plus dividend approach, whether they look at salary only as dividends are not paid often enough to be predictable and guaranteed income.

Just another way for the 'hard working families' to pay disproportionately more than those playing the benefits system. Why do only fools and horses work, it's a mugs game.

[psychocandy]

But you still may get an offer of speed awareness course or fixed penalty anyway... So it doesnt matter.

I did crap myself recently when I got caught - especailly since i'm through an umbrella - that would have been massive.

[MS4]

You pay £175 per week and no dividends?

If so then yeah. That’s your earnings so it’s a fair representation?

Correct, currently no dividends (actually never any since I started this limited company).

Mark.

[MS4]

What does that have to do with a speeding fine ?

The fine is up to 175% of weekly income:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/co...-wages-monday/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...weekly-income/