- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Speeding fine: calculation of weekly income"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostIt's too nice a day to argue if you can't see the difference between a financial penalty and jail time.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostI 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostExcept for your last point about jail time, although that is a bit silly and irrelevant when talking about deterrence.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by WordIsBond View PostNo.
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.
Except for your last point about jail time, although that is a bit silly and irrelevant when talking about deterrence.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostThere is meant to be deterrent factor in fines, so it makes sense to fine wealthier people more.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hobosapien View Posthttps://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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by kaiser78 View PostWhat does that have to do with a speeding fine ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/co...-wages-monday/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...weekly-income/
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: