Why Aren't Fines Based on % Networth Instead of a Set Amount Based on Infringement?

Ghosteye on 13/06/2019 - 16:53

I was listening to a podcast the other day about how fines affect the common man, and are geared towards leeching money out of us normies. The rich don't really give a rat's a** about paying fines because it would probably be a drop in the bucket for them.

They then went on to suggest that maybe a %net worth fine would be more effective in a society such as ours, where income declaration and other aspects are pretty transparent and advanced.

What are some of your thoughts? Do you think our fine system in Australia is fair today? Do you think it can be improved?

Automotive

Comments

  • redfox1200 on 13/06/2019 - 18:50

    considering 80% of the population live paycheck to paycheck there would be no incentive to tax as a percent of net worth

    • Mike88 on 13/06/2019 - 19:47
      +1

      Couldn’t you just keep the current penalties and have % based one at the same time where whichever is higher is what is payed.

      • Ghosteye on 13/06/2019 - 20:55

        ^ that might be a good idea, I guess it would also add more strain on existing government services and personnel.

  • Tasmaniac on 13/06/2019 - 19:36
    -1

    NSW will even garnish the pension from an old age veteren for parking in the wrong spot. That's completely (profanity)#ng wrong.

    • SnakeCasablanca on 14/06/2019 - 14:57
      +2

      Why? Did they fight for our right to park in no parking zones?

    • ProlapsedHeinous on 14/06/2019 - 21:54

      As much as the parking police are a pain in the ass, they are a necessary evil, unless you want people parking their cars everywhere with no consequences.

  • Shadowsfury on 13/06/2019 - 19:39
    +1

    I think what we have now is sufficient - the demerit point system is there to (eventually) stop what the OP is getting at in terms of being a deterrent.

    Sure I could keep breaking the speed limit and getting fined over and over and keep paying them, but eventually I'm going to run out of points and lose my licence.

  • lostn on 13/06/2019 - 19:40
    +4

    It wouldn't be fair to charge one person x amount for something and someone else more because they're richer. That's discriminatory and would be like charging variable fines based on skin colour.

    Then you have to get a valuation of that person's wealth, which is not a simple thing to do. You'd have to look at all their bank accounts and investments. They would need to show you their bank balance and all of their investments, which is an invasion of their privacy and a real hassle for both them and the one issuing the fine.

    This is no more fair than charging higher grocery prices to the rich.

    Imagine some day we unlock the power of eternal life. A petty thief who gets 3 months jail because he's a normal human. That guy over there is immortal though, so we need to give him 200 years prison for stealing a phone because 200 years to an immortal is insignificant.

    Sound ridiculous? So is fining someone based on their wealth. What if all of their money was in investment properties not cash? Would you then have to force a person to sell a few properties to pay for a parking ticket? A parking infringement worth 2 real estate properties?

    And another reason it will backfire: poor and homeless people will be free to infringe as much as they want. They're worth nothing and have to pay nothing in fines.

    The reason it doesn't happen is because it's an idiotic idea.

  • Blue Cat on 13/06/2019 - 19:44
    +2

    Sounds like communist propaganda, but OK.

    • WinstonWithAY on 16/06/2019 - 19:22

      When you don't have an actual counter just screech "Communism"

  • plmko on 13/06/2019 - 19:44
    +3

    Fark mind your own business, why does Australia have this whinny obsession what the Jones' next door are doing. OMG how dare you try to live your own life.

    • cashie on 23/06/2019 - 11:23

      Yeah it’s really sad, “they earn more than me, I’m so hard done by”.
      We all get pinged for points and insurance increases.
      Should the “rich” get reimbursed for having comprehensive insurance that many “poor” don’t have?

  • Amaris on 13/06/2019 - 19:48
    +3

    I propose extrapolating this to criminal justice… Calculate jail terms to take away an equal % of life left to live. Lets jail young people for longer than old people for the same crime!!

    • Neverpayretail on 16/06/2019 - 06:16

      This already happens. The number of times I have read things like "in light of his advancing age a lighter sentence was deemed appropriate" or "becuase of his age and his chance of dieing in prison the minimum sentence was imposed".

    • WinstonWithAY on 16/06/2019 - 19:23

      Ah yes, the good old "logical extreme" counter argument. So foolproof in its integrity not even the most astute debater can counter it. Well done

  • ihbh on 13/06/2019 - 19:50

    Why aren't fines based on % networth instead of a set amount based on infringement?

    Because it creates the wrong incentives:

    • Why would anyone work hard to be rich?
    • No parking zones would always be full of cars from people on unemployment benefits and the bankrupt. Not to mention speeding drivers and those running red lights.
    • lostn on 13/06/2019 - 23:49

      Yes but imagine if Bill Gates visited Australia and outstayed his parking ticket by a few minutes! The treasury would receive enough money to put FTTP into every home in the land!

  • serpserpserp on 13/06/2019 - 21:25

    lol if things were means tested on net worth don't you think the rich would just plow more money into accountants/lawyers to reduce their means test "level" to a point that they feel comfortable with paying?

    Meanwhile blue collar types just might decide that the fines/whatever they have to pay for via means test is not worth earning more money, so they just decide to slack off and live in a bracket they are comfortable with.

    Just doesn't seem like it would work in real life. Maybe if we stopped all the legal loopholes first.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/06/2019 - 21:31

      To stop all the legal loopholes, the lawyers would have to work overtime. They'll get paid overtime hence making them richer.

      They get richer and the fines get higher.

      They spend some time engineering some loopholes.

      They also get paid for that time.

      We're back to initial problem but with a legislative bird's nest and paid a princely sum to a bunch of people.

      • serpserpserp on 13/06/2019 - 21:33

        It is like divorce lawyering in the U.S. The longer people look at it, the worse off the people who are part of the divorce are, but the laywers keep getting paid!

        • [Deactivated] on 13/06/2019 - 21:37

          But the other person has the better deal!

          Seriously though, this argument for "equality" is really about arbitrarily averaging everyone out for the sake of averaging everyone out, failing which, lowering everyone else to the same level.

  • 2ndeffort on 13/06/2019 - 21:30
    +2

    Simple idea but would be smashed by both the law of unintended consequence and exploited by the lawyers and accountants of the rich. Like everything else it would just manifest itself as yet another drain on the household budgets of the middle classes.

  • ohsotight on 14/06/2019 - 08:24
    +1

    Any chance this site can stop users posting silly questions ? Some of the questions are absolutely devoid of common sense.

  • nushydude on 14/06/2019 - 08:50
    +3

    So you want to penalise people for working hard and making more money?

    • UNO on 14/06/2019 - 20:18

      That's how income tax works.

    • berry580 on 16/06/2019 - 10:53

      Penalise people in a away that can be felt buy people in the full spectrum of the party scale for going over speed limit.

      Working hard doesn't necessarily mean making more money. I know a janitor who works really hard. I can't see her earn any where close to James Packer level rich though.

    • WinstonWithAY on 16/06/2019 - 19:24

      Because hard work=more money right. The American Dream doesn't exist genius

  • gormsby on 14/06/2019 - 09:18
    +7

    The idea of using some measure of wealth to calculate the amount of a fine is not new. Countries like Finland, Norway, and Switzerland all have systems that calculate the size of a fine based on the offender's annual income. Despite all the comments to the contrary I believe this is the fairest way to do it.

    The intent of a fine is to discourage the offender from continuing to behave in a way that is illegal, dangerous, or unfairly inconveniences others (eg. parking fine). A $100 fine to someone on a $250K annual income is much less of a disincentive to someone earning $50K.

    The Australia Insitute (Canberra-based 'think tank') published a research paper on the topic a few years ago.

    Here's a quote from one of the authors:

    “Australia’s system doesn’t consider a driver’s income when calculating a traffic fine, making the Finnish system much fairer,” said researcher Jesper Lindqvist.

    For speeding 20 km/h over the limit, the average Australian fine is $236, regardless of if you’re a millionaire or on a very low income. Under the Finnish model, the lowest income earners would be fined $100, while the highest income earners would pay over $1,000.

    “These fines represent equal financial hits for drivers as a proportion of their disposable income. As fines are designed as a disincentive to dangerous driving, it would send the same message to people of different incomes: speeding is costly.

    “The Finnish model strives for equity, and in-turn a more effective fine system and safer roads, and that’s something that every country is interested in,” Lindqvist said.

    Source: http://www.tai.org.au/content/income-based-traffic-fines

    • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 10:01
      +2

      It's funny how 2 comments above we have people commenting on how ideas like these are just 'devoid' of common sense.

      It's a fun idea to just kick around; others are taking it really hard though.

  • Frozensage on 14/06/2019 - 09:18
    +1

    how about instead of just losing your driver license after u lose all ur points, you physically can’t leave your home outside a 2km radius for a week, till your penalty expires. Everyone gets 100 points to start off with. If you do volunteering work then you get back your points faster after you lose them. Social credit system!

    By the way if I was fined 50k for speeding ticket, I would probably just pay someone to use their name on the ticket so I can get away with cheaper fine. It would just become a new industry specialized in minimizing your fines like the tax system. In the end, someone with more resources will always find a way to beat the system.

    The most disadvantaged will always be the middle class. The poorest of the hobos already don’t give a f about paying fines since they have no money, and the richest have a team of legal experts to fight for their rights. The hard working mum and dads and single professionals will be hardest hit. And then what? Have more exceptions rules if you on 100k but 3 kids entitles you to a discount?

  • voteoften on 14/06/2019 - 09:26
    +1

    Spare a thought for how this would be administered. Ffs. How much work and expense would it take to prove your net worth? How many government resources would be required?

    Jordan Peteron has a great book. 12 rules for life, an antidote to chaos. One of these rules is CLEAN YOUR ROOM. Basically this means that prior to going around interfering with society as a whole, get your own life in order. You need to have a solid grounding in the workd before you set to change it. The fact that you just throw out net worth in such a careless fashion suggests you do not have a solid knowledge of finance. Please educate yourself before making such wild and frivolous suggestions.

    I am not trying to be rude or cruel. Just speaking to you plainly. 💐

    • gormsby on 14/06/2019 - 09:48
      +1

      Net worth might be hard but using annual income would be much easier. Even annual income might not be perfect but the point is that it would be a fairer system than what we have currently.

      • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 09:51

        Or you could say it's unfair because when Person A does something wrong they are fined $100 and when Person B does something wrong they are fined $1,000.

        The punishment should fit the crime, not the person.

        Person B has already paid a larger share of income tax earning their money in the first place.

        Not to mention ultra wealthy people with $1 per year annual income yet a net wealth of $100M+.

        • gormsby on 14/06/2019 - 11:02
          +4

          The punishment should fit the crime, not the person.

          Think about it like this - "traffic fines serve to provide an incentive to drivers to obey road rules. But the incentives provided are different for different people. For a driver earning a million dollars per year a $150 traffic fine is of little consequence. For a low income earner it can be a serious setback. It can lead to financial stress for those at the margin, resulting in unpaid bills, loss of insurance and other financial problems." (Source: the paper I linked to).

          It's not about who's paid more tax, it's about ensuring that the level of 'punishment' (as you put it) for an offence is equivalent regardless of wealth.

          Not to mention ultra wealthy people with $1 per year annual income yet a net wealth of $100M+.

          Like I said, the annual income measure might not be perfect but it's a significant improvement.

    • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 09:49

      Yes - agreed - to implement it the government would need to record everybody's net wealth, which they don't currently do.

      Think of all the pieces of art, classic cars etc people have - it would basically be impossible to work out.

    • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 09:52

      'How much work and expense would it take to prove your net worth?'

      Centrelink benefits test your assets before assessing whether you're eligible. It's not that hard.

      Also, I don't think Jordan Peterson writes great books, just my 2c

      • wyrmy on 14/06/2019 - 12:44

        Out of a population of 25 million how many people claim Centrelink? Vs every adult who could get one or more fines.

        And what happens when a tourist or a non-resident gets a fine? If you cant apply a means test to them you will have a bunch of people screaming about how tourists and immigrants get to pay so little for fines while hard working tax paying aussies who just want to pay bills get hit with thousands in fines.

        You also keep talking about fines but haven't talked about what kind of fines. Every one just assumes speeding etc, but a lot of fines are handed by non government bodies. Do you really want private agencies indirectly having access to someones income/net worth details?

        • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 16:03
          +1

          I would assume almost everyone has data with the ATO, not just Centrelink. Wouldn't you agree?

    • WinstonWithAY on 16/06/2019 - 19:30

      Imagine actually thinking Peterson is worthy of spending an iota of your time listening to

  • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 09:47
    +5

    This is why we have demerit points.

  • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 09:55
    +1

    Question - are the people who ask for things like this the same people who are for a universal basic income?

    You know, that flat payment everyone gets intead of Centrelink that is great because it would cost less to administer?

    • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 09:56

      When you lose your job to automation or some other market force out of your control, you'd probably be more inclined to support UBI

      • pogichinoy on 14/06/2019 - 10:15

        Adapt and reskill.

        What happened to the people post Industrial revolution?

        To answer the original question, why not have both? i.e. % and standard fine value, e.g. $200, and you pay whichever is higher.

        Being poor is not an excuse for breaking a law.

      • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 11:12

        OK… I thought so. Can you help me understand how someone can hold both of those views at the same time?

        A) Fines based on net wealth = practically impossible to administer, massive admin burden

        -= and at the same time =-

        B) UBI is good because it removes the admin cost of means testing and so forth

        ?

        • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 11:22

          A) With regards to how current society functions.

          B) UBI is required when one day you and I and the rest of society don't work anymore

          • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 15:17

            @Ghosteye: B) In that regard, I don't see what UBI would do that Centrelink doesn't already do. Give people money who don't work (more or less). The main argument for UBI comes from it's low admin costs, whereby the admin complexity/costs associated with net wealth based traffic fines would be huge if at all possible (and as mentioned previously, would be gamed by the wealthy so that it's the middle class that ends up paying it - just like income tax is currently).

            What is your current view on the administration burden/costs/possibility of implementing net wealth based fines?

            Can you see it would be impractical or do you think it can be done?

            • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 16:47

              @MementoMori: It is impractical. There is no doubt about it.

              But it is an idea that other countries have adopted and in my eyes it is something worth talking about.

              This is merely a discussion about whether or not it would be suitable to Australian society and what people's views are on it.

              In reality it would have to be a more well-rounded idea to be able to work, much less function in the way that it is designed to.

              Centrelink is based on the idea that we help the bottom end of society, that we give them some monetary help so that they can be productive members of society. It doesn't have anything to do with UBI, and it does not represent what UBI stands for.

  • bargaino on 14/06/2019 - 10:40

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland…

    In 2002, a Nokia executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for going 45 in a 30 zone on his motorcycle, and the NHL player Teemu Selanne incurred a $39,000 fine two years earlier.

  • DingoBilly on 14/06/2019 - 10:49
    +4

    I agree with your points and makes a lot of sense. Not sure why others seem to not understand it/disagree so strongly.

    All you'd need to do is set a minimum fine amount, and add a % based on income. In terms of determining your wealth, could come up with some simple measures to figure it out.

    At worst - you end up with the exact same system as we have - so no big deal (+ some wasted government spending - oh well).

    At best - you have a more fairer system where wealthier people are less encouraged to engage in bad behavior. We already know they do engage in it based on stats, so it would be good to lower it.

    • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 11:08

      There's a very strong sense of individualism in the comments I think, and while it might not seem feasible to most on face value, many just take it as such. Face value.

      I think it might border on infringing constitutional rights, and many people are looking at the middle class who would 'suffer' the most under this.

  • ExtraSalt on 14/06/2019 - 10:52
    +1

    na, leaves to be exploited. Fines based on net worth is a horrible idea.

  • philmccracken on 14/06/2019 - 10:59
    +2

    If this was actually such a problem in the first place with wealthy people not caring about the cost of the fine and thus having no motivation to avoid offending, then there'd be a disproportionately high amount of these offences performed by more wealthy individuals.

    I'd love to see what the current distribution of offence vs wealth/income actually is to even suggest any such correlation.

    • abb on 14/06/2019 - 11:23
      +1

      You'd need to control for enforcement activity in rich/poor areas, it would be interesting to see but a pretty hard study to do, I don't think the police publish their highway patrol activities…

      As an informal study, observe the frequency of proper indicator use vs value of vehicle ;)

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 14/06/2019 - 11:26
    +2

    Though i see your view point i dont think it is a fair one the law needs to be the same for everyone rich/poor, smart/dumb if we start saying punishments should be harsher on one group of people over another then where does it end?

    So i totally disagree

    however i do think the fines being dished out these days are simply over the top and the fines should be capped at 300$ - because the death toll is ever high in Victoria but the state govt gives ZERO f***s about safety and all about revenue raising…

    Simply fining people doesn't work despite the bullshit the govt says - if anything i would remove all fines and have a strict system where you auto lose your licence for a period of time - ie

    1st offence (minor) you lose it for 1 week, 2nd offence minor 4 weeks etc
    1st offence major lose licence for 3 months, 2nd offence 12 months, 3rd never drive again.

    As system like that it fair for all because weather you are rich or poor the punishment affects ppl the same - focusing on money has seen the death toll high triple digits in record time - but the government and Vic roads give ZERO f***s as i said

    • humdingaling on 14/06/2019 - 12:06

      suppose the government has listened to some extent…at least for drink driving
      low level/novice drink driving offences = immediate loss of license

    • UNO on 14/06/2019 - 20:23

      Unfortunately losing your license doesn't mean you can't get in a car and drive.

  • trapper on 14/06/2019 - 12:04
    +3

    Is there any evidence that the current system isn't working?

    ie, rich people 'who can afford it' are doing all the speeding? Thought not.

  • berry580 on 14/06/2019 - 12:46

    This isn't anything new. We just need the political will for it first.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/in-finland-speeding-t…

    How about mandatory onboard gps device that tracks your car's speed and automatically issues speeding fine whenever you're speeding?

    Political will anyone?

    • UNO on 14/06/2019 - 20:26

      What will happen when we have driverless cars… Will they break the speed limit? There will need to be a new revenue gathering system!

  • dufflover on 14/06/2019 - 12:54
    +3

    ahh the good 'ol buzzwords like fairness and equality. Funny how equal pay for equal work is suddenly out the window for equal crime equal time.

    Whilst there will always be assholes in the world and a need for deterrents, to be frank relying on a system of financial penalties to not do the wrong thing is just going the wrong direction. If a fine is what stops you running a red light you need your head checked, or maybe more convincingly smacked against the windshield first …

    • Ghosteye on 14/06/2019 - 17:19

      It's funny because I've noticed that in Western societies there is more of an emphasis on empathy than Asian countries.

      Countries like Singapore are more reliant on preventative measures to try and curtail crime in their societies. ie Capital punishment etc.

      Honest question though, do you think the current demerit point and fine system is enough to deter them as it stands today?

      • payless69 on 15/06/2019 - 13:12

        There was a time in Singapore where all commercial vehicles including taxis had to have a blinking light on top whenever the vehicle went over 50 km/h. It made no difference to the road safety just slowed the economy so they canned that stupid idea.

        Finland at one stage forced all station wagon drivers to put a 80 max sticker on their tailgate. It was another so called Sarah Hanson vacuum brain idea!

        As for the Nokia executive I am a strong believer in Karma! And rightfully Karma was right in his case!

  • Speckled Jim on 14/06/2019 - 12:56
    +2

    Let's flip this on its head.

    What if, instead of the punitive monetary fine, there was mandatory driver re-education? And, what if this took 20 hours over a period of four weeks?

    The wealthy would suddenly see the inequity of it. Isn't their time worth so much more than the other plebs?
    Such outrageous humiliation!

    Give people the choice: proportional means-based fines or driver ed.

    • MementoMori on 14/06/2019 - 15:18

      We kind of have this already - Community Corrections Orders (i.e. Community Service). People have been busted putting ads on Gumtree for people to complete theirs.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 14/06/2019 - 13:05

    It'll never happen. Would never clear parliament.

    Even if it did, the wealthy pay peasants to drive them. Check mate.

  • freakatronic on 14/06/2019 - 13:06

    Refugees rape, rob, bash, and murder in Australia and they get hugs and kisses from bleeding heart magistrates. It's not only the rich who get away with insignificant punishment.

    • funnysht on 14/06/2019 - 19:24

      you only think this because the media blow things out of proportion, excuse the pun

    • WinstonWithAY on 16/06/2019 - 19:27

      Yep. All refugees commit crime. It's nice to see you've linked no sources to back up your claim, just enforcing the fact that you are a racist

      • freakatronic on 16/06/2019 - 22:07

        Lol I didn't realise that "refugee" is a race.

  • lddv04 on 14/06/2019 - 13:46
    +2

    Here's an idea. Don't do things that will get you fined. Simples.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/06/2019 - 13:48

    This is a good idea, fines to be paid at tax return, proportion to the taxable income.

  • argonbay on 14/06/2019 - 15:30
    +1

    Demerit points!

  • Black Brown Blue on 14/06/2019 - 15:57
    +1

    Looks like you got fined. How about learn from your mistake and don’t break the law instead of complaining about it. It’s there to keep people safe.

  • Takeonme on 14/06/2019 - 15:58

    Younger people should do more years in jail for murder because they have more years to live

  • Handsoff on 14/06/2019 - 16:01
    +1

    Goodluck asking wealthy politicians to back a bill that will hurt them and their friends the most.

  • Vieira4 on 14/06/2019 - 16:03
    +1

    What a load of horse manure. Why don't we also get the supermarkets to charge higher prices for bread and milk for the better off?

    • UNO on 14/06/2019 - 20:29

      The better off probably buy more expensive bread and A2 milk.

  • SnakeCasablanca on 14/06/2019 - 16:31
    +1

    The first step would be to do a study as to whether your hypothesis is correct that richer people care less because it affects them less.

    If it turns out that richer people proportionally get less fines and its poorer people who are not disincentivised by the fines, then this system would be a complete waste of time and money and be effectively less fair than the current system

    P.S. My hypothesis is that poor people get more fines proportionally but thats just a guess.

    Wealthy people tend to be stingier than poor people. That is a large contributor as to why they are rich.

  • qwerty on 14/06/2019 - 16:39
    +2

    A farmer with a massive proprty in his name that is just making it in a drought is charged 100K for a speeding fine while someone with trusts , offshore accounts and corporations pays 0

    • payless69 on 15/06/2019 - 13:01

      and he is forced to pay for the vegan intruders making more misery!

  • field1985 on 14/06/2019 - 16:55

    Another option is to remove fines altogether and impose greater demerit point losses (eg instead of 3 points and $500 fine, make an offence worth 6 points).

    This would make the system equal for all.

  • MrFrugalSpend on 14/06/2019 - 17:06

    I disagree. I know a number of wealthy people who'd hate getting fines as much of the rest of us.
    Most are very money conscious which is why they are wealthy. If they are self-made, even more so as they know what it takes to get to where they are, and it doesn't involve throwing money away.

    Business fines are generally 5 times what individuals pay with a lot of legislation measured in penalty units.
    A whole raft of other reputation damages and issues are a concern to more genuine high profile individuals who have a brush with the law. The true deviates that don't do the right thing (e.g. hide money, avoid taxes, setup trusts etc) would get away with paying less anyway.

    It'd be a lot lot harder to administer too.

    Also, don't forget most wealthy people actually contribute a great deal to the economy, employ other people, and pay the lions share of net taxes (remembering they don't get any welfare or subsidies that are all generally means tested) and many are actually quite generous. Suggest stopping the 'us' and 'them' jealousy and just do the best you can to succeed instead of trying to take the shears to the tall poppies.

  • HeWhoKnows on 14/06/2019 - 17:24
    +1

    Fines based on ability to pay have been discussed by the Powers to be.

  • funnysht on 14/06/2019 - 19:23

    kind of silly
    then in this case anything like rent, mortgage, house payments, council rates, food, etc should then be proportion of your wealth.

  • Miss B on 14/06/2019 - 19:59

    Another option is instant loss of licence or prison time, instead of fines and demerit points. Confiscating the vehicle, might be along the lines of means tested fines.

    I don't really care, I choose not to get fines anyway. Even if they were significantly cheaper I doubt I'd ever see them as a bargain.

  • Euphemistic on 14/06/2019 - 20:11
    +1

    Fines (and points) are designed to be a disincentive. They work best on the middle class majority, people who generally follow the rules because they don’t want to waste their hard earned. The fines are set at a value that hurts hip pockets of the middle class. .

    They don’t work terribly well on the uneducated and very poor because they have nothing much to lose, and a stay in prison probably isn’t the end of the world..

    They don’t work well in the very rich because they can buy their way out of trouble later if necessary.

  • abuch47 on 14/06/2019 - 20:20

    Our media tells us we are all part of this class and should punch down on the poor (classism)

    Right wing government plays on this welfare division and pretends it will help everyone.

    People keep voting for the rich by instilling these 'mates rates' governments.

    Realise it was the worst possible idea.

    But then the day of the next election we see a sign that says tax bad, cut good.

    To ignorant to notice the well off get the tax cuts and the budget dries up for people who need it most.

    Then the 'successful' few retire from parliament to private CEO positions in industries subsidized by public coffers or vice versa.

    Funnel the money from everyone into the purses of corrupt public servants

  • chriise on 14/06/2019 - 21:15

    There seems to be a rising trend of commie BS posted on this site in recent weeks..

    • Eeples on 14/06/2019 - 22:45

      The OP is arguing against the commie BS.
      Maybe he is a plant.

  • bobolo on 14/06/2019 - 22:24

    I consider traffic infringements and fines a cost of car ownership nowadays - just like rego, insurance, petrol, servicing etc.

    It doesn't teach me anything, I won't stop breaking road rules from time to time and it doesn't even bother me - except for the mild inconvenience of having to go onto the website and pay the fine.

    I'd say I'm well off but not super rich

    Just saying the truth

  • Vote for Pedro on 15/06/2019 - 00:08

    Have we had a ‘the fine amount doesn’t matter if you dont break the law’ comment yet?

  • MrMoo on 15/06/2019 - 00:10

    Isn't this just Communism? lol

  • idonotknowwhy on 15/06/2019 - 01:56
    +1

    Your idea sounds like discrimination and inequality. I thought we were trying to leave these mistakes in the past and treat everyone equally…

  • AustriaBargain on 15/06/2019 - 02:44

    If it only cost like $100 fine for assaulting Anning with an egg, then the police would need to provide crowd control to help with the thousands of people lining up for their turn.

  • kaleidoscope on 15/06/2019 - 07:32

    so if someone takes on a second job because to save bit more for an investment or his/partner cannot work, all of a sudden must pay higher in fines due to increased incomes? 🤦‍♂️

  • U4333439 on 15/06/2019 - 08:49

    I see your point and agree somewhat. At least without deep consideration. Not sure why all the negs.

    I've thought the same with parking at work. A low level making 50k a year pays the same in parking as the ceo making…a lot. CEO chooses to raise parking cost because it is a reasonable hike. Feels like it would be fairer if it were scaled.

    I'm 36 btw and neither CEO or entry level.

  • isidore12 on 15/06/2019 - 10:28

    In Finland, fines are based on the income.

    It is a social and political decision.

    • payless69 on 15/06/2019 - 13:15

      a typical result where estrogen overloaders give all their love to cats…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join