metallithrax Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Source Swiss millionaire find a record ?180,000 for speeding. Is it right or wrong to base fines on wealth? I'm not sure myself. On one hand I can see why it is good, but on the other I can see how unfair it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy0 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 In one sense I think it's good because the rich will pay more, but then in one sense having the 'poor' pay less for crimes doesn't really make that much sense, because they're getting away with it too easily. Perhaps there should be a set minimum (whatever it is now), and then if your extremely rich you pay more? I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentaal Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 A fine is supposed to have an effect on the person in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMonolith Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 alternatively....u could make it cost something...like points on a license...after which when u get 0, you cant drive :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmijutin Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It's quite fair... If you're earning 50 000? a month and you get 500? fine, that is not much problem to you. But if you're working for 5 000?, that's a quite of money. Fines/tickets should have progressive rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+jamesyfx Subscriber² Posted January 8, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's fair. He was a repeat offender, and he was rich. He should pay for his crimes. He's less likely to curb his shoddy driving if the fines are tiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMonolith Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's fair. He was a repeat offender, and he was rich. He should pay for his crimes.He's less likely to curb his shoddy driving if the fines are tiny. he's much more likely to curb his behaviour if he has no license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 switzerland hates cars, anyway. their rulings don't matter to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kudos Veteran Posted January 8, 2010 Veteran Share Posted January 8, 2010 The whole point of fines is to disincentivise speeding. I had a boss who used to get speeding tickets weekly, he could afford to. Since the penalty point system came it, no one with an Irish drivers license does that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurë Veteran Posted January 8, 2010 Veteran Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's relative. I think it's unfair to use a fixed penalty as it punishes poorer people more than the richer. Using some ratio/percentage seems to make more sense, especially if it is meant to be punishment rather than a side income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 If I'm not wrong 85mph in a 50 zone here would result in instant disqualification from driving? So revoking his driving license would be much more effective. But of course, these people need their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted January 8, 2010 Administrators Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's supposed to be a punishment, when the speeding fine is only a couple of hundred for someone who's a millionaire it's hardly going to feel like a punishment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's supposed to be a punishment, when the speeding fine is only a couple of hundred for someone who's a millionaire it's hardly going to feel like a punishment! thats what i was thinking at first, but at the same time i was thinking its unfair to be charged more because of his wealth, then i saw "repeat offender", so maybe he'll listen if its a number that actually effects him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dance. Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 voted for indifferent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_f Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think it's right, if a millionaire is charged ?100 for speeding they'll shrug it off as pocket money. If a millionaire is charged ?100,000 they'll take notice and will hesitate speeding and putting their lives and the lives of others at risk in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted January 8, 2010 Member Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think it's unfair to base punishment on how much a person is worth. Just take their license for a while and if that doesn't work put them to work as a street cleaner or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think it's absolutely fair, the fine was still practically pocket change to this guy. Making the rich pay silly pocket fines that ordinary citizens pay would have no effect on them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I'm against huge fines like this just because they're wealthy. I completely agree with using a point system like many countries have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Wizard Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 When I first saw the title, I thought that such a high figure was wrong, however if it is enough of a fine to make the guy stop speeding, and he can afford it, then its right in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 It's fair. He was a repeat offender, and he was rich. He should pay for his crimes.He's less likely to curb his shoddy driving if the fines are tiny. It's not fair just because he was rich. That's a completely marxist way of viewing things. This is meant to be the law and it's meant to be one law for everybody. Not one law for the poor, another law for the middle class, another law for the rich and yet another one for the govt officials etc. I agree that it's meant to discourage the person from breaking the law again so do something like suspend his license for x months, and make that the same for everybody, no matter how much money they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted January 9, 2010 Member Share Posted January 9, 2010 It's not fair just because he was rich. That's a completely marxist way of viewing things. This is meant to be the law and it's meant to be one law for everybody. Not one law for the poor, another law for the middle class, another law for the rich and yet another one for the govt officials etc. Most of the posters here seem Marxist or Socialist to me. Anyway, here in the US that guy would have had to spend that much money bribing himself out of trouble, so we aren't much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckboii Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 ya hes wealthy but thats not justice. well theres no justice anymore unless your with a celebrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 SourceSwiss millionaire find a record ?180,000 for speeding. Is it right or wrong to base fines on wealth? I'm not sure myself. On one hand I can see why it is good, but on the other I can see how unfair it is. Absolutely right! It has to be a punishment, and if it just was ?100 or something, he would just laugh at it and quickly do it again. It has to be that high to be a deterrent to not do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted January 9, 2010 Subscriber¹ Share Posted January 9, 2010 It's not fair just because he was rich. That's a completely marxist way of viewing things. This is meant to be the law and it's meant to be one law for everybody. Not one law for the poor, another law for the middle class, another law for the rich and yet another one for the govt officials etc. I agree that it's meant to discourage the person from breaking the law again so do something like suspend his license for x months, and make that the same for everybody, no matter how much money they have. If the fine is based on percentage of wealth, surely it's the same percentage for everyone thus being fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentaal Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Not one law for the poor, another law for the middle class, another law for the rich and yet another one for the govt officials etc. If there was a fixed fine, that's when it would be one law for the poor, and another for the rich, because it'd have effect only one of them and no effect on the other. To say that this is Marxist is completely ridiculous. I guess if it were up to you, a millionaire would be paying the same fixed amount of tax as someone living on a minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts