Quote:
Originally Posted by Louwai
I don't see how penalising wealthier people more, is going to reduce the road toll or make the roads safer. 
A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people. If based on income, these people will pay the minimum, if anything. Therefore the "penalty by income" will not be a deterant to these people.
Which means that the current number of offences from this demographic will not change, & quite possibly increase. This demographic is often "mis-informed" & so they may think,
"income based fines - I have no income, so I won't have to pay a fine".
Stupid comment you say.... Believe me, some people would DEFINATELY think this way.
So penalising according to income seems to be purely a revenue raising excersize.
So I ask, How would this form of penalty reduce the number of offences, or the road toll????
Regarding the "stupid comment" above. I personally know a woman who divorced 20 years ago & received a settlement for the house. The husband stayed in the house. The house was legally changed from both names to his name at the time.
21yrs down the track, the husband sold the house & the woman truely believed that she still owned 50% of the house & he could not sell it without her permission + she would get 50% of the profit.
Needless to say that she got a rude shock!!!!!   |
Geez Louwai, simple, still maintain a minimum fine to at least equal the current fine.
I'm sure that clown in Finland who was fined $290,000 will at least give it a second thought.
Don't forget this is a voluntary form of revenue.
Not to sure about, "A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people.