Income tested speeding fines

[MasterOfReality]

Did you hear on the news last night the so-called Australia Institute reckons its a great idea to make speeding fines proportional to somebody's income.

So, for a $125 fine,

If you earn <=$30,000 the fine is approx $75
If you earn >=$100,000 the fine is approx $385

This would apply for other traffic infingments too.

What do people reckon?

Personally i think its disgraceful. Its just another kick in the guts (on top of income tax and various other socially engineered taxes) to people who work hard to achieve something in life.

The State government has ruled out considering this rubbish.

The Australian Council of Social Services reckons its a great idea (not suprising), using an example of someone who earns $300/wk and then cops a $200 fine will be the hardest hit.

Wouldn't that be more incentive to drive carefully if you can't afford the fine? After all, speeding is illegal isn't it?

I reckon that if this ever gets another consideration or ever goes though and becomes law, people who pay less then should get double demerits!

End of rant.

[mixin]

How 'bout they increase them depending on the stupidity level? That would be fairer to the decent drivers.

Why should low-income earners get off a fine cheaply?

Whatever the offence committed is, it is still breaking the law & it has the same potential to become an injury or death, so it should be the same penalty.

If you can't do the time/pay the fine, then don't do the crime. Simple.

[DJ Majah]

The Australian Council of Social Services reckons its a great idea (not suprising), using an example of someone who earns $300/wk and then cops a $200 fine will be the hardest hit.

Wouldn't that be more incentive to drive carefully if you can't afford the fine? After all, speeding is illegal isn't it?

Yep. And so someone who earns over $100,000/y shouldnt have to pay more because their $125 fine will make such an impact in their pocket they'll never do it again? I think not.

[MasterOfReality]

Yep. And so someone who earns over $100,000/y shouldnt have to pay more because their $125 fine will make such an impact in their pocket they'll never do it again? I think not.

Why should they pay more simply because they earn more? Give me a good reason.

$100,000/yr doesn't look so good anymore after taxes and surcharges are taken out.

All fines should be the same, it is after all the same traffic offences being committed

[DJ Majah]

Because as you said in your first post, the low income earners wont learn their lesson if their fine isnt as high.

It works the other way too, currently the high income earners arent feeling the fines. The difference is, if the peasants save some money, they can buy food. If John Laws loses some money he will have to wait an hour before he can buy a new gold ring.

And just because they dont earn much doesnt make them a bludger, they may be a student, have a disability pension etc etc.

As far as Im concerned it can go either way though, I think theyre both fair systems.

[Bax]

They want to lower the P plater accident situation, but at the same time they want to give them cheaper fines. Geez, unless its some kind of strange manipulation to encourage them to speed more because its cheaper - Just to get enough offences to have major action taken then.. Why.

I know back when I'd just lost my job and copped a speeding offence (not related) But have heard funny stories.. Guy lost his job, left the carpark on a red headed rage of burnouts and sideways ness. Ute at a red light stopped and he went up the ass and wrote off his car.

Anyway!
Back when I lost my job and had 370 dollars to suddenly account for.. I knew I was screwed, I knew that I had to find a way to get money and if I wanted to blow my savings or ask my parents or whatever.

I think its unfair for the police to say, Nah, your not working.. Lets drop that 370 down to 150.. No! Make them suffer, do the time mofos

[The1985divo]

Having to pay more wont worry me........

Dont speed wont have to worry

[dust_master]

i dont think that this income based fining system would be good at all...sure theoretically it wouldnt burden the lower income bracket as much and the government would get more money (or would it? which group gets more fines?).

but the fines are as a deterant, you say that may not impact higer income earners? thats not justifiable, sure their base income is greater, but the taxes, government funding to lower incomer earners, the incentives for lower income earners, etc make it irresponsible for any government to even suggest such a ludacrist thing.

a main deterant of speeding/illegal road activities is demerit points.... to me and a lot of people the fines would be a pain in the arse or more but its not to bad.....loss of demerit points is the hardest thing, you only get 12 points for 3 years in Vic....i would think no matter what the income level that points would be more a worry than fines.

If someone loses their job because they cant drive anymore, and because they cant work they cant afford to pay the fine....what does that tell you? fines are too steep.....?

and i'm very sure that you can arrange to have the fine paid of periodically or something like that rather than handing over a lump sum (at least i think i had that option), plus you've got that first 28 days or so before you need to pay a fine.

~Justin

**May be in form of rant (adjusted so it wasnt so rantish )

[Bec]

I think it should stay the same for low income earners, but go up as the net income does.
My friend got 10 tickets during one year when they were 18, all because of a tail or brake light not working. It was their only transport to work, uni etc, and they went without food to eventually pay off the fines, not before their licence was suspended for 6 months because they weren't able to pay fast enough. They could no longer get to work.
Another friend, who had rich parents and a job at his dad's business, kept getting busted for speeding. Either he or his dad paid for it, and his mum or dad took the demerit points. He never seemed to get pulled over anyway because he had a near new car.
They could also do away with fines and just double the demerits. Both myself and John Laws have 12 points.....
I don't care myself, I haven't got a ticket in 18 months (yay) but I do get sick of all the rich *****s speeding all the time.
Bec

[Julie]

I think this proposal is ludacris. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of medium to high income earners having to pay more than their fair share. They already pay much higher taxes and things like medicare levies if they don't have private health cover. It's unfair to suggest they should pay more for the same offense than what a low income earner would.

The high income earners are the poor buggers having to pay for all the bludgers on welfare already, proposals like this make me wonder exactly who would have the better quality of life, those who work their arses off to get ahead and make a good living or the bludger dole bums and single mums who keep popping out kids to get welfare. Its ridiculous, as it stands now for a lot of 'high income earners' overtime is a waste of money after the government rapes them with taxes.

Besides, its not like the money fine is all you are losing. There is the demerit points, and even if the money fines arent as much of a reason to do the right thing the demerit points are as most so called 'high income earners' rely upon having a licence to earn their money.

[Garth]

for a low income earner to get a fine worth $750 like me, it's huge, for a high income earner to get a fine for $750 it's still huge, but he/she wont have to make any sacrafices

i know one thing, that fine i managed to get (i wont go into it) sure has taught me a lesson or 2, ive done the crime, now i simply do the time, im paying of the fine, atleast the government is looking after it there

but the idea of a income based speeding fine is insane, it brings me back to the following point, fines arnt ment to be there for revenue rasing, it's ment to hit people where it huts the most, the old hip pocket. so changing it to be like this will still hurt people in the hip pocket, but just the very wrong way.

if the government does this, they truely are living up to the title of qld the smart state. this is something i hope they have the brains not to do

cheers
a very conused garth

[nrk33e]

the govment wud b arfta muney 4 sure.if they really cared about safety theyd put up those flashing signs around schools that let u no its '40 k' time.the idea was proposed ages ago but the money gets spent on more speed cameras.which would make the place safer?

[MasterOfReality]

I think this proposal is ludacris. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of medium to high income earners having to pay more than their fair share. They already pay much higher taxes and things like medicare levies if they don't have private health cover. It's unfair to suggest they should pay more for the same offense than what a low income earner would.

The high income earners are the poor buggers having to pay for all the bludgers on welfare already, proposals like this make me wonder exactly who would have the better quality of life, those who work their arses off to get ahead and make a good living or the bludger dole bums and single mums who keep popping out kids to get welfare. Its ridiculous, as it stands now for a lot of 'high income earners' overtime is a waste of money after the government rapes them with taxes.

Besides, its not like the money fine is all you are losing. There is the demerit points, and even if the money fines arent as much of a reason to do the right thing the demerit points are as most so called 'high income earners' rely upon having a licence to earn their money.

My sentiments exactly!

[CommodoreChick]

Sounds like a good idea for us low income earners
But I can understand that high income earners would just see it as yet another tax for doing well.
And hey stop calling poor people bludgers. When i start my apprenticeship im going to be doing a nearly 60 hour week on a about 5 bucks an hour.
Most of the time its us "bludgers" that have the most demanding jobs.
Oh just one other thing while im at it... Why do all the older members refer to P platers like we're some kind of criminal? I know we are a pain in the ass, but remember back to when you were our age. Im sure you weren't angels either, and you guys had it good back then, the laws weren't as tough as they are for us now.
Im not having a go at anyone, just reminding people to keep that in mind

Have a good one
Tara

[beckrey]

they have income based fines overseas.
And the director of Nokia was fined $103000 for going 15 ks over the limit

[AussieHolden]

Yeah i say bring it on but make the fines for high income alot higher and tougher.

[gumbs]

I don't see how this can be considered such a bad thing. I make around $400 a week and i work close to 60 hours to get it so I'm by no means a bludger but I'm trying to save money to put myself through uni because my parents can't afford to. But back to the point. I was caught doing 85 in a 50 I know it was stupid and everything else but my fine was $512 at the time i wasn't working full time. I've only just paid off the fine 5 months later and I get my license back in a month. Now i thought that would be the end of my punish for my stupidity but no. My insurance premiums on a completely stock unmodified VP calais (v6) is going to go up atleast $600 and if I decide to and modifications to it I'll have to go to JustCars or similar to even get insurance.

Now how can you tell me that this is far to me when somone who was making $100,000/yr would be losing .1% of there net salary while I've lost .5% and will lose an additional .25% for the next 5 years. The system isn't fair for those on a low income but as usual the government would rather help the high income than the low.

[Julie]

rant on....

Now how can you tell me that this is far to me when somone who was making $100,000/yr would be losing .1% of there net salary while I've lost .5% and will lose an additional .25% for the next 5 years.

Its fair because u commited the crime, u knew the risks but broke the law anyway. You, as a low income earner knew how much you had to lose and how it would affect you and yet you still did it. Why should someone pay more just because they make a good living for themselves?

The system isn't fair for those on a low income but as usual the government would rather help the high income than the low

You talk percentages as fair? Well if you think that way shouldn't everyone be paying the same percentage tax rate instead of high income earners paying a whopping 47%- thats nearlly half their pay!!! How can you say the government dont help low income earners and they would rather help high income earners??? High income earners get raped with their high tax rates, to pay for things like medicare (which they are expected not to use because they want them to have private cover) The government gives out a multitude of allowances to low income earners and what do the high income earners get? Answer..... taxed more to subsidise the low income earners.


end rant....

[DJ Majah]

You lose nearly half your pay? Its sad that youre whinging about the government, because statistically youre probably one of the voters who re-elected it.

And if the high income earners are losing half their pay and still have $1500+/week individually to live on, maybe they should take a week out from the high life and try living on $200/week. How many days would they last?

[MasterOfReality]

You lose nearly half your pay? Its sad that youre whinging about the government, because statistically youre probably one of the voters who re-elected it.

True, but the fact remains there is no other choice for those earning decent incomes.

And if the high income earners are losing half their pay and still have $1500+/week individually to live on, maybe they should take a week out from the high life and try living on $200/week. How many days would they last?

Mate, I think professional jealousy is coming into play again. Why should one feel guilty about taking home $1500/wk? After all, you don't earn that money by sitting around scratching your ass. Its not about 'lets see if the rich snob can survive on $200/wk'. There is no such thing as equality and it really seems to be a hard fact of life for some.

I am living on $300/wk (industry funded, not goverment funded) because I am doing a Phd, after which I will be a 'high income earner'. Will I feel guilty? No. Will i feel sorry for those earning less than me? No. Why? You get back what you put in, simple as that!

People seem to think the world owes them a living funded by others who have the audacity to earn more than them.

[Julie]

Basically what I think is happening is the Aussie tradition of tall poppy syndrome. If someone rises up above the overs, what happens? People try to cut them down........

(and just to add so people don't go reading to much into my comments, by riseing up above others I mean only in an economical sense I am not implying that high income earners are better than anyone)

[DJ Majah]

No its not a case of tall poppy syndrome at all, in fact the opposite, to get to the top you have to cut everybody else down. You're sounding like another case of high income earners who are so self-interested that they will use that as an excuse for any criticism of the social structure.

The HIEs make the rules, and the rules may always be biased, but currently there is little comprehension in the upper class of the ways of life for those in the lower class. Im not talking about set fine rates, Im talking about federal economic policies across the board, and those adopted by businesses, specifically corporations.

HIEs have made a good living for themselves? They work hard? A manager of a factory may work hard, but a bloke unpacking containers works a hell of a lot harder. Possibly he only works physically harder, but which one has the chance to sit around scratching his arse? You cant deny that those blokes put in a lot.

And Im not just defending my own situation either. I have never been in the lower rungs of society, I grew up in the middle class, and now as a network administrator looking at possibly earning $100k+/y before Im 25, Im not expecting to be. And I say possibly only because I dont intend staying there, money isnt an incentive for me to stay in a second preference job.

I am living on $300/wk (industry funded, not goverment funded)

If youre thinking that Im representing those who live on payments from Centrelink, youre wrong. I've seen only too many times a woman with 5 kids under 10 in line at Centrelink. I can only hope the kids turn out to be productive members of our society.

There is no such thing as equality and it really seems to be a hard fact of life for some.

Absoloutely. So stop bitching when you draw the short stick for once.

[MasterOfReality]

No its not a case of tall poppy syndrome at all, in fact the opposite, to get to the top you have to cut everybody else down. You're sounding like another case of high income earners who are so self-interested that they will use that as an excuse for any criticism of the social structure.

Tall poppy syndrome? What you have just said proves Julie's point.

but currently there is little comprehension in the upper class of the ways of life for those in the lower class. Im not talking about set fine rates, Im talking about federal economic policies across the board, and those adopted by businesses, specifically corporations.

Your point being? Of course so-called 'upper class' don't really have any idea of those in the lower classes, would you expect them to? With regards to federal economic policy, its either biased towards higher income people or lower income people. In either case, there will always be people complaining.

HIEs have made a good living for themselves? They work hard? A manager of a factory may work hard, but a bloke unpacking containers works a hell of a lot harder. Possibly he only works physically harder, but which one has the chance to sit around scratching his arse? You cant deny that those blokes put in a lot.

Its all about responsibility. At the end of the day, the buck stops with the manager, not the guy on the factory floor, hence the higher income. I have worked as a miner and also as a mining engineer, and I have seen the difference. Sure, the miners work physically hard and do a job nobody really wants to do, and they get paid accordingly ($90k +). The mine manager might not get his hands dirty, but his neck is on the chopping block whenever the underground miners stuff up, and thats why his salary is $200k+.

To suggest anything else is living in the realms of a utopian world.

If youre thinking that Im representing those who live on payments from Centrelink, youre wrong.

I have said nothing of the sort. I was covering my ass in case someone started carrying on about me receiving government assistance.

Absoloutely. So stop bitching when you draw the short stick for once.

Did I give you the impression i was bitching? I am quite content with my life.