Yeah because that would be justice
14 January 2005, 01:33 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concept is wrong. That's not opinion, that's fact.
Other than pslewis pretending to agree with it I cannot see how anybody could justify this as anything other than totally wrong.
Other than pslewis pretending to agree with it I cannot see how anybody could justify this as anything other than totally wrong.
14 January 2005, 01:35 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: pencoed s wales
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aww crap ive gotta agree with pete on this one
lets just see how it gets applied first though
good idea in principal-watch nl **** it up inside 6 months
richie
lets just see how it gets applied first though
good idea in principal-watch nl **** it up inside 6 months
richie
14 January 2005, 01:38 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should someone earning more be considered more of a criminal? As said earlier, surely the police would rather catch one millionaire than several poorer repeat-offending social parasite resource-bleeding members of society, how can that be justice. Means-tested penalties will mean means-tested convictions, no?
14 January 2005, 01:44 PM
#36
This is actually a masterstoke by the government, similar to that of the 4% stamp duty. In creating more wealthy people in the country they will increase their revenues. When they introduced 4% stamp duty over 250K, house prices were still quite low. Now many more properties are over 250K.
14 January 2005, 01:44 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: pencoed s wales
Posts: 1,357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no i think the principal is that of using the fine as a punishment.
a fine of £100 may be a punishment to someone on benefit level incomes but not for someone earning £60k. should the rich not be punished?
richie
a fine of £100 may be a punishment to someone on benefit level incomes but not for someone earning £60k. should the rich not be punished?
richie
14 January 2005, 01:47 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by darts_aint_sport
Why should someone earning more be considered more of a criminal?
where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR??? 
The fine for the rich should inflict the SAME pain as the fine for the poor - its as simple and fair as that!
Pete
14 January 2005, 01:48 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hail-hail
I think in principle it is ok.
The point of fining people is to deter them from doing stuff again. There is also an element of punishment involved.
Person 1 gets caught doing 50 in a 30 - fined £300
Person 2 gets caught doing 50 in a 30 - fined £300
Person 1 is a millionaire, Person 2 makes millionaires shortbread.
If we are using fines as a punishment / to deter this will not affect the millionaire in the slightest.
How is this fair?
The point of fining people is to deter them from doing stuff again. There is also an element of punishment involved.
Person 1 gets caught doing 50 in a 30 - fined £300
Person 2 gets caught doing 50 in a 30 - fined £300
Person 1 is a millionaire, Person 2 makes millionaires shortbread.
If we are using fines as a punishment / to deter this will not affect the millionaire in the slightest.
How is this fair?
You're being punished for a crime - not for what you get paid at work.
14 January 2005, 01:49 PM
#41
Originally Posted by pslewis
Eh?? they are NOT considered as more of a criminal where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR???
The fine for the rich should inflict the SAME pain as the fine for the poor - its as simple and fair as that!
Pete
where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR??? The fine for the rich should inflict the SAME pain as the fine for the poor - its as simple and fair as that!
Pete
Pete, nothing compares to the pain of reading your propaganda!
14 January 2005, 01:49 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by hail-hail
Please explain how means-tested convictions would work, my brain hurts.
If I earn £100k per year should I get more or less time in jail
If I earn £100k per year should I get more or less time in jail
1 day to the rich is the SAME as 1 day to the poor .... BUT .... the loss of £1 is DIFFERENT to the rich and to the poor!
No wonder your brain hurts - it doesn't work too well does it? get it serviced!!
Pete
14 January 2005, 01:54 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone should pay the same for public amenities as everyone has equal rights/access to them.
Everyone should pay the same for equal goods/services as they are receiving the same goods/services.
Everyone should get fined the same if they commit a crime because you are paying for the crime and an appropriate monetary cost of that individual crime - you are not paying a fine for how much your employer decides to pay you.
Everyone should pay the same for equal goods/services as they are receiving the same goods/services.
Everyone should get fined the same if they commit a crime because you are paying for the crime and an appropriate monetary cost of that individual crime - you are not paying a fine for how much your employer decides to pay you.
14 January 2005, 01:54 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Eh?? they are NOT considered as more of a criminal where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR???
The fine for the rich should inflict the SAME pain as the fine for the poor - its as simple and fair as that!
Pete
where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR??? The fine for the rich should inflict the SAME pain as the fine for the poor - its as simple and fair as that!
Pete
if this is why the system was designed then I agree, it is fair
if however the justice system should be trying to deter repeat offenders, then how can a set fine be fair.
and if you really need to just shout and jump around getting all excited, don't feel as if you have to answer this point with any degree of sanity
14 January 2005, 02:00 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
We are talking FINES not jail!!
1 day to the rich is the SAME as 1 day to the poor .... BUT .... the loss of £1 is DIFFERENT to the rich and to the poor!
No wonder your brain hurts - it doesn't work too well does it? get it serviced!!
Pete
1 day to the rich is the SAME as 1 day to the poor .... BUT .... the loss of £1 is DIFFERENT to the rich and to the poor!
No wonder your brain hurts - it doesn't work too well does it? get it serviced!!
Pete
making your exact point.need a brain service yourself old timer
14 January 2005, 02:04 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Eh?? they are NOT considered as more of a criminal where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR???
where did you read that then, SPORT? SUN? MIRROR??? It is in effect giving the police an incentive to target richer people. How is this Justice PSLewis.
14 January 2005, 02:18 PM
#48
lesser earners not bothered, higher earners of course are going to object....
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394550
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394550
14 January 2005, 02:19 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The idea is not new at all. This is the system in Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway, I think Denmark... the classic was the Nokia boss who was speeding and was fined X million euro as they took into account his share bonuses from the previous year.
Ask people in those countries if they feel the rich have been targeted.
Ask people in those countries if they feel the rich have been targeted.
14 January 2005, 02:25 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by InvisibleMan
lesser earners not bothered, higher earners of course are going to object....
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394550
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394550
It's the principle.
14 January 2005, 02:29 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's say Bobby works for IBM and earns £60k a year, and causes a crime and has to pay £5k. A month later he is sacked.
Percy works for Morrisons, earns £14k a year, and causes the same crime, and has to pay £1k. A month later, Percy gets a job at IBM and earns £60k a year, taking Bobbys place.
Bobby pays more because at that particular time he was earning more than Percy. And I'm sure theres many other situations that can cause the same confusion. Confusion and injustice we can avoid by not having this measure.
Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right.
Percy works for Morrisons, earns £14k a year, and causes the same crime, and has to pay £1k. A month later, Percy gets a job at IBM and earns £60k a year, taking Bobbys place.
Bobby pays more because at that particular time he was earning more than Percy. And I'm sure theres many other situations that can cause the same confusion. Confusion and injustice we can avoid by not having this measure.
Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right.
14 January 2005, 02:35 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: N. London/Herts
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Person 1 earns the national average of £35k - 50 in a 30 = £300 fine
Try £25k...
Anyway, a fine is a fine, and should be equal across the board for a given crime IMO.
14 January 2005, 02:35 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
WTF?
Both get fined X% of their salary. Sounds fair to me.
If Percy can go from Morrisons to IBM with a 4x jump in salary, good luck to him, though what's the chances? What's that got to do with the price of fish?
The idea of a penalty is a deterrent. It should be an equal deterrent to all. If one guy gives out his pocket money and the other has to sell his house, does that sound equal?
The only confusion is in your head. But if you keep making up crazy straw man examples like that, it'll be in mine, too, I'll agree...
Both get fined X% of their salary. Sounds fair to me.
If Percy can go from Morrisons to IBM with a 4x jump in salary, good luck to him, though what's the chances? What's that got to do with the price of fish?
The idea of a penalty is a deterrent. It should be an equal deterrent to all. If one guy gives out his pocket money and the other has to sell his house, does that sound equal?
The only confusion is in your head. But if you keep making up crazy straw man examples like that, it'll be in mine, too, I'll agree...
14 January 2005, 02:35 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darts_aint_sport
Let's say Bobby works for IBM and earns £60k a year, and causes a crime and has to pay £5k. A month later he is sacked.
Percy works for Morrisons, earns £14k a year, and causes the same crime, and has to pay £1k. A month later, Percy gets a job at IBM and earns £60k a year, taking Bobbys place.
Bobby pays more because at that particular time he was earning more than Percy. And I'm sure theres many other situations that can cause the same confusion. Confusion and injustice we can avoid by not having this measure.
Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right.
Percy works for Morrisons, earns £14k a year, and causes the same crime, and has to pay £1k. A month later, Percy gets a job at IBM and earns £60k a year, taking Bobbys place.
Bobby pays more because at that particular time he was earning more than Percy. And I'm sure theres many other situations that can cause the same confusion. Confusion and injustice we can avoid by not having this measure.
Just because other countries do it doesn't make it right.
Shockingly enough I agree 100%
I hadn't thought of that, good one.
14 January 2005, 02:36 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unclebuck
More **** legislation from a **** government.
I can't believe anyone would still vote *for* them, other than a total moron.
I can't believe anyone would still vote *for* them, other than a total moron.
pslewis votes for them......
14 January 2005, 02:40 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
Everyone should pay the same for public amenities as everyone has equal rights/access to them.
Everyone should pay the same for equal goods/services as they are receiving the same goods/services.
Everyone should get fined the same if they commit a crime because you are paying for the crime and an appropriate monetary cost of that individual crime - you are not paying a fine for how much your employer decides to pay you.
Everyone should pay the same for equal goods/services as they are receiving the same goods/services.
Everyone should get fined the same if they commit a crime because you are paying for the crime and an appropriate monetary cost of that individual crime - you are not paying a fine for how much your employer decides to pay you.
Everyone should pay the same for public amenities (although they don't in practice)
Everyone should pay the same for the same goods and services (which pretty much holds up)
Where the third point in relation to crimes fall down, is that you are not "paying for the crime" you are, when fined, being penalised financially as a deterrent to doing it again.
To equaly penalise individuals of different income or net worth will require proportionally different fines. There is no doubt that a £10,000 fine to a professional footballer on £25,000 per week is less of a deterrent than to fine someone on £250 per week £100, even though both fines represent the same percentage of gross income.
The £100 fine to the pro footballer is probably what he throws away in loose change. £100 to the lower paid individual probably means they don't eat that week.
For the record, I think Blair and the new labour MP's should be the test crew for the first one way manned trip to the sun, but there is sound thinking here. Of course the tories are jumping on the bandwagon, they would be daft not to, but I doubt they are opposing it because deep down they don't agree with it.
What needs to happen though, is that it should only apply for certain types of "crime"
D
14 January 2005, 02:41 PM
#58
whats confusing about that? you pay a fine according to the salary at the time of the crime. if the salary goes up/down & comits another crime the fine will be according to that salary at that time...
14 January 2005, 02:45 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Senior_AP
pslewis votes for them......
so maybe he doesn't. In common with Blair though, you can't believe a single word he says.
14 January 2005, 02:46 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Senior, my original thoughts were right there with you on this, but then I thought more deeply about it.
Everyone should pay the same for public amenities (although they don't in practice)
Everyone should pay the same for the same goods and services (which pretty much holds up)
Where the third point in relation to crimes fall down, is that you are not "paying for the crime" you are, when fined, being penalised financially as a deterrent to doing it again.
To equaly penalise individuals of different income or net worth will require proportionally different fines. There is no doubt that a £10,000 fine to a professional footballer on £25,000 per week is less of a deterrent than to fine someone on £250 per week £100, even though both fines represent the same percentage of gross income.
The £100 fine to the pro footballer is probably what he throws away in loose change. £100 to the lower paid individual probably means they don't eat that week.
For the record, I think Blair and the new labour MP's should be the test crew for the first one way manned trip to the sun, but there is sound thinking here. Of course the tories are jumping on the bandwagon, they would be daft not to, but I doubt they are opposing it because deep down they don't agree with it.
What needs to happen though, is that it should only apply for certain types of "crime"
D
Everyone should pay the same for public amenities (although they don't in practice)
Everyone should pay the same for the same goods and services (which pretty much holds up)
Where the third point in relation to crimes fall down, is that you are not "paying for the crime" you are, when fined, being penalised financially as a deterrent to doing it again.
To equaly penalise individuals of different income or net worth will require proportionally different fines. There is no doubt that a £10,000 fine to a professional footballer on £25,000 per week is less of a deterrent than to fine someone on £250 per week £100, even though both fines represent the same percentage of gross income.
The £100 fine to the pro footballer is probably what he throws away in loose change. £100 to the lower paid individual probably means they don't eat that week.
For the record, I think Blair and the new labour MP's should be the test crew for the first one way manned trip to the sun, but there is sound thinking here. Of course the tories are jumping on the bandwagon, they would be daft not to, but I doubt they are opposing it because deep down they don't agree with it.
What needs to happen though, is that it should only apply for certain types of "crime"
D
As for Tories, a fundamentalist Conservative would not agree with this policy. Hence why I do not.