Fine the rich pricks more
January 13th, 2010 at 10:52 am by David FarrarLabour MP Darien Fenton is “intrigued by the idea of fining people who break the law according to their wealth” and hopes Steven Joyce will consider this in his road safety review.
I look forward to Labour revealing more of its thinking for its 2011 election manifesto. What other proposals might we get:
- Longer jail terms for rich pricks
- All Govt owned companies (such as power) to introduce a rick prick tariff where you pay more if you earn more.
- Primary and secondary schools to be able to charge compulsory fees to children of rich pricks
- A&E Departments to refuse treatment to rich pricks unless they sign a statement showing their net wealth and hand over a credit card for 5% of it
- Supermarkets to have two prices for every item – one price for those earning under $60,000 and another for those earning over $60,000
What other policy ideas for Labour in this vein can you think of?
UPDATE: Darien is not alone. Senior Labour MP Lianne Dalziel backs her. Lianne has already advocated fining the rich more in a letter last year to Steven Joyce, and thinks they should do more policy work on it.
Please, please do that policy work.
Related posts:
- Fine the Rich only
- US rich paying more tax under Bush
- The myth of rich white men from Remuera
- Key makes rich list
January 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
what a stupid bitch and what is going on in the Labour party .. is that it?????????
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 10:58 am
How about parents who send their kids to private schools get no tax reduction for the contribution they make to support the state system they do not use. While we are at that one how about rich pricks with medical insurance have no right to claim a tax rebate for the fact they are funding the public system for other people and not using it themselves?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I would support a policy of giving the voter enough votes according to his/her IQ.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Means testing criminals – its a good idea,
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:07 am
What a ridiculous blog post, reductio ad absurdum.
I have the feeling Labour won’t be changing their manifesto over ‘intriguing’ Herald articles.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:08 am
This is a mighty fine idea from Labour, I do hope they pursue it hard!!!!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I’m in favor of income related fines. FINES not bloody imprisionment but way to over egg the pudding with hysteria DPF.
A $100 fine for a someone on $15,000 hurts and sends them a message. $100 is a light lunch for someone in a BMW and means nothing at all to them. It does nothing to encourage them to stop doing things like speeding and consequently nothing to help society as a whole.
Can’t pay the fine don’t do the crime. Let apply equally to all.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I can see where they are coming from here – fixed monetary penalties are inequitable and do impact the poor more than the rich.
I don’t see how that can be fixed with legislation though. Perhaps using fines is not the way to go.
How about replacing fines with strokes of the cane?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I don’t know if this is necessarily a bad idea. A fixed rate parking / speeding fine is negligble above a certain income bracket. A fine that is a proportion of income hurts more. I’d actually support that.
Seems it’s already in place in certain locations in Europe as well:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6063XO20100107
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Seems like a totally reasonable policy to me. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, and it’s childishly obvious that giving a $100 fine to both a beneficiary and a millionaire is not a just punishment.
[DPF: Such left logic. So Dick Hubbard should be fined $100,000 if he goes 115 km/hr as anything less is not a deterrent and "unequal"]
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“Seems like a totally reasonable policy to me. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, and it’s childishly obvious that giving a $100 fine to both a beneficiary and a millionaire is not a just punishment.”
Just as locking up the beneficiary is no great hardship compared with someone useful.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Looks like DPF is the one getting caned here andrei.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:17 am
A related aside. For many crimes the ‘expected cost’ to the offender (probability of being caught X the sentence) is too low and they keep offending. ACT have proposed their three-strikes policy, but I like a more mathematically pure model: cumulative sentencing:
Each new term in prison attracts the sentence duration for that crime plus the total time spent in prison for previous crimes. So rather than having people asking for longer sentences, the system would naturally give longer sentences for recidivist buggers.
As the law stands at the moment, you could spend your entire life burgling houses with the odd couple of years in prison, like an OE.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Danyl, if you want to be consistent you might also like to consider longer jail terms for younger people as they have more “time in the bank” as it were, why stop at monetary wealth?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:20 am
If the purpose of fines is as a disincentive, then making it proportional to the wealth of the person makes sense.
I believe there’s a European country that gives speeding and parking fines proportionally to the value of the car being fined.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@DPF
All of the examples you give (bar the prison one) concern the provision of services for money.
Does this mean you believe a fine to be simply a fee which allows one to break the law?
Or perhaps you think going to school and receiving electricity are things people need to be punished for.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
You are on form, burt.
This idea could be extended not just to punishments but to state benefits and rights. I could get additional benefits for being a rich prick – such as more votes based on how much land I own and how much I earn. More retirement benefits etc etc.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:25 am
So under labour we can look forward to $40,000 traffic fines such as occur in Scandinavia.
This is called the tyranny of the majority.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
More thoughts on this. Darien Fenton and Lianne Dalzeil will be wanting purges of the kulaks next.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
The envious perception of the left is that people with wealth are prone to throwing it away on a whim.
While there may be a few idiots with inherited (rather then earned) mega-wealth, my experience is that the wealthy are generally mean when it comes to wastage and will avoid penalties wherever possible. After all the idea of “easy come, easy go” and shrugged shoulders is a total myth.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Well, anything less is certainly less of a deterrent, which I’m sure you realise is what Danyl meant. And a $100 fine may be the difference between paying rent that week or not to one person, and what one might spend several times a week on restaurant dinners to another.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Left logic? Why? It seems there are a few of the “right” persuasion that share the same viewpoint. Think of this logically from the perspective of the crime, not from a political viewpoint.
Is a $100 fine a deterrent to Dick Hubbard? I’d wager my monthly income against his that the fine means fuck all to him. Would a $150,000 fine be more of a deterrent? Quite possibly.
And that would be the aim, eh? In a financially based punishment system applying it so that it actually has an impact on the person committing the offense.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Brian Smaller, you are on the right idea. The more tax you pay, the more votes you get. Shall we say one vote per $60,000 income?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Sonny, if you’re making enough money that it would take a $40,000 fine to provide the same disincentive to you that a $100 fine does to someone else, perhaps you might have the good sense not to speed or run red lights?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
In theory, but the administrative cost of figuring out the wealth of each offender would be a problem. Also a lot of ‘wealthy’ people don’t actually own much. It’s all held in trusts, spouse/children names, companies etc.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:28 am
This socialist concept has been around for a while, and resurfaces every now and then. A recent news story on a $400,000 speeding fine for a “rich prick” in Switzerland is an example of where this goes.
Putting aside the insanity aspect of this idea (because that never stops socialists from enacting such legislation) then I would at least prefer to be robbed according to my NET income, not GROSS income. The reasoning there is that I already pay much higher taxes for the privilege of living in New Zealand, and I suspect my net income isn’t much higher than many people on a lower gross salary, or where two working incomes in a household add up to the same gross salary as mine, but result in paying $10K less in tax, or with the advantages of WFF and other welfare top ups to put them on the same peg.
Imagine a family of four, with one person earning an income of 100,000 being charged $2000 for speeding, and another family of four on 2 x $50K and the driver “only” charged $1,000 for speeding. Is that really as fair as the socialists make out?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
I can’t believe that anyone can take this idea seriously .. how in gods (or Allah’s) name can they set a line in the sand to say who is rich .. is it based on nett income, gross income, does it take in working for families etc etc etc. How about you get a 10% reduction per child and if on a benefit then no fine at all, just a jolly good telling off .. FFS
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:30 am
In NZ this is what they are. A lot of roading fines do not exist as a disincentive to antisocial behaviour, they have become a financial addiction that government cannot resist.
It is also already common in NZ for those without the means to be let off unpayable fines. And we have a demerit system, so that you cannot merely ‘pay a fee’ and break road rules indefinitely.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Of course the stupid MPs don’t recognise that they are also ‘rich pricks’ given their salaries – talk about turkeys calling for an early Christmas
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
True, Malcolm. I think that’s why the only example I’ve heard of based the fines on the value of the offending car, rather than massive investigations of someone parking too long in a loading zone.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Danyl, if you want to be consistent you might also like to consider longer jail terms for younger people as they have more “time in the bank” as it were, why stop at monetary wealth?” Wisdom is most often expressed in the simplest of sentences.
Smaller cells for smaller inmates,
harder beds for those who sleep soundly
How the other side of the coin. If you want to be this silly.
Joe is a white collar criminal. He embezzles $40 000 and is sent to prison
jack is an unemployed beneficiary who steal $40 000 worth of goods from houses.
Both gets sentenced to two years.
Vote:Surly using the logic displayed here, Joe needs to have a plush cell with access to bars and restaurants and a cleaning service etc.
He loses a lot more than Jack does by being incarcerated… You guys wanted to put a value on it, not me.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Don’t go there.
Vote:Smart crooks can hide their income behind trusts etc and hard working Kiwis will pay more to subsidise the fines of P dealers on benefits.
The demerit points system works well as a disincentive and is pretty equitible.
Better if we avoid such a system then advertise the fact in Europe – and gain some quality immigrants that will contribute to the NZ economy.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
malcolm:
Person is stopped doing 115km/h.
Traffic officer issues a ticket for 3% of annual income.
Ticket is processed, monetary value requested from IRD based off last tax year. (What if it’s the first year?)
Final ticket is issued via mail.
It does require authority for the police to submit a percentage number to the IRD systems and for the IRD systems to return a monetary amount and yes, that means the police can guess what that persons’ declared income was. It does have privacy implications. But I don’t see it as a massive administrative burden in the year 2010, especially considering how computer systems can be integrated.
You are right about declared incomes though. But even that would be a step in the right direction, would it not?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:32 am
If they do this, then they must get much tougher on those who simply do not pay fines because the collections system is broke.
I’d like to see, if you don’t pay a fine, you do the time.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Please. When have you ever known a politician to break the speed limit?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Longer prison terms for younger people would make the same sense IF disincentive was the sole purpose of prison. It’s not.
But if it was, yes, 25 years means something quite different to a 23-year-old than it does to a 65-year-old.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Ryan Sproull:
Yarly. They sit in the back seat and claim ignorance :p
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:36 am
“Such left logic”
David, don’t be so sanctimonious. You’ve still yet to actually attack the principle – the purpose of a fine is, presumably, to act as both a deterrent and punishment. If this doesn’t apply to some people (by virtue of their wealth), then why not change things so it does?
Comparisons to supermarket prices and ACC levies are absurd, and you know it. We’re not talking about the provision of a product or service – we’re talking about laws and incentives which are supposed to apply equally to everyone. There is no real equality if, in application, fines punish some more than others.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:36 am
GOOD GOD!!!!!
Where did all you lefties come from???
DPF, have you opened up the wrong door again????
It’s the dumbest idea around and could only come from Labour!!
Why not charge the rich 20% GST and the poor just 4%??
Don’t the rich already pay their share in higher taxes??? Be done with it I say!!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Love this
“Sonny, if you’re making enough money that it would take a $40,000 fine to provide the same disincentive to you that a $100 fine does to someone else, perhaps you might have the good sense not to speed or run red lights?”
From Ryan.
Are you suggesting that monetary wealth has a direct corrolation to commonsense and intelligence? Your lefty mates would love you for that one..
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Yeah, and they get community service or jail time instead. Hardly a let off.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:40 am
If it was based on income / car type, sheesh we would for the first time in this here country of ours begin to see the police looking for the more expensive vehicles to bust. Oh whoops, thats what they do now, silly me, sorry mind lapse there….
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Such left logic. So Dick Hubbard should be fined $100,000 if he goes 115 km/hr as anything less is not a deterrent and “unequal”
Late night David?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Bok – there’s certainly a correlation, though it’s not the only factor involved. Lefties should know this, if they’ve given any though to the “from each according to his ability” line.
michaels – because the purpose of GST is not to dissuade people from spending (even if it does).
The purpose of fines is, in theory, to dissuade people from speeding and running red lights and the like.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I think the idea is that a set fine amount for a crime may not be an effective disincentive for a rich person to commit certain crimes.
Lets think of the most obvious example – a speeding fine. Currently the fines are set to provide a disincentive – but for whom? The average driver on the average income. The speed limits are also usually set by peoples reaction times, the physics of the poorest quality vehicles (open road) and the ability to stop in the wet on a road of a particular quality, and safety of pedestrians (town streets).
Two cases – poorer driver and wealthier driver (NB: the fact that both own cars and live in NZ means neither is in fact “poor”):
1) If you cant afford the fine, don’t speed. Period. Chances are you own an older car with less safety features, lower maintenance, and poorer handling, so extra reason for not speeding!!
2) If you can afford the fine because you are wealthy, then the incentive not to speed is deminished. But its likely that your car is new, safer (NCAP 5*), well maintained with better handling, so perhaps getting pinged for doing 120 in a 100 isn’t so bad all things considered. But doing 150 maybe more reckless, and the fines should (and do) reflect this. There are also demerit points to consider – continuual speeding results in loss of licence so regardless of wealth there is a suitable disincentive to repeating the act.
3) Manslaughter for killing a child in a 50 zone due to speeding is also a serious disincentive for anyone regardless of wealth, as is crashing at high speed on the open road. Safe driving is in everyones interest.
Personally I see no need to look at the persons tax bill last year to see whether they should pay $100 or $1000 for the speeding fine. Are there cases where the law is being rampantly flouted by rich people because the fines are too low? If so change the disincentives – as above demerit points leading to loss of priveleges are coupled with fines. In this case I believe nobody is exempt because of wealth.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Several people have made the distinction between service provision and deterrent/punishments in this thread. Have a read!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Let’s not forget that Fenton was a paid employee of the Service and Food Workers’ Union before graduating to Parliament. She has no appreciation of what goes on in the real world; that is illustrated in her Red Alert post.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
How do you assess the value of the car when an MP gets pinged for an illegal U-turn in a self-drive ministerial car? (pun intended)
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Michaels
GST is a tax on consumption. It is not meant to be a disencentive to consumption.
A traffic fine is a tax on breaking the law. It is meant to be a disincentive to breaking the law.
What does paying tax have to do with traffic fines? Are you suggesting that paying more tax should make getting punished for doing a crime easier?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Fines discriminate against “rich pricks”
Why, “rich pricks” work and have responsibilities. If they do not pay or clear up their infringements, they loose their livelihood, rights to travel etc.
It is the poor people who do not pay fines and get away with it. Who cares if they lose their license, they never had one anyway. Who cares if they rack up huge fines and penalties. Their life is no worse if they cannot pay it!
As for Emergency Departments, there would be little revenue collected. Most users are from the low end of society.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:45 am
bloody hell .. some on RednotsoAlert are serious about it .. even liar Dalziel is pushing it .. I am a stunned mullet. These fuckers can NOT be allowed to get hold of power … EVER
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:46 am
mavxp:
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:47 am
I wasn’t arguing against you in particular, Ryan – it was just that you expressed the idea rather succinctly.
Even the value of your car is a poor test. If I buy a new car every 10 years and drive alot then the value of my car at a random time could easily vary by a factor of 10 (e.g. $4k – 40k). The value of your car is a crude proxy for wealth. I’d say most really wealthy people get around in vehicle which is only 3-8 times the value of your average family car (7-series BMW, anyone?).
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Nah, he just made a stupid argument and people are calling him on it.
We’re talking here about fines — easy things to avoid.
I saw the article on Stuff a few days ago, about the Swiss law that does this. It said the people voted it in to address a specific problem they had (namely, rich people speeding with impunity because the fines meant nothing to them). So surely the obvious question to ask is: do we have that problem here?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:52 am
“Collections general manager Bryre Patchell said the fines were usually replaced with community work terms, home detention, curfews or imprisonment.”
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618385
January 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
At first glance this may not seem entirely on the theory you are aiming for equal punishment and deterrent effect of the fine, rather than just an equal dollar figure. But the logical corollary is that someone who lives in a nice house and goes out a lot should get a shorter prison sentence for the same crime than someone who lives in a hovel and normally stays home all day watching TV. So by reduction ad absurdum it’s a bad idea.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Excellent idea. Those of us living off family trust distributions will get to pay minimal fines while all the middle class Labour PAYE earners in the bureaucracy and teachers will get soaked.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 11:54 am
So surely the obvious question to ask is: do we have that problem here?
That’s the real question. The only example I can think of is property developers, who routinely break the law because they know that the cost of the fines will be a lot less than the profit they make from flouting them.
Vote:The other concern is whether or not the cost of assessing someone’s capacity to pay a fine would cost more than the additional revenue. But the basic point, that a system of scalable fines is more just and equable is a valid one.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:56 am
I’ll focus on one element, speeding fines. For me the fines are basically irrelevent, the cost is not significant. So they provide no disincentive whatsover to reduce speed, is that fair when others would say a $250 fine for instance is really significant, maybe not.
Vote:But then again there are points & loss of license implication for very high speed, not to mention insurance costs & public exposure, three of which give me a real incentive to manage my speed.
So in the end, my arguement would be that the existing system works & that loss of money is only one cost the legal system imposes & as any good system it provides or at least should provide a range of penalties that balance different circumstances people are in.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:56 am
If the sole purpose of prison was as a disincentive, that is possibly true.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
RYAN AND PASCAL……
GST and FINES have nothing to do with each other, what I am trying to say is why stop there.
Why not make petrol higher for the rich as well, and telco services for that matter, hell just charge the rich more for everything.
However when it comes to fines I have a better idea as explained a few weeks back….
Make them so friggen high that EVERYONE will think twice about speeding etc.
Vote:$80 for using your cellphone while driving is a joke. Drive around South Auckland (poor area mainly) and I could collect thousands in an hour. Make the fine $500 and I am sure they will think twice before using them. And if the poor can’t pay them then maybe future generations will make sure their kids get an education so they CAN fucking pay them instead of spending 3 months behind bars to pay them off (my idea).
January 13th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
There is also a demerit system Ryan. If the demerit system removes your licence to drive and you are caught then there is the prison system.
The higher paying your job is the stronger the incentive to keep it by not losing your licence or being imprisoned. But the punishment is still identical across individuals.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Dunedin has had rain for so long that I cannot think when last I had a braai, but at that last braai that I had I and a group of my friends discussed the idea of getting insurance companies to licence drivers as a condition of their insurance, and amongst other ideas we thought to fine people according to the value of their car. An uninsured car would be fined as if it were a car of the same make and model but no mileage [ie mint in showroom condition]. Then it started raining again and we went inside.
Vote:Drunken policy making- not just for Labour anymore!
January 13th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
She either has a great sense of humour or is a ‘plant’ inside the Labour Party determined to see it never again elected to office.
Perhaps she should focus on getting people who are fined to pay up.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Oh dear – too many in this thread are falling into the jealous old “Fuck the rich!” syndrome – and some from the right persuasion as well….
Tax the rich more, fine the rich more…. And when the rich just fuck off to Australia, who is going to fund your teat sucking lifestyle?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Grant why are you living in Dunedin? Shouldn’t you be in Perth or Browns Bay?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
True, Sonny, the demerits are fair and provide equal disincentive. But it seems clear that fixed monetary fines do not. Perhaps fines should be replaced entirely with demerits.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Drunken policy making- not just for Labour anymore!
Or Winnie!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Bevan they then join the Labour party to continue the sucking.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
And a lot of people here don’t want to talk about the purpose of fines, even though that’s what the post would seem to boil down to.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Well, if you can paint rational disagreement as “left logic” and “fuck-the-rich envy”, you don’t have to address any of the actual arguments.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I can’t believe I am so worked up over something darien fention said .. I2, I didn’t realise she has never had a proper job, that would explain it. Mind, how many Labour Mp’s, present time or recent past, have had paychecks from the private sector.
Vote:I thought it would be NEXT year, election year, before Labour would bring out dumb policy so I guess I have been caught out .. I wonder what Philin Goff and Andrew 2 jobs Little think of this as potential policy?? Maybe poor old darien has been sent out to get a feel of the idea like Shane Jones was over shower heads.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Something like differential fines operates through the ludicrous penalties now for non-payment of fines.
Tens of millions are written off each year for non-payment of fines. The no-hopers who have spent all their money on drugs or hotted up boy-racer cars then can work some of their fines off in light, sloth-pace voluntary public work at an hourly rate approaching that paid to specialist surgeons.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Who crash more…. those with expenseive cars ( higher incomes) or those with cheap cars.. lower incomes?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Do you get fined a lot, Alan?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
As some have said. Fines are intended to be a disincentive, a penalty. Fines have less impact on some people than others, so if we’re trying to disincent we should probably take a look at whether there are people it isn’t working on.
But, some thoughts:
1. Do we have a problem with repeat offenders? Are those repeat offenders often rich? I suggest not, but I don’t have the figures. I bet we’d find that repeat offenders for traffic offenders are disproportionately poor. Which wouldn’t support the assertion that fines have less influence on the rich. I would argue that often the poor don’t pay their fine, and all they get is a slap with a wet bus ticket.
2. The wealthy often have a job, and they often need to be able to drive for that job. Losing their license can be a much bigger deal than it is for someone who is unemployed, or works in a supermarket, or whatever
3. Rich people are often tight. I earn a good income, but a $100 fine is still a big deal, and I still curse if I get one.
4. If we’re going to look at which penalties seem to have disproportionate influence, lets look across all types of penalties. Prison time seems to have lower disincentive impact on some people than others. Is there some grouping that are less impacted than others? Given that a large proportion of people in prison were poor before going to prison, does that mean poor people should have higher sentences – clearly they are less worried about prison?
Bottom line, lets start by asking whether we have a problem before we open this particular can of worms. I’ll bet a study of repeat offenders isn’t going to find that the rich are repeat offenders. And even if it did, an easier way to deal with that would be for repeat offenders to attract jail time rather than trying to fiddle with the fines for everyone.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
David is absolutely right of course when he calls this “left logic”.
The left/socialist view is always to ensure everyone has the same amount so that in theory, there is no want. The reality (as demonstrated by the last government) is that they become totally preoccupied with redistributing wealth in every way possible and putting it in the governments coffers rather than by generating wealth.
This is a classic example of this thinking. Two people commit the same crime, one is charged more because he has more. This inflates the govts coffers, lowers the net worth of the wealthy one, and doesn’t impact so hard on the poor one.
The reality of this thinking of course is that everyone ends up poor and losing their freedoms.
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) Labour are still like a neutered dog. they don’t get it.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Good points, Paul, though I disagree with your suggestion that people to whom $100 fines are a really big deal are generally unemployed and don’t need cars.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
You know, retailers would love to be able to do that. A rich person might be quite happy to spend $30-$40 for a CD, while a poor person may not be able to afford more than $5 or $10. CDs are dirt-cheap to make, so in their ideal world, the retailer would charge everyone the highest amount they’re willing to pay, thus maximising their income.
Of course, that doesn’t happen because poor people could just resell the CDs to richer people for half the difference.
[if you want a more serious example, consider pharmaceutical drugs. These things take a lot of money to research and develop, but are cheap to produce. Ideally, the pharma companies would sell at high cost to the first world, to recoup their investment, and sell cheaply to the third world, to maximise the global health benefits. Alas, they face the same problem as my hypothetical music store.]
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Perhaps you could replace “of course” with how on earth this results in people “losing their freedoms”.
If fines are supposed to be a disincentive, it’s the disincentive that should be as equal as possible, and fixed fines are less of a disincentive to one person than they are to another.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Why not have higher income tax rates for rich pricks?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I actually think this should be extended. Just like some people on welfare for families can pay no net tax (and actually get a rebate), we should have the rich pricks paying these guys fines for them.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Which freedom are you losing in this scenario?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Not to mention there are demerit points for exceeding the speed limit that effect both sides of the income…
Although I guess the boy racer earning $6,000 working at McD’s will be happy with labour?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The demerit point system eventually catches up with people who either can afford the fine, or choose to ignore the fine.
There is no real problem in New Zealand that I have noticed with “rich pricks” evading speeding fines because of the demerit system.
The problem is people being caught multiple times driving without a license and being let off; or people being allowed to rack up $30,000 plus in unpaid fines until the judge finally wipes the debt and tries another tack.
Enforce the law where it is constantly broken, rather than implement socialist policy around the edges. It just keeps socialists busy spending tax dollars in new ways (like the administration process for calculating and collecting the fines). It will keep lawyers busier arguing against the fines and keep accountants happier setting up more trust accounts.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Well, if you can paint rational disagreement as “left logic” and “fuck-the-rich envy”, you don’t have to address any of the actual arguments.
Really Ryan?? Quite frankly it is “fuck the rich envy” when you arguement is solely “lets fine the rich more when they speed”. Is there a problem with richer people breaking the speed restrictions? Do you have any facts to back up any asertion that the rich are recklessly speeding and thumbing their nose at the Police because “oh its only $150, I have that in my change jar”.
Vote:Ask yourself, what is the likely profile of someone who will break the speed limit? Is it a 40 – 50 yo company owner driving a $150,000 car who lives in a multi million dollar house in Remuera? Or is it someone 18 – 25 driving a $10,000 hatchback who still lives at mommy and daddys house? Your just trying to look for a reason to fuck the rich cuase of plain old jealousy.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
On the other hand, this could be very good for the chauffeur market, until the government decides to fine the owner of the car, rather than the driver, a bit like them potentially crushing the car for boy racers, punishing the owner (expect stolen car rates to increase with that gem)
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
This is bait and you are taking it hook, line, sinker and most of the arm.
Yeah I know it came from Red Blurt but Fenton and Dalziel layed the bait there as well.
After all, is has been so fucking boring at Red Blert, there are not even enough commentors fpr the moderators to ban without picking on their own.
Fenton and Dalziel are desperate for attention seeing as a lot more is happening here and at Whaleoil.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Why fine rich people more? They should treat all repeat offenders the same, after X number of speeding offences/total fines in x period then confiscate the car. Rich people tend to have flasher cars that reflect their wealth so the effect will be proportional.
Such an idea would certainly punish the middle income earners the most as high earners often use the current loopholes to drop their tax obligation.
It is scary if the opposition party consists of such low value mp’s when the governments mp’s aren’t much better.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Surely the Human Rights Comission would have something to say about this. If a bar cannot discriminate based on age, then surely the state cannot discriminate based on ones income.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Andrei/Murray – High incomes do not equate to wealth. Not only is this a stupid idea, it is an unthought out idea. There are many better ways to have punishments that are proportional. Demerit points are a current example. The fact that low income repeat offenders often get their fines wiped is another example
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Michaels
So taking something that has some merit and could have some discussion should automatically lead to something that is illogical and unrelated?
Oooookay.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Ryan: “I disagree with your suggestion that people to whom $100 fines are a really big deal are generally unemployed and don’t need cars.”
I don’t think I made this assertion. That feels like you’re just trying to pick a fight!! I think my assertion is that the system may be broken, but that the repeat offenders probably fall into one of two categories (always easier when there are two categories, don’t you think?)
1. Rich people genuinely thumbing their nose. I suspect they would have to be driving on a foreign license, as they’d otherwise lose their license after 3 fines. I do know someone who once told me he drove as fast as he liked in Australia, as they couldn’t do anything to his NZ license. Solution: jail time for repeat offenders
2. Poor people who don’t care about the fines because they aren’t paying them anyway. Presumably these people will lose their license, and some of them keep driving anyway. Again, jail time for repeat offenders would deal with this group pretty quickly.
3. (yes, I said 2. but I thought of another one) people who have a really poor grasp of cause and effect. They drive fast because they feel like it, and they don’t even consider the possibility that they’ll get caught. I’d like to suggest lining all these people up and shooting them, thereby making NZers on average smarter, but I guess that wouldn’t go down well as an election policy. I suspect there are a lot of people in this category.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
PaulL:
Why the focus on repeat offenders? I agree, demerit points covers repeat offenders in New Zealand fairly well and provides an equally harsh punishment for transgressing too often. Although it only applies to traffic offenses.
The purpose of an income scaled fine system would be as a disincentive to the first offense, which is where it makes sense to me.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Fuck me, kiwi’s really are thick. It has sod all to do with the ability to pay fines, if you really think that poor people can’t find the $100 to pay the man you are deluded. They can always find it for the Sky TV, box of beers or to fuel the fucking car in the first place.
Rich or poor the “authorities” can shove their fines up their arses until the real motivations behind issuing them change. Revenue gathering is revenue gathering and while people can see through the sham and realise that the money is only going to be pissed away on some other social experiment or government waste they are going to keep it in their own pocket. Whether they can afford it or not.
It’s got sod all to do with ability to pay.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Do we have evidence of a problem with first time offenders?
Actually, coming at it from a different angle, do we really have a problem with speeding? I know that the government’s current meme is “speed kills” and all that. But is it actually true? Does someone driving at 115km/h in a passing lane, passing some guy who has been driving at 93, actually create a risk? How much is that risk, and how does it compare to the benefit for all the people behind that guy who can now pass? There must be some benefit, otherwise the government wouldn’t spend money creating passing lanes at all, and we’d have a speed limit of 70km/h everywhere in NZ.
I wonder whether all this stuff needs to get a bit more targeted. Someone speeding in a school zone, or in a town, is a problem. Someone doing 150 on a road where everyone else is going 90 is a problem. Someone driving in light traffic on the desert road at 120, I don’t think is really a problem. Just my view.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Rich pricks already pay much higher fines that poor downtrodden beneficiaries.
They actually pay their fines which is an infinite percentage higher than the zero fine of those who simply never pay at all.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Bottom line, lets start by asking whether we have a problem before we open this particular can of worms. I’ll bet a study of repeat offenders isn’t going to find that the rich are repeat offenders.”
I bet you they are when it comes to traffic offences.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I just posted this at Red Alert. Hopefully the moderators will see merit in my argument:
“Don’t stop there…
Let’s apply the same “relativity” theory to Prisoner accomodation:
A stay at the Milton prison with its underfloor heating etc is likely to be viewed in far better light for someone on a lower income than someone on a higher income.
Perhaps then we could atone the standard of prisons to the standard of living someone is accustomed to. If someone viewed prison as superior accommodation to what they have outside then they may be predisposed to reoffending.
I think there is really a lot more thinking you can do around this Darien. When can we expect the Labour party to start issuing hanging orders?
Vote:Considering that NZ is apparently a society with an innate sense of “fairness” do you not think your party should be giving rich pricks ample warning so that they have time to arrange their affairs and leave the country?”
January 13th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I have a mate who got caught sppeding in Finland. The cops there can look up your tax records by computer from their patrol car and write you out a ticket/fine on the spot.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
PaulL:
If demerit points will stop somebody from re-offending and if NZ collected any revenue for traffic offenses last year, I’d say yes, we do have evidence of it. Do you think a large percentage of fines collected was for repeat offenders? Probably given the exceptional cases that get reported. I wouldn’t know, I’ve not actually delved into the stats of this.
I do agree with you that there must be some discretion applied. But that’s the job of the police officer that decides to issue the ticket.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Michaels posted at 11.36:
Wrong door alright, Michaels. Notice how the lefties have swarmed into Kiwiblog with the karma buttons off.
The readers are in the position of people at a public political meeting who have been banned from clapping or booing, from commenting, from showing leftist agitators how they regard their leftist heckling.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Jag:
Prisons, as a general rule, should be shitholes anyway. People sentenced to prison should be made to do menial, useless labour. We’re far too kind to prisoners and spend way too much money on them.
Bring on Deathrace I say :p
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Darien Fenton says:
January 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Interesting to see the response on Kiwiblog – some hysterical responses from the right, but among them, some sensible contributions as well. The point of this post is about deterrents for breaking the law. Is it fair to fine someone who is massively wealthy the same as someone who is on minimum wage and does it have the same deterrent effect? If a wealthy (or poor) person doesn’t break the law, then the question doesn’t arise.
I hope the crazy woman is referring to me.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
This thread is a perfect example of how fucked up New Zealand is. Thank fuck i moved on. You lot of fucking idiots can have the shit hole.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm
A director of the Finnish telecommunications giant, Nokia, has received what is believed to be the most expensive speeding ticket ever.
Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.
Harley Davidson motorbike
Mr Vanjoki is a Harley Davidson enthusiast
Police say he was driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone.
In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender’s income.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
And people wonder why the scandies have the highest suicide rates in the developed world? I’d say it has fuck all to do with S.A.D., the climate or the long winter hours.
It’s the easiest way out of socialist utopia!
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I would note that this is already the law in respect of a number of offences. That is, those against (or punished under) the Armed Forces Discipline Act. The maximum fine that may be imposed on a service member under that act is “…. an amount equal to his basic pay for 84 days…”.
ref: Armed Forces Discipline Act s 85(3)
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Steve at 12:46 could be right .. last time I looked, RednotsoAlert had 29 hits and Kiwiblog is already over 100. The have sod all to say, they are a rudderless ship and are crazy to start this sort or scrap with their present polling figures.
Vote:I had a shit fight with some stupid woman (Sharron I think) on mallards facebook before he defriended me. She slagged off JK for being rich (and suggested he got his money illegally) and when I mentioned that JK’s money was earned in the private sector and Dame Helen got her millions from the taxpayer she spat the dummy.
The left HATE, some deny, the fact the Dame Helen is a millionaire ..as is Micky Cullen.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
*Snort* ‘Their karma buttons are down, let’s get them!’ Man.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
eszett:
Swiss police handed one out for 299,000 franks (Roughly 202,000 euros) in January this year.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Topping yourself is a lot less easier than spending all day filling boxes. I guess.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Bevan, the argument is, “Let’s ensure things that are meant to be disincentives actually are disincentives.”
No, I don’t, which is why I agreed with Paul’s post.
I don’t know. Do you have stats to answer that question?
You were doing so well, Bevan, addressing the actual argument, and then you fall back on hiding behind ad hominem fallacies.
If it is true that wealthy people incur traffic and parking fines less than poor people, despite the fact that fines are proportionally far worse for poor people than they are for the wealthy, perhaps we should all be looking at something other than fines to describe and encourage rule-keeping behaviour.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
If we can’t anonymously express our disagreement while not providing any kind of intelligent response, the terrorists have already won.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Paul,
It was your comment that the “wealthy often have a job” and therefore losing a licence is more of a problem. I have doubts about that for many different reasons. Firstly, most jobs that require constant use of a vehicle are low-paying. In fact, higher-paying jobs tend to be office jobs, and on those occasions when travel from one place to another is required (such as for meetings), a taxi can be used.
I don’t have any stats to back it up, but I get the feeling that losing one’s licence is a much bigger deal for most low-income earners than high-income earners.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Fines are just as much a disincentive to the rich as to the poor. Why? Because the rich can pay them easily, and because the poor can pay them at $5 a week.
At the end of the day, Both groups tend to not find the fines themselves either a disincentive nor a punishment. Just an inconvenience.
The real punishment and disincentive lies in the Demerit system.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
darien must be shaking with joy, instead of just shaking, that she has caused such a firestorm of opinion. I mean most people, even labour voters, wouldn’t know her from a bar of soap.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Ryan Sproull – How do you define someone as rich? How do you define how big an effect a fine has on someone?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
While I don’t agree with fining rich people more for speeding tickets etc., I have to disagree with Bevin’s implication that wealthy people are less likely to speed.
Auckland is full of rich wankers driving BMWs or mid-life-crisis sports cars who speed, who use their cellphone, who are just arrogant drivers. And then there’s their wives in BMW SUVs or Audis, who push forward (e.g. into a turning lane) and then sit there on a green arrow because they want to go straight, who don’t care about the poor bastard (me) behind them.
Many 18 year olds are well-behaved drivers.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Ryan, probably depends on what we mean by wealthy. If we mean “the wealthy” as Paul Reynolds, then I’d agree he can probably do his job without a license. If we mean “the wealthy” the way the Labour Party (particularly the union wing of the Labour Party) often mean it, then we may be talking about Joe Plumber who earned $60K last year. And he probably does need his license.
I was thinking probably more about middle NZ – the stereotypical middle aged white guy with a skilled job – may be a trade, may be an office job. Many of those jobs have as a pre-requisite a drivers license. When we talk about the poor, I was thinking mostly of people on a benefit – those without a job. They seem to be the genuinely poor in NZ, but I would also argue that a drivers license is less critical to them.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
As Paul pointed out, and as I agreed, we don’t actually have evidence of wealthy people ignoring red lights because the fines are nothing to them. If we were to find evidence, it would probably be in the form of statistics, graphing infringements per head against income.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Fair enough, Paul. Again, as you point out, without statistics showing there is actually a problem, it’s hard to say anything for sure.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Has there been a liar detector invented that can catch Lieann Daleel out? Liarbour only know lies.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Ryan – But what measurement should the size of a fine be based upon. I don’t think it is possible to come up with a “fair” way to fine people based on wealth, unless we come up with creative fines that don’t necessarily include monetary payments eg, 5 hours community service. As has been mentioned before, with a demerits based system, you can create real incentives to not speed, run red lights etc.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I know that it works very similar in Germany. If you get convicted for a crime that carries a fine, the fine is determined by your basic pay rate and number of days you have to pay. In essence the very same principle. Mind you it’s not extended to traffic fines. I guess just from a governance point of view it is very extensive.
But it’s not an outlandish idea as you make it seem, David.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Rather ironic that two barking mad women who have never had real jobs should come up with an idea as crazy as this.
Vote:Whats next, if someone is judged to be below what they consider to be the poverty line we should pay them to offend?
They walk amongst us, and whilst they do the Darwin List will never run out of candidates for membership.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I posted this over at the original blog linked to but as with most repressive regimes it is awaiting censorship prior to publication and will probably never see the light of day.
“Yeah, why not fine rich pricks more.
And while we are at it why don’t we implement legislation so that anyone in a position of responsibility or power, for example councillors, MPs, community leaders etc.. etc.. get sent to jail for ANY breach of the law. You know, lead by example, rather than being the hypocritical charlatans that you are?
I wonder how many expense claims have been put through the public purse to clear fines for the last administration?”
Most wont like it but if you want to talk accountability then put your cock on the block. If rich people should suffer more in order to be brought into line then surely so should those privileged with making the laws and shaping our society.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Charlie,
That would depend on what the stats showed. If they show a geometric decline in disincentive (an increase in per-capita infringements) as personal income increases, then fines as a percentage of declared income may be most rational for the purposes of disincentive.
Demerits are an easier way of making it fair, though there is a possibility that losing a licence is harder on some people than on others.
I would be interested in having a clearer idea of how much the threat of a fine or even demerits currently impacts people’s driving behaviour. I suspect there are much stronger factors at play – patience, respect for others, a responsible attitude towards others’ safety, etc. A nation of patient, respectful and responsible people would need no disincentives, and a nation of impatient, disrespectful and irresponsible people would not be helped by all the fines in the world.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Yes – make it even less attractive for rich pricks to stay in NZ. Losing my license is a strong enough deterrent.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I got to thinking while I was out……..
This is simply another form of racism.
And I expect nothing else from Labour or The Maori Parties.
So all normal here, carry on.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Racisim, because all rich people are…..what, asian? I’m just not following.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Ryan – So if it shows lower income people incurr more fines on average then they should have to pay more? Wouldn’t it be better to double the fine for each additional fine within a given period?
Or as I said before, perhaps give community sentences. I’m sure making a very wealthy person spend 5 hours one saturday to pay of their fifth fine in the last month would rather pay a $1000 fine. Likewise, making the loser boy racer have to work of his fine that he wouldn’t otherwise pay would provide a disincentive to speeding.
Having a justice system that discriminates based on anything other than the offense is breaking a fundamental human right as “All are equal before the law”.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
If it shows lower-income people incur more fines on average, then the whole notion of monetary disincentives needs to be reviewed. Community sentences may very well be a more sensible answer.
The justice system currently discriminates based on income, as the penalty for poor people is much greater than the penalty for wealthy people. The same fine could be 20% of one person’s income, while only 0.1% of another person’s income.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
The other interesting thing is the number of closet lefties that come rushing onto the blog when something crackpot like this is hatched, they also seem to get a free hand to express themselves, unlike anybody that dares to say anything that Tiger Mallard or the crazies at the Standard disagree with, they specalize in delete or ridicule.
Vote:It looks as though if you drive any sort of BMW your on the hit list, that must mean if you’re a cardy wearer that drives a mid 80s Lada you’re one of the good guys.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Bevan, the argument is, “Let’s ensure things that are meant to be disincentives actually are disincentives.”
Then you should be supporting locking up poor people who do not pay their fines, since fining them in the first place is doing fuck all if they are refusing to pay. How many words have you devoted to that aspect compared to fining the rich pricks who speed? If you wanted to disincentive people speeding, you would go after those who are actually speeding the most. Dumb arse 19 – 25 yo who do not pay the fines that are issued to them.
I don’t know. Do you have stats to answer that question?
Why do you think 19 – 25 yo males have higher insurance premiums? Do you think its because they cause more accidents? Do you think they might be speeding more? Do you think its might be because the cops are pulling them over more often for breaking speed restriction?
You were doing so well, Bevan, addressing the actual argument, and then you fall back on hiding behind ad hominem fallacies.
Ryan, if you considered that an attack, then you need a thicker skin.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
PaulL…. What on earth has Asians got to do with it???
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
If it shows lower-income people incur more fines on average, then the whole notion of monetary disincentives needs to be reviewed. Community sentences may very well be a more sensible answer.
Oh give me a break – you want to make it softer for people who refuse to pay their fines????? Yet you want to fine the rich more who are able to pay their fines.
Yet you try to say its not “fuck the rich envy”. Yeah right.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
If the sole consideration is disincentive, and if fines are not a disincentive to low-income earners, and if low-income earners are proportionally over-represented in infringements, and if being locked up would be an effective disincentive where fines have failed, then yes, poor people who do not pay their fines should be locked up.
I assume it is because they statistically make more claims. That could be for many reasons – more likely to drink and drive, less experience behind the wheel, drive more often, drive at more dangerous times of the day, who knows?
But that doesn’t change the fact that we don’t have stats, as far as I know, on whether people on higher incomes consider fines to be less of a disincentive than people on lower incomes. I’ve repeatedly said that I’m open to the idea that they don’t.
I didn’t consider it an attack, Bevan. I also didn’t call it an attack. I called it an ad hominem fallacy, which is exactly what it was. Instead of addressing the argument, you went back to addressing what you imagine to be my motives for having an argument in the first place.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Ryan – “The justice system currently discriminates based on income”
No it doesn’t. Remember, “all are equal before the law” NOT “All are equitable before the law”.
You are in effect saying that people should be punished based on what they have to lose. Lets rewrite our assault laws, our theft laws, armed robbery laws, heck even our murder laws to say that if a prison sentence will have less effect on you because you are poor and from a bad family, we will increase the time spent in prison.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I didn’t say that, Bevan. Again you are addressing things you imagine, like my motives or you hallucinating me saying that you attacked me. Try to read carefully what I actually say, and then respond to what I have said, instead of what you imagine. If you have a grown-up there with you, they might be able to help. You must also be very careful with the snips when cutting the cardboard.
What I said was that the notion of monetary disincentives needs to be reviewed if fines aren’t acting as a disincentive. That is just common sense. It could be that public floggings would provide a more effective disincentive. It could be that community sentences would provide a more effective disincentive.
In fact, it is very very clear that what I was saying is that if fines aren’t working, then clearly fines are not harsh enough and something harder needs to be considered.
That is – it’s clear to anyone who is reading what I’m saying, rather than fantasising about me saying entirely other things.
If the stats show fines aren’t a disincentive for them, yes. Public floggings might work better for them too.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
A pretty debatable point, I think. There are plenty of circumstances where penalties vary from person to person while the crime is identical, but you may argue that those too are examples of injustice.
I’m approaching the matter purely with regard to disincentive. Purely with regard to disincentive, you may well be right about those other suggestions.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Ryan – “What I said was that the notion of monetary disincentives needs to be reviewed if fines aren’t acting as a disincentive.”
I agree with your sentiment here, I don’t agree with you about the possibility of dishing out fines based on a single metric. Without having someone reviewing the merits when dishing out the fine, you will never have a fair and effective system.
To sum up, those mps suggestions makes it more unfair and probably won’t have an effect on traffic offenses. Looking outside the square for traffic offenses is a good idea.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Michaels – just trying to make sense of your comment. I didn’t get how this proposal was racist. I was trying to work out what race we would be targeting by increasing fines on rich people, and I just speculated that maybe asians are disproportionately wealthy. How about you tell us what race you think this is targeting?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
How about you tell us what race you think this is targeting?
The illegal street race, pffft.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
PaulL, the rich, as I said…. This is simply another “form” of racism.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Here are a few of my ideas off the top of my head.
1. Public floggings.
Vote:2. Reward: free WOF, registration and licence renewal for going a year without any kind of infringement (including parking).
3. Expand demerits to entirely replace fines.
4. 15-year plan of teaching children in schools patience, respect and responsibility, resulting in an entire generation of people who can get along without fear of penalty or desire for reward.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
I think that the choice of 5 hours community work or the fine is a good idea for X fines within X months, any more than that they are obviously a residual offender who needs something harsher and should be dragged before the courts. Then we can utilize some of the creative things as a judge would be able to assess the merits. Confiscation and selling the offenders car is one idea, or crushing it if it isn’t road-worthy or sellable. Although I like the idea of flogging, I can’t imagine any of our mp’s being brave enough to do that as the press would put the mp in the same light as a paedophile.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I didn’t say that, Bevan. Again you are addressing things you imagine, like my motives or you hallucinating me saying that you attacked me.
Bloody hell Ryan, you cant even comprehend the consequence of your own position. Mind you thats typical Labour and their brain less followers.
Oh and if “Your just trying to look for a reason to fuck the rich cuase of plain old jealousy.” is attacking you, then you seriously need to harden the fuck up.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
ANOTHER unoriginal idea the dumb commies have nicked of the Scandies.
Epic FAIL.
Labour, raising the IQ in the right
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
we’re already fining ‘the rich pricks’ more but it doesn’t take effect until they’ve accrued enough points to lose their license, it’s at this point that those who can afford it apply for a ‘special’ license that enables them to continue driving, these do not come cheap when you take into account the lawyers fee & the cost of the license. So while your ‘rich prick’ from Remma’s pays for the right to continue driving legally your average ‘dip shit’ from Rewa can’t afford the lawyer or the special license so will continue to drive whether suspended or not.
Just did a quick search on google & the first ad I looked at had the lawyer bragging his words
And what are you’re chances? Again consult us. But, here’s an indication. We have succeeded in getting a limited licence for a client convicted (in the hands of another lawyer) on a fifth drink drive with a previous conviction within the last five years – and who was on a suspended jail term for the most recent conviction! We hope that gives you hope.
Hope? Drives me to despair
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
You are quite correct Michael. Racism is merely bigotry towards a group of people that one identifies as different to their own group.
Those who can only interpret racism as a colour or geographical difference are incorrect as there is no identifiable definition of ‘race’ within homo sapiens.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
You’re freaking kidding me. You seriously believe rich people are another race? I’ve heard of a born to rule attitude before, but that’s a bit absurd. One of the hallmarks of NZ is the ability of almost anyone, from almost any background, to aspire to being “wealthy”. In NZ that means income of > $60K apparently, so not all that high a bar.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Means test fines so that each pays a proportion of their income rather than a flat rate, hardly socialist if one is in fact trying to disincentivise behaviour. What i find so weird is why you guys are all up in arms? Is it because kiwiblog is the blog of choice for people with high incomes (judging by the comments and the general high income and intelligence correlation i’d say this isn’t the case)? is it because you feel so desperately for the rich that you will defend their right to do whatever the fuck they want because our fines for mere mortals are the cost of a quiet drink? I’m so confused.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Racism is a powerful and negative word today. My point is that prejudices against different parts of society is the same form of bigotry. It needs to be called for what it is.
Lefties attitude to the rich are the same as a (apartheid era) saffers attitude to the kaffers.
Which, as a person on less than the national average, is a reason why I don’t hate the rich. I’ve got no problem with inequality and don’t care if someone earns ten times what I do.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
eat my arse labour you pathetic , pathetic bunch of no hoping socialist money grabbing lowlifes.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Some false advertising I think
Somewhatthoughtful says:
This is a value judgement. An assumption is being made that a person of different means is going to place a different value on a sum of money than another person.
Who the hell thinks they are qualified to make this judgement and how do they come to the conclusion that a real estate agent a that makes $50,000 pa values $100 twice as highly as real estate agent b that makes $100,000. It would appear to me for the opposite to be true.
If there is a different incentive from the same fine to a poor person than a rich person then there should be a huge statistical difference between the incidence of ticket offences currently. Is anyone able to verify this? Because until rich people are offending at a rate multiple times that of poor people then the idea that there are vastly different levels of incentive is poppycock.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Brilliant idea but needs a pilot scheme to iron out the bumps so heres my suggestion – restrict the pilot scheme to MPs who know/understand or should, the Law as they create it. First offence – passing retrospective legislation – very serious – penalty loss of parliamentary pension and banned from all public office or receiving any public monies other than state super. That screws most of Liarbour. Theft of taxpayer funds – serious – fined 90% of their wealth excluding private residence – that screws Helen/Cullen and most of the cabinet. Lying to electors – minor infringement – 10 years prison non parole. All cases decided by referendum and non appealable – that should consign Labour to the scrapheap of irrelevance for a couple of decades – just in time to sort out the bloody mess they left.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Means test fines so that each pays a proportion of their income rather than a flat rate, hardly socialist if one is in fact trying to disincentivise behaviour.
So then you support sending anyone who can’t afford to pay the fine to jail then? I mean we want to disincentivise the offenders don’t we? Therefore any repeat offender who has already been given community service as a punishment, should therefore be sent to prison.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
One significant problem that also seems obvious is how do you assess a persons income and/or wealth. Some of the most wealthy people I know have very little taxable income. Add to that some people who actually have very little income declared have ready access to large amounts of undeclared cash and what is more is that these people (who make money from crime) are also more likely to disregard the piffling traffic laws.
The idea sounds good on the surface but as noted above it relies on value judgments and the indicators we would use are highly unreliable.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I’ve found it interesting over the years to observe the attitude of NZers toward those with money. Most un-moneyed people seem to believe they’re dealing with people who’ve taken more than their fair share of the pie, rather than someone who, which is usually the case, has grown the pie and thus their slice has grown. And if the pie didn’t even exist before they came along, aren’t they entitled to take whatever size slice they want?
Although this mis-perception is a worldwide phenomena oddly enough given that NZ is a fuck of a lot more egalitarian than a lot of developed nations (despite what the poor-pricks seem to think) it seems to be very widespread per head of population, in this small isolated land.
What I think encourages it is the lefty mindset that trades off it indeed encourages it, in order to get votes. The fact this is socially destructive in the extreme never seems to bother lefty politicians who should rather, as should all politicians, heavily and constantly encourage innovation and entrepreneurial-ism throughout the land on the rather elementary grounds that if the pie gets bigger, we all benefit.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
reid
The policies of envy are alive and well in lefty land. Winning votes is the only consideration for lefty politicians and hey if they f##k the economy doing that then that is a price worth paying. KiwiRail is a good example, as is re-nationalisation of ACC – the list goes on.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
David, this is a proposal that will appeal to Steven Joyce. This policy is nearly all upside for Joyce. It keeps National’s left of centre allies happy. It hits only a small number of constituents, most of them probably Act voters anyway, and it has an appeal to the leftist mindset (the rich can buy their way past the law – or something) that is likely to further National’s entrenchment in the centre. It will win the government more revenues, endearing Joyce to his cash strapped colleagues. And it will be another highly public win for Joyce – similar to the mobile phone debacle.
And what’s the argument for rejecting this kind of thing – that externalities are tied to the external cost of the action not the income of the perpetrator? Nobody gets that. Even Greg Mankiw thought this sort of system might be a good idea in a recent post.
All Joyce has to do is raise the spectre of the rich buying their way out of their responsibility and say this is for fines not anything else like jail.
My prediction: watch Joyce pick this up and run.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
ben
You might be right, but I’ll wait for the first time a Labour MP is caught speeding and they say; “It’s not fair, other people were doing it as well and they didn’t get caught” – worked when they got caught stealing $800,000.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
“My prediction: watch Joyce pick this up and run.”
Doubt it ben.
National’s base doesn’t inhabit the politics of envy.
Those people who seem to think Key’s govt is “Liarbore light” need to IMO consider whether he’s merely being realistic within the context of the times.
That means, he needs to consider not only how to deal with and reverse the fucked-in-the-head-state-dependency-social-justice-environment-wank-someone-else-owes-me-a-living mentality left over from nine long years of Hulun’s version of state-funded-propaganda-brain-washing, he also needs to operate within a fragile economic environment where his options are limited thanks to Liarbore’s stripping of the cupboard for its own self-serving purposes.
It’s not an easy situation. I bet he’d just love to tell the UN to get fucked over the ETS but what would that do to our exports? I bet he’d just love to give us tax cuts but what would that do to the Liarbore-originated deficit?
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Speaking of ETS, how’s this for some sense:
Vote:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/from-rio-to-copenhagen-the-model-was-wrong
January 13th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Imagination again, Bevan. I am not a Labour follower nor voter.
Again, Bevan, I never accused you of attacking me. Please read what I say before responding, rather than what you imagine me saying.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
It is ultimately no different than progressive taxation. We are just socialised to accept progressive taxation where people who can pay more are required to….
Take note rich bastards, you want to speed make sure the wife’s university student pool boy is in the car with you when you go bananas. Upon sirens and flashing lights haul up real quick and change seats. The spotty guy with the abs takes a slap on the wrist and you go on at him like you had been warning him to slow down while he gets his tisk tisk from the officer. Pay his pittance fine for him, all good – move on.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
It’s patent discrimination against the wealthy or people as a result of their family status. But of course this is not covered by the Human Rights Act because rich pricks don’t have the right not to be discriminated against.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Burt,
Your thoughts here have been addressed several times in a previous thread. Have a read through.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I don’t think the system some european countries have is a bad idea – though the recent swiss example of $250,000 odd for a speeding fine is a bit much.
But it is obvious that fines are a greater burden to those on lower incomes. A good example is a car without a current wof or license. If you get pulled over for speeding, lets say $120 fine for the speed, you’ll also get $200 each for the license and wof. That’s $520, which for some families is more than their entire weekly take home pay.
Ofcourse wofs and licenses should always be up to date, but that $520 hits some more than others.
Vote:January 13th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
It is stupid to say that a fine is less of a deterrent to those on higher incomes, and they will just keep on speeding and hand out $100 dollar bills on the spot like it has no value to them. Is there anyone dumb enough to actually think that?
A fine is no deterrent at all to many of those on low incomes. They never pay the damn fine anyway. Just look at how many were written off recently. Even crushing their cars has little effect. What is the chance of the brainless learning their lesson?
Whereas those with assets, income and responsible positions in society in general will say “fair cop” when caught speeding and pay the fine. Money is not meaningless to upper income band people, they have a very good idea of the value of a buck. The same sensible brain that got them their income and assets is able to assess how to modify their behaviour, i.e. speed less.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:11 am
a two-tier justice
Vote:system? you’re all a bunch of
socialist pansies
January 14th, 2010 at 6:34 am
I find it particularly amusing that this concept is being so heavily politicised. People are looking at it as ‘socialism’ or a case of jealousy. It’s not.
It is making sure the fine has an impact and acts as part of a deterrent for a crime.
Nothing more. Anything else is just paranoia.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 7:24 am
Totally agree with Pascal. It shouldn’t be a left right issue. It depends on what you think speeding a fine is for. Most people think that it is to try and stop people speeding. DPF is completely out-of-line to ridicule the idea on principle as being left-ist. It is a factual/evidential question. Are larger speeding fines needed to deter rich people from speeding? Maybe they aren’t, and people on this blog have come up with reasons why they aren’t. To introduce such a system without evidence would be wrong. But to dismiss it on principle as a leftist conspiracy is also wrong.
Personally I think the de-merit system could be much more effective than fines, because all the rich speed demons I know don’t care about the money, and don’t experience any stigma or guilt at being caught (they are better drivers and have better cars so they should be allowed to speed), but absolutely hate losing their licence.
In the UK there are criminal/civil penalties for companies which are based on the turnover of the company, in order to provide an effective deterrent. I don’t know if it’s working, hopefully they will review it as it goes along and remove it if it doesn’t work, and do more of it if it does!
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 7:34 am
I love it, lets fine those on the dole the minimum and allow them to write of the debts with a few hours community service thats worked well in the past so by extrapolation fining those earning “a lot” ie rich capitalist running dog swine (spiiit) a higher amount will also prevent speeding.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:04 am
willtruth:
Thank you for the agreement, but that makes it read as if you are also focussing on “rich people”. It is not about rich or poor. It is about ensuring the fine is an equally severe punishment for everyone.
For me, when I ride to work down a fairly empty road at 6am, I’m comfortable driving somewhere between 60 and 70 in a 50 zone. It’s happened recently, probably since the roads have become so empty over Christmas. That is the speed the normal traffic flow is going at in the morning, it is not a residential area and the fine, if I should be caught, will be a minimal sum.
And yeah, I have a clean license so I’ll cop a few demerits and wait it out. There is nothing really deterring me from speeding. A few months ago I’d have felt a moral block at speeding and would have argued vociferously against somebody even driving 55km/h, but now? That block is gone. Now you could argue that is also a case of “safe” speeding and I’ll be honest, most of the cagers out there are doing the same or more than I am, but hey, it’s an anecdote.
If that fine was a percentage of my income I would not do it. If I knew that $5,000 or whatever was at stake the risk would outweigh the reward. Plus, my wife would NEVER let me hear the end of it. At this point in time though the $30 or $80 that speed would cost me is a drop. It’s nothing. Even the 20 or 30 demerit points to somebody on a clean license means just about fuck all.
This is why I, in principle, support the idea. I know it would affect my own behavior.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Left wing politics in a nutshell
1) Treat success as the enemy, and reward and encourage failure.
2) Act all surprised and shocked when failure increaseas, due to success fucking off overseas.
3) Promise that the solution to failure is “vote for us and we’ll hammer those successful bastards some more.”
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:42 am
The politics of envy – the love in at Otaki certainly got back to basics.
That alongside Goff, King, Lind and Barker biking around the Coromandel is sure to revive Labours pathetically dire fortunes.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:42 am
It is incredible to me how many people want to paint this as “punishing success”, when it is very very clearly a question of equal disincentives.
Put it this way. If there were people in New Zealand who made $2 a week and lived off it, and you made whatever amount of money you currently do, would a $2 fine deter you and them equally?
The question has been raised – do wealthy Kiwis actually speed proportionately more than less wealthy Kiwis? That’s fair enough. If they do not, this whole discussion is about a solution to an imagined problem.
The point has been made – some Kiwis aren’t worried about fines because there’s not a strong enough incentive to pay them. That’s fair enough, but is a separate matter to address.
But whining that this is about “punishing the rich” is avoiding addressing the issue at hand.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Exactly what is the issue at hand?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Put it away:
If this was a discussion about whether to raise income taxes then your comment might be more relevant. But it is a discussion about whether income-linked speeding fines are a good idea (and whether there is evidence that they work). Are you saying that you think you think one of the rewards of being successful and rich is that you should able to speed and put small children at risk without facing any consequences that might matter enough to you to discourage you from further speeding? Can’t you think of a better/less socially reprehensible way of rewarding them? Taxing them less maybe?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Ryan you are missing the point entirely. Traffic fines are not a great disincentive to anyone. They either pay and move on, or ignore them and get away with it. The $2 a week person would ignore the fine and get sympathy when they claimed they couldn’t pay.
Vote:Demerits are an equal disincentive. If traffic enforcement were primarily about stopping bad drivers, all offences would be punished by loss of license and/or car for an appropriate length of time ( a day, a month, forever…) , with jail for driving without a license. That would get the bad drivers attention pretty quickly.
January 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
WHAT THE FUCK???
this whore is “intrigued” by the idea. Well Dime is intrigued as to how anyone can vote for these stinking leftists
the upside – shit like this will ensure labour stay out of power for a long time.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 8:55 am
It would come as a response to Labour’s poor polling…if it echoes they’re on a winner!
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Willtruth, I see you are missing the same point as Ryan. Speeding fines are not primarily for punishment and discouragement, they are largely for revenue collection. If the motivation was to discourage bad driving, every offence would take your car off the road.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Pascal:
Yeah demerit points might not be effective for everyone. I knew one guy who – whenever he lost his licence – he just paid the teenage son of a family friend to drive him around till he got it back. But that’s just an anecdote, you need evidence to decide what to do.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:12 am
“The question has been raised – do wealthy Kiwis actually speed proportionately more than less wealthy Kiwis? That’s fair enough. If they do not, this whole discussion is about a solution to an imagined problem.”
Given the principal “offenders” are males aged under 28 the question answers itself. Personally I travel at any speed I think is safe and take my knocks if I get caught.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:15 am
That’s a bit like saying, “If the motivation behind the justice system was to discourage breaking the law, every offence would result in the death penalty.”
You may well be right that fines are about revenue collection, but certainly the justification provided for this suggestion assumes that disincentive is at least a large part of what fines are for. People who commit traffic infringements aren’t necessarily bad drivers who need to be taken off the road – it’s just a particular behaviour which is preferable to be discouraged.
But I’ll add that to valid objections:
If traffic and parking fines are about revenue and not at all about disincentive, then this whole discussion is moot.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:15 am
If the guys not driving the car himself then the demerits have been effective. Objective achieved. Losing your drivers licence is not home detention, you are still allowed to be a passenger or take a bus/taxi.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Ryan – thanks for your ludicrous straw man about the death penalty, I accept this acknowedgement from you that you have no argument based in reality.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Put it away, you said: “If the motivation was to discourage bad driving, every offence would take your car off the road.”
This is clearly not true, and I used an extreme example to demonstrate that it is not.
Just because the punishment for an offence doesn’t take your car off the road, doesn’t mean it’s not discouraging bad driving.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Ryan, have you missed the bit where I said they should be “punished by loss of license and/or car for an appropriate length of time ( a day, a month, forever…) ” , i.e. effective deterrent and PROPORTIONAL to the offence. Somehow you analogise that as being “just like” wanting to apply the maximum possible penalty to every case. The point under discussion is “what they would be doing if the main motivation is not the government’s revenue”, so it’s bizarre for you to compare it to a situation that would SAVE the goverment money, i.e. giving the death penalty instead of $80,000 or whatever it is to keep people in jail. Your argument is the opposite of what you think it is. Go have a coffee and come back when you can focus
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Put it away:
Well if you think speeding fines are primarily another form of tax to raise revenue and they serve little other function then I suppose you are right. I’m sure there is an element of truth in that to the extent that governments are happy that speeding fines replenish their coffers. But those same coffers have to pay to clean up all the carnage created by speeding. I think it is pretty unlikely that the govt’s policy is to deliberately have policies (speeding fines) that they believe do not discourage speeding, and they want people to keep speeding so that they continue to fine them and raise revenue. That would not only be unbelievably cynical but also counter-productive. Is that really what you think is happening here? Even if (a big if) the speeding fines somehow adding up to more money than is being spent on hospitals and lost to the economy when productive people are killed and maimed, are policy makers really that evil?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Put it away,
Apologies. I read the first paragraph of your post to me and then your post to willtruth, skipping past your second paragraph to me.
It sounds like your position is that fines of any sort aren’t enough of disincentive to influence behaviour, and that only confiscation or something similar would influence behaviour. Is this correct?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 11:52 am
So let me get this right Ryan, based on youur posts so far.
Rich guy gets caught speeding = large fine based on income.
Poor guy gets caught speeding = Community Service.
And you say its not “fuck the rich envy”, just a disincentive to speed. I got a bridge in Brooklyn if your interested.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 11:57 am
No, Bevan. If fines aren’t a disincentive to either, and community service is a disincentive to both, then it should be community service for both. That would be fairer. Or, if demerits are a disincentive to both, then it should be demerits for both.
The only reason for having a larger fine for wealthier people is to keep the disincentive equal – assuming that a) fines are actually a disincentive to anyone, and b) that wealthier people offend more often because the fines are proportionally less of a penalty to them.
Wealthier people have no more hours in a week than anyone else, so community service would affect them equally. If the community service was of a kind that would get in the way of working, it would possibly be more of an equal disincentive to have wealthier people threatened with FEWER community-service hours than the less wealthy.
EDIT: Rethinking that – hours may be worth proportionally less money to lower-income earners, but that money could be proportionally more valuable to them, so it might even out in the end as a disincentive.
Demerits appear to be the most obviously equal across-the-board disincentive.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Damn you are confusing Ryan, yesterday you were argueing for punishment to be proportional based on wealth, now you are argueing for punishment to be equal.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
IF fines are intended as a disincentive to traffic and parking infringements
AND fines are effective as a disincentive to traffic and parking infringements
AND fixed fines are less of a disincentive as income increases
AND larger fines for higher incomes would keep that disincentive roughly equal across the spectrum
THEN there is good sense in making fines proportional based on wealth – it would make punishment equal.
But if any of those things are not the case, then the case for scaled fines falls over.
Community service and demerits are more obviously equal punishments to all without scaling.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Sonny, you say…
“If the guys not driving the car himself then the demerits have been effective. Objective achieved. Losing your drivers licence is not home detention, you are still allowed to be a passenger or take a bus/taxi.”
Yes and no, depends on what the objective is and what you think is the best way to achieve it. I think the overall objective is to keep the public safer from speed freaks, and yes, the public is safer while he is off the road. But his licence isn’t suspended for that long. I would have thought the best way to achieve the overall objective was to discourage him from speeding for the proportion of the time that he does have a licence (which might be about 80% of the time). But when he gets back on the road again he speeds again, because the consequences for him are not that bad, given that he is a successful lawyer and can afford to pay a driver (and afford to pay the fines). So the demerit system doesn’t make the public that much safer from this guy. I guess one solution would just be to make the system harsher, so he is off the road for longer. This seems to be what “put it away” is advocating. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, this is not what happens with the current system. These guys routinely speed and they lose their licence only every so often.
But you can’t just dismiss income linked fines on ideological grounds as DPF and many other here are doing. If they work as a deterrent then maybe we should use them. If they don’t then we definitely shouldn’t. Let’s keep the debate down to the evidence.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Obviously this discussion is for the entertainment and enjoyment of control freaks.
Why don’t you just kill everyone who won’t obey you? That solution has a long and successful history.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Alan,
Law, restrictions, police, crime, punishment – how could the discussion NOT be about control?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Ryan, it could be about freedom, statistics, justification and evidence-based policies.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Fines, shimines. Read the front page of the Herald today and it’ll tell you that speed cameras in NZ bring in approx $30 million/year. If that isn’t revenue gathering then I don’t know what is. This figure tells me 2 things:
Vote:1. If people don’t believe in a law they won’t obey it
2. The speed limit is too low
Those cameras aren’t discriminating on the “perps” ability to pay the fine!
January 14th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Educated, well-thought-out control rather than willy-nilly guesswork control.
Yes, I agree. I’d love to see some stats on all of this.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Kiwigreg:
I’m assuming that indicates that sometimes that speed will be above the posted limit. That, to me, indicates that neither fines nor demerits are an adequate deterrent for speeding for you. Would the knowledge that your next fine could be 5% or 10% of your annual income be a better deterrent?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Seems to me there is a lot of bullshit being posted here without any proof of
Vote:- whether the prime aim of fines is revenue gathering or not
- whether fines are a deterrent, and if so how much
- if the level of deterrence is income related
January 14th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
@ Pascal I just dont think most of the road code applies to me all the time. I also make left hand turns on red lights. I have no idea whether some higher penalty would deter me, logic would dictate that it should, but why would society want to do that? Since I returned to New Zealand in 2004 I have been caught precisely 3 times by humans, twice let off with a warning and once ticketed. I have been caught twice by speed cameras as well. Obviously as someone who exceeds posted speed limits pretty much every day I drive the risk of detection is a more relevant factor than the actual fine (or more precisely I guess the expected value of the penalty [probability of getting caught x average penalty]).
But seriously is this an area where we as a society should be pushing resources?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
That depends on how much anyone cares about trying to make road travel safer or not, keeping in mind that it is probably the biggest risk of injury or death that most of us take.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“That depends on how much anyone cares about trying to make road travel safer or not, keeping in mind that it is probably the biggest risk of injury or death that most of us take.”
Well of course you could probably get it to zero by putting governors on all vehicles limiting speeds to 15 km/hr. Everything (inlcuding lifes in general) has a cost benefit.
Would you rather the resources (which are finite) were spent catching people driving late model cars “too fast” on empty, clear, dry roads, or, say, catching rapists?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“keeping in mind that it is probably the biggest risk of injury or death that most of us take.”
Rubbish. Most people will die of heart attack or cancer. Around 1% will die on the road.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I meant to say accidental injury or death.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
WELL YOU DIDN’T SAY THAT PETE NOW DID YOU WE’RE NOT MINDREADERS PETE
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Please dont shout, I’m having a nice quiet day in the office.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Of that 1%, around half will be drunken and/or lunatic idiots. IMHO their deaths are not accidents.
Badly analyzed statistics and fear-mongering by vested interests are the basis for much of our traffic management policy. Which is why Labour’s great LTSA TEN YEAR PLAN to reduce the road toll ended in ignominious total failure – except for a monstrous increase in traffic fines. And why that result was never publicised.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
But hasn’t the road toll reduced? At the same time as traffic density has increased?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Safer cars, more motorways, changing demographics…
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
How do you know the government/s, LTSA and fines have not had any effect?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
The reduction in road toll that had been happening all over the world for the last five decades due to better roads, vehicles and emergency services slowed virtually to a stop. Here is the chart normalised for number of registered vehicles:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/fatalveh.gif
P.R. B.S. from the traffic enforcement industry should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Over half the traffic infringements written out are for speeding. Lets face it the speed limit is too low. Thats why everyone gets caught. It’s because the tripping point is set too low. We all want faster broadband, faster food, faster service from wherever we shop so whats wrong with faster cars. As Alan W says car technology has made them much safer in 2010 than 1960. Personally 120k open road and 60k around town is good for me. KiwiGreg and I are doing this now anyway.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
It’s official. I like everything OTGO is writing. Methinks OTGO is an economics grad.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Pete George (3157) Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
How do you know the government/s, LTSA and fines have not had any effect?
>> HA HA HA HA! STOP! MY SIDES! NOOO!
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Kiwigreg:
Well, if it were up to me I’d rather have society be pushing resources at organising a motorbike tour across NZ for me and Hitomi Tanaka, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m only interested in the merits / demerits of the concept and I think it is more valuable than the initial post and some subsequent comments have painted it as.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Pascal, the relevant question is “Did it work?” Can you look at the chart I linked and tell me it did?
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Don’t insult Pete’s religion.
He knows that over-manned self serving government bureaucracies and intrusive and offensive legislation trumps human nature and private enterprise everyday.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Hmm, yes, I duly apologise for taking the piss and will chant 100 ohm’s
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
It seems like such a seductive idea at first, but I don’t like it.
Flat rates + demerits for reoffenders (after all, losing your license can be just as much of a punishement whether you are rich or poor) are the only way to go. If only because it at least provides another reason to get out there and be as productive as possible.
Vote:January 14th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I agree with OTGO about speed limits; they ARE too low in certain areas. I’ve been driving around a lot of NZ recently while on vacation, and while many roads suit 100 as the top speed, there are plenty that would benefit from a 110 speed limit (Timaru to Christshurch, for example)
Vote:January 15th, 2010 at 7:42 am
Alan Wilkinson:
Your chart looks at fatalities only. Do you have similar data for injuries, property damage, etc.?
Vote:January 15th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Alan, your chart shows that fatalities have dropped in all countries in the study. We know that has been happening. But it doesn’t say anything about why. I’m sure the reasons you give are factors, but possibly not the only factors.
Have any of those countries relaxed their speed limits and policing? Is there any evidence to show that speed limits and policing are a waste of time and expense?
Why did our rate climb between 80 and 85, then resume it’s decline? Other countries flattened or increased as well around the same time. Was that due to a relaxing of restrictions after the oil shock?
I know I can drive safely at 120 kph, and on some roads I can drive safely at 140kph. But I also know the margin for error is much less and the risk is higher. If most people drove faster (human nature if speed limits were relaxed) that raises the risks for everyone. It’s not just about costs and “freedom”. I value my life and I value other peoples lives, especially family. It’s got nothing to do with private enterprise.
Vote:January 15th, 2010 at 10:10 am
There is plenty Pete.
Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits
Vote:http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
January 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Pete George, in 2000 Labour (George Hawkins) decided they were going to seriously impact the road toll by creating a huge enforcement campaign with reduced tolerance on speed limits, hidden speed cameras and many more police on the roads.
As I stated, the impact has been a huge increase in traffic offense fines and if anything a counterproductive lessening of the decline in road casualties. The chart I showed doesn’t show injuries. These actually increased substantially.
The policy is crap. It produces moron drivers and more fatalities from fatigue, boredom and distraction.
Actually it does have something to do with private enterprise. If private enterprise ran the roads they would not make a huge proportion of their customers into criminals and they would not waste such a huge amount of resources on completely unproductive and counterproductive measures. That luxury is reserved for political bureaucracies and the idiots who support them.
Vote: