Fined $142,000

[btm]

Found this in the paper yesterday and initially had a bit of a laugh about it, but then it got me thinking... what do people think about this? should people with a higher income/assets be charged more than average joe?

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm93/btm_photo/drunk.jpg

[sooty]

Sounds fair to me...how much is $200 going to deter someone if they have $48mil?

[Nurb608]

I think thats a great idea, but you would want to set a minimum charge.

[nuggz]

if theyre on the dole
they have their car confiscated for a week

[USC]

still excessive!

[Shay]

thats a big inheritance, $48M but only makes 153K a year, dhould invest could easily dbl that income by interest alone

[simmy]

woo thats a nice inheritance..
i agree, i reckon its fair.. whats a small fine to someone with that much money.. theyd do it all the time n basically get away with it

[sooty]

still excessive!
perhaps a little.
It's approximately 1/300th of his wealth...sooo...if the average person is to classify house and car as their wealth (most people don't seem to have too much of a savings account these days:lol:) say....$500k? that's a $1,700 fine for blowing 0.188....sounds fair enough to me...

[Keep'emRunning]

...what? 48 mil & he was too tight to get a taxi? :D

[btm]

...what? 48 mil & he was too tight to get a taxi? :D
only drove the car 400m remember... not really worth a cab fare!

[Mexican Cali]

...what? 48 mil & he was too tight to get a taxi? :D


haha yeh i thought wit that money he would have his own driver .. or better yet his own strip joint so he wouldnt have to drink and drive just live there :p

[Wraith]

Hmmm interesting one this...

I'm on the fence as to whether or not it's fair or justified depending on an individuals wealth...

Where do you draw the line ???

Easy way or excuse for governments to make an easy buck is what it seems like to me :rolleyes:

[aza28]

he could have killed someone - $148K not enough in my view.

[Valve Bounce]

So he did a drunk quarter mile? :p

[GodsKnight]

Sometimes i don't think the punishment fits the crime/person who done the crime...for instance a company gets fined 2-3millions dollars for disposing toxic waste..its good business they do this because their making so much more money that 2-3 million is pocket money and to have this toxic waste disposed off correctly would cost them more....

I think the punishment for whatever it is can't be black and white and needs to take into consideration offence and offender..

thats my 2 cents :)

[mania]

That's nothing, try a $103k fine for 20ks over the speed limit (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2002/04/15/NewsInBrief/SixFigure.Speeding.Ticket.Tests.Finlands.Egalitari an.Instincts-517672.shtml).

That being said, if they could make the system work, with minimums -and- maximums.... I'd be all for the idea. That someone working part time / studying part time should get the same fine as someone with an entire-block mansion in peppermint grove is ludicrous.

[btm]

but on the flip side, why should you be penalised for having more wealth than someone else, for doing exactly the same crime?

[Shay]

i agree with a wealth related fine...

put it this way...

if you have lil kids, and your daughter draws on the wall, the "fine"/punishment may be known that her favourite doll will be taken away,

if your son then goes and draws on the wall, the fine cannot be that your daughters doll is taken away, coz it has no value to your son...

like a 75 dollar fine means a lot to me cos thats about 10% of what i have in my bank account, where as well off people will spend more than that on lunch, and the fine would be about half an hours work (or less) for them.

if the fine for speeding (0-9kmh) was 1% of previous years earning or XX amount, whichever is greater, then (10-19kmh) would be 2% and 2 demerits, (20-29kmh) 4% and 3 demerits, (30-39kmh) 8$ and 4 demerits, (40+kmh) 15% and 6 demerits and car impound...

i think it would be a good system

[ASTRAY]

he could have killed someone - $148K not enough in my view.
i was going to post my view, then i read yours, yours says it all.

i have thought about this topic many times throughout my life.
percentage of income/assets is a great way to determine fines for offences that severe.

i think another thing that should be factored in, with drink drivers, is the amount they are over the limit.
limit is 0.05 (in aus)
if they are 0.10 they are double the limit and lose all assets, including home, car, and possessions
if they are 0.075, they lose 50% of their assets.
etc etc.

sure there would still be drink drivers, but the message would sink in extremely quickly.

[ASTRAY]

but on the flip side, why should you be penalised for having more wealth than someone else, for doing exactly the same crime?
because you would have even more options to travel from a-b, than a poor person would.

[GodsKnight]

having said that people that have no income pay nothing WOOT!! im gunna get my Godson to drive :)..btw he is 7

[ASTRAY]

i agree with a wealth related fine...

put it this way...

if you have lil kids, and your daughter draws on the wall, the "fine"/punishment may be known that her favourite doll will be taken away,

if your son then goes and draws on the wall, the fine cannot be that your daughters doll is taken away, coz it has no value to your son...

like a 75 dollar fine means a lot to me cos thats about 10% of what i have in my bank account, where as well off people will spend more than that on lunch, and the fine would be about half an hours work (or less) for them.

if the fine for speeding (0-9kmh) was 1% of previous years earning or XX amount, whichever is greater, then (10-19kmh) would be 2% and 2 demerits, (20-29kmh) 4% and 3 demerits, (30-39kmh) 8$ and 4 demerits, (40+kmh) 15% and 6 demerits and car impound...

i think it would be a good system

shay for pm!

[Shay]

shay for pm!

tho i dont agree with your, loose everything for being twice the limit, IMO driving at .1 BAC (twice the limit) would be safer than drivin twice the speed limit, and you would only lose your car for that,

[GodsKnight]

what i dont understand you will get finred more X Dollars for not having a train ticket in sydney then you would if i went 15 over the speed limit...i hardly think that crime justifies the punishment! its not like im endangering peoples lives for not having a ticket!

[Wraith]

That's nothing, try a $103k fine for 20ks over the speed limit (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2002/04/15/NewsInBrief/SixFigure.Speeding.Ticket.Tests.Finlands.Egalitari an.Instincts-517672.shtml).

That being said, if they could make the system work, with minimums -and- maximums.... I'd be all for the idea. That someone working part time / studying part time should get the same fine as someone with an entire-block mansion in peppermint grove is ludicrous.

Hmmm, as I've said before in my previous post, that may be all well and good, but where do you draw the line on such an instigation and how the heck would they implement 'this such' double standard into society ????

Does this mean that everything else should be 'wealth tested' and not just fines for breaking the law ????

Because you know once something like that begins it'll never stop !!!

I'm confident in saying the young weathless part time student will appreciate it now, later in life when he's doing much better he'll be kicking himself for ever thinking that way everytime he cops a fine, which isn't too hard to cop these days and heaven forbid he should become rich, I'm sure he would really want to stick to the above sentiment LOL :lol:

[Wraith]

what i dont understand you will get finred more X Dollars for not having a train ticket in sydney then you would if i went 15 over the speed limit...i hardly think that crime justifies the punishment! its not like im endangering peoples lives for not having a ticket!

This is more reasonable thinking and something which should be taken into account or on board by the powers that be and ie: punishments should equal the crime ! too many seemingly petty crimes can cop an extremely harsh penalty whilst other severe crimes literally get away with murder... :rolleyes:

[aza28]

its no accident - they knowingly/intentionally endanger other ppl by getting behind the wheel under the influence. it might as well be manslaughter... and if u unintentionally kill someone whilst driving under the influence, you can and will be prosecuted for manslaughter, sometimes murder. But by then its too late so what's the point ..... there needs to be greater deterance/harsher penalties to stop it in the first place. if its $142K then so be it. i think a lengthy license suspension is the way to go. 5-7 years - for high readings.

[Shay]

how is that any dif to speeding?

[lithium]

variable fines are a no no

is it fair if you pay $75 for a big mac while your unemployed friend only pays $1?

[Shay]

variable fines are a no no

is it fair if you pay $75 for a big mac while your unemployed friend only pays $1?

technically yes, :D

[sooty]

variable fines are a no no

is it fair if you pay $75 for a big mac while your unemployed friend only pays $1?

that's an expense for a product....that should stay the same...
We're talking about a fine as a deterrent...if you got a $10 fine....you wouldn't care....if you got a $1000 fine, you'd think about slowing down.
Same for the millionaire....he gets a $1000 fine....he pays in cash and thinks no more of it, he gets a $100,000 fine, and starts to think twice about what he did.

[lithium]

that's an expense for a product....that should stay the same...
We're talking about a fine as a deterrent...if you got a $10 fine....you wouldn't care....if you got a $1000 fine, you'd think about slowing down.
Same for the millionaire....he gets a $1000 fine....he pays in cash and thinks no more of it, he gets a $100,000 fine, and starts to think twice about what he did.

true - there's for and against on both sides of the argument :)

i'll put another one out there apart from big macs. think of all those victims of drunk drivers currently recovering in the public hospital under good quality medical care. who's doing most of the contributing to pay for all those doctors and nurses who look after them?

[Shay]

government?

[lithium]

correct! and where does the government get its money and who pays the most money by far?

[Shay]

correct! and where does the government get its money and who pays the most money by far?

rich peeps and business...

not seeing where youre goin here

[ASTRAY]

its no accident - they knowingly/intentionally endanger other ppl by getting behind the wheel under the influence. it might as well be manslaughter... and if u unintentionally kill someone whilst driving under the influence, you can and will be prosecuted for manslaughter, sometimes murder. But by then its too late so what's the point ..... there needs to be greater deterance/harsher penalties to stop it in the first place. if its $142K then so be it. i think a lengthy license suspension is the way to go. 5-7 years - for high readings.
the biggest problem with suspensions, especially long term ones, is habitual offenders and many others continue to drive unlicensed anyway.

[ASTRAY]

rich peeps and business...

not seeing where youre goin here
he means...
taxpayers, and richer taxpayers pay more tax.
but,,,,
matching fines to income, could result in 2 things...
major reduction in drink drivers etc
or
mega amounts of money being made available to the gov.
this money could be used for hospitals, etc, though i doubt it would be.

[lithium]

rich peeps and business...

not seeing where youre goin here

as mentioned above, rich people pay more tax. in fact, rich people pay way way way more tax than you or me

this tax is used by the government to cover for all the ****ups that normal people do every day, day in day. just lost your job and kicked out of your apartment? spent all your money on drugs and now you're OD'd in emergency? that rich guy living in Rose Bay is who pays for your medical bills, who pays for your dole and the accommodation that the housing commission gives you so you don't live in the gutter

the guy who has $48 million in wealth will easily have a taxable income of over $3 million a year. the tax from this alone, in Oz, will be over $1.5 million. this $1.5 million is used among other things to pay for health services, maintaining road quality, police patrols, RBTs....

and its fair to slug this guy with a $100000+ fine for an offense that a normal person will cop a $200 fine for, just because he's currently rich, when he already contributes over 45 times the amount to society that a person on an average salary would do? proportionally he is contributing almost half of his earnings, whereas average Joe Bloggs contributes about a quarter.

this makes no sense to me :mad: therefore, variable tax contributions = yes, variable fines = no no

[sooty]

the guy who has $48 million in wealth will easily have a taxable income of over $3 million a year. the tax from this alone, in Oz, will be over $1.5 million.


read the article....$153,000pa income. so hardly a $1.5mil tax...:)

[Shay]

as mentioned above, rich people pay more tax. in fact, rich people pay way way way more tax than you or me

this tax is used by the government to cover for all the ****ups that normal people do every day, day in day. just lost your job and kicked out of your apartment? spent all your money on drugs and now you're OD'd in emergency? that rich guy living in Rose Bay is who pays for your medical bills, who pays for your dole and the accommodation that the housing commission gives you so you don't live in the gutter

the guy who has $48 million in wealth will easily have a taxable income of over $3 million a year. the tax from this alone, in Oz, will be over $1.5 million. this $1.5 million is used among other things to pay for health services, maintaining road quality, police patrols, RBTs....

and its fair to slug this guy with a $100000+ fine for an offense that a normal person will cop a $200 fine for, just because he's currently rich, when he already contributes over 45 times the amount to society that a person on an average salary would do? proportionally he is contributing almost half of his earnings, whereas average Joe Bloggs contributes about a quarter.

this makes no sense to me :mad: therefore, variable tax contributions = yes, variable fines = no no

few things...

his yearly income was only 153000, says so in the picture... thats not even in the highest tax bracket... and even if he were in the highest tax bracket you dont ever pay over 50% of income in tax (EDIT, i havent check whether tax rates have changed in the latest budget report)...

a fine is basically a dickhead tax anyway, so if you are a richer/ bigger dickhead you have to pay more dickhead tax, why shouldnt iit be variable too?

and i agree with ain its all about discouraging peeps from being stupid and wreckless.

in the end atm the government's fiscal and monetary policies are pretty ****ed...

the more of this deficit we can get rid of the better

[ASTRAY]

read the article....$153,000pa income. so hardly a $1.5mil tax...:)
perhaps income was only taking into account his job income, not investments income.

[ASTRAY]

few things...

his yearly income was only 153000, says so in the picture... thats not even in the highest tax bracket... and even if he were in the highest tax bracket you dont ever pay over 50% of income in tax (EDIT, i havent check whether tax rates have changed in the latest budget report)...

a fine is basically a dickhead tax anyway, so if you are a richer/ bigger dickhead you have to pay more dickhead tax, why shouldnt iit be variable too?

and i agree with ain its all about discouraging peeps from being stupid and wreckless.

in the end atm the government's fiscal and monetary policies are pretty ****ed...

the more of this deficit we can get rid of the better
depends on whether he has 2 or more jobs.
in aus youare allowed to earn $100 tax free ( i think $103)
all other money earnt from your main job is taxed normally.

if you have a 2nd income, you then pay 43% tax on that 2nd job. ( i think thats where he gets the 50% from)

so if he has invested his 48mill, and earns 3 mill interest a year, he will be paying almost 1.3mill a year in tax cos his investment will be considered 2nd income.


i think... lol

[mania]

and its fair to slug this guy with a $100000+ fine for an offense that a normal person will cop a $200 fine for, just because he's currently rich, when he already contributes over 45 times the amount to society that a person on an average salary would do?

But how much of a deterrent is the prospect of a $200 fine for someone with $48 million in wealth?

[USC]

he could have killed someone - $148K not enough in my view.

true...fine is just a way of making money. They should have cancelled his licence for like 5 years.

[Wraith]

true...fine is just a way of making money. They should have cancelled his licence for like 5 years.

Agree...

This is the point I was trying to make and has been mentioned by others too, that the punishment should fit the crime, not be measured by a persons wealth, which is simply a ridiculous arguement and IMHO only pushed by people who are jealous of rich or very wealthy people, sorry but that's the way I see it here...

Drink or drug influenced driving is indeed a very stupid act and people caught should be punished, IMHO the punishment should be a very long suspension of their licence, or a jail term ! this is again IMHO much more effective than any fine on an individual, I'm sure you'd all agree massive fines are just a government excuse for a source of easy revenue !!!

[lithium]

read the article....$153,000pa income. so hardly a $1.5mil tax...:)

the $153000 is obviously his salary, not his taxable income. unless you keep the $48 million wealth under your bed in a suitcase full of notes, it is almost impossible to invest so poorly that you only get $153000 pa (or, a 0.3% return on your captial)

believe it or not gouging the rich is not always the solution :cool:

a $200 fine for Bill Gates should be exactly the same deterrant as a $200 fine for you or me. if we talk in terms of big macs, Bill and I have both been penalized 50 big macs. therefore, the opportunity cost lost to both of us due to our irresponsible behaviour is exactly the same

i'm not having a go at anyone so please don't take these rants that way. this is just my point of view according to my current understanding of money and its value. obviously - at least one government in the world disagrees with me.

[lithium]

Agree...

This is the point I was trying to make and has been mentioned by others too, that the punishment should fit the crime, not be measured by a persons wealth, which is simply a ridiculous arguement and IMHO only pushed by people who are jealous of rich or very wealthy people, sorry but that's the way I see it here...

Drink or drug influenced driving is indeed a very stupid act and people caught should be punished, IMHO the punishment should be a very long suspension of their licence, or a jail term ! this is again IMHO much more effective than any fine on an individual, I'm sure you'd all agree massive fines are just a government excuse for a source of easy revenue !!!

well put, this is my feeling but i don't think i expressed it as eloquently
the punishment should fit the crime. just as everyone should pay the same amount to get the same Big Mac :)

[btm]

what if you prefer double quarter pounders...

[lithium]

in the end atm the government's fiscal and monetary policies are pretty ****ed...

the more of this deficit we can get rid of the better

yikes, don't believe everything Malcolm Turnbull tries to tell you about the budget! ;) the current economic climate is THE textbook correct time to be running a deficit

btw the approx 50% tax (actually i should have said 45c/dollar) comes from the fact that if you have a taxable income of $3 mil you are so far above the progressive brackets system that you are very nearly paying the top marginal tax rate for all your income anyway. actually if you work it out i think it comes to paying 44.32c/dollar.

anyway i've gone way off topic so i'll stop here :)

[aza28]

the biggest problem with suspensions, especially long term ones, is habitual offenders and many others continue to drive unlicensed anyway.

maybe, but there is only so much you can do and for most of us, the prospect of a lengthy license suspension would be a serious deterent. i couldn't imagine not having a licence for 5 yeras. For the small percentage of repeat offenders, they need to be dealt with differently. Cancellation and/or jail.


Agree...

This is the point I was trying to make and has been mentioned by others too, that the punishment should fit the crime, not be measured by a persons wealth, which is simply a ridiculous arguement and IMHO only pushed by people who are jealous of rich or very wealthy people, sorry but that's the way I see it here...

Drink or drug influenced driving is indeed a very stupid act and people caught should be punished, IMHO the punishment should be a very long suspension of their licence, or a jail term ! this is again IMHO much more effective than any fine on an individual, I'm sure you'd all agree massive fines are just a government excuse for a source of easy revenue !!!

agree..