Fines related to income

S-Murph

What would people here think about criminal and civil fines being as a percentage of a persons income?

For example, it dosnt seem fair that someone with an income of €20,000 per year gets the same parking fine as someone on €150,000 per year.

A fourty euro parking fine is more of a deterrent to the lower income than the higher income person, but if it were as a fixed percentage of income, then it would be a more equitable deterrent.

So say the average wage is in or around 30,000 euro, and existing parking fines are around 60 euro, then a fixed percentage of say 0.20% could be used.

Not sure how it could be implemented in practice, but it would apply to all fixed fines and charges.

What do you think?

S-Murph

Iv read also that Finland sets traffic fines as a percentage of income, so it seems to be in practice some places.

View

S-Murph wrote: »

Iv read also that Finland sets traffic fines as a percentage of income, so it seems to be in practice some places.

I've read about it in reports from both Finland and Switzerland. A few years back, some DotCom multi-millionaire in Finland got fined 3/4 million Euro or something similiar for speeding if I recall. It was his third offence in a year so he didn't have much excuse - also the local police found it hard to miss a bright red Ferrari roaring through the local villages.

Mind you, were the system introduced here, we probably have the penalty for the poor higher than for the rich...

nesf

Only makes sense if people on higher incomes repeatedly clocking up fines because of their trivial % of income is actually a problem in this country.

Otherwise you've just added a whole new level of needless bureaucracy to the system and have increased the cost of levying a fine on someone for little actual gain.

FlutterinBantam

Would not agree.

Just adds another reason why you wouldn't bother advancing yourself.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Would not agree.

Just adds another reason why you wouldn't bother advancing yourself.

I really don't think it would have that effect. Seeing as it would only affect law-breakers (few enough people get fines)

FlutterinBantam

I note that you live in Belgium

This is Ireland we are talking about:rolleyes:

Lockstep

I applaud your observational skills.

What's your point?

FlutterinBantam

I don't want to drag off topic, but basically that in most civilised countries people can regulate their behaviour to comply with most laws,whereas we in Ireland seem to have a penchant for exploiting regulations and finding a way to avoid operating in the spirit of the law.

examples

Drinking
Smoking
parking
Driving
waste disposal
Noise regulations

Etc etc etc............

Lockstep

Grand.

I am however, curious as to how such a scheme would act more as a deterrent to prosperity than as a deterrent to not break the law.


I can see it as being pointless for bureaucratic reasons but not for deterrence ones.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Grand.

I am however, curious as to how such a scheme would act more as a deterrent to prosperity than as a deterrent to not break the law.


I can see it as being pointless for bureaucratic reasons but not for deterrence ones.

Point is slightly tenuous I'll grant you, but when there is a large group of people who make a career path on state handouts dole/single parent allowance/medical card/bin waiver etc,this is just another 'incentive' to keep the official income down and throw out the 47" plasma metaphorically speaking on the side of the road when you replace with a 52".

the_syco

Would this mean that the jobless scumbag gets fined €2 a go, where as the person on minimum wage gets fined €40? Don't think it'd work too well. Hell, it'd probably encourage the scumbags to ignore more rules, if that was possible.

FlutterinBantam

the_syco wrote: »

Would this mean that the jobless scumbag gets fined €2 a go, where as the person on minimum wage gets fined €40? Don't think it'd work too well. Hell, it'd probably encourage the scumbags to ignore more rules, if that was possible.

While I wouldn't put it quite so crudely, sir, you have actually articulated my point quite well..

Thank you

Fulton Crown

S-Murph wrote: »

What would people here think about criminal and civil fines being as a percentage of a persons income?

For example, it dosnt seem fair that someone with an income of €20,000 per year gets the same parking fine as someone on €150,000 per year.

A fourty euro parking fine is more of a deterrent to the lower income than the higher income person, but if it were as a fixed percentage of income, then it would be a more equitable deterrent.

So say the average wage is in or around 30,000 euro, and existing parking fines are around 60 euro, then a fixed percentage of say 0.20% could be used.

Not sure how it could be implemented in practice, but it would apply to all fixed fines and charges.

What do you think?

Absolute rubbish pal if you'll pardon my directness !

As another poster put it The Irish seem to be hardwired to try and beat the system.

they also seem to be hardwired to fcuk up any administration system ever invented so I would say this little idea would fail on above two grounds.

That's what I think anyways......

P. Breathnach

the_syco wrote: »

Would this mean that the jobless scumbag gets fined €2 a go, where as the person on minimum wage gets fined €40? Don't think it'd work too well. Hell, it'd probably encourage the scumbags to ignore more rules, if that was possible.

That argument is indicative more of an attitude to people dependent on social welfare than it is to any concept of justice or equity.

The only people I know who have chosen to ignore the law because the penalties did not deter them have been high-income earners, and the penalties they accepted pretty well as ordinary living expenses were parking fines.

thebman

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

While I wouldn't put it quite so crudely, sir, you have actually articulated my point quite well..

Thank you

The idea has merit IMO. If the fine is supposed to be a deterrent, you should fine the person who earns more, more.

You can argue that the administration will mean less profit from fines but then that isn't supposed to be the point of fines is it? I think if that happens all the better as it will stop people claiming this is tax revenue earning exercise when it shouldn't be that.

It will never happen though as the people who bring in these laws are the high earners and the funding for their political parties comes from high earners, some of them will have even done things that weren't entirely legal to get themselves to their position.

Its just not in the interests of the people who makes these decisions and other people will disagree on the grounds already outlined here so the idea would have little support IMO but is not a bad idea although it would depend on the exact implementation obviously of levels of increase etc... and does it work like the tax system with higher rate of fines or is it just a flat percentage etc...

seamus

nesf wrote: »

Only makes sense if people on higher incomes repeatedly clocking up fines because of their trivial % of income is actually a problem in this country.

Otherwise you've just added a whole new level of needless bureaucracy to the system and have increased the cost of levying a fine on someone for little actual gain.

+1

Are rich people actively flaunting the system and getting fined because they don't care about they money? I don't think so.

The other problem is determining actual income. So while Joe on an honest €50k per year gets fined €500 for a parking fine, Wacker from the arse end of Finglas declares that his income was €12k last year, all social welfare and gets fined €120, even though he actually made a further €20k in benefit fraud and €10k in nixers.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Point is slightly tenuous I'll grant you, but when there is a large group of people who make a career path on state handouts dole/single parent allowance/medical card/bin waiver etc,this is just another 'incentive' to keep the official income down and throw out the 47" plasma metaphorically speaking on the side of the road when you replace with a 52".

Point taken; it doesn't hurt the scroungers. However, this is not a thread about people milking welfare, it's about whether fine should be determined by income.

However, I really don't see how it discourages advancement. If you're facing a promotion you'd hardly be thinking "Better not take that or the next time I break the law, I'll be paying more cash" (if anything it would mainly discourage crooked people facing promotions)

Given that you say law breaking is widespread in Ireland, surely it would bring in extra revenue? (Devil's advocate)

Tipp Man

Why should a parking fine be determined by your income level??

If I am going to park illegally I know the fine is what 80 euro. Now if i am on welfare i know that i (only:)) have 200euro cash a week, therefore if i am willing to park illegally then i should willing accept the fine as 40% of my income, when i break the law i know the consequences

What you want is something like the tax system where the higher earners are paying a dis-proptionetly higher amount of money than lower incomes i.e about 5% of the population paying more than 50% of the tax take

Lockstep

If 5% of people are able to pay 50% of taxes, then clearly there is something wrong.

Time Magazine

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If 5% of people are able to pay 50% of taxes, then clearly there is something wrong.

Says who?

Usain Bolt wins all his races. Is there something wrong there?

There's a very strong onus on you to prove it. The "80:20 rule" is found everywhere from statistical physics to organisational management. Why do you automatically think that if 50% of the valuable activity of the world is done by the top 5% that there's "clearly something wrong"?

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

... What you want is something like the tax system where the higher earners are paying a dis-proptionetly higher amount of money than lower incomes i.e about 5% of the population paying more than 50% of the tax take

That's simply not true.

Lockstep

Time Magazine wrote: »

Says who?

Usain Bolt wins all his races. Is there something wrong there?

There's a very strong onus on you to prove it. The "80:20 rule" is found everywhere from statistical physics to organisational management. Why do you automatically think that if 50% of the valuable activity of the world is done by the top 5% that there's "clearly something wrong"?

Did you read the post above mine? I was referring to that.

If wealth in Ireland is so concentrated that half of the wealth is in the hands of 1/20th of the population (as Tippman claimed), then clearly there is a heavy concentration of wealth into such few hands.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's simply not true.

this is from 2006 but you get the gist

"The top 2.5 per cent of taxpayers – just over 40,000 people who earn more than €100,000 a year – contribute 30 per cent of the entire income tax take. And the top 1 per cent of income earners account for one fifth of all income tax.

Thus, while a small number of very high earners have been able to dramatically reduce – or even eliminate entirely – their tax liability through the use of tax incentive schemes, the vast amount of income tax is paid by the wealthy and the well-paid. "
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14017.asp

But you are an intelligent well informed poster so I am fairly certain that you know this already so i'm looking forward to the angle you are trying to work here

Tipp Man

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Did you read the post above mine? I was referring to that.

If wealth in Ireland is so concentrated that half of the wealth is in the hands of 1/20th of the population (as Tippman claimed), then clearly there is a heavy concentration of wealth into such few hands.

I never once in this thread even mentioned the word wealth, I claimed that 5% are paying 50% of the income tax, major difference to what you are saying

anyway this is all off topic

Lockstep

Tipp Man wrote: »

I never once in this thread even mentioned the word wealth, I claimed that 5% are paying 50% of the income tax, major difference to what you are saying

anyway this is all off topic

Very well; I'll rephrase it. If 50% of taxable income in this country is in the hands of 5% of the population (unless there is tax fraud on a colossal scale) and so on.

Tipp Man

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Very well; I'll rephrase it. 50% of taxable income in this country is in the hands of 5% of the population (unless there is tax fraud on a colossal scale)

No the problem is not enough people are actually paying tax and too many are at the lower rate. that was the good thing about the income levy, it got more people paying tax.

For example somebody on 30k pays 5k in deductions (tax Levy PRSI) or 16.6% of their salary, somebody on double the income, so 60k, pays 19k in deductions or 31.6%. So as income increases tax %age of income increases

On 100k 29k in deductions, so 1 person earning 10k pays as much deductions as 6 people on 30k

P. Breathnach

Tipp Man wrote: »

this is from 2006 but you get the gist

"The top 2.5 per cent of taxpayers – just over 40,000 people who earn more than €100,000 a year – contribute 30 per cent of the entire income tax take. And the top 1 per cent of income earners account for one fifth of all income tax.

Thus, while a small number of very high earners have been able to dramatically reduce – or even eliminate entirely – their tax liability through the use of tax incentive schemes, the vast amount of income tax is paid by the wealthy and the well-paid. "
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14017.asp

But you are an intelligent well informed poster so I am fairly certain that you know this already so i'm looking forward to the angle you are trying to work here

The "angle I am trying to work" is very simple: income tax is only one of a battery of taxes that we pay.

Lockstep

Tipp Man wrote: »

No the problem is not enough people are actually paying tax and too many are at the lower rate. that was the good thing about the income levy, it got more people paying tax.

For example somebody on 30k pays 5k in deductions (tax Levy PRSI) or 16.6% of their salary, somebody on double the income, so 60k, pays 19k in deductions or 31.6%. So as income increases tax %age of income increases

On 100k 29k in deductions, so 1 person earning 10k pays as much deductions as 6 people on 30k

Yes because those on higher incomes have higher disposable incomes; they can afford a higher tax burden.
One of the idea of progressive taxation is to ensure that a minimum standard of living is maintained.

Someone on 60k has the same basic needs as someone on 15k and will still have more money once these needs are met. That is why they are taxed proportionaly more.

By the way; everyone in Ireland pays tax (even kids pay sales tax), however, I would agree that everyone needs to pay some form of contribution to income tax (social solidarity and so on)

nesf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Very well; I'll rephrase it. 50% of taxable income in this country is in the hands of 5% of the population (unless there is tax fraud on a colossal scale)

Source?

S-Murph

It would be interesting to know how prevalent it is for those on higher incomes to 'risk' getting a parking fine. Say, a survey of how many parking fines are issued as a proportion of social class.

Fixed parking fines obviously must be more of a deterrent to low income people.

Would this mean that the jobless scumbag gets fined €2 a go, where as the person on minimum wage gets fined €40? Don't think it'd work too well. Hell, it'd probably encourage the scumbags to ignore more rules, if that was possible.

You are saying here that a person on social welfare would be getting a "€2" fine. But that just proves my point - high income earners are getting a fine equivilent to that at present. €60 is nothing to them. I think this show's your bias against social welfare recipients more than anythng else. A double standard.

If a social welfare recipient would not be deterred by a €2 fine, why would a rich person be deterred by a €60 fine. Yet the latter is in place.

Besides, a "minimum" fine could issued to prevent such a situation.

If its in place in Finland, I see no reason why it couldnt be put in place here. It would probably even increase the overall revenue gained from fines.

Lockstep

nesf wrote: »

Source?

Once again; I was quoting Tippman's claim.

nesf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Once again; I was quoting Tippman's claim.

You're interpreting it arseways. The tax take doesn't include all that income (and it's a lot) that's earned underneath the tax band and that is covered by tax credits. Taxable income is far more evenly spread than the tax burden is.

seamus

S-Murph wrote: »

It would be interesting to know how prevalent it is for those on higher incomes to 'risk' getting a parking fine. Say, a survey of how many parking fines are issued as a proportion of social class.

Fixed parking fines obviously must be more of a deterrent to low income people.

I don't know if the figures would back the assertion up though. There's a whole lot more at play than how much a fine is worth to someone's bottom line.

Crime as a whole is more prevalent at lower wage brackets. This is mainly due to educational and socio-economic factors. It's fair to say that the majority of people driving around long-term without tax and insurance (for example) are people in lower wage brackets. But both of these offences will result in a fine. So if that money meant more to those on a lower wage, then lower wage brackets would have less incidence, right?

But wage brackets have nothing to do with these offences. It's about honesty -v- dishonesty. The more honest a person, the less likely they are to get a parking fine. And the opposite is also true. And on paper, those who are more honest, "officially" earn more than those who don't.

Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that people lower wages are less honest than those on higher wages. It's about general trends, and the lower wage brackets have higher incidence of crime and of people who just generally don't give a ****.

Lockstep

nesf wrote: »

You're interpreting it arseways. The tax take doesn't include all that income (and it's a lot) that's earned underneath the tax band and that is covered by tax credits. Taxable income is far more evenly spread than the tax burden is.

How evenly is taxable income spread so?
Remember that sales tax accounts for more of the exchequer revenue anyway.

nesf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How evenly is taxable income spread so?
Remember that sales tax accounts for more of the exchequer revenue anyway.

Gini co-efficient* of 0.30 in 2008 down from a high of 0.34 in 1997 lower numbers are better with Gini, so income inequality lessened over the latter stages of the Celtic Tiger. (data)

We've got the same score as Germany, are equal to the Euroarea average and better than the EU-27 average.

The US is much worse at 0.45 (which is far higher than pretty much every other developed nation) and the likes of Haiti are up in the 0.59s and so on. The best country is Slovenia at 0.23, followed by Sweden at 0.24.

There's a map of countries coloured by Gini co-efficient here though the data for Ireland and much of the EU is out of date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png


*The Gini coefficient is a very simple measure of income inequality. 1 is extreme inequality (i.e. one person has all the wealth) and 0 is perfect equality where everyone has the exactly the same amount of wealth). Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

It's not perfect and has its flaws but it's the easiest way to judge income distributions versus other countries and shows up the US for exactly how miserable that system is (i.e. developed nation GDP per capita but developing country income distribution).

Overheal

I think the only time I heard about a rich guy flaunting the system it was an Urban Myth about a guy on the M50 with a ferrari and nightvision at 3AM during a blackout. Correction: Urban Legend. Because that would be awesome.

I know under US Law at least, this idea was ironed out Centuries ago, and is currently enshrined in the Eight Ammendment:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Under the same reasoning though you can walk out of traffic court with a lighter fine/fine-with-Terms if you can demonstrate to the court that you can not reasonably pay. A Third of my month's take home earnings, was certainly excessive. Add to that the inevitable insurance rate hike.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... Crime as a whole is more prevalent at lower wage brackets.

Agreed.

This is mainly due to educational and socio-economic factors.

Also agreed. One of the socio-economic factors is that people in the lower wage brackets are short of money.

It's fair to say that the majority of people driving around long-term without tax and insurance (for example) are people in lower wage brackets. But both of these offences will result in a fine. So if that money meant more to those on a lower wage, then lower wage brackets would have less incidence, right?

Your case starts to crumble here. One of the reasons why they might not insure or tax their cars is that they don't have the money in the first place. [I am not excusing those who do not tax or insure their cars, because I believe that they are wrong; I am simply trying to recognise their motives.]

But wage brackets have nothing to do with these offences. It's about honesty -v- dishonesty. The more honest a person, the less likely they are to get a parking fine. And the opposite is also true.

I'm not sure many people treat parking as an honesty issue; it's more a matter of compliance with law and regulation and of consideration for others.

And on paper, those who are more honest, "officially" earn more than those who don't.

That's too broad a generalisation to be useful.

Just to be clear here: I'm not saying that people lower wages are less honest than those on higher wages. It's about general trends, and the lower wage brackets have higher incidence of crime and of people who just generally don't give a ****.

Justice is an individual thing. You should not be treated more harshly because your neighbours or your social peers include a higher percentage of dishonest people than average.

bmaxi

I spent a lot of years travelling the roads of this country and it is my experience that motorists driving high end vehicles are more likely to flaunt the RTA. IMO this is an attitude problem, whether it can be solved by imposing higher fines is moot.
Proper enforcement of the law and wider and more severe imposition of penalty points for repeat offenders might be a better option If they're not on the road they can't break the law.

hugoline

bmaxi wrote: »

Proper enforcement of the law and wider and more severe imposition of penalty points for repeat offenders might be a better option.

+1

IIRC in case of Switzerland, there are additional measures, like the automatic deduction of any fines (or debts once it's gone trough court) from your pay-slip. This also applies to social welfare payments and minimum wage (just imagine the uproar this would cause in Ireland)

Overheal

Im not sure if its as big an issue as is being made out though: you're still discussing this within the confines of the Points System. Even if said billionaire [We all know its you, Bono] decides to shirk the law because he can afford the going rate for a speeding ticket, he's only going to be able to do this a few times before he lands himself in jail.