Should The Fines and Penalties Be Income Tested in Australia?

Ace26 on 22/01/2016 - 23:40
Last edited 29/01/2016 - 14:26

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a Roll Royce was parked near Opera House in Sydney in a No Stopping area.

I parked in commercial paid parking near by to attend a social event at the Opera bar and was walking back to my car nearly two hours later and saw that car was still there. (Not sure if it was moved and was returned to the same spot, but looking at the way it was parked I don't believe that was the case)

When I first saw the car I thought driver must have been in a hurry (not that it was an acceptable reason to do this), then when I saw the car in the same place nearly two hours later, I thought the owner of the car doesn't care about the fine. More over there was plenty of available parking where I parked my car and also at the Opera House car park. It was so obvious that the owner of this car didn't care about money and has no respect for the rules.

So, I remember reading an article on a news website a while back where a driver copped a massive fine driving well over speed limit in a foreign country (can't remember which one) where fines are income tested.

I know this scenario doesn't exactly fit as above (as that was speeding related fine) but thought what our fellow ozbagainer's think of income testing fines.

Edit 1: All scenarios will have a min fine (so people who don't earn money e.g. some students, get to break the law for free)

PS: Yes, there is another argument about many people dodging tax including major corporations. Let's talk about that in an another thread.

Edit 2: 29/01/2016 I think this thread has served its purpose in getting opinion of fellow Ozbargainers.

At the time of writing 105 people are against the idea to 292 who are in favour of charging more to those who earn more. Though I acknowledge that enforcing this idea might be hard but I strongly believe that law doesn't affect everyone the same, in the end law makers need to consider what it is that they are trying to achieve when they write the law. Is it the behavioural change or is it just a money grab. May be it should be a balancing act which is not quite balanced.

Thanks for all the opinions to date.

Poll Options

  • 95
    Yes - all types of fine
  • 1
    Yes - only the traffic related (including parking)
  • 203
    Yes - only for repeat offenders
  • 16
    No - because they already pay more tax
  • 74
    No - It's not their fault they earn more
  • 15
    No - because any other reason
Financial

Comments

  • sparkles on 22/01/2016 - 23:55
    +8

    By this reasoning very low income earners could break the law and not really pay any price.

    Probably in this case, the car should be towed.

    Recently saw the Sherriff had wheel clamped a new luxe Jaguar in the shopping centre. It was quite the attraction, everyone was stopping for a look at the huge stickers they put all over the windows. They are there all the time now, it must be a goldmine for them.

    • gringo on 23/01/2016 - 02:08
      +24

      As joe hockey says.. Low income earners don't drive.

      Seriously though.. You lose any money at that level and you are in desperate trouble.

      • paloverde88 on 24/01/2016 - 09:51
        +2

        Joe Hockey also paid for his family home in Canberra using tax payers money pretending he was renting when the whole time it was his family home that tax payers are paying rent to.

        • whooah1979 on 24/01/2016 - 10:10

          this isn't illegal as far the ato is concerned. many savoy taxpayers do same. that includes ozb member.

        • rump parliament on 24/01/2016 - 10:23

          @whooah1979: How exactly would us plebian Ozbargainers do the same? Just out of curiosity.

        • macrocephalic on 25/01/2016 - 10:24
          +1

          @whooah1979: The difference is that most people don't get paid to have a second home, and if they do, that money isn't coming from federal taxes.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2016 - 13:50

          @rump parliament:
          It's easy! The master himself gave a tip:
          "If you've got a good job and it pays good money and you have security in relation to that job, then you can go to the bank and you can borrow money and that's readily affordable."

        • qazwsx on 26/01/2016 - 00:22

          @macrocephalic:
          That's a bit of a cheap shot. Not many people have jobs requiring them to be in multiple locations, and if they do most of them get paid additional money to be in that 2nd location.
          As for federal taxes paying for his housing allowance, that's kind of how the system works when you're an MP, public servant or other federal employee. Not sure where else you expect the money to come from.
          Oh and if you're taking aim at the idea that he rents off his wife, it was done by other politicians of both sides (see messers Rudd and Turnbull). To me, they rent from a 3rd party or they rent from their wives, I don't care, it doesn't cost the public extra.

        • dlovep on 27/01/2016 - 10:07
          +1

          @qazwsx: weird, I read "rent his wife off"… that might make more money~~

        • m0b1liz3 on 27/01/2016 - 11:16
          +1

          @qazwsx:

          I have a friend that is a doctor and he was saying that during training they often get sent to different hospitals. They can not write off the expense of travel from their house to that new location. If they get sent to a remote location and a car is provided there are fringe benefit taxes that make it a huge hassle. They have banned company sponsored trips and dinners. They have even tried to ban drug companies from giving away pens!

          Contrast this to working as a politician where all your travel, meals, accommodation etc is covered by tax money and there are often no apparent limits on what you can spend. Private company sponsored events are common. Bribery is accepted in the form of contributions to election campaigns. Since you are involved in the making of laws, you can say this is all legal. In fact you can randomly give yourself a 30% raise in salary as long as your fellow politicians agree. You can also be spectacularly incompetent and still keep your job and end up with a ridiculous pension at the end of it. And yes, this is all paid for by taxes.

    • Diji1 on 23/01/2016 - 09:01

      Yes that's the point: very low income people would receive very small fines.

    • terrys on 23/01/2016 - 10:04
      +5

      Something similar came up decades ago in alt.folklore.urban, where someone queried why Rollers never seemed to get towed in London, and the accepted [Tb] answer was that they had yale locks, so the tow company couldn't get in to release the handbrake/park setting and it was unsafe to tow rear-up due to the steering lock.
      The other side was then illustrated by a story from NY, where a Roller had been parked in front of a hydrant, and the fireys had broken both rear windows, run the hose through the back, and put a join right in the middle of the rear seat - it made for one expensive indoor pool they weren't going to be paying for…

    • nomoneynoproblems on 23/01/2016 - 11:15
      +2

      That's relative though. To the rich, a poor person copping a fine isn't seen as much, but on a low income it can sting you as you need everything your can get….the beauty of the concept.

    • cosycatus on 23/01/2016 - 11:34
      +4

      Yes, the whole idea of a fine is a punishment, to make the person think twice next time about doing it.
      The fine should be tied to assets or income whichever is higher. Eg 1% of assets. If he owns $100 million , what's a $40 dollar fine to him? $1 million in cash is however quite painful. If a low income person is renting, owns a 5K car, earns 20K a year, he can be fined 1% based on his 5K car or 20K annual, which is $50 or $200. Quite painful still.

      • Serapis on 24/01/2016 - 00:43

        Creates a lot of problems doing it this way

        • a hell of a lot of trouble trying to prove 1% on income AND assets.

        • would deter people away from doing taxes or reporting correct income

        Plus what do you do with a rich family's jobless + assetless uni kid who blatantly breaks the law? He just walks free.

        Also what if i just sign a stat dec and pay off a low income person to be the scapegoat? People do this already and penalties based on income will fuel this practice more.

        • FW190 on 25/01/2016 - 08:37

          Plus what do you do with a rich family's jobless + assetless uni kid who blatantly breaks the law? He just walks free.

          maybe we can peg it to the value of the car?

          a rich person with a clever accountant might be able to get away with pay $50 in tax, but they could certainly rather be dead then to be seen in a $500 car.

          a parking fine at 5% of a Rolls Royce's vaule should hurt :)

        • Serapis on 25/01/2016 - 13:00

          @FW190:

          Well if it's owned by the parents then technically not his car and you can't peg the value of that to penalise the driver…

          If you did then people with hire cars / borrowing friend's car / driving work vehicle can be penalised based on what they're driving, which would put the system out of wack.

          But without this, parents can just sign a stat dec saying their son was the driver and pay minimal fines over it.

          Many loopholes to exploit =D

      • Musing Outloud on 25/01/2016 - 17:06
        +1

        That would never work Mr cosycatus.

        A simple example is Kerry Packer who famously told the nation's politicians "if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read" because "as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra".

        He was legally paying PAYG income tax of only about $50k at the time because as he was rather asset rich, he had neatly structured his tax affairs to "legally minimize", but not "avoid" tax.

        But there are two types of rich that everyone confuses. The first are the income rich. These are the management captain's of industry, finance and service businesses, who are paid multi-$million salaries. A fine of 1% of a $2m p.a. salary is only $20k, but these captains won't be your Roller owners.

        The other type are the asset rich who are the asset owning captains of industry who use trusts and other legal structuring to protect their assets and decide how much to pay themselves each year. They may have $20m, $50m or even $500m of assets under their control, but don't technically own them - independent legal entities own them. Their Rollers would be owned by a trust somewhere. These people are like the Kerry Packers where an income based tax fine of 1% on a token trust PAYG income of say a Packer-CPI adjusted $200k would be only $2000.

        I'd argue that the cost to enforce payment would exceed the fine revenue. Beside 1 million parking fines on all of us at $50, would raise $50m revenue compared to 100 rich people fined $2000 raising only $200,000 of revenue.

        Oh, and just because the Rollers was observed there beforehand, and observed there again 2 hours later does not automatically mean it was there for the full 2 hours. It could well have been driven away in the interim and was back for the pick-up.

        So the lesson here for me is to ask a better Ozbargainer community question "how do you go about legally minimising your tax"?

        • cosycatus on 25/01/2016 - 18:20
          +1

          Thing is, u guys can come up with all sorts of reason why it wouldn't work and i can also come up with ways to circumvent them.
          You dont create policies by first thinking about why it doesnt work first.
          You create policies based on the best possible solution to a problem and then iron out the small details. It's not gonna be perfect, no policy is, but it will improve things. And the spirit of the policy i am proposing is to essentially create a fine system that actually hurt the person who commits the crime and makes him think twice about doing it again.

          Trust fund issues? Have a law that the fine will extend to all assets associated with the person, including hunting down your secret bank account in the caymen island and opening your books to accountants. That thought alone will make them think twice about illegal parking, never mind the actual cost. And it's gonna be worth it. 500 million trust fund guy at 1% is 5 million. Tat can pay for a lot of man hours.

        • troy1976 on 26/01/2016 - 13:47

          @cosycatus:

          If it was that plausible to 'hunt down' their assets we would already be doing it now to get them to pay the untold billions in tax being evaded now. That's the issue - even the ATO struggles to capture the asset position of these guys. Income or asset linked fines won't really make much difference to the problems in enforcing current tax laws which hit the same barriers.

        • cosycatus on 26/01/2016 - 19:24

          @troy1976:

          There is a difference between income and asests. when u run a business, u can create a trust to hold profits so that your income is little. But if u are linked to that trust, it is your assets and u will be fined based on that amount.

        • whooah1979 on 26/01/2016 - 20:04

          @cosycatus:

          there could ten or fifty beneficiaries to a trust. the registered owner of the vehicle could receive as little as 0.01% income from trust or enough for tuition or nothing at all. the owner can also legally nominate the driver. a driver that has no assets and no taxable income.

        • drfuzzy on 26/01/2016 - 21:48

          @Musing Outloud

          You make more sense than most posts in this thread.

          Cost of enforcement would be greater than revenue generated. Same goes with applying a GST to very low value (eg. <$20) goods bought online from overseas.

    • kywst on 23/01/2016 - 22:02
      +4

      By this reasoning very low income earners could break the law and not really pay any price.

      Under the current paradigm the super rich can break the law and not really pay any price.

    • Serapis on 24/01/2016 - 00:33

      They do get towed from time to time, went to pancakes at the rocks recently and saw a car being towed off from a parking spot…

    • shamid202 on 24/01/2016 - 11:03
      +2

      do you really think Australian Government is that kind to reduce the fine for poors?

      What they will do is keep the current fines as minimum and and if you are working within the range of 30-40K annum they would increase the fine by 20-30% for you.

    • Pacify on 25/01/2016 - 01:21

      … thats not how it works. There is still a base amount any fine is worth.

    • Davros on 25/01/2016 - 09:02

      "By this reasoning very low income earners could break the law and not really pay any price."
      Leave current fines as the base up to average wage.
      As the average wage doubles so do the fines.
      eg: $0 to $50k/year = $100 fine. $50k to $100k/year = $200 fine, $100k to $150k/year $300 fine etc etc.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2016 - 11:56

      Laws are meant for low income earners

    • snook on 25/01/2016 - 15:46

      As there is a minimum wage, there should also be minimum fines. Everyone should have to pay, no one should be able to do it and get away for free.

  • altomic on 23/01/2016 - 00:47
    +11

    In Finland the fine amount is determined by income source

  • OzzyB on 23/01/2016 - 01:04

    The question then becomes - how do you determine income?

    There are lots of ways - get paid in shares, or even cash, for example.

    • watwatwat on 23/01/2016 - 15:45
      +4

      If only we had some kind of system that calculated people's annual income to determine how much tax they have to pay.

      • ronnknee on 23/01/2016 - 21:39
        +1

        Yea, if only this information can be shared with the government and can be done online at your convenience. I know, let's call it e-Tax!

        • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2016 - 06:49
          -2

          Etax is dead want available in 2015

          My.gov.au has replaced it

  • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 02:10
    +8

    No.

    Laws apply to everybody equally.

    You do the crime, you do the time.

    • shadowarrior on 23/01/2016 - 03:11
      +3

      So going to jail me for doing 61 on 60 zone ? Or for stretching my leg on a long motorbike trip?

      • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 03:45

        By 'doing the time' I don't necessarily mean a custodial sentence, what I do mean is that people should be penalised somehow for breaking the law, and those breaking the law should be penalised either by time (as in a custodial sentence) or by means of an infringement (which, if you are gainfully employed, would translate to time).

        The form of that penalty would obviously depend on the crime committed, but the fact that (at least Victoria's) prisons are comprehensively full would indicate that a custodial sentence is not necessarily the most appropriate method of punishment. Having said that though, I do feel that fines are somewhat lenient and that if (in the case of traffic offences, for instance) police are so serious about civilian safety that they'd dramatically increase the fines.

        For example, driving between 1-10km/h over the signposted limit would attract a fine of around $200 in the nanny state of Victoria. If the police are serious about road safety as opposed to treating petty offences as a revenue source, they would increase that fine to $1,000 and I guarantee that no sane motorist would take that risk.

        So, by asking if any reform is possible to fines and penalties, it must be determined whether law enforcement agencies are in it for the money or not.

        If they are, by all means lower the fines and penalties. In this instance, if the lowest speeding fine was cut from $200 to $50, a massive cohort of drivers would be able to repetitively afford that, hence not proving to be much of a deterrent.

        If they're not in it for the cash, they should heavily steep the fines to the point that a violation of law actually impacts wallets, as opposed to a "Oh, I'll pay it this time" approach. I would stay at least 5km/h under the limit if the lowest speeding fine was $1,000, whereas now I'd be driving closer to the limit without exceeding it of course.

        Your first link is quite possibly the most try-hard piece of journalism I've seen. You will never get fined for doing 1km/h over the limit. In most jurisdictions under a 100km/h limit, a tolerance of 3km/h for mobile cameras and 2km/h for fixed cameras applies.

        So, that driver must've been doing at least 64km/h for him to have been fined, and it is most definitely a legitimate fine if the police followed him for some time and if the police had to exceed the speed limit themselves in order to keep up. More or less a similar situation would arise if a police car was doing 60 and you speed past them - clearly you're doing more than 60 yourself! And shame on the police for bowing to negative publicity. People like that idiot are the ones that run up your backside and try dangerous manoeuvres to get in front of you when you're responsibly sticking to the limit.

        The second link is also a valid fine. If the law states that you need to have both feet on the bike at all times, that's the law you need to follow. It follows the same path as mobile phone users in cars. If you really need to talk/text/snapchat/stretch your legs, pull over.

        The notion of a victimless crime only serves to undermine the Justice system, whereby people who willingly or unwillingly do the wrong thing are of the strange opinion that they should be entitled to a lesser penalty just because their actions did not have any immediate ramifications.

        If you've broken the law you shouldn't be entitled to anything apart from the option of taking your case to a court. No writing letters of appeal, no more crying on A Current Affair, and no more unsubstantiated journalism to lessen someone's wrongdoings just so a graduate columnist somewhere can get their two cents in the paper.

        Simple.

        • Donaldhump on 23/01/2016 - 05:52
          +1

          in qld, police cant tail someone for more than 5km without a reason, and then pull them up for an infringement, simply because it causes anxiety… could be in other states too.

        • makeyouryear on 24/01/2016 - 11:32

          @unclesnake: I find this very interesting, can you point me in the direction of more information? My feeble googlimg skills don't cut the mustard.

    • Diji1 on 23/01/2016 - 09:02
      +20

      Laws apply to everybody equally.

      Your delusional - laws effect the rich very differently to the poor.

      • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 09:38
        +10

        Laws might affect different people in different ways, sure, but laws apply to everyone equally regardless of the effect it brings

        • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2016 - 00:35
          +2

          But income doesn't, so why should fine values?

      • Stphen on 23/01/2016 - 15:21
        +4

        Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research:

        PEOPLE convicted of high-range drink-driving in Sydney’s blue riband suburbs are escaping jail, while those in the Western Suburbs and rural areas are being locked up in larger numbers.

        New figures from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show a drink-driving divide, with people living in low socio-economic areas up to 50 per cent more likely to go to jail for high-range drink-driving ­offences than those in affluent areas such as North Sydney, Waverley and Burwood.

        Of the 124 people convicted of high-range drink-driving in North Sydney last year — the highest number in any area — none received jail time, while the 97 people convicted of the same offence in Burwood also escaped prison.
        http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/driving-under-the-…

        Being rich is now being used as an excuse to not go to jail in USA:

        Dallas: Authorities are investigating whether a teenager who killed four people in a 2013 drink-driving crash – and claimed as part of his defence that he suffered from "affluenza" – has fled with his mother to avoid a potential violation of his probation.

        During Ethan Couch's trial, his defence attorneys argued that he suffered from affluenza because of his family's wealth and was unable to comprehend the consequences of his actions due to his dysfunctional relationship with his parents.

        http://www.smh.com.au/world/too-rich-for-jail-sentence-afflu…

        • Serapis on 24/01/2016 - 00:48

          This just has more to do with the fact that rich people have access to better lawyers.

          They can take matters all the way to the Supreme Court and a prosecutor using public funds will have neither the time, money nor skill to fight the case so it will almost always end up in a bargaining deal. Unless the govt decides to use that person as an example.

          Likewise, if O.J Simpson hadn't been able to afford his high profile lawyers, he would've been convicted of murder. Instead he got out of that and only lost the civil case and only paid compensation for murder. Yes, you can pay your way out of murder if your lawyers are that good.

        • RefusdClassification on 25/01/2016 - 05:01
          -1

          Affluenza. What a joke, that societies absolve somebody of responsibility because they have a fictictious condition like affluenza, ADHD, chronic fatigue syndrome, sociopathic personality and so on. Nowdays everyone plays the victim card.

          The legal system, and society in general, exists to oppress the poor and exonerate the rich. 'Virtue = wealth' is the maxim of the middle class.

    • kywst on 23/01/2016 - 22:00
      +1

      Sure thing KaptnKaos but OP is saying the penalties should differ, not the determination that one broke the law (actus reus) or planned to break the law (mens rea). Surely you can see that a $1000 fine would impact a single mother on a pension more than a couple of millionaire dinks.

    • geoffellis on 24/01/2016 - 18:10

      So if you got a 5$ fine for speeding 15kph above the limit. Would you care about the speed limit? Would you be at all concerned about getting caught? What if you got fined 2$ for parking in a no -stopping zone. Would you risk it? worst case scenario you toss the government a few dollars here and there when you get caught.

      Now think of a person who makes 500$… 1000$… more… an hour (for example). is a 65$ parking fine really going to bother him if it's more convenient? How about a 300$ speeding fine? For me thats like half a weeks pay. I can't afford it. So it will prevent me from intentionally going 15kph above. 300$ though might be 30 minutes of work for someone rich.

      the laws may apply to everyone equally, but so should the consequences - ie "the time". Because if I only needed to work 30 minutes to pay off a fine for speeding, I probably wouldn't care too much about the limit. it simply wouldn't be a realistic deterrent.

      • Meconium on 25/01/2016 - 03:19
        +6

        The dollar sign goes before the numbers, not after!
        $500 yes
        500$ no

        • geoffellis on 25/01/2016 - 11:21
          -7

          bite me. i'll do what I (profanity) want.

    • James1976 on 25/01/2016 - 09:39
      -3

      Voted down due to your insistence on using Bold type, like your opinion is more important that other people's

      • HuntsmanII on 26/01/2016 - 16:07
        +1

        I know right, the prick does it to make his statement of opinion appear as if its factual. What a (profanity).

  • Donaldhump on 23/01/2016 - 03:32
    -4

    why should a rich persson pay more? fine is a fine regardless of weakth or poverty

  • RobMel on 23/01/2016 - 06:42

    How often do you want to punish people for studying and working hard? When will you stop rewarding people for doing the opposite?
    I pay tax,progressively, medicate levy, progressively , full price on electricity gas public transport rates etc. I studied hard at my own cost. Worked hard my whole life . I am starting to look to migrate to a country where I am appreciated. Not only as a cow to milk.

    • Diji1 on 23/01/2016 - 09:03
      +14

      It's not punishing people for working hard. It's very clear: you are punished for lawbreaking behaviour.

    • Pumpkin_rrr on 23/01/2016 - 09:51
      +1

      I totally agree Rob. Are we turning into a socialist society? Doing another Robin Hood and people just play the "I-am-poor-oh-poor-me" card. So sick of this everywhere. No I do have compassion,I do give when I can, and I dont waste stuff. Why should the rich"er" always finance the poor"er". There is no incentive for these poor'er' people to work harder…..

      My father-in-law works hard all his life, very frugal, paid for everything himself, never got any Centrelink payments or pension uptil the day he passed away. Someone else without mentioning names just enjoying his life no savings and the country supports him….

      • hellno on 23/01/2016 - 17:38
        +6

        I think the idea is more about making sure laws are followed. A $100 fine has no impact on a rich person. Just like professional atheletes being fined $10k+ for a comment/action. If they were being slapped with $100 fines they'd never stop.

      • Serapis on 24/01/2016 - 01:09

        Your father in law just sounds ascetic, but how he lives is not my business.

        What you should have in life balance, you take what you are entitled to but no more.

        If you can access pension / centrelink / health care assistance, why not? Would only make sense since your tax is contributing to them. Just don't abuse the system on purpose and it's all good.

      • outlander on 24/01/2016 - 08:26
        +1

        if your not breaking the law, this doesn't affect you, so why would you be worried?

    • James1976 on 25/01/2016 - 08:49
      +3

      Congratulations on your success, however you have missed the point of this post. Fines for traffic offences are meant to be a deterrent to the behaviour. I am on a low income and received a $180 speed fine a couple of years back for 6 km over in 100 zone. Hit me quite hard at the time and therefore I have been very careful not to get another. If I was on a higher income, it would not have changed my behaviour at all (obviously until I got more demerit points)

      Therefore this idea (which is just a suggestion on a forum by the way, and has next to no chance of ever happening in this country) is not punishing people for being successful, but trying to make sure that the punishment for breaking road rules is commensurate with a person's ability to pay, so that the effect of the fine is more equitable no matter your income.

      Also, the last 2 sentences are a joke, right? If not, I would suggest moving to the US. You'd fit right in.

    • Daabido on 25/01/2016 - 13:42
      +1

      Congratulations on studying and working hard. Why hasn't everyone else who earns less than you thought of that? And why haven't you studied and worked even harder to catch up with those who earn more than you? Specious reasoning on display; $100 fine.

  • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 07:32
    -6

    I don't think we should be fined for speeding 1-10kmhr over the limit. Who hasn't accidently done that… EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES.

    it's just a cash grab… And I remember being a student and having to pay ~$200.. That's a huge chunk of cash for someone who really can't afford it.

    I believe traffic fines should be means tested… EG. For a $200 find, possibly between the value of $100-300. So it's not ridiculously cheap, nor ridiculously expensive for anyone.

    • IceCreamBandit on 23/01/2016 - 07:48
      +2

      I don't think we should be fined for speeding 1-10kmhr over the limit. Who hasn't accidently done that… EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES.

      You're in control of your vehicle, all vehicles have a clear speedo. Sure accidents happen (going downhill/forgetting the limit), but allowing what you suggest would allow everyone to go 1-10km/h over constantly and claim it as an accident. And once your suggestion comes in, people will complain when they go 11-20km/h and say it's an accident.

      it's just a cash grab… And I remember being a student and having to pay ~$200.. That's a huge chunk of cash for someone who really can't afford it.

      Only a cash grab if people commit the crime…if everyone follows the rules, the government get nothing.

      If you get caught speeding and it was an accident, then you'd have a clean record and be able to get the fine waived.

      • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 09:07
        +1

        "all vehicles have a clear speedo".

        Actually most speedos are inaccurate AND subject to parrallax error.

        I don't believe in a free for all up to 10km over.. Perhaps an overall larger larger pool of points where effectively you get a warning per year etc. Just a thought off the cuff.

        "Only a cash grab if people commit the crime"

        My point is that 1km/hr shouldn't be considered a crime.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 09:42

          Actually most speedos are inaccurate

          Any non-Herald-Sun, non-The Age or non-news.com.au sources for that please?

        • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 10:52
          -2

          @KaptnKaos:

          I'm a mechanical engineer.

          Do your own research.

        • IceCreamBandit on 23/01/2016 - 13:32
          +2

          @Vampyr:

          I'm a mechanical engineer.

          Do your own research.

          And I'm someone who thinks logically. If you're going to profess expertise in something, at least back it up. Otherwise you might as well say you're Jesus.

          Actually most speedos are inaccurate AND subject to parrallax error.

          Nothing is 100% accurate. Car manufacturers surely wouldn't claim it and to prevent lawsuits and everyone sending them their speeding fines, they'd probably make sure their inaccuracies would only ever 'over-quote' your speed. And what's wrong with making sure you're under the limit?

          And you think your colleagues who design cars don't think of parallax error and make sure their speedos are accurate from different driving positions/heights?

          I don't believe in a free for all up to 10km over.. Perhaps an overall larger larger pool of points where effectively you get a warning per year etc.

          That's essentially a free for all then. Everyone you can speed up to 10km/h over the limit x number of times before we fine you!

          My point is that 1km/hr shouldn't be considered a crime.

          Don't hover the needle at the limit then, especially when driving through a known speed/safety camera spot. Just a thought off the cuff.

        • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 13:45
          -2

          @IceCreamBandit:

          I'd rather be a mechanical engineer than Jesus.

        • IceCreamBandit on 23/01/2016 - 13:47
          -1

          @Vampyr:

          Constructive response. All hail the almighty egotistical mechanical engineer.

        • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 14:03

          @IceCreamBandit:

          You didn't put forward anything worthy of rebuttal.

          I've put forward my point of view. I thought I was clear enough.

          If there is something for you want me to explain, please specify.

        • IceCreamBandit on 23/01/2016 - 14:48

          @Vampyr:

          Sure.

          1) By bringing up parallax error, are you suggesting you're the first mechanical engineer in the world to think that it could lead to incorrect reading of a speedometer? Or are you suggesting automotive manufacturers worldwide have either failed to accommodate for this or are just plain ignoring it? Also, would manufacturers not make sure that any inaccuracy in their speedometers be that they 'exaggerate' the actual speed so that law abiding drivers are always under the limit?

          2) What is wrong with staying below the limit, especially at known speed/safety camera spots?

          3) Were you actually suggesting people should be given a set number of warnings before being fined for speeding? Such a solution could lead to 'I've got two warnings before I get fined this year, might as well use it?'

          4) What was the point of suggesting you are a mechanical engineer if you weren't going to actually provide more information that would be useful or interesting to this discussion?

        • Vampyr on 23/01/2016 - 17:26

          @IceCreamBandit:
          Thanks Ice.

          1) I thought it was general knowledge that when looking at gauges / dials etc one had to look at them straight on. This isn't always possible, especially in cars. Nor is it always an issue.

          Most speedometers do underexagerate your speed. To compensate, most drivers exceed the speed limit according to their spedo.

          1. Agreed. I do. The problem is when you accidently speed, which I believe happens to most people every time they drive. Even if it's just a small amount. Al while driving in unknown areas, they might inadvertently drive through a speed camera.

          2. My example was 1 grace.. To go up to 10km over before receiving a fine. If it still took demerit points I don't think it's such a bad idea.

          3. Mr Kaos questioned something I believed to be general knowledge (that spedos are innacurate) and asked me to provide a source. I figured I'd save my time and let him look it up if he was so curious.

          Edit: not sure what's with the formatting..

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2016 - 10:24
          -1

          @Vampyr:

          What a nothing reply…

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2016 - 10:28

          @Vampyr:

          Most speedometers do underexagerate your speed.

          You mean overexaggerate…?

        • Vampyr on 25/01/2016 - 16:51

          @KaptnKaos:

          Yup, my bad.

      • bobbified on 24/01/2016 - 11:33

        Only a cash grab if people commit the crime…if everyone follows the rules, the government get nothing.

        Yeah.. I'm sure that's the case.. NOT!
        When there's a reduction of people who travel over their artificially-low speed limits, these so-called limits are reduced again for "safety" reasons to aim for the unrealistic "zero road toll".

        There's a problem with the law if so many people keep breaking it year after year, including the judges who are supposed to uphold these laws and the police who are meant to haul these "law breakers" before the earlier mentioned judges.

        How is it that the government can forecast and budget for an increasing amount of revenue each year from these fines and just leave it as such. If it's already expected that these laws will continue to be broken in large numbers and by people of from all walks of life, is it really an effective law? I highly doubt safety is a significant factor for the existence of these laws.

        • IceCreamBandit on 24/01/2016 - 11:46
          -1

          Yeah.. I'm sure that's the case.. NOT!

          If people don't do things that result in fines, the government don't get their money. Not sure how you can't comprehend that.

          There's a problem with the law if so many people keep breaking it year after year

          There's a problem with people who think they are above the law, especially if these are repeat offenders. Sure people make mistakes, but mistakes have consequences. Are you suggesting people don't get punished for doing the wrong thing? If you want to set the road rules and speed limits, you should try get a job in that field.

          If the government was only ever interested in money, would they offer law-abiding drivers the reward of a 50% discount on their renewals?

      • timthetoolman on 24/01/2016 - 17:57
        +1

        I'll take a driver going 5-10km over but paying attention every day over someone who is doing the speed limit to the km but not focusing on the road.
        I think people spend too much time worrying about the speed limit and not worrying about concentrating on their driving.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 09:40
      +1

      Simple groundbreaking solution that I read in the paper on Thursday, guaranteed to beat all speeding fines ever issued:

      Don't speed.

      • oztite on 23/01/2016 - 14:39
        +3

        Agree but not always easy. I drive on freeway to work everyday, and the poor honest drivers who stick by the speed limit often get tailgated by huge trucks that are banned from using the overtaking lane and therefore stuck behind these law-abiding citizens. Very dangerous stuff… sometimes these trucks are like < 1m behind the cars going at speed of 100… I am not sure if sticking by the speed limit strictly and blindly in that situation is actually the "safer" thing to do…

        • Vampyr on 24/01/2016 - 09:19

          They probably are going the speed limit according to their spedo, but under the actual speed limit.. This happens all the time.

  • whooah1979 on 23/01/2016 - 08:00
    +1

    income testing parking offences is silly. the cost of issuing parking infringement will cost more than the revenue collected.

  • Baysew on 23/01/2016 - 08:03
    +4

    A couple of weeks ago, I saw a Rolls Royce was parked near Opera House in Sydney in a No Stopping area

    I was starting to wonder where I left that one.

    • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 08:23
      +1

      Aha!

  • cDNA on 23/01/2016 - 08:50
    +2

    In the eastern suburbs, many people don't care about parking fines and park anywhere. They're happy to fork out the money and it's very rare that their care will get towed. I don't know many people who are willing to tow a ferrari.

    • Diji1 on 23/01/2016 - 09:04

      Why?

    • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 09:44
      +2

      many people don't care about parking fines and park anywhere. They're happy to fork out the money

      This is why fines need to be much, much higher than it presently is. A parking violation would be, say, $100. Chump change for some toffers.

      Make each violation $500 and increase enforcement, and you'll see people rushing out to their cars 10 minutes before their time is up…

      • Meconium on 25/01/2016 - 03:22

        This sort of logic is the problem with Australia these days… just charge 'em more for everything, then they'll stop doing it!

        They don't, it just makes this country a massive rip-off.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2016 - 03:55

          It's not a rip-off if you don't do it. And let's face it, as custodial sentences are not the blanket solution for all offences, there is no bigger deterrent than money.

          Here's an examples - cigarettes. Even though I don't smoke, people consider $25 way too much for a pack nowadays. It's not a rip-off for me, because I don't smoke. This is a free country, and if people wish to exercise their rights by doing something that is not a desired activity, well you should pay for that privilege.

          Smoke a cigarette? Pay up.
          Don't smoke? Pay nothing.

          Park too long? Pay up.
          Don't park too long? Pay nothing.

          Sure, one's legal and the other isn't. But the intention is same: there's no better deterrent than a financial deterrent.

        • Meconium on 25/01/2016 - 14:14

          @KaptnKaos: I agree that large fines are a large deterrent. But sometimes accidents happen - for example, staying in a space longer than you've paid in advance for it. So you get a fine. By your logic, fines should be bigger. I ask, why should they? If it's a person on a small income who has made a mistake, copping a large fine for parking is unfair, compared to the same situation for a person on an income that's average or above average.

          High taxes on tobacco for example are different, because while people choose to smoke, parking for too long as in the above example is a simple mistake. A lack of parking available inconveniences society in a small way, but tobacco smoking is a huge costly burden on the health system.

          If your solution to everything is bigger fines, then you're probably on an above average wage, and you aren't thinking about the less fortunate. A huge speeding or parking fine, for someone who had a lapse in judgement or were held up on the way back to the car (these are both accidents, I'm not talking about habitual speeders or people who never pay for parking) can be a real hit to people without much disposable income.

          What we've been discussing in this thread is scaled fines, so that people on bigger incomes get a bigger whack than people without much money. Maybe consider options such as these before blindly advocating bigger fines for everyone, no matter what the circumstances, whether it be for tobacco or traffic infringements.

  • chumlee on 23/01/2016 - 08:57
    +7

    A Rolls Royce owner will have a lower declared income than the average Australian

    • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 09:44
      -2

      But a higher actual income…

      • chumlee on 23/01/2016 - 10:40
        +3

        Yes but in this scenario you can only go buy their declared income so the fine will be small

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2016 - 11:12

          Can I buy their income?

          Sweet! For how much?

    • Serapis on 24/01/2016 - 01:11

      Salary was probably sacrificed to pay off the Rolls Royce

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join