what a joke .. Tevez

You can only go on the details available....it seems the point where it becomes 50/50 is at about £7500 in value.

About 33% would pay £60.

From there the next 17% would pay increasing amounts up to £85.

50% of drivers would pay over £85, increasing the further their car got from £7500 in value.

So 17 of the 67% would pay an additional £25.

And you think that somehow goes against my point? I think you'll find you're doing a good job of proving my point.

No

33% would pay £60
17% would pay £60-85
Half would pay upwards of £85

The limit was just a figure plucked out with minimal research. If the limit was 4k instead of 5k the system stays the same. 3k. Whatever works best after research.

I stand by the claim you generally drive what you can afford. There may be anomallys like yourself, but at present you'd only be paying £60 anyway so nothing different there.

Nobody will pay more than they can afford - if you can afford a car worth £20000 the fine will reflect that. More people would get fines that were relevant to their circumstances, therefore being a more fitting punishment. That is what it's supposed to be after all.

HRH King Ledley I (U15236)

I think you're missing my point.

I am not claiming that your proposal is unfair. I am claiming it is not worth implementing.

So 50% would pay a maximum of £25 difference. Virtually meaningless.

How much of the remaining 50% would pay anything particular different?

As I keep repeating; the proposal would only significantly change things for the super cars.

And to propose a new system, that requires all sorts of changes to laws and processes, just to target a small minority of people, is flawed, in my opinion.

Again, the figures are for refining. If something similar was introduced they wouldn't be arrived at by looking at Autotrader and refining them on an obscure football forum. Looking at it you'd probably go with a lower base figure, possibly as low as 1 or 2k in used value.

Is it the size of fines you have a problem with?

Or simply the principle of fining by value of car and not being uniform for all?

Or the work to set it up?

All three?

HRH King Ledley I (U15236)

It's not possible to refine them, because the difference between the bulk of cars value would be something like £15-20k, with the difference between the super cars a lot, lot more.

Whatever you do with your system you'll still have something that maintains the status quo for the majority, and only really affects the rich.

I have several issues with your proposal.

I think trying to apply law based on wealth is a difficult and dangerous road to go down.

I think you have a proposal that seeks to punish a small percentage of people differently because the current system is 'unfair' by changing the whole system.

I think the changes required to implement such a scheme far outweigh any likely benefit.

All sorts of things are based on a measure of wealth - your car tax, council tax, income tax to name a few. That's life - you earn a few bob more and you will invariably have to pay more for certain things.

There's no moral reason why the non-custodial/community service part of a punishment should be any different. What's far more morally dubious for me is expecting a cleaner to pay what could be half of their disposable monthly income on a punishment, while a lawyer has to pay what they charge for the time it takes to have your morning tomtit

The irony here is I'm a Tory-voting Londoner and you're probably a dyed-in-the-wool Red Mancunian

I avoid discussing my political allegiance, though I like to think I'm quite open to a range of views!

I think there is a moral question to answer. What you claim to be unfair is one view, but someone else might argue that when it comes to the law, punishment should be the same regardless of social status and wealth.

To be honest, I think that view lends itself to the view that having fines as part of the punishment is probably not the right thing.

I see he got away with paying a paltry (to him) 3k fine in lieu of CS