HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
"Glass's do valuatuons of cars.- they have the administration in place as it is their business. It takes minutes to do, and could probably be streamlined if you got them involved."
Implementing that will require new systems in place for the relevant departments, possibly new computer programs, new legislation.
Rightly or wrongly, you can't just call up someone in an office and tell them to add on this great new idea.
As I said, without meaning to sound abusive, I think you're a little naive to how central government works.
By the way, your new scheme proposes a £1,010 fine for someone driving a £100k car.
comment by Winston (U16525)
By the way, your new scheme proposes a £1,010 fine for someone driving a £100k car.
-------------------------------------------------------
For a 3-point penalty such as going 36mph in a 30mph zone....not a bigger offence such as Tevez comitted. There the minumum would be much higher, probably ten-fold. As such it would increase by £100 for every 1k of value.
A 100k car would therefore garner a £9560 fine for driving sans-insurance
I did say...
"For argument's sake let's say this is the fine for cars up to a CURRENT average value of 5k.
For every 1k your car is worth over this amount you pay an extra £10 - a 1% levy"
For argument's sake. Obviously if it was government policy I'd be concentrating onthe scale fully, and not doing a basic one on a football internet forum
Bigger offence like Tevez committed?
Scale of his offence isn't defined. He could be the safest driver around.. you never know.
36mph in a 30 zone could be construed as dangerous.
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
So anyone with a car valued at 10k or less would receive a fine between £600-£1,600.
How many people, as a percentage, do you think own cars that are valued at more than £10k?
Not a high amount, I'd wager.
As I said before, the scheme you are proposing will change nothing, apart from hitting a wealthy minority.
Implementing something that requires a complete change in how every fine is calculated, just to affect a small minority, cannot be described as a sensible thing to do.
Winston - the details can be refined. Hence "for argument's sake" with the figures.
I have no idea how many people drive cars over 10k...I imagine you don't either. The average price is £9206 for a used car according to an Autotrader survey though .
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 1... (U1860)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Bigger offence like Tevez committed?
Scale of his offence isn't defined. He could be the safest driver around.. you never know.
36mph in a 30 zone could be construed as dangerous.
--------------
He may be Mother Theresa behind the wheel, but he is driving without insurance and a valid licence which is a crime. Two in fact.
If you are nicked doing 36mph in a 30mph zone and also as dangerous driving you will be charged as such - not simpy as an SP30
Winston - That survey was 2011
You think it would be difficult to enforce, I don't. All the tools are in place already. There are much more complicated systems used on a bog-standard car insurance website
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
It doesn't matter what details you come up with.
All your system can possibly do is represent a much larger fine for the wealthy... it makes little difference to the majority of drivers.
So why change an entire scheme just to hit a minority? Surely there is a better way to target those drivers?
You are extremely naive to how central government works. The tools are not in place. It's not a case of using an Excel file and an online web site that values cars.
For a department process to change, it requires more than a nod and a wink from the department manager.
HRH
As I previously said, whether what you suggest is practical (or even right) does not matter. It would require a fundamental change in law.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
While this is generally held to mean race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, it also holds for income and wealth.
Maybe an exception for fines due to ability to pay should be made, but once you make one exception you are on a slippery slope.
Are you involved in central government then? It seems you have detailed knowledge of how every system works, so I assume that is the case. If this system is so difficult, i'm surprised they have any systems whatsoever.
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
It doesn't matter what details you come up with.
All your system can possibly do is represent a much larger fine for the wealthy... it makes little difference to the majority of drivers.
So why change an entire scheme just to hit a minority? Surely there is a better way to target those drivers?
-------------------------------------------
If the average price of a used car was over 9k 2yrs ago, an increase on any worth over something like 5k wouldn't just punish a small minority, but quite a substantial amount. With an increasing amount the further up the price range you go, it's quite a simple and elegant proposal which would be much better than the current system.
£60 to a fair amount of people is a deterrent. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that most of these people will drive lower-valued cars. On the flipside, if you did a straw poll of people to who £60 is an amount they will spend flippantly, i'd hazard a guess the vast majority drive cars with a much higher value.
What is the better way you are proposing? I'd be very interested to hear one that has a sliding punishment but has less administration than the one I suggest.
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
I think you'll find the average price hasn't changed much.
But that is car sales. How many people are buying cars compared with people that aren't?
You're right - it is simple. Quite simply, the difference from someone driving a Fiesta to someone driving a focus won't matter much under your proposal. So, as I said, you end up with a scheme that only really punishes the top 1-2% of the market, with those driving super cars.
So you've changed an entire process just to hit a small number of people.
Not only that, but my car is probably worth about £4k.
£60 would be nothing to me. But I don't have any sort of passion for cars and am quite happy with what I have.
Sorry, but your proposal is flawed, even before we get onto the changes required to implement such a system.
I am not proposing anything. I don't think it needs changing. The punishment to Tevez was heavily focused on the community service... the fine was irrelevant.
You're right - it is simple. Quite simply, the difference from someone driving a Fiesta to someone driving a focus won't matter much under your proposal. So, as I said, you end up with a scheme that only really punishes the top 1-2% of the market, with those driving super cars.
So you've changed an entire process just to hit a small number of people.
--------------------------
It won't change much for those two cars, but it will change. It's a sliding scale. It may be that it's £70, £80 instead of £60. The further up the range of cars you go the more prohibitive it will become. It wouldn't be 100% perfect but it'd be far more accurate than the status quo. The people driving a Fiesta and Focus will be statistically close in terms of disposable income, so it's be common sense that the difference wouldn't be much.
Not only that, but my car is probably worth about £4k.
£60 would be nothing to me. But I don't have any sort of passion for cars and am quite happy with what I have.
-----------------------
Well you are more than likely an anomally. Probably somebody who uses their quite little, and generally wouldn't be comitting either minor speeding offenses or major ones. How many driving convictions do you have out of interest?
No need to throw the baby out with bathwater and let all wealthy people esacape a punitive punishment just because a few may.
I am not proposing anything. I don't think it needs changing. The punishment to Tevez was heavily focused on the community service... the fine was irrelevant.
--------------------------
If we are keeping it as it is we may as well do away with the fine altogether then. As it stands it is disproportinately punishing those on lower incomes. Make it solely community service by all means - that is democratic - but a flat fee simply means punishing some and not others. It's either a deterrent for most or not worth having at all.
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
But if the difference isn't that much, what is the point?
The difference in fine between someone earning £60k a year and someone earning £20k a year is disproportionate.
"No need to throw the baby out with bathwater and let all wealthy people esacape a punitive punishment just because a few may."
You miss the point.
If you have to overhaul a scheme just so that a minority are punished 'correctly', then you've probably got the wrong idea.
What next? Fines for not paying your TV license to be based on the size of your house?
There are two issues I have:
1. I fundamentally disagree with the principle of applying law differently because of wealth. If you think the system is unfair then fine, propose a scrapping of the fine.
But I think proposing to structure fines with car values is flawed.
2. Overhauling a system just to affect less than 5% of people that use the system just doesn't add up.
And whether you like it or not, your proposal would require significant investment and change.
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 38 seconds ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
What next? Fines for not paying your TV license to be based on the size of your house?
----------------------
I don't believe anyone has been killed or injured by an unlicenced TV? I don't think anyone has ever had their TV licence taken away for dangerous use either? I may be mistaken though and will hold my hands up if this is wrong.
Not that i'm proposing it, but a fine proportionate to the value of your TV would be more apt than a house valuation
Not sure where you get your 5% figure from to be honest. If the base value of a car for the minimum fine was 5k, then it would be a sliding scale from there upwards. The super-rich in their uber-expensive fines would of course pay more, but there would be many more than 1-in-20 paying the £60
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
When was the last time someone got a fine for killing someone?
The 5% comes from the proportion of people that your scheme would make a big difference to.
Here's what happened.
You identified a problem, in that the fine means next to nothing for multi millionaires.
You found a solution - fine them a percentage of their car value.
What you didn't consider was that your solution involves changing an entire system, just to deal with the initial problem, which affects a small minority of cases.
I can't put it anymore succinctly than that.
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 8 minutes ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
When was the last time someone got a fine for killing someone?
-----------------
Not the point. People have been killed driving cars, which are used in public and extremely dangerous when travelling at speed. You brought up TV licences which are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Here's what happened.
You identified a problem, in that the fine means next to nothing for multi millionaires.
You found a solution - fine them a percentage of their car value.
-------------------------
That's how it started. As it progressed it became a discussion about a fairer system for all, not just the super-rich, but the moderately rich too.
Either have a fair system where everybody feels the pinch, or don't have it at all.
Not the best guide, but....
Did a search on Autotrader and put no price criteria in - 37289 pages
Did a search and made it from £0-5000 - 11999 pages.
Therefore on Autotrader there are 11999 pages of cars available under 5k and 27290 pages of cars over 5k.
Using my 5k limit under 33% of these cars would pay the minimum fine, with the remaining 67% increasing with the value of their car
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
Yes it is the point.
You brought up people being killed when it's irrelevant. Fines are issues for offences that have no relevance to people being killed.
Comparing it with TV license fines is valid.
A fair system. Depends what you class as fair, doesn't it? I hate it when people use that word.
That's the point though.
The vast majority of cars are in such a close bracket of values, that you will barely make a difference to those people.
So what's the point?
The only thing your proposal achieves is significantly raising fines for super cars.
It also completely ignores what is required to implement these changes.
With any change in process, you have to weigh up the investment required. I don't believe you did that.
"with the remaining 67% increasing with the value of their car"
And how much of that 67% would pay anything significant?
And what about the people that aren't buying cars?
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
what a joke .. Tevez
Page 4 of 5
posted on 5/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
"Glass's do valuatuons of cars.- they have the administration in place as it is their business. It takes minutes to do, and could probably be streamlined if you got them involved."
Implementing that will require new systems in place for the relevant departments, possibly new computer programs, new legislation.
Rightly or wrongly, you can't just call up someone in an office and tell them to add on this great new idea.
As I said, without meaning to sound abusive, I think you're a little naive to how central government works.
By the way, your new scheme proposes a £1,010 fine for someone driving a £100k car.
posted on 5/4/13
comment by Winston (U16525)
By the way, your new scheme proposes a £1,010 fine for someone driving a £100k car.
-------------------------------------------------------
For a 3-point penalty such as going 36mph in a 30mph zone....not a bigger offence such as Tevez comitted. There the minumum would be much higher, probably ten-fold. As such it would increase by £100 for every 1k of value.
A 100k car would therefore garner a £9560 fine for driving sans-insurance
I did say...
"For argument's sake let's say this is the fine for cars up to a CURRENT average value of 5k.
For every 1k your car is worth over this amount you pay an extra £10 - a 1% levy"
For argument's sake. Obviously if it was government policy I'd be concentrating onthe scale fully, and not doing a basic one on a football internet forum
posted on 5/4/13
Bigger offence like Tevez committed?
Scale of his offence isn't defined. He could be the safest driver around.. you never know.
36mph in a 30 zone could be construed as dangerous.
posted on 5/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
So anyone with a car valued at 10k or less would receive a fine between £600-£1,600.
How many people, as a percentage, do you think own cars that are valued at more than £10k?
Not a high amount, I'd wager.
As I said before, the scheme you are proposing will change nothing, apart from hitting a wealthy minority.
Implementing something that requires a complete change in how every fine is calculated, just to affect a small minority, cannot be described as a sensible thing to do.
posted on 5/4/13
Winston - the details can be refined. Hence "for argument's sake" with the figures.
I have no idea how many people drive cars over 10k...I imagine you don't either. The average price is £9206 for a used car according to an Autotrader survey though .
posted on 5/4/13
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 1... (U1860)
posted 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
Bigger offence like Tevez committed?
Scale of his offence isn't defined. He could be the safest driver around.. you never know.
36mph in a 30 zone could be construed as dangerous.
--------------
He may be Mother Theresa behind the wheel, but he is driving without insurance and a valid licence which is a crime. Two in fact.
If you are nicked doing 36mph in a 30mph zone and also as dangerous driving you will be charged as such - not simpy as an SP30
posted on 5/4/13
Winston - That survey was 2011
You think it would be difficult to enforce, I don't. All the tools are in place already. There are much more complicated systems used on a bog-standard car insurance website
posted on 8/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
It doesn't matter what details you come up with.
All your system can possibly do is represent a much larger fine for the wealthy... it makes little difference to the majority of drivers.
So why change an entire scheme just to hit a minority? Surely there is a better way to target those drivers?
You are extremely naive to how central government works. The tools are not in place. It's not a case of using an Excel file and an online web site that values cars.
For a department process to change, it requires more than a nod and a wink from the department manager.
posted on 8/4/13
HRH
As I previously said, whether what you suggest is practical (or even right) does not matter. It would require a fundamental change in law.
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
While this is generally held to mean race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, disability, it also holds for income and wealth.
Maybe an exception for fines due to ability to pay should be made, but once you make one exception you are on a slippery slope.
posted on 8/4/13
Are you involved in central government then? It seems you have detailed knowledge of how every system works, so I assume that is the case. If this system is so difficult, i'm surprised they have any systems whatsoever.
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
It doesn't matter what details you come up with.
All your system can possibly do is represent a much larger fine for the wealthy... it makes little difference to the majority of drivers.
So why change an entire scheme just to hit a minority? Surely there is a better way to target those drivers?
-------------------------------------------
If the average price of a used car was over 9k 2yrs ago, an increase on any worth over something like 5k wouldn't just punish a small minority, but quite a substantial amount. With an increasing amount the further up the price range you go, it's quite a simple and elegant proposal which would be much better than the current system.
£60 to a fair amount of people is a deterrent. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that most of these people will drive lower-valued cars. On the flipside, if you did a straw poll of people to who £60 is an amount they will spend flippantly, i'd hazard a guess the vast majority drive cars with a much higher value.
What is the better way you are proposing? I'd be very interested to hear one that has a sliding punishment but has less administration than the one I suggest.
posted on 8/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
I think you'll find the average price hasn't changed much.
But that is car sales. How many people are buying cars compared with people that aren't?
You're right - it is simple. Quite simply, the difference from someone driving a Fiesta to someone driving a focus won't matter much under your proposal. So, as I said, you end up with a scheme that only really punishes the top 1-2% of the market, with those driving super cars.
So you've changed an entire process just to hit a small number of people.
Not only that, but my car is probably worth about £4k.
£60 would be nothing to me. But I don't have any sort of passion for cars and am quite happy with what I have.
Sorry, but your proposal is flawed, even before we get onto the changes required to implement such a system.
I am not proposing anything. I don't think it needs changing. The punishment to Tevez was heavily focused on the community service... the fine was irrelevant.
posted on 8/4/13
You're right - it is simple. Quite simply, the difference from someone driving a Fiesta to someone driving a focus won't matter much under your proposal. So, as I said, you end up with a scheme that only really punishes the top 1-2% of the market, with those driving super cars.
So you've changed an entire process just to hit a small number of people.
--------------------------
It won't change much for those two cars, but it will change. It's a sliding scale. It may be that it's £70, £80 instead of £60. The further up the range of cars you go the more prohibitive it will become. It wouldn't be 100% perfect but it'd be far more accurate than the status quo. The people driving a Fiesta and Focus will be statistically close in terms of disposable income, so it's be common sense that the difference wouldn't be much.
Not only that, but my car is probably worth about £4k.
£60 would be nothing to me. But I don't have any sort of passion for cars and am quite happy with what I have.
-----------------------
Well you are more than likely an anomally. Probably somebody who uses their quite little, and generally wouldn't be comitting either minor speeding offenses or major ones. How many driving convictions do you have out of interest?
No need to throw the baby out with bathwater and let all wealthy people esacape a punitive punishment just because a few may.
I am not proposing anything. I don't think it needs changing. The punishment to Tevez was heavily focused on the community service... the fine was irrelevant.
--------------------------
If we are keeping it as it is we may as well do away with the fine altogether then. As it stands it is disproportinately punishing those on lower incomes. Make it solely community service by all means - that is democratic - but a flat fee simply means punishing some and not others. It's either a deterrent for most or not worth having at all.
posted on 8/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
But if the difference isn't that much, what is the point?
The difference in fine between someone earning £60k a year and someone earning £20k a year is disproportionate.
"No need to throw the baby out with bathwater and let all wealthy people esacape a punitive punishment just because a few may."
You miss the point.
If you have to overhaul a scheme just so that a minority are punished 'correctly', then you've probably got the wrong idea.
What next? Fines for not paying your TV license to be based on the size of your house?
There are two issues I have:
1. I fundamentally disagree with the principle of applying law differently because of wealth. If you think the system is unfair then fine, propose a scrapping of the fine.
But I think proposing to structure fines with car values is flawed.
2. Overhauling a system just to affect less than 5% of people that use the system just doesn't add up.
And whether you like it or not, your proposal would require significant investment and change.
posted on 8/4/13
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 38 seconds ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
What next? Fines for not paying your TV license to be based on the size of your house?
----------------------
I don't believe anyone has been killed or injured by an unlicenced TV? I don't think anyone has ever had their TV licence taken away for dangerous use either? I may be mistaken though and will hold my hands up if this is wrong.
Not that i'm proposing it, but a fine proportionate to the value of your TV would be more apt than a house valuation
Not sure where you get your 5% figure from to be honest. If the base value of a car for the minimum fine was 5k, then it would be a sliding scale from there upwards. The super-rich in their uber-expensive fines would of course pay more, but there would be many more than 1-in-20 paying the £60
posted on 8/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
When was the last time someone got a fine for killing someone?
The 5% comes from the proportion of people that your scheme would make a big difference to.
Here's what happened.
You identified a problem, in that the fine means next to nothing for multi millionaires.
You found a solution - fine them a percentage of their car value.
What you didn't consider was that your solution involves changing an entire system, just to deal with the initial problem, which affects a small minority of cases.
I can't put it anymore succinctly than that.
posted on 8/4/13
comment by Winston (U16525) posted 8 minutes ago
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
When was the last time someone got a fine for killing someone?
-----------------
Not the point. People have been killed driving cars, which are used in public and extremely dangerous when travelling at speed. You brought up TV licences which are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Here's what happened.
You identified a problem, in that the fine means next to nothing for multi millionaires.
You found a solution - fine them a percentage of their car value.
-------------------------
That's how it started. As it progressed it became a discussion about a fairer system for all, not just the super-rich, but the moderately rich too.
Either have a fair system where everybody feels the pinch, or don't have it at all.
posted on 8/4/13
Not the best guide, but....
Did a search on Autotrader and put no price criteria in - 37289 pages
Did a search and made it from £0-5000 - 11999 pages.
Therefore on Autotrader there are 11999 pages of cars available under 5k and 27290 pages of cars over 5k.
Using my 5k limit under 33% of these cars would pay the minimum fine, with the remaining 67% increasing with the value of their car
posted on 8/4/13
HRH King Ledley I (U15236)
Yes it is the point.
You brought up people being killed when it's irrelevant. Fines are issues for offences that have no relevance to people being killed.
Comparing it with TV license fines is valid.
A fair system. Depends what you class as fair, doesn't it? I hate it when people use that word.
That's the point though.
The vast majority of cars are in such a close bracket of values, that you will barely make a difference to those people.
So what's the point?
The only thing your proposal achieves is significantly raising fines for super cars.
It also completely ignores what is required to implement these changes.
With any change in process, you have to weigh up the investment required. I don't believe you did that.
posted on 8/4/13
"with the remaining 67% increasing with the value of their car"
And how much of that 67% would pay anything significant?
And what about the people that aren't buying cars?
posted on 8/4/13
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.
posted on 8/4/13
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.
posted on 8/4/13
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.
posted on 8/4/13
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.
posted on 8/4/13
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?
posted on 8/4/13
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.
Page 4 of 5