Dear HM Chancellor, I have an idea...

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

http://news.sky.com/story/1082483/smoke ... rette-butt

[Mr Nuts]

That headline isn't quite true . The majority of that fine was for failing to pay and failing to turn up in court .

[Earl Grey]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

[Milkins]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.

Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.

[Earl Grey]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.

Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.

Milkins! You been on the whacky baccy again? No one's talking about prison sentences.

A prison sentence hurts both rich and poor....indeed if the rich person gets to lose business deals as a result it may even hurt him more.

Fines are different, though. If £75 is designed to hurt the litter-offender such that he won't re-offend then it won't work on some knob who's inherited a fortune from his dad.

[phat_chris]

It's about time they started to crack down on smokers who litter, but I don't think they are going far enough. Perhaps a better method of dealing with the smokers who litter is to hit them with littering fines at point of sale. Show me a smoker who claims they don't throw their used cigerettes away and I'll show you a liar

[Bluesbro']

I still see, luckily, a fair amount of Dog Poo left on the street. I'd be happier if the f*ckwit that didn't pick that up got fined. I don't have a problem stepping on a discarded ciggie.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.

Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.

Milkins! You been on the whacky baccy again? No one's talking about prison sentences.

A prison sentence hurts both rich and poor....indeed if the rich person gets to lose business deals as a result it may even hurt him more.

Fines are different, though. If £75 is designed to hurt the litter-offender such that he won't re-offend then it won't work on some knob who's inherited a fortune from his dad.

OH tells me that you can often see a Range Rover Sport (or similar model) of a footballer parked on the pavement in Manchester centre, the owner not bothered by the £60 parking fine.

Following the Swiss model where the fine is proportionate to the value of the car would change that.

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

OH tells me that you can often see a Range Rover Sport (or similar model) of a footballer parked on the pavement in Manchester centre, the owner not bothered by the £60 parking fine.

In this situation (second offence by the same car within a short period of time), the council should simply tow the vehicle away and charge an arm and a leg for its collection. And make collection available once a week only.

By the way, who is the footballer?

[Milkins]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.

Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.

Milkins! You been on the whacky baccy again? No one's talking about prison sentences.

A prison sentence hurts both rich and poor....indeed if the rich person gets to lose business deals as a result it may even hurt him more.

Fines are different, though. If £75 is designed to hurt the litter-offender such that he won't re-offend then it won't work on some knob who's inherited a fortune from his dad.

Chance'd be a fine thing - last time I has whacky baccy Alan Shearer had a full head of hair.

My point is simply that you should not (IMHO) try to bring social standing into crime punishment. I was merely pointing out that if a more heinous crime is commited then how do you upscale the punishment for the wealthy? The current system is the most equitable - everyone is treated the same.

If you applied the sliding scale logic to the everyday, say purchasing a car, then the seller would have to ask the purchaser details of income and then set the price accordingly. The car costs the same to make whoever buys it.

The punishment for a crime should cost the same whoever commits it.

Now, where's that Old Holborn tin of mine....?

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

OH tells me that you can often see a Range Rover Sport (or similar model) of a footballer parked on the pavement in Manchester centre, the owner not bothered by the £60 parking fine.

In this situation (second offence by the same car within a short period of time), the council should simply tow the vehicle away and charge an arm and a leg for its collection. And make collection available once a week only.

By the way, who is the footballer?

Multiple offenders, although Beckham was particularly notorious.

[RubiconCSL]

Couldn't they simply force offenders to watch an hour of Jedwood video footage, with their eyelids forced open, to stop them cheating? That way, no matter what the offender's financial situation - whether rich poor, knob or non-knob - the penalty would be equally hideous.

[Mr Nuts]

OH tells me that you can often see a Range Rover Sport (or similar model) of a footballer parked on the pavement in Manchester centre, the owner not bothered by the £60 parking fine.

In this situation (second offence by the same car within a short period of time), the council should simply tow the vehicle away and charge an arm and a leg for its collection. And make collection available once a week only.

By the way, who is the footballer?

Multiple offenders, although Beckham was particularly notorious.

http://www.shotdeadinthehead.com/yplac-booklet.html

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

Our building's 'private' car park is plagued by residents who have refused to buy/rent a space for their car and also by people from neighbouring buildings.

I might rustle up a variation of those.

[Earl Grey]

It's about time fines were done as a proportion of income.

...but if you scaled that up, you would give longer prison sentences for higher earners as well.

Punishment shouldn't be related to income - it should be related to the crime.

Milkins! You been on the whacky baccy again? No one's talking about prison sentences.

A prison sentence hurts both rich and poor....

My point is simply that you should not (IMHO) try to bring social standing into crime punishment. I was merely pointing out that if a more heinous crime is commited then how do you upscale the punishment for the wealthy? The current system is the most equitable - everyone is treated the same.

If you applied the sliding scale logic to the everyday, say purchasing a car, then the seller would have to ask the purchaser details of income and then set the price accordingly. The car costs the same to make whoever buys it.

The punishment for a crime should cost the same whoever commits it.

Now, where's that Old Holborn tin of mine....?

You've got it bad, Milko!

Fortunately Dr E. Grey can diagnose it. What you have, to give it its full technical name, is a severe case of inappropriate extrapolation.

You extrapolate things into areas that aren't in question. A person's social standing is not on the table here. Creating a market where everyone is means-tested is also not on the table.

Indeed a lot of things are not on the table here. For example any kind of punishment that hurts, no matter what your income, is definitely NOT on the table. Why? Because it hurts you no matter how minted you are. Here's a list of a few of them:

1) Prison sentences
2) Car clamping
3) Driving licence points
4) Driving licence revocation
5) Towing car away
6) Community service
7) Being sacked

They hurt and so you have an incentive not to repeat them whether you're rich or poor. I was not highlighting these.

Here's a list of things that have absolutely no disincentive effect on repeat offending to a very rich person:
1) Fines

This is what's of interest to me. The basic principle here is to HURT the offender sufficiently to make them think twice before re-offending.

Extending the argument to some kind of ghastly regime where everything, like buying a car, is treated as a punishment is not what was on the table. We don't want to punish people for buying a car.

Right....after you with the Old Holborn tin and Rizlas.....