Summer is the time when road safety is big on the news, with accidents solemnly reported on the news every day.
The latest this week has been the call for tourists to be better educated in New Zealand road safety before they get behind the wheel. This does of course assume that foreign drivers are not as safe as New Zealanders and I’m not sure that’s true. There have been some awful crashes involving tourists this summer, but in most cases, it was not their driving that caused the accident.
So I was interested to read in the NZ Herald today that European countries are pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy offenders who ignore tickets. Apparently, Swiss voters approved a 2007 penal law overhaul that lets judges fine people based on personal income and wealth for moderate offences including excessive speeding and drunk driving.
The latest is a millionaire Ferrari driver in Switzerald, described as a “traffic thug” by the Swiss Court, who was fined F295,000 (NZ $392,000)
Apparently, the court took into account the man’s history of similar offences and his estimated personal wealth of more than US$20 million.
Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries all issue fines based on a person’s wealth. In Germany the fines can be as much as US$16 million compared with only US$1 million in Switzerland.
While the average driver is likely to get a more modest fine, Switzerland does seem to have had a real problem with wealthy foreigners hiring cars and conducting races on Swiss roads.
Last year a court fined six men from Hong Kong up to €95,000 after they raced through Switzerland in hired Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Aston Martins and Audis at speeds of up to 230km an hour. A Frenchman was fined 70,000 francs after being caught on a highway doing 243 km/h.
I haven’t noticed a lot of Ferraris, Lamborghinis and other luxury cars speeding dangerously around New Zealand roads, but I am intrigued by the idea of fining people who break the law according to their wealth. Something for Mr Joyce to think about as he prepares his policy announcements on the 2020 Transport Safety Strategy.
I suppose the corollary is that if you have no money or are a beneficiary, your fine should be zero. Somehow I see a flaw in the logic.
I haven’t noticed a lot of Ferraris, Lamborghinis and other luxury cars speeding dangerously around New Zealand roads,
Based on my eperiences, on NZ roads it’s just youg dickheads in Subaru’s.
I’m actually quite keen on the idea. A price-floor followed by a graduated scale based on income is worth considering (as long as the scale is reassessed often enough that you don’t end up with something akin to tax-bracket creep).
The concept of such fines related to wealth or income – e.g. one day’s pay – means that the impact of the fine is proportionate. I had an elderly constituent come in to see me about this very issue last year, which prompted me to write to the Minister of Transport and his response was that if they did that the fine would be the same for my constituent but would increase for better off people.
My constituent had been caught speeding in an area where the speed limit changes, so it was a genuine error, but his fine amounted to almost a week’s pension as I recall.
I know we can say don’t break the law, but we all make mistakes – losing a week’s income as a pensioner is a serious punishment. It wouldn’t even be a day’s pay for the Minister of Transport.
Well done for raising this Darien, I think it is something we should do some policy work on.
Yea, I agree with @DavidW, I see some flaws in this idea.
Plus I don’t think that Steven Joyce would like the idea considering his personal wealth!
the admin costs would be huge, now most speeding fines are summary offences, maybe worth looking at for court offences though, maybe community service is better than fines though because it hits rich and poor people the same
Having fines that are meaningful for people is crucial to make it work as a disincentive. If you’re a kid from a poor family and you get caught tagging and whacked with a, what is it now, $3000 fine? That’s so large and disproportionate that it’s just a number that the person probably will have no hope of paying back in the next 10 (or more) years. On the flip side, those who can afford tickets will continue to behave the way they do because they think they can buy their way out (like certain members of my family), of course that’s where demerits kick in, and IMO they work far better than money as a disincentive.
I’d vote for it.
Great idea. Lets take it to the next level, heath care; the more tax you pay, the quicker you are treated at hospitals. Beneficiaries can wait until all taxpayers have been seen. That is the concept you were thinking of isn’t it Darren? Unequal income equals unequal treatment under law?
Don’t be silly Sweetd, you’ve got it all wrong…
The LESS tax you pay, the quicker you get healthcare. That’s only fair isn’t it?
After all, the rich pricks can afford to pay for their own healthcare – until we abolish private hospitals at least.
[...] MP Darien Fenton is “intrigued by the idea of fining people who break the law according to their wealth” [...]
Not a bad idea. As Phil says above, a lot of our speeders are younger drivers in hotted imports. I’d like to see more done to enforcing fines already given, the amount of kids with 1000s of dollars worth of fines outstanding is well beyond the joke.
they tried this in the UK in the early 90’s when I was living there. Just like LAQCs the wealthy hid their wealth. I cannot recall the details but I remember a real rich dude paying a small fine for speeding while Joe Average paid more for lower speed infringements.
But lets think of other ways us rich pricks pay more, power can have a rich prick surcharge, how about petrol as well. Hell, why not a real rich prick tax when you are next in on income over $70k?
Once again policy by Labour to take more from the better off to subsidise your thick voters in sooty land.
Hello Family Trust, where have you been all my (working) life?
It’s a good idea, think about it, if a multi millionare is faced with the choice of commiting a crime, in which the only penalty could be a Fine, e.g doing somehting stupid while driving, the punishment would not affect him at all and he would not learn his lesson.
This reminds me of my eco teacher telling us about how buisnesses sometimes do Price Fixes, which is illegal but sometimes the amount they are fined by the government for doing a price fix is just a dent in the profit buisnesses can make from price fixes. If the law took the buisnessman’s wealth into consideration, the fine could make price fixing not worth it and that could be another problem solved.
Once again policy by Labour to take more from the better off to subsidise your thick voters in sooty land.
This post is about fines, not provision of services.
I don’t like the income being related to the price of the fine. What I also don’t like is the number plate reading things they have in Australia. Most people if they are late with warrent or rego , it’s because they can’t afford to do it straight away, not negligence, and may have to drive for work.
Unadulterated lunacy!
Sorry Spud, are you suggesting breaking the law bc you are broke? If you cannot afford to run the car, don’t buy one.
And by the same logic will those who live in executive houses be given better accommodation if they have to spend time in prison, whilst those who live in hovels get old fashioned dungeons?
And those who regularly eat at top restaurants be allowed better food whilst doing their time as opposed to those who frequent McDonalds?
Yet more bleeding edge thinking from the Left…
Cars are a necessity depending on where you live or what work you do. I wasn’t talking about myself personally. I condone breaking the law, but sometimes well intentioned people do find it hard to get the money together at the time for various reasons.
I’m not endoring it, I just find it understandable.
That’s meant to read I DON’T condone breaking the law, but…
On another post, Clare Curran is saying all people are equal before the law, yet on this you suggest varying degrees based on income levels. Labour peeps, you really need to get on message. What is it, all people are equal, or some people more equal than others?
Once again policy by Labour to take more from the better off to subsidise your thick voters in sooty land.
This post is about fines, not provision of services.
Yeah, because Government revenue and expenditure aren’t in any way related to each other. None, Nada, Zip.
Nope, that the punishment for the crime would be the same, ie, it would hurt the same amount.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed whether this law change is enacted or not.
And now you’re off into fantasy land.
This is an unfortunate side effect of a society that’s all about using everything up as fast as possible to make a few people rich.
Interesting to see the response on Kiwiblog – some hysterical responses from the right, but among them, some sensible contributions as well. The point of this post is about deterrents for breaking the law. Is it fair to fine someone who is massively wealthy the same as someone who is on minimum wage and does it have the same deterrent effect? If a wealthy (or poor) person doesn’t break the law, then the question doesn’t arise.
Well, if people stopped doing the crime they’d stop paying the fine and the governments revenue would go down wouldn’t it?
So, obviously, this concept isn’t about revenue.
Draco
“Unequal income equals unequal treatment under law?
Nope, that the punishment for the crime would be the same, ie, it would hurt the same amount.”
Who made you judge of what is equal punishment? How do you know my individual circumstances, as to what use I may or may not have for the money? I have had to work for that money, where as the bene has done nothing more than wait seven days. The amount I get paid, is a direct result of the training and education I have invested in myself; training that included my time and my money. Therefore the greater fine is actually a bigger cost to me, as it includes the cost of time and money spent to get the education to be able to get the higher paying jobs.
Again, cost the the bene, waiting on the couch for seven days till the next cheque arrives.
Why punish the wealthier elements of society based on their income? this isn’t about equality, which for speeding fines is addressed by demerit points. this is strictly about punishing those who you feel should contribute more to society, by increasing fines as a deterrent to bad behaviour, isn’t it?
well by the same logic, shouldn’t you on the flipside be rewarding socially responsible behaviour? people on higher incomes tend to be higher, and probably pay for private health care. should they then earn a rebate for their socially responsible behaviour, i.e. not acting as free-riders on the public health system? and ditto for schooling.
it seems to me that the old joke does not apply here, you take with both hands.
edit for above,
people on higher incomes tend to be healthier, not higher, though they may be that too.
Don’t stop there…
Let’s apply the same “relativity” theory to Prisoner accomodation:
A stay at the Milton prison with its underfloor heating etc is likely to be viewed in far better light for someone on a lower income than someone on a higher income.
Perhaps then we could atone the standard of prisons to the standard of living someone is accustomed to. If someone viewed prison as superior accommodation to what they have outside then they may be predisposed to reoffending.
I think there is really a lot more thinking you can do around this Darien. When can we expect the Labour party to start issuing hanging orders?
Considering that NZ is apparently a society with an innate sense of “fairness” do you not think your party should be giving rich pricks ample warning so that they have time to arrange their affairs and leave the country?
I think the issue of excessive complication in giving out these fines could be a biggie. The persons wealth would have to be audited for all the thousands of speeding tickets given out in a year and the deterrent effect of fines is not that great anyway. Most people I think assume they can avoid the cops by keeping an eye out or having a scanner and learn where all the speed cameras are.
I think we need to be looking instead at having more hidden speeding cameras which move so people are not able to avoid detection.
In terms of having a real deterrent effect from punishment on drivers I would recommend making them go to mandatory driver re-education classes (which they would be required to pay for themselves) or do a couple of hours of community service every time they are caught and increase how much they have to do based on how many times they have been caught in the last few years.
People on more $$$ often have higher commitments and quite possibly the same disposable income at the end of the month.
Thus the smaller fine may hurt them just as much. How do you quality the impact on a person to ensure that it is fair?
Net worth means nothing as they may have $$ in their property but little ‘on hand cash’.
The work involved to make this ‘fair’ would be HUGE and cost millions.
Or – do you simply look at someone over 60k and thing that they have $$$ free at the end of the month? Thats a poor assumption to make.
Yeah, why not fine rich pricks more.
And while we are at it why don’t we implement legislation so that anyone in a position of responsibility or power, for example councillors, MPs, community leaders etc.. etc.. get sent to jail for ANY breach of the law. You know, lead by example, rather than being the hypocritical charlatans that you are?
I wonder how many expense claims have been put through the public purse to clear fines for the last administration?
This is already the law in respect of some offences in New Zealand. Section 85(3) of the Armed Forces Discipline Act sets the maximum fine that may be imposed on a member of the Armed Forces following a Court Martial as being “an amount equal to his basic pay for 84 days”.
@DavidW, you obviously came down in the last shower if you think this isn’t Labour’s goal.
Rich people dont ignore fines as they have something a bailiff can take in lieu.
Poor people dont , witness the regular newspaper articles about young traffic offenders having massive fines tallies wiped in turn for a few hours work.
Envy taxes dont work but floating the idea will certainly raise peoples awareness of future labour policy
The Armed Forces also take into account the personal circumstances of the member when setting punishment. This may not mean that they don’t get fined, but they may be allowed to spread the payment of the fine out over a period of weeks.
BTW not in favour of bigger fines for the rich.
@SWEETD and anyone who is against this idea because of equality issues:
The purpose of charging people unequal amounts for lawbreaking due to unequal incomes is to give people an EQUALLY PROPORTIONATE/EFFECTIVE fine. $5 to someone who earns $20 an hour is 25% of an hour of his work time. $5 to someone who earns $100 is 5% of an hour of his work time.
So the first person is receiving an unequally effective fine than the second person. The only way to make the situation in which either person would be equally effected and equally put off breaking the law is to increase the proportion of the fine on the second person.
level 1 ncea maths anyone?
Whilst a tempting exercise to wipe the smug smile onff the face of an occasional arrogant rich prick, the basic concept is as flawed as the concept of fault in the ACC debacle! Surely it should be one (sensible) law for all, not something based on the politics of envy!
Perhaps it would be more equable to make everyone do a set amount of community service instead of pay a fine (without the option). Someone who earns $12.50/hour is then receiving an equal punishment as someone who earns $250/hour. Get pinged doing more than 20km/h over the limit and you get a compulsory 8 hours community service. Remember its not about revenue gathering, its about disincentives.
Slightly off-topic, why don’t the millions of dollars of unpaid fines get sent to Baycorp (or similar)? It would a) increase the collection rate, b) stop boy-racers who ignore their fines from being able to buy another car on HP, and c) stimulate the private sector a little bit.
Oh dear – fines in proportion to what you earn – come on Labour – its this kind of rubbish that made voters flee to the right! One of the things I have said here before is that its time Labour understood that in order to have those that tend to pay the higher taxes on board and willing to support Lab policy, then Labour has got to stop punishing those that earn more than 50k (or whatever the so called rich limit is). Its tiresome – and its one of the reasons why voters left with their feet – or is that stroke of a pen. People work hard for their money – whether its 50 bucks or 50,000. Policy needs to be fair – not reward or punish because of earnings.
Instead, why not actually punish the twits that are habitual by taking their car off them and sell that (whats a flash lambo worth these days?) – hit them where it hurts the most, and give them points off so that if they keep on keeping on – they lose their license. Losing your car or your right to drive is far more effective than a fine. And I do like the idea of community service – far more degrading to the ‘rich’ and the ‘young’ than a fine.
“Baycorp (or similar)? It would a) increase the collection rate” Terrible idea it would ruin the credit ratings of the poor.
@Paul – agree with the first part of your post.
There are people on over 50k who don’t find it easy.
This thinking is why it is such a struggle to contemplate returning to a party I was once very proud of.
So, if we take a single-income family of 4 earning $80,000, and a two-income family of 4 earning $80,000 (2x$40). The first family could end up paying $2000 for the same offence that the second family might pay $1000 for.
After seeing all of these comments, I have a new item to my list of things to do if I ever win lotto: Break the law because the fines won’t even put a dent in my bank
Dylan,
the law is either equal or it isnt. To take you theory further, business people shoule spend less time in prision over beneficaries, due to the fact they contribute more tax to society. After all, its all about money isnt it?
Face it, the whole thread is a leftist wet dream, to test your point, take it to the counrry at the next election and see how far you get.
Somw animals more equal than others eh.
Spud, you seem to be suggesting that we shouldn’t expect the poor to pay their fines. If they can’t afford the fines they shouldn’t do the crimes, don’t you agree? If someone continues to rack up fines why shouldn’t they have their credit rating ruined? Do you think they should be able to dodge their fines, but still be able to buy flat screen TV’s and fast cars?
@everyone – thanks for comments. I think many have missed the point. This is not a shot at the better off, nor is it suggesting a way to get more money out of wealthier New Zealanders. The original post was about European countries who have come up with a way to deter wealthier drivers who ignore small fines and repeatedly break the law. The Swiss even had a vote on the issue. Thanks for the suggestions about alternatives to this approach, such as community service or confiscation of cars. In the next few weeks, National will announce its 2020 road safety strategy and there are changes currently in the pipeline. The trick is to implement change that will actually make a difference to the deaths and injuries that continue to occur on our roads. It’s important that we have a debate about all possibilities – have a look at what bad driving and accidents is currently costing all New Zealanders, including those who are better off.
Noooo, I was referring specifically to warrants and regos, not to speeding fines. But yes, hate the idea of baycorp being involved because it IS more likely to be the poor that don’t pay. What I mean is, yes the poor should pay their traffic fines, just don’t send them to baycorp.
[...] [...]