Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Increase Revenue Collection.....

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Monty, Jan 17, 2005.

  1.  Top
  2. Would it increase revenue raised? It all depends on the proportions of people that speed in each earnings category. If the majority of people who caught speeding are in the sub $30 000 bracket then it would actually mean a decrease in money.

    I would assume though, for this to ever be considered, that it wouldn't cause a decrease in revenue, so chances of an increase in revenue are likely...

    I do agree with the point that some people who speed may do so because the deterrents for them are not that substantial. (Sort of like the NFL football player who was fined $10 000 for an 'onfield slur against all fans' who said "it was worth 10 000 - I would do it again for the same price. what's 10 000 to me?")

    I would also be curious to see how they deal with the 'rich housewives' sect or 'rich kids' sect - who may speed but do not have a taxable income...

    I like the sentiments (i.e. more fair system of fines) but too many issues...
  3. No shit sherlock! Fines do not reduce speeding because, quite simply, you are already speeding when you get a fine.

    The reality is that the government doesnt want to slow speeding motorists, just fine them. In the last few weeks (school holiday season) I have seen a number of speed cameras well camoflaged on the road side of dual carriage way, freeway style roads. I'm sure the government appreciates all the money they raised. But wouldn't it have made more sense to put marked highway patrol cars on open display on roads with intersections, dangerous bends, or the possibility of head on collision. Let's face it, nothing slows me down more than seeing a cop on the road.

    I was recently caught by a speed camera for exceeding the speed limit by less than 15km/h in a school zone. As I was in a company vehicle, I did not receive the fine till about 6 weeks after the offence. Turns out that it happened 15 minutes before the 40km/h zone expired. Had I been 15 minutes later I would have been travelling less than the 60km/h speed limit.

    Friends have said that its only fair because of the times that I break the speed limit and don't get caught. I can't argue with that, but shouldn't we be more concerend with dangerous driving, rather than exceeding inappropriate speed limits?

    I'll get off my soap box now,
  4. I wonder how long it would be before someone started taking big fines from high income earners and for a fee, take responsibility and pay the smaller fine!

    Not that anything like that ever happens now when one is close to 12 demerit points.... :eek: :LOL:
  5. i've been ranting about this for ages now!

    someone that earns $300 a week gets fined $125 for doing less than 10kph over the limet and yet someone getting $1500 a week still gets fined the same? while one will now have to eat 79c macaroni and cheese for a week, the other might just have to take it easy the next time they dine out.

    i dont care how much more revenue it generates for the government, fairs fair i reckon. its a step in the right direction for once. doubt we'll see something this smart for a while tho :?
  6. Anyone who thinks that fines dont reduce speeding is dreaming.
  8. In Finland, the fines are proportional to income. A Nokia executive was caught speeding and her fine was E116,000.

    And how do they know how much she earnt - In Finland the tax system is public domain. Anyone can request income info on anyone else. This is why they have the lowest amount of tax fraud of almost any country.

    Sorry about going off topic Monty - sorry to hear about your experience but as many have said, bikes are easier to repair than people and much easier to replace.
  10. no i dont not mean that at all, what i mean is the law shouldnt discriminate.

    and yes i have been banned from driving, it was like having my legs cut off, even if i could afford taxis everywhere.

    why should i be made to pay for the lost revinue from the low paid and unemployed (cause belive me that is what it will be)
  11. Surely fines should be more a reflection of just how dangerous the act committed was. Surely the wealthy individual driving at 5km over the limit in a brand new luxury sedan is less dangerous than a low-income earner driving a crappy old datsun 120Y at the same speed? Why then should they be fined more severely when argueably they are less of a danger to other people?
  12. i reckon thats a load of crap, bloody left wing scumbags are having another whinge... :evil:

    what happened to treating everyone equally... If you break the law you pay the price no matter what your income is.

    High income earners get taxed a lot more than low income earners so they already do their bit for the government. This just sounds like another one of Steve Bracks pathetic money making schemes off victorian motorists. If we as a state ever learn to obey the speed limits victoria will go broke.

    oh and for the record i'm a 23 year old uni student who lives of $180 a week.
  13. the law DOES discriminate. the more money you have, the less effect comitting a crime like this will have on you and the more chance you have of getting off on it anyways. i spose its a lot more black and white with speeding (they have minimum sentances) but take my dads case for instance. he managed to get caught having an accident at nearly twice the legal limit in a built up area and got off with a 6 month suspension cos he threw a bit of cash at it.

    you're thinking pretty naively if you reckon the law is fair to all. the same laws apply to everyone, just some people can afford to find how to twist it to their needs.

    i dont think that fines should be dropped for those on lower incomes. as i said above, they gotta lean their lesson too. but its like smacking one kid over the arse with a cane and then smacking the other kid who did the same thing over the arse with a feather :?
  14. I think fines shouldn't be proportional to income, why just because I earn more but commit the same offence as someone on the dole should I have to pay more money. The biggest problem I think is that the deterrent is not big enough. Increase fines to $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 a time and see how quickly people slow down. If they can't pay then they have to sell something, if repeat offence and can't pay then go to gaol, used to be called a debtor's prison.
    Family assitance office can garnishee wages for child support why not do the same for speeding motorists etc.