|
Hm, "A driver caught on their phone is fined £60 and receives three points". I thought the fine for driving while using a mobile phone was a LOT more than that.
|
Tip of the iceberg, those of us that are nett contributors will be paying increasingly more in tax one way or another for years to come.
The motorist is easy pickings before the election, other tax hikes to follow whoever's turn it is next time to live in nunmber 10.
|
|
|
|
The issues with motoring fines is whether the deployment of the enforcment is actually enforcement related or revunue related all too often it is clearly the latter.
Taking motoring offences, as opposed to parking fines, Cheddar, how do you propose to prevent people from doing dangerous/silly things whilst driving without imposing some sort of penalty?
Sorry, but i don't agree with you, they are a neccessary evil until people learn to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing (driving the car), I doubt we'll ever see the back of them until, or if, cars are driverless.
Also they are avoidable, so if you don't want to pay don't do it! Wish NI and Income Tax was like that!!
|
how do you propose to prevent people from doing dangerous/silly things whilst driving without imposing some sort of penalty?
I've said it before. If we were really serious about cutting down on these things we'd have some form of ongoing training. Its crazy that people can pass a test at 17 and never have to have any top-up training. Its not surprising that there is so much poor driving around.
We have roads closed so root causes can be identified, but we make almost no effort to communicate those root causes back to the drivers, nor to pick up bad habits early.
There would be an outcry if a airline tried to get away without giving its pilots top-up training, but we're more likely to be killed on the way to the airport in our cars.
|
Surely the point here is whether the £15 Victims Levy is fair and not the fine itself?
Pat
|
|
No, it's another government money raising scam. They haven't got the guts to increase up front taxes to replace the taxpayers money they have squandered through their incompetence. Fines OK. Scams not.
Edited by Old Navy on 02/01/2010 at 09:43
|
The question I cannot find answered is "will the money be ringfenced and not displacing other spending?" The Westminster government has done a lot of work in the past few years to try and escertain victims needs and to make their passage through the system easier. So I'd hope the answer would be an unequivocal yes.
If the answer is no or evasive then I'd reluctantly agree with ON (though, IIRC you are in Scotland so it may not affect you!!)
|
B308 I think you might have misunderstood. The proposed £15 is a tax on top of a fine.
I don't really subscribe to the view that motorists are badly done by, it is demonstrable that motoring is increasingly cheap when considered in terms of what proportion of average incomes is taken up by the cost of running a car, but this looks very opportunisitic.
The worthy aims of victim support are being stretched to breaking point in the case of say a fine for not wearing a seat belt, I simply don't see who the victim is there, other than oneself.
A far better idea was the proposal for drunks to pay for the cost of their visit to A&E.
|
Ostensibly the tax is to refund victims of crime.
Personally I would go after the criminals (and if they are on benefits... tough)
|
Personally I would go after the criminals (and if they are on benefits... tough)
Amen to that! Criminals, (not average motorists) should forefit all benefits and most rights. I know the families would suffer, but there should be a way around that.
Edited by Old Navy on 02/01/2010 at 11:21
|
|
|
|
That's what they're doing taxing the criminal - sadly, in the main, its the normally law abiding that will pay up without question.
|
Taking motoring offences as opposed to parking fines Cheddar how do you propose to prevent people from doing dangerous/silly things whilst driving without imposing some sort of penalty?
My point has been much discussed, a speed camera outside a school active at 8:30am on a weekday is appropriate, a speed camera on a clear open dual-carriageway where the limit has been set unduly low at, say, 40mph is simply not appropraite hence its rationale can only be revenue based and not enforcement.
|
it is a wealth tax and a stealth tax
those on ten bob a week fines already who need to go to their local 24 hour beer palace to get their blood before 10.00am wont be paying this tax will they? ,only us fools that pay our taxes and struggle to make ends meet will be paying it
anyone remember vat on car insurance being added
anyone remember how national insurance keeps going up
vat will go up next to 20%
this tax has nothing to do with motoring its to fill the empty coffers of labour
roll on april the 18th
|
No its not fair.
Firstly for most of the "motoring crime" there is no "victim"
Secondly 15% on a £60 fine is a far higher proportion of "victim levy" thatn say a £400 fine for a real crime
Thirdly, the real criminals, who leave real victims behind pay dos all
Its nothing less than a subsidy for criminality and violence, paid for by the motorist.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your a little unfair here Old seadog. The current financia crisis we are in is down to the incompetance of the Bankers.
|
while not wanting to get into an argument
which country do you actually live in brentus and are there any spare igloos?
|
|
|
I think your a little unfair here Old seadog. The current financia crisis we are in is down to the incompetance of the Bankers.
>>
And who should have been regulating them?
|
And who should have been regulating them?
They were regulated until Gordon (saviour of the universe) decided to change it all as chancellor.
I think it is another easy stealth tax - simple as that and as said before the government think the motoring classes in this country are criminals and see them as easy pickings for a revenue source. Hopefully the millions of motorists in this country will remember that come the election.
As someone said on previous posts - we live in a country where you can carry a knife and get a warning but do 34 in a 30 and your done - the camera only issues a fine - not a warning.
Cheers GB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get fined and dont incur the levy simples
|
you not a driver then brentus
back seat driver maybe
?
|
|
I am with 308 on this one. I do not dispute the revenue raiser point. Don't get fined and you will not get levied its as simple as that. No i am not a back seat driver. Over the years travelling the length and breadth of the country i have done many thousands of miles.
|
hi
i too agree with 308 to a point.
this dustbin pm is the biggest b of them all. he brings our nation to her knees and there may be mre to come. this pm has raised taxes on fuel again and again to a point where the legal motorist is prone to crims damaging their machines and not just stealing the fuel.
over the many, many years i've driven ot even a point on my licence.
HOWEVER = only motorists that break the highway code wittingly or UNWITTINGLY will pay the fine plus the TAX. The crims that drive around in uninsured cars/etc will yet again win.
|
>>this pm has raised taxes on fuel again and again to a point where the legal motorist is prone to crims damaging their machines and not just stealing the fuel.<<
I don't understand this sentence, can you explain please?
|
|
|
|
In my daily rag this story was followed by a spread on New Years Eve drunks having to be tended to by the the emergency services, hospitals and even facilities provided by the TA. Unfortunately this is happening every weekend across the country.
Most anti social crime, assaults and damage fueled by alcohol.
Obviously got plenty of money to urinate up the wall so perhaps that may be a good area to start imposing additional 'victim' levys.
|
I agree with paul2007's last point.
I have said before that the drunk drugged-up drug dealer driving an uninsured car with no MOT and bald tyres eating a sandwich doing 100 + gets away with it because he slows to 70 momentarily to put his sawn-off down and answer his phone when the fully legal etc etc stalwart of society gets nicked for cruising at just over 75.
It's a 1/1000 sec snapshot in time, not real law enforcement.
|
|
Great to be posting alongside like minded, fully legal motorists that are being shafted by this one man gov aka Brown
|
Great to be posting alongside like minded fully legal motorists that are being shafted by this one man gov aka Brown
Brown will will be shafting the motorist a lot more in the coming years (hopefully only months). The thing is we are all Brits and will just moan a bit but cough up the cash in the end.
The scum chavs will continue to get away with it because they either dont reg the car in their name, or when it goes to court they pay fines at £1 per week.
|
|
Knick a sat nav from Rattle's car get away with it, do 32 in a 30 then get fined.
I have no faith in the crinimal justic system at all and have learnt that they rather fine the good and hard working honest people because they will pay up, your drug dealer speed away from a deal won't even turn up at court when he gets his 50p fine.
|
|
A 'victim surcharge' applied to fines for victimless offences? Do me a favour. It's just official theft.
|
Whilst I think a victim support fund is a good thing, to fund it by robbing the motorist via parking/speeding fines etc., is a very poor show, so no - it isn't fair IMO, but - since when has life been fair?
UKPLC is basically skint, and money has to be 'raised' from somewhere, so I would prefer it to be raised via stealth taxes than direct taxation such as income or even the 25% VAT on luxury goods like we had back in the 70's (wealth tax?)
Personally speaking, I have not incurred a motoring related fine for 12 years, so if you can't do the fine - don't do the crime.
|
|
VAT started in 1973 at 10% then it was reduced to 8% later, it then went to 15% and rose further to 17.5% , i dont remember it being 25 % ever ?
|
Criminals - including bankers and politicians - pay the cost of their own criminality ....should be the law.
As for anyone speeding, they should pay a fine which is based on the cost of enforcement #plus a penalty to deter.
Anything less than £100 is too low.
And no exceptions. None.
# And if the cost of enforcement is £10,000 that is the fine.
We have enough idiots on the road to allow those who cannot keep to speed limits to get away with notional fines.
And I would add, every subsequent speeding fine is doubled...
So for those who collect point - if the initial fine is £150, the third will be £600.
No exceptions.
That will stop all this pussyfooting around.
|
No. Unless it is levied on those who have committed serious crimes it is a preposterous idea and penalises basically honest people.
We can all make the odd mistake and perhaps overstay our welcome by a few minutes whilst, for instance, leaved a parked vehicle, but it should not involve being punished twice for basically minor offences.
Those who cause people to become victims of crime should have to stump up. Someone parking, for example, on a double yellow line or being slightly over the speed limit doesn't leave a victim of crime behind.
|
The reporting of this is, to say the least, confused. So far as I can tell it's about creating a fund to be used to fund operations by the voluntary sector in support of victims. This means helping them between offence, court and life afterwards. It's not about compensating victims financially through the Crim Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Since parliament is not sitting and the Justice Ministry is shut for the hols it's not new either. Although the announcement is atributed to Junior Minister Clare Ward I cannot find anything in either Hansard or the MoJ website to provide more detail. Something to fill a quiet newsday? Possibly the original speech tied in with Sara Payne's recent work on victims?
As I said earlier provided it's properly ringfenced I can't see too much to complain about. While speeding etc may not leave an identifiable victim speed and stupidity contribute to fear of the road that imprisons the elderly and deprives today's kids of the freedoms I enjoyed 40 years ago. And since nearly all parking in England and Wales is now dealt with by the Council it's not going to catch shoppers who are two minutes late back at their cars.
|
>>> i dont remember it being 25 % ever ? <<<
Yes! you're probably correct comrade zoo, my brain is cold (I said cold) and 1973 is many Summers ago.
So is 17.5% the highest it has ever been I wonder (another con) just goes to show how I have been con-ditioned if that's the case, as I remember it as being very high back then but I've actually become accustomed to it being 17.5% now (if that makes sense!)
|
VAT was levied at 25% on certain "luxury" goods in the seventies, probably as a quid pro quo for lowering it to 8% on mundane purchases. The incoming gvt in 1979 abolished the higher rate but raised the general charge to 15%
According to the Daily Mail at the time a doubling of VAT was one of ten Labour lies.
|
|
As I remember the 25% vat rate applied to all electrical appliances except kettles and ovens also it applied to petrol but not diesel.
|
If I was the next chancellor >>
Fortunately you wont be HJ ;-)
Aside from anything else there is no evidence to suggest that raising VAT will increase the exchequer's revenue, to the contrary the effect on confidence would surely reduce consumer expenditure to the extent that VAT take would reduce.
|
If I was the next chancellor sorry everyone I'd increase fuel tax by 10p (despite the effect on inflation) and I'd raise the standard speeding fine to £150 but remove any points penalty. Then I'd raise VAT to 20% (which is going to happen anyway). That way I'd start raking in some money to help pay off the debts my predecessor laid on the nation. However I'd start looking into how UK fuel prices are manipulated by the speculators financing all those old tankers bobbing about in Lyme Bay and Scapa Flow.
HJ - as hard as it is, I agree that these are the measures we need to take. The difference between you and GB is that you are honest :) and up front, while GB will raise the money via backdoor means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> how do you propose to prevent people from doing dangerous/silly things whilst driving without imposing some sort of penalty?
Points on the licence are sufficient as that way is fair to all. Fines should only be imposed as a percentage of income. No use whinging though, we are going to be the subject of new government
cash raising schemes however much we complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
