Should high earners pay bigger fines?

Higher earners will have to pay increased fines for many minor offences if a proposed bill becomes law.

The offender's income would be taken in to account and the fine for failing to stop after an accident could triple to £15,000 for a high earner.

The government says it is only fair that the better off pay more but the Tories say it is an attempt to make the middle classes pick up the bill for government failure.

Should high earners pay bigger fines? Is this a fairer system or a tax on the middle classes? Send us your views using the form on the right.

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion received:

SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Martin, UK: Should one person be punished more harshly than another for exactly the same crime, because they are fortunate enough to earn more? Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates

A £50 fine for a high-earner does not have the same impact as it would for a low-earner and is therefore not equal in consequence. It's the impact of the fine that matters, not the monetary figure itself. This Bill should have been introduced decades ago.
W Thomas, Reading, UK

Apparently the calculation is based on disposable income - in other words a high earner with high outgoings e.g. a huge house/mortgage, a V8 Range Rover and kids at private school would pay a smaller fine than an average earner with a small mortgage and moped. Anyone spot a flaw with this plan?
Laura, Chipping Sodbury, England

Judges currently have the discretion to fine people what they think is appropriate Richard, Worthing, England

Judges currently have the discretion to fine people what they think is appropriate, often taking in to account their financial circumstances. This new proposal, a defined scale of fines depending on income, is quite simply a new tax. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law - remember Magna Carta? This whole proposal is yet another attempt by the government to divide our nation
Richard, Worthing, England

The whole concept of fines is a nonsense anyway. Most criminals are poor and break the law because they don't have the money to do things legally (why would you steal something you can afford to buy? Or drive an untaxed car if you can afford to tax it?). So what's the point of fining people who don't have any money and will never pay? It's just a con to make us think they are punishing the criminals they can't afford to send to prison.
Peter, Nottingham, UK

I fully agree with this. High earning people who commit crimes/wrongs should pay. It's not fair that poor people have to pay the same taxes/fines as rich people. Finally Labour is getting the right idea, the filthy rich need to pay more.
James, Cornwall, UK

Let's face it; a fine is just a crime overhead. If you do well you can afford a bit more crime. Now, we don't want to spoil that principle, do we?
Ed, Aberdeen, Scotland

Does this mean that people on the dole will pay absolutely nothing regardless of the severity of the crime while a hard worker will have to pay thousands for a parking ticket? Why bother working?
Scott, Edinburgh

The law is not even-handed Steve, Exeter, UK

Why not! Successful people often get away with prison sentences because of their supposed previous good character, so already, the law is not even-handed. However, wealthy people and contract workers find ways of artificially reducing their apparent disposable income. So it should be based on income, full stop.
Steve, Exeter, UK

What are you all worrying about? This won't affect you if you don't break the law.
Neil, Stevenage

I'm not a high earner but isn't justice supposed to be blind? Punishments should be set according to what crimes you have committed, not by who you are.
Richard, UK

I think this is an excellent idea. What use is a fine if it is no deterrent? How can a £5000 fine be thought to mean the same to someone who earns £50,000 as opposed to £15,000? The rich have been able to get away with paltry fines for far too long.
Jill, UK

How do you decide what a 'high' earner is? A 25k salary is not much in London but a relative fortune in some parts of the country. Obviously a one size fits all approach would be unfair, but then again as the whole premise of means tested criminality seems to lack a certain fairness, why not go the whole hog?
Peter, London

Am I to be punished for working harder, having studied for longer and consistently declaring my income? Seems it's official now that it's better to be a rogue, work in the black economy and put two fingers up to the law!
Simon Mallett, Maidstone

Those of you grumbling about the differential and it being another tax are missing one very important point. Don't be stupid enough to get yourself into a position where you have to pay a fine. Then it's not a problem.
M. Davis, Oldbury

Isn't a percentage fine a better way of making it fairer? Alison, Nottingham, UK

At first I thought that this was a bad idea, but then I thought about it. Isn't a percentage fine a better way of making it fairer? £100 is a lot to one person but not to another and will therefore deter only those who cannot afford the payment, a percentage of income would actually mean the system was fairer.
Alison, Nottingham, UK

So does this mean that an unemployed person who effectively earns nothing will not have to pay any fines?
John, Bristol, UK

I think this is a good idea, mainly because if a sliding scale is used then each person would feel the same financial burden on them. If you fine a person £200 and they only earn 10k a year then they will feel the penalty but if they earned say 60k a year the effect of the fine would have a lesser impact and it may even be said that it is negligible to what they earn. The whole point of a fine is punishment and if somebody does not miss the money they will have no sense of punishment
Wayne, Cardiff

This is a tax on the middle classes. From an admin point of view it would be a nightmare, so by the time bureaucracy has taken its slice of the increased fines there would be little or no net benefit to the Government's coffers.
John, Cuddington

The punishment should fit the crime not the wallet Chris, UK

Yet another class prejudiced law from this government. The punishment should fit the crime not the wallet. If you want to generate more income make the lower earners pay the fines imposed on them, rather than turn a blind eye and let them off.
Chris, UK

I can see that for the really rich a minor fine means nothing at all. However, this is likely to end up as just another tax on anyone who works hard and has a reasonable job. We've seen the thin end of the wedge before and it doesn't stay thin for long. So no, I'm not in favour.
Maggie, London, UK

Higher paid does not necessarily mean more disposable income. I do agree though that someone with £1000 in savings will feel the pinch of a £500 fine, whereas someone with £30000 in savings wouldn't notice a big impact of a £500 fine. So perhaps it should be done on a liquid assets basis and not simply on salary scales.
Joseph, UK

Easy solution for all those concerned about higher fines for higher earners: don't break the law.
Sarah D, Alexandra Park, North London

The simple answer is 'No'. High earners already pay more in tax and national insurance only to get the same levels of return as somebody who pays less, so how can any of it be fair?
Graham Phillips, UK

Of course, the more you earn, the more you might decide to risk the fine, but the penalty should be the same - I favour the repeated behaviour being taken into account. What amazes me is that the Government can think this one up whilst refusing to consider ability to pay reforms for Council Tax! Joined up thinking? No way!
Jenny, Scotland

A similar scheme exists in Sweden and works very well William Allen, London, UK

A similar scheme exists in Sweden and works very well. Quite the opposite of punishing one person more harshly than another, this proposal attempts to redress the current situation, where a fine is very serious for a low earner and a mild inconvenience for a high earner.
William Allen, London, UK

I'm not on a mega-salary but why should I be penalised for working hard? I pay more tax than average, I therefore support more low earners than average yet when I commit the same crime I will be punished more. Due to my high outgoings and careful budgeting I have less disposable income than some people on my half my wage. It's about time the government stopped penalising people for being industrious and toned down their war on workers and the middle/upper classes.
Martin, England

A fine is supposed to be a punishment and it makes sense that the fine imposed on the offender is just that and should be linked to ability to pay. The poor, as always, bear the brunt of this type of punishment.
Lorraine, Manchester

This is a good idea, simply because of the deterrent effect that it will have. Those on high incomes are not worried about fines for speeding, dropping litter, anti-social behaviour, so are less likely to be deterred. Driving standards exhibited by those in large, powerful cars seem to bear this out.
NB, Oxford

I don't believe that this can get much public support as this is clearly another stealth tax. The courts already take ability to pay into account and presumably the taxman is not looking to raise extra revenue from your average burglar or mugger, who aren't likely to be fined much anyway as I'm sure they don't declare all their income! So what are the offences that are likely to attract higher fines? Certainly not those that have the highest impact on society and are the most common and don't seem to have the most focus. My guess is motoring offences are likely to be the largest target area. So that's obviously it then - we'll now have the most congested roads, the most expensive fuel tax and the highest fines in the world. Lets get on with catching these people and stop taxing everyone to death.
Paul Brandwood, Exmoor, UK

Some people are making the argument that it is unfair to have a means-tested sliding scale. I say, it is unfair to not have this system. Why should a fine take a smaller percentage of higher earners income away from them than lower earners? Does nobody see what an unfair and wealthy-person oriented system that is? I'm guessing that everybody here does, but the better off people are arguing against the new policy, as obviously it is preferable for them to retain the status-quo.
Jonny Philip, UK

Which idiot came up with this idea? Why should the fact that I earn more mean that I have pay additional money for fines? If I don't stop at an accident for example, can someone tell me the difference what it matters how much I earn. In addition, someone may earn more, but I guarantee there outgoings will be more. Like most people I live to my means, whether that's £10,000 a year or £100,000 a year. Talk about double standards.
Rob Askew, Stevenage, UK

Perhaps the fairest way would be to set all fines as percentages of income rather than as an actual amount.
Megan, Crewe, Cheshire

I would agree with this. A fine of £15,000 to someone earning £15,000 annually is disastrous. For someone earning £150,000 annually, it is serious but they won't have to sell their house.
Maureen B, London UK

A piece of not very well disguised class warfare Annia, UK

To me, this feels like a piece of not very well disguised class warfare! We are supposed to be equal before the law, therefore our level of liability should be the same, regardless of income.
Annia, UK

No absolutely not! It's just another form of taxation effectively. Why because I have made a decent life for myself, got an education put in the work and got a decent job have to pay more! Is there a "being a decent person penalty?" Why should for example a single mother on the dole pay less than me? Perhaps if she'd found a lasting relationship, not got pregnant at 14 and found herself a decent job then she'd be ok!
Jonathan, Northampton UK

Yes I hope this bill gets passed. The main point of a fine is to inconvenience the offender and therefore discourage them from doing it again, and if that fine is only a tiny proportion of their earnings they are hardly going to be bothered, or learn their lesson.
Tim, Nottingham, UK

An offence is the same no matter the background of the person committing it. In a shop you wouldn't charge rich people more than poor people for the same item. Whatever happened to all people being equal in the eyes of the law?
Karl, Leeds

Surely a crime is a crime - one level of punishment for all. Just because one person earns less than another, doesn't mean they should be any less responsible. Typical New Labour - focusing on the section of the population least likely to shout out. Time for change. If only there was a serious opposition.
Martyn McGoun, Newbury, UK

Alleviate penalties for low income earners rather than squeeze the taxpayer Mark , Edinburgh, Scotland

If everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, then why should it impose different penalties on different people? A higher income is something which is attained and people who earn it shouldn't be subject to harsher penalties. Perhaps the other end of the spectrum would be to alleviate penalties for low income earners rather than squeeze the taxpayer for what he's worth.
Mark , Edinburgh, Scotland

Yes. A fine that is painfully expensive to someone on a low income can be pocket change for a wealthy individual. As such, many fines unfairly penalise the poor. Having a variable scale of fines is the only way to make them equitable.
Jacob M, London

Yes this is fair. A £30 parking ticket hurts someone on £15,000 a year, but for someone on £100,000 it's an incidental expense.
Mike, London UK

This is a ridiculous notion. If you break the law then you pay the same as everyone else, not on a sliding scale. Again middle class people will bear the brunt of this, being rich enough to pay more but not so rich as to afford a good enough accountant to hide all their interests
Ed, London

If they are well off they have no excuse for falling foul of the law Matt, Chelmsford, UK

I'd prefer to see the super rich taxed more, that's a fairer way of getting money from them to benefit the whole they live within. However, if they are well off they have no 'excuse' ('environmental' factors, poverty) for falling foul of the law, and so perhaps should be fined more to make them appreciate what they have.
Matt, Chelmsford, UK

The punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal¿
Martin Smith, Brighton, UK

Makes sense to me, some people in my office earn ludicrous amounts of money, and think nothing of getting a parking ticket or similar simply because the fine is the equivalent of small change to them. The fine, i.e. the punishment should be equally costly (in terms of percentage of disposable income) to whoever the offender is.
Tom, London

Not only should higher earners pay more but the famous should also be hit harder. Their cases are more likely to be headline news therefore a higher penalty would possibly serve as a bigger deterrent.
Geoff, Perth

Thought it was supposed to be the punishment that fit the crime, not the bank balance¿
Lorraine, St Albans, UK

The never-ending assaults by this government on those they perceive to be privileged is nothing more than discrimination Andy D, Oxford UK

Surely the meaning/concept of "justice' that it is the same for everyone irrespective of race/religion/class/means? The never-ending assaults by this government on those they perceive to be privileged is nothing more than discrimination. Blair's concept of increased prosperity for all seems to be based on robbing those who have benefited by hard work or careful husbandry to pay for the material aspirations of those who are too lazy to help themselves.
Andy D, Oxford UK

People on a higher income should pay more? What another load of rubbish from this New Labour Regime. Why don't shops adopt this great scheme as well. Just show them your wage slip at the checkout and you'll be charged accordingly!!
Debbie, Nuneaton

I'm divided in opinion about this - on one hand I feel that higher earners do pay less attention to the fines that hit them less in the pocket, but then again my husband and I are usually classed as high earners while we have family members claiming benefits who have far more disposable income than we do. Perhaps it would be better if the whole system was overhauled completely; instead of getting fined over and over again there should be a three strike system or something. Prison or community service should have the same cost to a prisoner regardless of their financial status.
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex UK

Yes that is a much fairer system. Some high earners think they are above everyone else and should be brought back down to earth. If this means punishing them by ridding them of their "hard earned" money then let's get on and push this bill through.
Jo Hodgson, Swindon, UK

An offence is an offence: the punishment should be the same for all.
Jerry Burgess, Wallasey, UK

Sounds like a scheme to penalise those with bigger salaries. Might as well go the whole hog and give them longer jail sentences as well. That'll teach them to earn more money that the rest of us!
John, Belfast, N Ireland

Another way of pandering to lower class, lower income voters Sara Dawson, UK, Basingstoke

Absolutely not! Of course benefits should be means tested (and I am also one of those who feel the NHS should be means tested) but suggesting that wealthier people should pay more for fines is actually just another way of pandering to lower class, lower income voters. To use the example given, anyone who fails to stop after an accident is a deplorable human being, irrespective of their affluence, and should receive the same punishment or fine.
Sara Dawson, UK, Basingstoke

Completely immoral and yet another way of penalising success and discouraging endeavour. It's pure theft for high earners to pay more taxes for using the same services as the lower earners, now they want to steal more in fines. It is a travesty of the word "fair": Two people commit the same illegal action; fairness is for two people to pay the same fine, not this legalised scam. Disgusting.
Tom Franklin, London, UK

Yet another scam to raise more tax from the public.
John, UK