If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
New Taxes On Motorists to pay for Crime Victims
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Has anyone seen the news today about the government considering adding a £35 tax to every person's speeding ticket?
The money to be used to help victims of crime .. and not car crime but any kind of crime.
It is just me or does anyone else find it hard to see the link between a speeding ticket and having to contribute to victims of muggers, burglars, etc?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3100229.stm
What Do You Guys Think?
The money to be used to help victims of crime .. and not car crime but any kind of crime.
It is just me or does anyone else find it hard to see the link between a speeding ticket and having to contribute to victims of muggers, burglars, etc?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3100229.stm
What Do You Guys Think?
0
Comments
Anyone else fed up with Tony Blair being told what to do?
yep, but its either that or having Ian Duncaln Baldude being told what to do
For instance Insurance tax - by law you MUST have car insurance - so if you're in an accident you're covered to at least pay to have the other guy's car repaired, but then they add tax on to this, this seem like pure theft to me.
I think taxes should be inforce to pay for services like rubbish collection, hospitals, etc and to a certain extent to deter people from bad things and steer them in another direction for instance tax on ciggerettes or lower taxes on less poluting fuels.
But when they start doing things like create brand new taxes for totally unrelated schemes that annoys me. They have no trouble finding the money to build the world's largest tent or provide legal aid to help burglars sue their victims, but yet they struggle to find the money to hire enough nurses and teachers.
What a crazy world we live in..
Speeding is a crime. If you speed you are a criminal. It has been statistically proven that a child is twice as likely to die at 40mph as it is at 30mph. Speeders kill children. The speed limit is 30mph in built-up areas to protect children. Speeders are dangerous.
Therefore fixed penalty notices for speeding crimes are entirely reasonable, and I think using them to pay for the CICB ratehr than more speed cameras is an excellent idea. After all, if you obeyed the law then you wouldnt be caught speeding, so you can have no complaints. You cannot choose which laws you should obey, and which ones you should not. If you speed, you are a criminal. A minor criminal, but you are still a criminal.
Oh, and legal junkie, a few things:
1. The police are there to catch criminals. If you speed you are a criminal, as you are breaking the law. How are the police not doing their job in catching criminals by catching speeders?
2. The police allow 10% leeway for speedometer error in speeding offences- you wouldnt be charged for doing 33mph.
3. The extra 3mph can make the difference between the death of a child and the child living. If it was your child youd want the person who killed him or her by speeding punished, would you not?
4. You cannot choose how much you can break the law by- 30mph over a 30 limit is mroe dangerous, but no less a crime than 3mph over the limit.
Dont speed, dont get speeding fines people. Its not a tax, its a punishment doled out to criminals.
I would just like to point out that speeding kills more than just children. My great uncle was knocked off his bike by someone speeding.
Speeding is a crime. Don't do it and then you won't have to pay a fine. The Police are there to catch those who break the law, which is what speeders do. If you do not want to pay a tax on your speeding ticket then drive within the limits set by the law. Quite simple really.
That's a nonsense.
It's simply another stealth tax.
That's extremely unfair, maybe you don't smoke or drink but making people who do have to pay more is selfish. There's nothing wrong with having a few drinks with your friends on a night out you know.
:rolleyes:
As I am sure you well know, fines demanded by the courts are paid into the CICB in order to fund it. Extending it to fixed penalty notices is a logical step.
So where it is nonsensical Id be interested to know. And its not taxation as it is not levied by Government to all persons, it is a punishment for criminals. Otherwise fines given to people by the judicial system would be called "tax" in your warped universe.
It makes perfect sense. Alcohol and tobacco related illnesses cost the NHS tens of millions of pounds every year, so why should everyone else fund the idiots who gave themselves lung cancer, or drank themselves into liver failure?
That's a very one-sided statement. What about the other illnesses caused by people's ill-treatment of their own bodies? Look at all the fat elderly people waddling around hospital wings becuase they've contracted diabetes. Should taxes on food be raised so as to punish them?
Food is an essential part of life though, alcohol and cigarettes are not. Taxing cigarettes I can completely understand, since they have a detrimental effect on your health from the very first one you smoke. Alcohol, granted, if taken in moderation does not harm your health, but somehow it seems logical to tax that too because it's a drug.
Taxing food though just to follow the same principles would be ludicrous. It does not come onder the same category as alcohol and cigarettes therefore should not follw the same rules.
I know.
But why is there so much focus on alcohol and cigarettes? Instead of bleeding the public of every last penny of tax money, why doesn't the Government focus more of its attentions on improving the average Briton's diet?
We're not the second most obese nation on the Planet for nothing.
If you paid attention to the goings-on in Parliament, youd know that they are. Though its quite difficult to feed a family on fresh fruit and veg on benefits.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? In order to find out how the Government is trying to raise the awareness of the general public, I need to pay close attention to what's happening in Parliament. That doesn't make any sense.
I don't agree that it's difficult to buy fresh fruit and veg on benefits. Supermarkets do as many special offers on quality fruit and veg as they do on "Extra-Value" crisps or biscuits. It's much more a case of what people chose to put into their shopping basket.
Its not difficult, but it costs more money. A pack of chocolate biscuits is cheaper to buy than a bunch of bananas, a bag of value chips is cheaper than a sack of potatoes. As for veg, a lettuce is four times more expensive than a can of beans, as is broccoli and carrots. Its no wonder that people eat shit, because shit processed food is cheaper than fresh fruit and veg. And when it comes to restricted incomes, every penny counts.
Though, obviously, in many cases it is fair to say 20 B&Hs come ahead of food, but thats an entirely different argument.
I did not say that you were a hypocrite, just that your statement did not make any sense.
I also still do not believe that fruit and vegetables are too expensive for some people. It is merely a case of were these people's priorities lie. You make a very good point. In order for people on benefits to be able to buy a packet of cigarettes and a copy of Heat (or something equally ghastly), they have to cut back in other areas. Such as buying chea biscuits for snacks instead of fruit. But that is down to the nature of the person's character, more than their situation and income.
This goes back to my original point. Increasing taxes in cigarettes isn't going to make people stop buying them. It just means they are going to have to make further cut-backs and shove even cheaper low-quality processed shit down their throats as a form of nourishment.
I know there is nothing wrong with having a few drinks on a night out with friends. I am pretty sure I ventured into that realm last night when I had a double vanilla vodka and coke in a bar in town. What is your point? People who have a few drinks on a night out won't be hit hard because if they're drinking in moderation they won't feel the tax. Alcoholics might though. And smokers.
Also, the title of this thread is misleading. It claims there is a new tax on "motorists" whereas the proposals will affect criminals.
What an odd thing to say. Surely every person who pays to buy alcohol will 'feel' the tax, just not to as great an extent. It doesn't mean that they won't be hit hard by tax. Not many people enjoy having high rates of tax imposed on the things that they buy.
ALL taxation is legalised theft!!!!!!!
Ever been to hospital, or to the doctors? Yes? Did you pay? No? Exactly.
Did you go to school? Did your parents pay?
Ever borrowed a book from the library? Been vaccinated against disease? Get your refuse collected do you? Someone repairs the street lights near you do they? Ever seen a public field being mowed? Does your town have bins and hanging baskets?
Wonder how all of those things came about.....? :rolleyes:
Except that I don't think we are getting a high enough return for the amount of tax that is being paid.