Speeding - 66 in 50 zone on motorway

facade

ElefantEd said:

lincroft1710 said:

Car_54 said:

boxosox said:

Is that it?  £100??

It really isn't much of a deterrent.  I'm careful to stick to the limits and when I see others get flashed for speeding, I feel confident they'll be royally punished and make sure they don't do it again.

£100 for doing 70mph in a 50 zone?  As a second offence?  That's pathetic. 

Does it not affect their insurance at all?  What if they get caught a third time?  Just another £100?

.

But if a speeding offence goes to court, for any reason, it's an income-related fine, plus 40% victim surcharge, plus prosecution costs.

Victim surcharge!! Great way to print money.

If the government wants to print money, they can! They don't need to do so by increasing the fines for offences.

It was money printing (Quantitative Easing they called it) to "get through" the C-Word that partly fuelled inflation.

Victim surcharge is not money printing, it is a tax on offenders. (Who said they can't tax everything!)

Car_54

facade said:

ElefantEd said:

lincroft1710 said:

Car_54 said:

boxosox said:

Is that it?  £100??

It really isn't much of a deterrent.  I'm careful to stick to the limits and when I see others get flashed for speeding, I feel confident they'll be royally punished and make sure they don't do it again.

£100 for doing 70mph in a 50 zone?  As a second offence?  That's pathetic. 

Does it not affect their insurance at all?  What if they get caught a third time?  Just another £100?

.

But if a speeding offence goes to court, for any reason, it's an income-related fine, plus 40% victim surcharge, plus prosecution costs.

Victim surcharge!! Great way to print money.

If the government wants to print money, they can! They don't need to do so by increasing the fines for offences.

Victim surcharge is not money printing, it is a tax on offenders. (Who said they can't tax everything!)

No, it’s a contribution to the fund that compensates crime victims. For which we may all be grateful at some point.

facade

Car_54 said:

facade said:

ElefantEd said:

lincroft1710 said:

Car_54 said:

boxosox said:

Is that it?  £100??

It really isn't much of a deterrent.  I'm careful to stick to the limits and when I see others get flashed for speeding, I feel confident they'll be royally punished and make sure they don't do it again.

£100 for doing 70mph in a 50 zone?  As a second offence?  That's pathetic. 

Does it not affect their insurance at all?  What if they get caught a third time?  Just another £100?

.

But if a speeding offence goes to court, for any reason, it's an income-related fine, plus 40% victim surcharge, plus prosecution costs.

Victim surcharge!! Great way to print money.

If the government wants to print money, they can! They don't need to do so by increasing the fines for offences.

Victim surcharge is not money printing, it is a tax on offenders. (Who said they can't tax everything!)

No, it’s a contribution to the fund that compensates crime victims. For which we may all be grateful at some point.

It funds victim support services*. It doesn't provide any compensation to individuals. It fits my definition of tax.

Taxes are mandatory contributions levied by a government on individuals or corporations to fund public works and services

* https://www.gov.uk/guidance/compensation-in-the-justice-system

The purpose of the surcharge is to ensure that offenders hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. However, income from the surcharge does not go directly to individual victims of crime in the same way that compensation does.

Instead, income from the surcharge contributes to funding given to Police and Crime Commissioners who commission local support services for victims of crime in their communities. It also funds nationally commissioned support

I'm not saying that I wouldn't be grateful for such services if I needed them, and this tax broadly makes the people responsible for the victims pay for the schemes, but it is still a tax, and like all tax, you can avoid paying it, in this case by not getting caught breaking The Law.

lincroft1710

facade said:

Car_54 said:

facade said:

ElefantEd said:

lincroft1710 said:

Car_54 said:

boxosox said:

Is that it?  £100??

It really isn't much of a deterrent.  I'm careful to stick to the limits and when I see others get flashed for speeding, I feel confident they'll be royally punished and make sure they don't do it again.

£100 for doing 70mph in a 50 zone?  As a second offence?  That's pathetic. 

Does it not affect their insurance at all?  What if they get caught a third time?  Just another £100?

.

But if a speeding offence goes to court, for any reason, it's an income-related fine, plus 40% victim surcharge, plus prosecution costs.

Victim surcharge!! Great way to print money.

If the government wants to print money, they can! They don't need to do so by increasing the fines for offences.

Victim surcharge is not money printing, it is a tax on offenders. (Who said they can't tax everything!)

No, it’s a contribution to the fund that compensates crime victims. For which we may all be grateful at some point.

It funds victim support services*. It doesn't provide any compensation to individuals. It fits my definition of tax.

Taxes are mandatory contributions levied by a government on individuals or corporations to fund public works and services

* https://www.gov.uk/guidance/compensation-in-the-justice-system

The purpose of the surcharge is to ensure that offenders hold some responsibility towards the cost of supporting victims and witnesses. However, income from the surcharge does not go directly to individual victims of crime in the same way that compensation does.

Instead, income from the surcharge contributes to funding given to Police and Crime Commissioners who commission local support services for victims of crime in their communities. It also funds nationally commissioned support

I'm not saying that I wouldn't be grateful for such services if I needed them, and this tax broadly makes the people responsible for the victims pay for the schemes, but it is still a tax, and like all tax, you can avoid paying it, in this case by not getting caught breaking The Law.

So it is a misnomer. I agree with you, it is a tax. If it was called "Victim Support Service Contribution" it would be clear what the offender was paying toward. From preceding posts it seems it wasn't clear to everyone.