Anyone who drives through a red light and is caught will probably spend more money from 2024 onwards than now. Outgoing Minister Dilan Yesilgöz-Zegerius (Justice and Security, VVD) will increase traffic fines by 10 percent as of 2024 to close the budget gap. But fines are not intended as a source of income for the government, warns professor Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko. She sees more benefit in income-related fines, a system in which the amount of your income also determines how high the fine is.
Yesilgöz’s proposal has caused a stir. The Public Prosecution Service believes that if traffic fines are increased, they are no longer in proportion to other criminal orders it imposes. A fine for a traffic violation could soon be as high as that for an assault; both around 400 euros. This would reduce support for traffic fines in society, the Public Prosecution Service fears.
Another point of criticism is that Yesilgöz plainly says that the increase is necessary because the government is short of money. The fines are therefore used to supplement the state coffers: that is not a fine policy, but a disguised tax, critics say.
Also read: Public Prosecution Service thinks traffic fines are too high: ‘support is decreasing’
Increasing fines to generate more state revenue is not allowed, says Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko. She is a professor of law and economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam and conducts research into fines. “Fines are intended to deter offenders: they should punish and direct them. They should only be increased if doing so makes them more deterrent, or if the severity of the crime justifies it.”
Half of the EU already has income-related fines
Day fines
Kantorowicz-Reznichenko sees more benefit in so-called day fines. These are income dependent. In absolute terms they are different for everyone, but relatively equal for everyone in terms of income.
This system also takes into account the seriousness of the violations, because for each violation an x number of days’ wages must be paid as a fine (hence the name daily fines). In other words: a minor offense costs an offender one day’s wages, a serious one costs ten.
Nearly half of the EU countries have now introduced income-related fines, including Germany, Austria and France. Finland was the first to do this, in 1921. There, a board member of phone maker Nokia was even imposed a speeding fine of 116,000 euros in 2002. Almost all EU countries with income-related fines have an upper limit.
“An income-related fine system reduces inequality and is proportional,” said Kantorowicz-Reznichenko. “In the current system, someone with a low income is greatly affected by a fine of 400 euros, while someone with a high income barely feels the fine.”
To illustrate, a fine of 200 euros would represent 16 percent of the monthly salary of someone earning 1,200 euros, and 2 percent for someone earning 10,000 euros per month.
The increase will put the lowest incomes in even more of a bind, says Kantorowicz-Reznichenko. While there is already a problem there, she says: people who cannot pay the fines receive reminder after reminder, ultimately resulting in a prison sentence. The costs for both society and the offender are then no longer proportionate to the violation. “You shouldn’t want this, that people with little money are hit extra hard.”
But it is also not the intention that people with high incomes will be hit extra, she says. That is why she advocates making a distinction between income before and after payment of taxes. “That is fairer, otherwise you will pay the fine percentage on a larger amount, namely your gross salary. In the Netherlands, people with a higher income pay more taxes in percentage terms, so they would be disproportionately affected if the fines were based on gross income.”
‘Punishment of the rich’
In the Netherlands, daily fines are not yet a political issue. According to Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, this is because it is seen as “too complicated” and “punishing the rich.”
“I also think that judges do not see the problem with the current system. There is no belief that the benefits outweigh the harms,” said Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, who was previously a prosecutor.
But she believes the Netherlands can handle the transition just fine. “Compared to other countries, we have an extremely transparent tax system. The government has relevant financial information available from citizens, which allows the system of income-related fines to work properly.”
In the United Kingdom, the system was introduced in 1992 and abolished after seven months. Why? This was partly due to misunderstanding from the population, Kantorowicz-Reznichenko thinks. Many people intuitively find it disproportionate that fines for richer people in that system are higher.
“Media published that someone had to pay £1,200 because a plastic packaging had blown onto the street, without any nuance about the matter. This news shocked the public, so it is especially important that citizens understand the system,” said Kantorowicz-Reznichenko. Sweden resolves this by publicly publishing the verdict in terms of the number of ‘days’ of wages and not the absolute amount of the fine, “so that the unjustified shock factor is eliminated.”
The Public Prosecution Service indicates that it is important that fines are proportionate to the seriousness of the violation, but they are not concerned with the subject of income-related fines. “It is not an issue on our table at the moment,” a spokesperson said.
Also read the NRC Commentary: Increasing fines has shockingly little to do with safety