Are Fixed $ Fines Fair or Fundamentally Flawed?
When we talk about “fairness” in the justice system, our minds often go to the big questions—sentencing, rehabilitation, or discrimination. Yet one of the most common interactions Australians have with the law is far more mundane: the humble fine. From speeding to parking to minor regulatory breaches, fines are everywhere. But are they fair?
At first glance, a fixed-dollar penalty seems simple and neutral: $100 for driving 10 km/h over the limit or around $3,300 for exceeding the limit by 45 km/h or more. These laws are the same for everyone. But is the impact meaningfully the same?
Consider two different Australians:
- Someone living on the age pension of $589.50 per week, and
- One of the 24,000-plus Australians earning over $1 million a year—that’s around $20,000 per week.
For the first person, a $300 or $700 fine can mean that they have to miss rent payments, skip meals, or delay medication. For the second person, it may be just the cost of a nice dinner out. For those earning multimillion-dollar salaries—such as the CEOs of Australia’s major banks, whose 2024 remuneration includes $5+ million for most and $25 million for the head of Macquarie—the same penalty is almost trivial.
If the purpose of a fine is to deter harmful behaviour, can a flat-dollar amount ever achieve that across such radically different income levels?
The Problem With Flat Fines
The issue is simple: a fixed-dollar penalty punishes the poor while being just a minor inconveniences the well-off.
One person’s crisis is another person’s irrelevant rounding error.
A former acquaintance of mine—an unassuming, generally careful driver—was a multimillionaire. His attitude toward fines? Mild amusement. Losing demerit points didn’t worry him either. As he once put it:
“If I lose my license, I’ll just hire a driver. Costs me just a week’s salary.”
When the consequences of breaking a law barely register for some people, but are life-altering for others, the system cannot be said to be equal, even though the rules are technically the same.
So How Do Other Countries Try to Fix This?
Some countries have tackled the problem by adopting income-based fines, sometimes called “day fines” or “unit fines.” The logic is straightforward: the severity of the offence determines the number of “days”; the person’s income determines the value of the day rate. Examples include:
- Finland – The best-known model, where a wealthy driver once famously received a €100,000 speeding fine calculated from their income.
- Switzerland – Uses a similar system for some traffic and criminal penalties.
- Germany – Applies day fines widely as an alternative to short-term imprisonment.
- Sweden, Denmark, and Austria – Variations exist across offences and jurisdictions.
These systems recognise that deterrence should be proportional—not just to the action, but to the person’s means.
Would It Work in Australia?
Australia occasionally revisits the idea, but no government has implemented a full day-fine system. The main arguments against it include administrative complexity, privacy concerns around income data, and fears of public backlash. One issue could be that traffic offences come under state law while income information would have to be obtained from the Federal Australian Tax Office.
Yet the underlying issue still remains: flat fines are regressive. They are, in effect, a tax on low-income people, while barely touching those at the top.
Are there any alternatives? There is
- Expanded use of non-financial penalties, such as community service.
- Licence-based sanctions, though as the anecdote above shows, these also fall unevenly.
- Hybrid systems, combining fixed minimums with income-scaled surcharges.
- Caps for low-income earners to prevent financial devastation.
- Deferred payment or instalment plans, which help economically but do not really address the fairness issue.
None of these solve the core problem as neatly as would an income-based system.
What Do You Think?
Is fairness achieved by treating everyone the same?
Or should we ensure that the consequences carry equal weight, even if that requires treating people differently?
Australia already adjusts income tax, child support, and social benefits according to capacity to pay or need. Is it right that penalties don’t follow the same logic?
What are your thoughts:
Would income-based fines make our justice system fairer—or introduce new problems?
What would a better model look like?
What do you think?
The Universal Fellowship exists to discuss exactly these kinds of questions—how everyday policies can reflect deeper principles of equality, justice, and universality.
