That was the conclusion of a report, which canvassed the opinions of almost 700 advisers.
The respondents told researchers, who carried out the survey for AJ Bell, that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
The model is under review by the FCA.
More than three quarters (78%) supported the proposal for those who transact the riskiest business bearing the heaviest burden in funding it.
The Financial Advice Market Review called for the current FCA review of how the FSCS is funded to explore risk-based levies. AJ Bell believes the review should also consider redirecting a proportion of the fines levied by the FCA to lower the overall cost of the FSCS levy. Currently all fines are paid directly to the Treasury.
Mike Morrison, head of platform technical at AJ Bell said: “Advisers are sending a message loud and clear to the regulator that the status quo, which often sees advisers with no complaints history whatsoever saddled with disproportionately huge FSCS levies, is no longer acceptable.
“Advisers have resoundingly backed the idea of a new levy model based on the risks of each individual advice firm.”
Just 22% said they didn’t agree with the idea.
Mr Morrison said: “Moving to a ‘polluter pays’ system clearly has merits and we hope the FCA considers the views of those it regulates when deciding how to ensure the FSCS levy is fair and proportionate.
“In addition, it seems incongruous that all the fines paid by firms who are judged to have caused consumer detriment are funnelled out of the industry.
“We’d like to see a proportion of those fines used to reduce the FSCS levy and reduce the cost of regulation for advisers. This is one of the main barriers that gets in the way of a greater proportion of consumers having access to financial advice.”
Under existing rules, the FSCS levy is allocated based on the ‘fee blocks’ each firm belongs to, which are in turn determined by the type of activity that firm carries out such as Life and Pensions intermediation.