I think wealth dependent fines are a good idea in some cases, but not for the same reason as the author. To me, it has nothing to do with tempering fines or acc

I think wealth dependent fines are a good idea in some cases, but not for the same reason as the author. To me, it has nothing to do with tempering fines or accounting for error. It has to do with the simple fact that $100 means vastly different things to different people. For someone living in real poverty, $100 could change their life. For the average American, it's a nice chunk of change but certainly nothing life-altering. For the rich, it's pocket change. $100 to someone with a net worth of $20m is like 50 cents to someone with a net worth of $100k. If you got a traffic ticket and it was for 50 cents, would that constitute any deterrent at all? It certainly wouldn't for me. If I knew the fine was only going to be 50 cents, I would probably drive at least 35 mph over the limit in some places. A constant amount of money does not mean a constant fine. Charging a sufficiently rich person with a $100 fine is as good as not charging any fine at all. A constant percent of net worth comes much closer to being a real constant fine.