3 ms·

Scaling fines up to higher incomes for things that don't really matter (jaywalking, minor traffic violations) seems antithetical to the individualistic core of

Scaling fines up to higher incomes for things that don't really matter (jaywalking, minor traffic violations) seems antithetical to the individualistic core of American culture. We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few.

coldtea 8y ago
>We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. When it comes to crimes like that, you want to absolutely lower the ceiling for the few as well, and scaling fines is the way to do it.
nabla9 8y ago
Fixed percentage equalizes the disincentive. The goal of fine is discourage. The same fine for all relative to income provides more equal discouragement.
CJefferson 8y ago
Depends what you think the fines are for. If they are to discourage behaviour, it makes sense to me to try to make them equally discouraging to everyone, which requires scaling.
- nitrogen 8y ago
  The time spent while pulled over is a pretty big discouragement to everyone. Time cost scales with wealth. But victimless "crimes" don't need punitive discouragement the way other harmful activities might. Jaywalking, speeding, turning right from the left lane, these things happen hundreds of times a day in a city, and spottily enforced huge fines are not likely to address whatever societal harm these activities might cause. There are probably better ways to spread and encourage the small social norms that allow society to function. Leave large fines for large harm.
sgustard 8y ago
It's not just US culture, the Constitution itself prohibits "excessive fines" in the 8th Amendment. The framers were pretty good at predicting future kinds of vigilante justice that people thought up.
retsibsi 8y ago
> things that don't really matter If they really don't matter, why forbid them at all? For things that are worth forbidding, scaling is surely necessary to create a meaningful disincentive for the rich, without destroying the poor by setting very high flat fines.
yesenadam 8y ago
..the individualistic core of American culture. We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. That's what they teach you anyway. The reality - e.g. ridiculously expensive medical bills, widespread poverty - is rather different, so I hear. e.g. see The US has a lot of money, but it does not look like a developed country https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/ https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-co...

coldtea 8y ago

>We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. When it comes to crimes like that, you want to absolutely lower the ceiling for the few as well, and scaling fines is the way to do it.

nabla9 8y ago

Fixed percentage equalizes the disincentive. The goal of fine is discourage. The same fine for all relative to income provides more equal discouragement.

CJefferson 8y ago

Depends what you think the fines are for. If they are to discourage behaviour, it makes sense to me to try to make them equally discouraging to everyone, which requires scaling.

nitrogen 8y ago
The time spent while pulled over is a pretty big discouragement to everyone. Time cost scales with wealth. But victimless "crimes" don't need punitive discouragement the way other harmful activities might. Jaywalking, speeding, turning right from the left lane, these things happen hundreds of times a day in a city, and spottily enforced huge fines are not likely to address whatever societal harm these activities might cause. There are probably better ways to spread and encourage the small social norms that allow society to function. Leave large fines for large harm.

sgustard 8y ago

It's not just US culture, the Constitution itself prohibits "excessive fines" in the 8th Amendment. The framers were pretty good at predicting future kinds of vigilante justice that people thought up.

retsibsi 8y ago

> things that don't really matter If they really don't matter, why forbid them at all? For things that are worth forbidding, scaling is surely necessary to create a meaningful disincentive for the rich, without destroying the poor by setting very high flat fines.

yesenadam 8y ago

..the individualistic core of American culture. We typically try to equalize society by raising the floor for the many, rather than lowering the ceiling for the few. That's what they teach you anyway. The reality - e.g. ridiculously expensive medical bills, widespread poverty - is rather different, so I hear. e.g. see The US has a lot of money, but it does not look like a developed country https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-country/ https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-co...