3 ms·

> I stated... somewhere, that the magnitude of your crime does not scale with your income, so scaling the fine that way does not seem logical. My favourite way

by Udik 8y ago

> I stated... somewhere, that the magnitude of your crime does not scale with your income, so scaling the fine that way does not seem logical. My favourite way of arguing in favour of fines proportional to wealth/ income is this: wealth is something that gives you the power to buy things: say better food, better houses, better cars, or even things that most people cannot afford, for example a big yacht. Depending on how wealthy you are, some products or services become affordable. However, there is one thing that nobody should consider affordable, and that is breaking the law, which should be equally binding for everybody. But if you set a fixed price for breaking the law, that itself becomes a product, and the price defines a set of people for whom the product is affordable and even worth the price. Is that right or desirable?

Dylan16807 8y ago
It depends on what the law is for. For example you could have a nice solid fine for littering, with half of it earmarked for public cleaning/improvement. If someone violates that and reliably pays the cost, it's win-win. They get to be lazy and the environment is improved.
- Udik 8y ago
  Since littering means degrading the appearance of a public space for some amount of time, it's hard yo put a price on it: the maximum fine should be the cost of a person assigned exclusively to you, who immediately picks up whatever you throw to the ground and nicely dispose of it in the appropriate way. What you say would make sense in case of unpaid fares. In the case of speeding, there is no amount of money that can offset the increased risk to pedestrians and other cars.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    No amount? I disagree. The speed limit is inherently a balance between safety and time-efficiency. You can convert time-efficiency into money, and figure out a monetary cost of different speeds. Even if it's an absolute mandate to keep safety levels the same, you could cut everyone else's speed by 1kph and make it up to them with a share of the money. Or you could subsidize safer cars with the money. And at a certain price point you can call in a police escort or start installing express lanes.

by Udik 8y ago

Dylan16807 8y ago

It depends on what the law is for. For example you could have a nice solid fine for littering, with half of it earmarked for public cleaning/improvement. If someone violates that and reliably pays the cost, it's win-win. They get to be lazy and the environment is improved.

Udik 8y ago
Since littering means degrading the appearance of a public space for some amount of time, it's hard yo put a price on it: the maximum fine should be the cost of a person assigned exclusively to you, who immediately picks up whatever you throw to the ground and nicely dispose of it in the appropriate way. What you say would make sense in case of unpaid fares. In the case of speeding, there is no amount of money that can offset the increased risk to pedestrians and other cars.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  No amount? I disagree. The speed limit is inherently a balance between safety and time-efficiency. You can convert time-efficiency into money, and figure out a monetary cost of different speeds. Even if it's an absolute mandate to keep safety levels the same, you could cut everyone else's speed by 1kph and make it up to them with a share of the money. Or you could subsidize safer cars with the money. And at a certain price point you can call in a police escort or start installing express lanes.