4 ms·

> If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing a

> If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have. This is not true if you see $50 and $150 dollars as basically the same amount when compared to your overall wealth. Would you care about a 2 cent fine for overrunning you time on a 1 cent parking space?

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> This is not true if you see $50 and $150 dollars as basically the same amount when compared to your overall wealth. Would you care about a 2 cent fine for overrunning you time on a 1 cent parking space? At which point you can be happy that the rich person is voluntarily paying the 3 cent fine instead of the 1 cent parking fee. If you made it a $1000 fine vs. a 1 cent parking fee then they would pay the parking fee, but how is that actually better? You convinced them to spend more of their time keeping track of how long they had before having to put money in the meter and as a result you ended up with less money. Net loss to everyone. Meanwhile now you're creating a bunch of perverse incentives for rich people to register their cars in someone else's name or waste thousands of man hours on both sides to contest an ordinary parking fine, and creating a bunch of perverse incentives for governments to pass vague, misleading, counterintuitive or impossible to comply with laws so they can jump out of the bushes and impose massive fines on anyone who walks by with money in their pocket.
- andrepd 8y ago
  >At which point you can be happy that the rich person is voluntarily paying the 3 cent fine instead of the 1 cent parking fee. No, because the issue here is not like a fee, it's about breaking the law and how you should be punished for it in order for it to deter you. A more apt comparison would be "you can be happy that the a rich person is voluntarily paying 500$ to park on top of a crosswalk. In this case you want to deter the person from doing something that harms others, not just to make them pay for it, which in this case means either a fine indexed to income or jail time, so it hurts you even if you are a billionaire.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally. If someone parks on a crosswalk and the cost of that to society is $200 and the fine is $500 then the fact that they're paying $500 means you're still coming out ahead. And if the cost to society is more than $500 then you've set the fine wrong regardless of who is paying it.
    - rhizome 8y ago
      Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally Cite?
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      But the point isn't to turn something bad into a valid transaction that is simply unfavourable. The point is to deter the behaviour in the first place, regardless of how much you're willing to pay to do it.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        But why would you want to do that? Why would you prefer no-transaction over one that generates a $300 profit?
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  A normal fine simply becomes "the cost of doing business". The point is to deter Google, not to simply add a cost to its activities. Related links: https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine.pdf https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine... NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomi... NPR: https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-irrational-economic-impulses https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-...
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    A fine is a price -- exactly. So why are you trying to deter them from doing something which they're willing to pay you more to let them do than it costs you to let them do it? Or if the fine would be lower for some other company with less money, then why are you willing to let that other company pay less to do it than it costs you to let them do it?
    - UnFleshedOne 8y ago
      Fine is not supposed to be a price, taxes serve that purpose.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        A fine is supposed to be a price. If the only purpose was deterrence then why isn't every offense a capital one and every fine in the amount of "everything you've got"? Taxes are something else entirely. Income taxes aren't intended to put a price on working so that people won't do it unless it's worth the cost, they're intended to raise government revenue.
        hellllllllooo 8y ago
        A fine is supposed to be a deterrent so it needs to be high enough to deter.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> This is not true if you see $50 and $150 dollars as basically the same amount when compared to your overall wealth. Would you care about a 2 cent fine for overrunning you time on a 1 cent parking space? At which point you can be happy that the rich person is voluntarily paying the 3 cent fine instead of the 1 cent parking fee. If you made it a $1000 fine vs. a 1 cent parking fee then they would pay the parking fee, but how is that actually better? You convinced them to spend more of their time keeping track of how long they had before having to put money in the meter and as a result you ended up with less money. Net loss to everyone. Meanwhile now you're creating a bunch of perverse incentives for rich people to register their cars in someone else's name or waste thousands of man hours on both sides to contest an ordinary parking fine, and creating a bunch of perverse incentives for governments to pass vague, misleading, counterintuitive or impossible to comply with laws so they can jump out of the bushes and impose massive fines on anyone who walks by with money in their pocket.

andrepd 8y ago
>At which point you can be happy that the rich person is voluntarily paying the 3 cent fine instead of the 1 cent parking fee. No, because the issue here is not like a fee, it's about breaking the law and how you should be punished for it in order for it to deter you. A more apt comparison would be "you can be happy that the a rich person is voluntarily paying 500$ to park on top of a crosswalk. In this case you want to deter the person from doing something that harms others, not just to make them pay for it, which in this case means either a fine indexed to income or jail time, so it hurts you even if you are a billionaire.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally. If someone parks on a crosswalk and the cost of that to society is $200 and the fine is $500 then the fact that they're paying $500 means you're still coming out ahead. And if the cost to society is more than $500 then you've set the fine wrong regardless of who is paying it.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally Cite?
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    But the point isn't to turn something bad into a valid transaction that is simply unfavourable. The point is to deter the behaviour in the first place, regardless of how much you're willing to pay to do it.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      But why would you want to do that? Why would you prefer no-transaction over one that generates a $300 profit?
mfoy_ 8y ago
A normal fine simply becomes "the cost of doing business". The point is to deter Google, not to simply add a cost to its activities. Related links: https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine.pdf https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine... NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/books/chapters/freakonomi... NPR: https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-irrational-economic-impulses https://www.npr.org/2008/03/31/89233955/dan-ariely-takes-on-...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  A fine is a price -- exactly. So why are you trying to deter them from doing something which they're willing to pay you more to let them do than it costs you to let them do it? Or if the fine would be lower for some other company with less money, then why are you willing to let that other company pay less to do it than it costs you to let them do it?
  - UnFleshedOne 8y ago
    Fine is not supposed to be a price, taxes serve that purpose.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      A fine is supposed to be a price. If the only purpose was deterrence then why isn't every offense a capital one and every fine in the amount of "everything you've got"? Taxes are something else entirely. Income taxes aren't intended to put a price on working so that people won't do it unless it's worth the cost, they're intended to raise government revenue.
      - hellllllllooo 8y ago
        A fine is supposed to be a deterrent so it needs to be high enough to deter.