4 ms·

I'm from a country with so-called day fines: a fine is a multiplier of your daily earnings. It boggles my mind that a similar system isn't in use everywhere. It

I'm from a country with so-called day fines: a fine is a multiplier of your daily earnings. It boggles my mind that a similar system isn't in use everywhere. It's easy to understand and fair to everyone; a deterrent against infractions independent of your income.

appleiigs 7y ago
If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The fine should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damage.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The effect of a file is strongly dependent on your income, so if fines are to have any deterrent effect, it must also be dependent on your income.
- distances 7y ago
  In case my wording wasn't clear enough: level of deterrent obviously shouldn't depend on your income, which this system roughly achieves. (Doesn't totally achieve it: a poor person can't in truth afford to lose any of their income, while a rich one could easily temporarily let go of over 90% without it affecting anything; for that I don't see an easy fix.) As said, I can't imagine a moral justification for not implementing some similar scheme.
- pessimizer 7y ago
  If I were moderately wealthy, there would be no incentive not to just think of the fine as a fee to break any ordinance wherever and whenever I wanted. Fines aren't costs, they are a deterrent.
  - appleiigs 7y ago
    Part deterrent, part punishment. Consider if I punched you in the face, you laughed it off and I get charged with assault; versus: I punch you, you're now disabled for life, and I get charged with assault. Should it be based on my income?
    - distances 7y ago
      That would not be based on day fines; fines and compensation are two different topics. "Disabled for life" sounds like prison time plus monetary compensation for the victim.
      - appleiigs 7y ago
        Right, which is my point. I think it should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damages. (Anyway, I am just having a conversation, will have to understand it better.)
        distances 7y ago
        It is still proportional to the crime, right? Just like with prison sentence: withholding of freedom is the deterrent part, and it hurts both rich and poor the same pretty much everywhere in the world (ignoring corruption). Day fines follow the same deterrent principle for smaller infractions: proportional to the crime and treats citizens in a roughly equal manner. Compensating someone for damages, be it for the victim's health or possessions, is then supposed to follow the real inflicted costs and does not include a deterring component, thus monetarily equal regardless of the perpetrator's income. I'd suppose this is the same almost everywhere? Edit: so to clarify, compensation paid to the victim isn't based on your income, only the fines part that is paid to the state as a deterrent is.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
Yet another reason for the wealthy to obfuscate their earnings.
- distances 7y ago
  Earnings are visible in tax decisions. Dodging taxes is a crime in itself, and unrelated to day fines.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    Does the fine also consider your average daily capital gains? If I make $200mm a year in investment returns and take a $0 salary do I get a paltry fine?
    - distances 7y ago
      Capital gains are included. If you realized $200 million before getting some day fines you'll have a new record and your face in yellow press front covers.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
For starters, there are constitutional barriers, one being the excessive fines clause. And there are multiple jurisdictions. Imagine Arizona giving a California resident a $50000 speeding ticket. Or L.A. (city) levying income based parking tickets on Beverly Hills and Orange County residents (neighboring communities with ultra wealthy people).

appleiigs 7y ago

If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The fine should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damage.

mcphage 7y ago
> If it was independent to your income, then your income should not matter. The effect of a file is strongly dependent on your income, so if fines are to have any deterrent effect, it must also be dependent on your income.
distances 7y ago
In case my wording wasn't clear enough: level of deterrent obviously shouldn't depend on your income, which this system roughly achieves. (Doesn't totally achieve it: a poor person can't in truth afford to lose any of their income, while a rich one could easily temporarily let go of over 90% without it affecting anything; for that I don't see an easy fix.) As said, I can't imagine a moral justification for not implementing some similar scheme.
pessimizer 7y ago
If I were moderately wealthy, there would be no incentive not to just think of the fine as a fee to break any ordinance wherever and whenever I wanted. Fines aren't costs, they are a deterrent.
- appleiigs 7y ago
  Part deterrent, part punishment. Consider if I punched you in the face, you laughed it off and I get charged with assault; versus: I punch you, you're now disabled for life, and I get charged with assault. Should it be based on my income?
  - distances 7y ago
    That would not be based on day fines; fines and compensation are two different topics. "Disabled for life" sounds like prison time plus monetary compensation for the victim.
    - appleiigs 7y ago
      Right, which is my point. I think it should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damages. (Anyway, I am just having a conversation, will have to understand it better.)
      - distances 7y ago
        It is still proportional to the crime, right? Just like with prison sentence: withholding of freedom is the deterrent part, and it hurts both rich and poor the same pretty much everywhere in the world (ignoring corruption). Day fines follow the same deterrent principle for smaller infractions: proportional to the crime and treats citizens in a roughly equal manner. Compensating someone for damages, be it for the victim's health or possessions, is then supposed to follow the real inflicted costs and does not include a deterring component, thus monetarily equal regardless of the perpetrator's income. I'd suppose this is the same almost everywhere? Edit: so to clarify, compensation paid to the victim isn't based on your income, only the fines part that is paid to the state as a deterrent is.

CapricornNoble 7y ago

Yet another reason for the wealthy to obfuscate their earnings.

distances 7y ago
Earnings are visible in tax decisions. Dodging taxes is a crime in itself, and unrelated to day fines.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Does the fine also consider your average daily capital gains? If I make $200mm a year in investment returns and take a $0 salary do I get a paltry fine?
  - distances 7y ago
    Capital gains are included. If you realized $200 million before getting some day fines you'll have a new record and your face in yellow press front covers.

SamReidHughes 7y ago

For starters, there are constitutional barriers, one being the excessive fines clause. And there are multiple jurisdictions. Imagine Arizona giving a California resident a $50000 speeding ticket. Or L.A. (city) levying income based parking tickets on Beverly Hills and Orange County residents (neighboring communities with ultra wealthy people).