I think you kind of prove the previous post's point though. As you said, to the millionaire all of that is just an "inconvenience". Even if you assume that they

I think you kind of prove the previous post's point though. As you said, to the millionaire all of that is just an "inconvenience". Even if you assume that they couldn't fight it in court, loosing their license is still just a slightly larger incontinence as they can just hire a chauffeur. Now to someone else, those fines could mean not being able to afford the basics like food and medical needs. Not being able to pay those fines could (and does) lead to further fines/fees and jail time, loosing homes, jobs, etc. How exactly does a punishment qualify as equal treatment under the law, equality punitive, when to one person it is at worst and inconvenience, and to another can destroy their life? How would it not be treating "everyone exactly the same in front of the law" to just say that fines are assessed as a percentage of income and/or net worth? All of that said, personally I wouldn't extend this all the way back to the original argument about theft though, stealing $1000 is the same regardless who you steal it from, at least as far as the law should be concerned. I could see a moral difference, but the law often does not (and can not) make moral distinctions. It could however make reasonable distinctions in the application of the punitive aspects, as it sometimes does in terms of jail sentencing.