3 ms·

>Speeding is either a misdemeanour or crime, that means it is simply prohibited. Period. Why not set the fine to a million dollars for everyone, then, or at le

by ikeboy 7y ago

>Speeding is either a misdemeanour or crime, that means it is simply prohibited. Period. Why not set the fine to a million dollars for everyone, then, or at least significantly boost the fine? Under my framework it's easy to answer, since it's inefficient to disincentivize speeding that much. >The state of affairs you refer to, where the speeding ticket is considered just a cost of doing said activity is exactly what we want to avoid Why? >Punish What is the benefit of punishment outside of deterrence? And for deterrence, the clear economic answer is to have the same amount of deterrence for everyone, which requires a constant fine.

mpweiher 7y ago
> Why not set the fine to a million dollars for everyone Because that is a disproportionate punishment for speeding for most people. We don't do disproportionate punishment. It's also why we don't hang people for stealing. Any more. > [it's not a tax] Why? Because allowing speeding and taxing it is not the goal. We don't want people to speed. Even rich people. > same amount of deterrence for everyone Exactly. > which requires a constant fine. Er, no. Exactly the other way around. To make the deterrence effect the same for everyone absolutely requires the monetary amount to be different. The deterrence effect of an economic fine is hugely dependent on how much money you have/make. If I make a €10000 an hour, a €1000 fine is nothing, it takes me 6 minutes to work that off, so who cares? If I make €1000 a month, that's an entire month's worth of work, and so the fine will have a huge impact on me. In Germany, this is encoded by the concept of a "Tagessatz", which is essentially how much you make per day (minus what you absolutely need to live): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagessatz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagessatz They don't generally do this for traffic violations or other misdemeanours, but for felonies for which the sentence includes a monetary punishment. So you are convicted to pay, let's say 45 "Tagessätze". How much that is depends on how much you make. If you don't pay, you go to jail for that amount of time. Time is the equalizer, being roughly the same for everyone, unlike money. (Yes there are differences in how long people live, or have left to live, but it's not clear whether those should be accounted for and they are nothing comparable to the differences in income/wealth. See Taleb on "Extremistan" https://wou.edu/~shawd/mediocristan--extremistan.html https://wou.edu/~shawd/mediocristan--extremistan.html )
- ikeboy 7y ago
  You haven't answered the central question, which is why you want a punishment outside of the deterrence effect. And I've addressed the deterrence issue at length, just asserting that my model is wrong without explaining why won't cut it.
  - mpweiher 7y ago
    > And I've addressed the deterrence issue at length No you haven't. You've just asserted a random formula, without any supporting evidence. > just asserting that my model is wrong without explaining why won't cut it. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens). You haven't provided any evidence for you "model" (=random formula), so there is no reason to demand evidence for dismissing it. However, multiple people actually have provided that evidence and explained in great detail why your idea and formula is wrong. Also, multiple countries have based parts of their legal systems on this model (relative fine). So if you want to figure out why you are wrong, which you are, feel free to examine the legal systems of those countries. For example: "Ziel ist es, Menschen mit unterschiedlichem Einkommen verhältnismäßig gleich hart zu bestrafen." → "The goal is to punish people with different incomes equally hard." From the Wikipedia entry on "Tagessatz" that I pointed out to you earlier. Outta here.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      >However, multiple people actually have provided that evidence and explained in great detail why your idea and formula is wrong. This is false. The only comment that actually purported to respond said there's an issue with an error rate in applying the fine. This is a minor problem, nowhere close to justifying a massive differential across all income levels. >So if you want to figure out why you are wrong, which you are, feel free to examine the legal systems of those countries. Of course, the fact that a country does something does not imply it's economically sound, and your implication of such is absurd. You've yet to give any economic rationale for "punishment" as opposed to deterrence, yet continue to cite "punishment" as a justification. I'm happy to concede that this does, in fact, "punish people with different incomes equally hard", but since punishment is a stupid goal, this is useless. >You haven't provided any evidence for you "model" I provided all assumptions required to derive it; you need to disprove some explicit or implicit assumption, or agree.

by ikeboy 7y ago

mpweiher 7y ago

> Why not set the fine to a million dollars for everyone Because that is a disproportionate punishment for speeding for most people. We don't do disproportionate punishment. It's also why we don't hang people for stealing. Any more. > [it's not a tax] Why? Because allowing speeding and taxing it is not the goal. We don't want people to speed. Even rich people. > same amount of deterrence for everyone Exactly. > which requires a constant fine. Er, no. Exactly the other way around. To make the deterrence effect the same for everyone absolutely requires the monetary amount to be different. The deterrence effect of an economic fine is hugely dependent on how much money you have/make. If I make a €10000 an hour, a €1000 fine is nothing, it takes me 6 minutes to work that off, so who cares? If I make €1000 a month, that's an entire month's worth of work, and so the fine will have a huge impact on me. In Germany, this is encoded by the concept of a "Tagessatz", which is essentially how much you make per day (minus what you absolutely need to live): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagessatz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagessatz They don't generally do this for traffic violations or other misdemeanours, but for felonies for which the sentence includes a monetary punishment. So you are convicted to pay, let's say 45 "Tagessätze". How much that is depends on how much you make. If you don't pay, you go to jail for that amount of time. Time is the equalizer, being roughly the same for everyone, unlike money. (Yes there are differences in how long people live, or have left to live, but it's not clear whether those should be accounted for and they are nothing comparable to the differences in income/wealth. See Taleb on "Extremistan" https://wou.edu/~shawd/mediocristan--extremistan.html https://wou.edu/~shawd/mediocristan--extremistan.html )

ikeboy 7y ago
You haven't answered the central question, which is why you want a punishment outside of the deterrence effect. And I've addressed the deterrence issue at length, just asserting that my model is wrong without explaining why won't cut it.
- mpweiher 7y ago
  > And I've addressed the deterrence issue at length No you haven't. You've just asserted a random formula, without any supporting evidence. > just asserting that my model is wrong without explaining why won't cut it. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens). You haven't provided any evidence for you "model" (=random formula), so there is no reason to demand evidence for dismissing it. However, multiple people actually have provided that evidence and explained in great detail why your idea and formula is wrong. Also, multiple countries have based parts of their legal systems on this model (relative fine). So if you want to figure out why you are wrong, which you are, feel free to examine the legal systems of those countries. For example: "Ziel ist es, Menschen mit unterschiedlichem Einkommen verhältnismäßig gleich hart zu bestrafen." → "The goal is to punish people with different incomes equally hard." From the Wikipedia entry on "Tagessatz" that I pointed out to you earlier. Outta here.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    >However, multiple people actually have provided that evidence and explained in great detail why your idea and formula is wrong. This is false. The only comment that actually purported to respond said there's an issue with an error rate in applying the fine. This is a minor problem, nowhere close to justifying a massive differential across all income levels. >So if you want to figure out why you are wrong, which you are, feel free to examine the legal systems of those countries. Of course, the fact that a country does something does not imply it's economically sound, and your implication of such is absurd. You've yet to give any economic rationale for "punishment" as opposed to deterrence, yet continue to cite "punishment" as a justification. I'm happy to concede that this does, in fact, "punish people with different incomes equally hard", but since punishment is a stupid goal, this is useless. >You haven't provided any evidence for you "model" I provided all assumptions required to derive it; you need to disprove some explicit or implicit assumption, or agree.