> "You do die a horrible death from eviction because you had to choose between getting a warrant issued due to unpaid parking tickets, or paying rent." What I

> "You do die a horrible death from eviction because you had to choose between getting a warrant issued due to unpaid parking tickets, or paying rent." What I meant was fines for parking seem less socially important than fines for smoking. I think policy that protects the lower bound from getting crippled by cascading fines is probably good - at least it's where I think the focus should be. I think we agree more than disagree on that probably. It's expanding the cost to be more extreme at all levels that I think is a bad idea. In your two examples the Steve one doesn't really apply. CA didn't used to require plates on new cars (they do now) and he had cancer. The Bezos example sounds real, but also not personal? More of an "I'll cover your parking tickets" so the contractors don't get hit with them (which seems if anything like he's helping avoid those that would get hit harder by fines). That doesn't bother me too much - I guess I view a fine as an acceptable trade to discourage behavior, but if you're willing to pay it then you can. Is that unfair because it's worse if you're poor? Yeah, but a lot of things are worse if you're poor. I don't think being poor should be the same as not being poor, but it should be bounded. I'd argue the lower bound in American society today is too low.