> On the fence on this one, because it seems unfair to punish someone more because they're doing well You're not punishing them more, you're punishing them sim

> On the fence on this one, because it seems unfair to punish someone more because they're doing well You're not punishing them more, you're punishing them similarly: the marginal value of money diminishes as you have more of it, a $20 fine to someone who earns $5000 a week is a lot less punishing than to someone who earns $500. By scaling fines to income / wealth, you're preserving the fact that this is supposed to be a punishment deterring from the act. > so, perhaps a system of increasingly punishing repeat offenders maybe? That's... already common? But if you have enough money, it would have to scale up quickly and drastically to have any deterrent effect, and it would still disproportionally affect lower-income individuals. An alternative (or complement) is to create a flat resource, that's what points systems do (although they tend to still disproportionally affect lower-income individual: they're harder hit by the loss of mobility, and they may not have the time or money to attend to recovery courses when those are available).