5 ms·

I think fines that are proportional to your income or wealth are clearly a better approach than fixed fines. In practice, that kind of stuff can be really hard

I think fines that are proportional to your income or wealth are clearly a better approach than fixed fines. In practice, that kind of stuff can be really hard to figure out, but overall it seems sensible? There are lots of downsides to a highly connected financial system for poor people, but hopefully we can move towards scaled fines as something of a consolation for all of the downsides the poor endure.

rvnx 2y ago
Along with the wealth tax, these revenue-based fines also pushes you to minimize the revenues that you declare to the state, ending with overall losses in collected taxes. For example, many crypto-bros are insanely poor on paper. Companies can spend on behalf of a person, etc. A more fair system is to be able to pick between jail or community service. Time is equally precious to all humans and giving some of your time to repair your mistakes is the best you can do.
- xico 2y ago
  A poor person cannot afford to miss a day at the job, or not care for their children, when it would just be another day not working for a rich one. Not to mention the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest populations are 10-15 years. If anything jail sentences should be longer for wealthy people!
Teever 2y ago
I'd like to see progressive fines implemented as well. I'm not sure what factor we should use but I think that it should quickly become economically infeasible for anyone to keep reoffending because the cost of separate instances of doing so quickly escalates. Maybe exponentially?
- aeturnum 2y ago
  The idea of having the fine scale based on how quickly people re-offend is also really interesting! I feel like I worry about...situations where people are pressed into breaking that law out of circumstances and then are extra-harshly punished by the mounting fines? Maybe you combine it with some kind of income-based ceiling or a loss in driving privileges (has its own problems ofc but it is a public danger for someone to always be breaking the law - even if they feel they have no choice).
  - Teever 2y ago
    Oh I don't just want this for driving fines but all fines in general.If the point of fines is to serve as a disincentive and to modify the behavior of people then they need to have some teeth to them. People are free to do their own personal cost benefit analysis when they decide whether or not whatever personal circumstance they're in is worth breaking the law, and the law isn't there to give them a pass because their personal analysis on this resulted in them deciding to break the law.
    - ASalazarMX 2y ago
      This could be an incredible revenue stream for law enforcement at all levels, without heavy balances it's almost guaranteed that it will be egregiously abused, like asset forfeiture.
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        Solution really is that money does not go to law enforcement, instead it goes to general budget from which then law enforcement is funded. Law enforcement really should not be able to fund itself by any mechanism.
      - Teever 2y ago
        You could say the same thing about all fines in general or specifically the Swiss and Finish income proportional fines in general. Is there any evidence of egregious behaviour from Swedish and Finnish law enforcement in the manner that you describe?
- me_me_me 2y ago
  remember when JP Morgan was caught manipulating price of silver making billions off it. They were 'fined' 100m or something. Its like robbing a bank and when caught you need to give 10% back. And also you will be given stern warning to not do it again.
Analemma_ 2y ago
I don't even think it needs to be hard to figure out. Fines could, and should, be set to something like "basis points [hundredths of one percent] of your gross income on last year's tax return", which the government already knows. A speeding ticket could then be set to e.g. 20 bp = [last year's gross income] * .002.
- aeturnum 2y ago
  Yah - income is clearly the first way to do this, but you'd want to integrate assets at some point (many wealthy people do not have traditionally high incomes). That's the tricky part.
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    Mm. On paper, I am in poverty, earn less than €20,000 a year, and am up to my eyeballs in unsecured debt. The reality is somewhat different.
- randomdata 2y ago
  I know, if you can't pay the fine don't do the crime, but realistically income is not a constant and is much too temporal to be useful here. A decent income year last year, and little income this year, means you might have no hope of paying the fine. Why not a fraction of the current value of gross assets at the time of investigation? This a much better reflection of someone's financial standing, is a greater deterrent, ensures that the fine is actually payable, and deals with the issue of the rich not having much in the way of income.
  - klingoff 2y ago
    It sounds very progressive for a society to admit high income spendthrifts are immune to self reflective remorse, but I feel like we should still try impose penalties to give them an opportunity for growth.
    - randomdata 2y ago
beaglesss 2y ago
I would argue if the goal is justice then the fine is basically a tort on the externality imposed. At some point society imposes an injustice if the fine exceeds the externality imposed by tailgating, even if it's a pittance to the rich person. That is, for justice rather than just retribution, I think the real nominal cost of tailgating is probably not closely linked to wealth or income of the offender
- aeturnum 2y ago
  It's fair to say and, on some level, I like the idea of scaling fines to lower income more than scaling them to higher incomes. The marginal utility of wealth goes down as you get more anyway. I also think that, if you wanna critique the efficacy of fines in metting out justice, you need to go further than you do here. Scaling the fine tries, imperfectly, to match the punishment to the circumstances of the offender. We could imagine an even better system that more perfectly reacts to misbehavior, but exactly what that would be seems hard and this is a sensible adjustment to an existing system.
- _benedict 2y ago
  But the point of the fine in this case is clearly not restitution, but disincentive. Justice in this case is ensuring everyone is equally incentivised to follow a law that society thinks everyone should follow. If the goal were only to ascribe economic harms to certain actions and reclaim those costs, it would be called a tax or a fee, not a fine.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gordyf 2y ago
      Good -- such a person doesn't deserve luxury waiters and servants.
    - milch 2y ago
      Instead of being the discretionary income of this philanthropic rich guy who would graciously give it all away to his servants, those 100k go to the Swiss government, which famously provides no public benefit or services and in fact just sets the money on fire
bko 2y ago
Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can't afford to pay speeding tickets? I don't see what problem this is trying to solve. Is there an epidemic of wealthy people speeding and running over school children? In America you get points for speeding and your insurance goes up (more expensive car, more expensive insurance) and after a number of points you lose your license. Wealthy people don't break the law any more than less wealthy people even though the naive view of the economic costs of crime would have you think they would.
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can afford to pay speeding tickets?
  - bko 2y ago
    No, they'll lose their license. That's what points are for. That's a huge inconvenience for a rich person
dzhiurgis 2y ago
To simplify admin cops could write you up a fixed fine then send your fine to IRS who will calculate your additional fine at the end of year... Keeps your income private from cops + uses existing mechanism of determining your income.
- M95D 2y ago
  I belive that's how they do it. The ticket specifies the fine in "day-units". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

rvnx 2y ago

Along with the wealth tax, these revenue-based fines also pushes you to minimize the revenues that you declare to the state, ending with overall losses in collected taxes. For example, many crypto-bros are insanely poor on paper. Companies can spend on behalf of a person, etc. A more fair system is to be able to pick between jail or community service. Time is equally precious to all humans and giving some of your time to repair your mistakes is the best you can do.

xico 2y ago
A poor person cannot afford to miss a day at the job, or not care for their children, when it would just be another day not working for a rich one. Not to mention the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest populations are 10-15 years. If anything jail sentences should be longer for wealthy people!

Teever 2y ago

I'd like to see progressive fines implemented as well. I'm not sure what factor we should use but I think that it should quickly become economically infeasible for anyone to keep reoffending because the cost of separate instances of doing so quickly escalates. Maybe exponentially?

aeturnum 2y ago
The idea of having the fine scale based on how quickly people re-offend is also really interesting! I feel like I worry about...situations where people are pressed into breaking that law out of circumstances and then are extra-harshly punished by the mounting fines? Maybe you combine it with some kind of income-based ceiling or a loss in driving privileges (has its own problems ofc but it is a public danger for someone to always be breaking the law - even if they feel they have no choice).
- Teever 2y ago
  Oh I don't just want this for driving fines but all fines in general.If the point of fines is to serve as a disincentive and to modify the behavior of people then they need to have some teeth to them. People are free to do their own personal cost benefit analysis when they decide whether or not whatever personal circumstance they're in is worth breaking the law, and the law isn't there to give them a pass because their personal analysis on this resulted in them deciding to break the law.
  - ASalazarMX 2y ago
    This could be an incredible revenue stream for law enforcement at all levels, without heavy balances it's almost guaranteed that it will be egregiously abused, like asset forfeiture.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      Solution really is that money does not go to law enforcement, instead it goes to general budget from which then law enforcement is funded. Law enforcement really should not be able to fund itself by any mechanism.
    - Teever 2y ago
      You could say the same thing about all fines in general or specifically the Swiss and Finish income proportional fines in general. Is there any evidence of egregious behaviour from Swedish and Finnish law enforcement in the manner that you describe?
me_me_me 2y ago
remember when JP Morgan was caught manipulating price of silver making billions off it. They were 'fined' 100m or something. Its like robbing a bank and when caught you need to give 10% back. And also you will be given stern warning to not do it again.

Analemma_ 2y ago

I don't even think it needs to be hard to figure out. Fines could, and should, be set to something like "basis points [hundredths of one percent] of your gross income on last year's tax return", which the government already knows. A speeding ticket could then be set to e.g. 20 bp = [last year's gross income] * .002.

aeturnum 2y ago
Yah - income is clearly the first way to do this, but you'd want to integrate assets at some point (many wealthy people do not have traditionally high incomes). That's the tricky part.
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  Mm. On paper, I am in poverty, earn less than €20,000 a year, and am up to my eyeballs in unsecured debt. The reality is somewhat different.
randomdata 2y ago
I know, if you can't pay the fine don't do the crime, but realistically income is not a constant and is much too temporal to be useful here. A decent income year last year, and little income this year, means you might have no hope of paying the fine. Why not a fraction of the current value of gross assets at the time of investigation? This a much better reflection of someone's financial standing, is a greater deterrent, ensures that the fine is actually payable, and deals with the issue of the rich not having much in the way of income.
- klingoff 2y ago
  It sounds very progressive for a society to admit high income spendthrifts are immune to self reflective remorse, but I feel like we should still try impose penalties to give them an opportunity for growth.
  - randomdata 2y ago

beaglesss 2y ago

I would argue if the goal is justice then the fine is basically a tort on the externality imposed. At some point society imposes an injustice if the fine exceeds the externality imposed by tailgating, even if it's a pittance to the rich person. That is, for justice rather than just retribution, I think the real nominal cost of tailgating is probably not closely linked to wealth or income of the offender

aeturnum 2y ago
It's fair to say and, on some level, I like the idea of scaling fines to lower income more than scaling them to higher incomes. The marginal utility of wealth goes down as you get more anyway. I also think that, if you wanna critique the efficacy of fines in metting out justice, you need to go further than you do here. Scaling the fine tries, imperfectly, to match the punishment to the circumstances of the offender. We could imagine an even better system that more perfectly reacts to misbehavior, but exactly what that would be seems hard and this is a sensible adjustment to an existing system.
_benedict 2y ago
But the point of the fine in this case is clearly not restitution, but disincentive. Justice in this case is ensuring everyone is equally incentivised to follow a law that society thinks everyone should follow. If the goal were only to ascribe economic harms to certain actions and reclaim those costs, it would be called a tax or a fee, not a fine.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gordyf 2y ago
    Good -- such a person doesn't deserve luxury waiters and servants.
  - milch 2y ago
    Instead of being the discretionary income of this philanthropic rich guy who would graciously give it all away to his servants, those 100k go to the Swiss government, which famously provides no public benefit or services and in fact just sets the money on fire

bko 2y ago

Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can't afford to pay speeding tickets? I don't see what problem this is trying to solve. Is there an epidemic of wealthy people speeding and running over school children? In America you get points for speeding and your insurance goes up (more expensive car, more expensive insurance) and after a number of points you lose your license. Wealthy people don't break the law any more than less wealthy people even though the naive view of the economic costs of crime would have you think they would.

itsdrewmiller 2y ago
Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can afford to pay speeding tickets?
- bko 2y ago
  No, they'll lose their license. That's what points are for. That's a huge inconvenience for a rich person

dzhiurgis 2y ago

To simplify admin cops could write you up a fixed fine then send your fine to IRS who will calculate your additional fine at the end of year... Keeps your income private from cops + uses existing mechanism of determining your income.

M95D 2y ago
I belive that's how they do it. The ticket specifies the fine in "day-units". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine