3 ms·
Seems fine (no pun intended) as long as it's proportional to income, no? Plus a small fixed amount (maybe proportional to minimum wage?) so that nobody gets awa
by dataflow 2y ago
Seems fine (no pun intended) as long as it's proportional to income, no? Plus a small fixed amount (maybe proportional to minimum wage?) so that nobody gets away for free. Ultimately fines should be based on time, not money. If your time is worth 3x someone else's then it only seems reasonable that you pay at least 3x as much. If they disproportionately turn that into 300x, yeah, higher income brackets might get mad. But that doesn't have to be the case.
- potato3732842 2y agoI agree. But a heck of a lot of people are gonna be pissed off when petty stuff like rolling a stop or smoking where you shouldn't, fishing without a license, or being loudly drunk or other stuff that's on the order of low hundreds now stays low hundreds at the high end and just gets discounted for the poors. Sure, some things might get more expensive, bug a great many of the petty things will get a lot cheaper.
- dataflow 2y agoYeah but it's not really a discount, is what would have to be drilled into people's heads. Presumably the fine is in place of other punishment (like jail time, or having to spend time at least in court, etc.), where you spend the same time regardless of how poor or rich you are. Ergo the fine should normalize against that.