If they really don't matter, why forbid them at all?

For things that are worth forbidding, scaling is surely necessary to create a meaningful disincentive for the rich, without destroying the poor by setting very high flat fines.

But victimless "crimes" don't need punitive discouragement the way other harmful activities might. Jaywalking, speeding, turning right from the left lane, these things happen hundreds of times a day in a city, and spottily enforced huge fines are not likely to address whatever societal harm these activities might cause. There are probably better ways to spread and encourage the small social norms that allow society to function. Leave large fines for large harm.

The goal of fine is discourage. The same fine for all relative to income provides more equal discouragement.

When it comes to crimes like that, you want to absolutely lower the ceiling for the few as well, and scaling fines is the way to do it.

That's what they teach you anyway. The reality - e.g. ridiculously expensive medical bills, widespread poverty - is rather different, so I hear.

e.g. see The US has a lot of money, but it does not look like a developed country https://qz.com/879092/the-us-doesnt-look-like-a-developed-co...