You're focusing way too hard on the example of risky traffic behavior, which has a deterrent far more potent than any fine: potential loss of life (one can even argue that how much you value your life scales with your wealth, partially explaining the findings of that article). What about parking tickets, for example? Wealthy people often park illegally and just eat the fine because it's more convenient than the alternative.

You don't get it. I reject the whole premise of optimizing on "deterrence" based on [group]. If you accept the premise that we should base fees on deterrence, you have to accept where that leads. And that may not lead to your image of the world as being full of honest law abiding working folks and cigar chomping awful fat cats.

> Wealthy people often park illegally and just eat the fine because it's more convenient than the alternative.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Your vision of how "wealthy people" behave is so off from what I've observed.

> Using parking ticket data in 2016 from the City of Los Angeles, this study shows that the number of parking tickets is higher in neighborhoods with a larger presence of renters, young adults, and Black residents.

https://nbrazil.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites...

I'm not sure why you think that article proves your point. Of course poor people will get more parking tickets, they're often the ones who don't have proper parking arrangements. Do you think I was saying that wealthy people are responsible for the majority of illegal parking?

In any case, here's an example of a high profile wealthy person paying parking tickets like they're just a normal cost: https://dailytargum.com/article/2020/02/jeff-bezos-parking-t...

This isn't something I made up, it happens.

You still don't get it. I reject all of that. My point is that varying fees based on "deterrence" wouldn't necessarily lead you to charging rich people more. It could end up hurting poor people if someone makes the argument that they need more "deterrence". That's why its wrong and we should apply the law equally to everyone

> we should apply the law equally to everyone

What is the law, and what is equal? There's a law saying you have to pay taxes, so do you object to the fact that this law is applied unequally to rich people who have to pay more? And the crime of not paying taxes is also punished with a fine that is proportional to the amount unpaid.

Your viewpoint makes absolutely no sense, so yes. I don't get it. Arguing against proportional measures for deterrance is equivalent to saying you're okay with rich people committing crimes and paying a minuscule fine for it (unless you have a totally different framework of punishment in mind).

I don't know, bud. When other people aren't accepting your idea of where something leads, it does not always mean they are wrong. It is easy to cherry-pick data and studies that seem on the surface to support your preconceived conclusions, but I feel you are missing the forest for the trees.

Cheers.

> It is easy to cherry-pick data and studies that seem on the surface to support your preconceived conclusions, but I feel you are missing the forest for the trees

That's exactly my point. That's why some people have this fantasy of Scrooge McDucks throwing around money and disobeying all laws just because they have money, when its just not true.

Is a fixed fine fair and equal treatment? The punishment is much more significant to someone poor than rich. Sure the dollar amount is equal but that is a very narrow view. The same arguments can be made about a flat tax vs. progressive tax systems?

If your goal is deterrence you have to ask who's more likely to commit an offense. When you lump someone into a group and apply different levels of punishment based on their group, that's just wrong and evil. You think its fine because [group] is some group you may not like (rich people). But if you start treating people differently based on [group] you risk losing control of who is defining the group. The simplest and fairest way is to treat everyone equal in the eyes of the law. That's the ideal and when possible we should reach for that ideal

When the consequences for the same crime can vary from [entire paycheck] to [below rounding error on personal finances], the effect of treatment is not equal.

When people get different punishment for the same crime based on their group, then the effect of treatment is not equal

Everyone can pay the same percentage so it is equal.

Should we also have a single lump sum tax rate that everyone must pay equally?

As LeBron James once said, 'two points is not two points'. If 'fairness and equal treatment' are context-blind, then they are just another empty platitude.

We're talking about different fines based on your socio-economic status. I said its wrong to think of fines only as a deterrence. Additionally if you're optimizing for group deterrence it could lead you to some uncomfortable scenarios where the group that needs to be deterred may not be "wealthy people".

What does this have to do with tax rates? Are tax rates punitive or a means for raising money for collective spending?

I do not understand. What are fines if not deterrence?