General Road and Highway Discussion

[danbrotherston]

That wasn't my point, even if 99.9% of people "feel" that $500 dollars is "serious" money, it still affects them very differently.  Someone working full time but earning minimum wage will see a $500 dollar fine as backbreaking, working out to over a week of work.  Someone making 20 dollars an hour, is still making decent money but 500 dollars represents several days of work, and probably some cut to their lifestyle or savings.  A highly paid tech worker or other professional that will represent less than a day of work, and will be upset, but otherwise unaffected, its a huge difference in impact, but they're all still well within the 99.9% you've defined, and I doubt any qualify for financial hardship relief.

Based on my (admittedly anecdotal) knowledge, if you are making minimum wage you would probably get a 90% cut from the $500 fine.  At $40K annual income, depending on circumstances, you would likely still have a good chance of getting it reduced (though by a smaller amount).

The point is, the punishment is the impact a fine has on your life, not the monetary value of the fine, therefore, those fines should be scaled relative to their impact on your life.

I think that's the key difference in our viewpoints.  I see the primary purpose of fines as a deterrent, not as punishment.

Wow, really?  At 40k you'd get a discount?  At minimum wage you'd get a 90% cut.  That's extremely generous.  I would already consider that to be income geared fines, but in a poorly implemented fashion, where only those who bother to ask get a decrease, and also, with a cap which makes them irrelevant to wealthy individuals.  

In any case, what makes a fine a deterrent?  Is it not the threat of a punishment?  I also see it as a deterrent, but I don't see it as a deterrent without a credible threat of punishment.  Moreover, I see an unfairness in a situation where your punishment (when deterrence fails) depends on your wealth.