General Road and Highway Discussion

[tomh009]

What I am saying is that most people (99.9%+) will feel that $500 is serious money, and will not want to just throw it away.  Maybe there are a handful of people in this city that wouldn't care about $500, but it's surely not even 0.1% (that would be 400 people or so).  And my point is that if the set fine is $500, people with financial hardship can get that reduced today.

So I'm saying fines (let alone demerits) can already have an impact today without switching to a % of income model (and the headline $10K fines).

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.