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.
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?
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
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.
> 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.
