Donald Trump was fined $10,000 on Wednesday after the New York judge overseeing his civil fraud trial said the former U.S. president violated a gag order for a second time.
I think in some Scandinavian country like Finland there are wealth-proportionate fines. So a rich person could get a $30,000 speeding ticket if they’re not careful.
Which is still problematic. If I make a million a year and my fine is 10k, that’s less meaningful to them than 300 is to someone who make 30k per year.
I don’t know the exact proportion but it is meant to be painful but not debilitating no matter your degree of wealth. Yes, it’s fundamentally more consequential to lower incomes, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the system we have in the US.
A big enough fine can cut the rich even harder than it can the poor.
I guess, in theory, but I’ve never seen that happen. And even if you did take more from them, it’s only a “deeper cut” in the sense that they fell further to get to broke.
A $10k fine might be more than a poor person’s entire net worth, forcing them into homelessness or extreme poverty.
I’ve never seen a billionaire forced to pay over 100% of their net worth in fines. Hell, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fine over $1B, except by a corporation.
Billionaires only go broke when they mismanage their own money. Jail time isn’t even as big a threat if they are young, as they could well have more money when they come out, where any other Joe Schmo would come out broke and with limited job prospects.
When the punishment is a fine, it’s only a crime if you’re poor.
Removed by mod
I think in some Scandinavian country like Finland there are wealth-proportionate fines. So a rich person could get a $30,000 speeding ticket if they’re not careful.
Which is still problematic. If I make a million a year and my fine is 10k, that’s less meaningful to them than 300 is to someone who make 30k per year.
I don’t know the exact proportion but it is meant to be painful but not debilitating no matter your degree of wealth. Yes, it’s fundamentally more consequential to lower incomes, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the system we have in the US.
Edit: autocorrect
I agree it’s better, but the impact on someone’s life should be the same. Otherwise, you disproportionately target the poor.
That’s the entire point of it being wealth-proportionate. To hit everyone hard enough that it hurts without crushing them.
I guess, in theory, but I’ve never seen that happen. And even if you did take more from them, it’s only a “deeper cut” in the sense that they fell further to get to broke.
A $10k fine might be more than a poor person’s entire net worth, forcing them into homelessness or extreme poverty.
I’ve never seen a billionaire forced to pay over 100% of their net worth in fines. Hell, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fine over $1B, except by a corporation.
Billionaires only go broke when they mismanage their own money. Jail time isn’t even as big a threat if they are young, as they could well have more money when they come out, where any other Joe Schmo would come out broke and with limited job prospects.
Removed by mod
Okay, but that’s still not a “deeper cut” than the single parent living paycheck to paycheck getting a fine that puts them on the street.
Until fines are proportional to wealth, laws only apply to the poor. The rich can pay for an indulgence.