Today, more than 30 European and Latin American countries levy penalties using an income-graduated, or “day fine,” model. Under this system, people who break the law pay a fine equivalent to a percentage of their income, rather than a flat fee. … “can be thus seen to be more equal and effective than a system where the amount of fine is fixed.” … American lawmakers have failed to take the idea of income-adjusted fines seriously. (
You are jumping way too quickly from "less" to "no". With constant fines the absolute punishment is the same even if the relative punishment is less. Which is as it should be.
I'm a fan of futarchy and of private law, wherein people would choose privately offered laws and then laws would make treaties with each other. When you had a dispute these treaties would say the relevant laws and legal procedures.
Have u invented any mechanism for law generation in addition to law enforcement (and futarchy)? I'm confident that vouchers will be effective but not sure if that's a good thing given the laws we have.
You might complain that ordinary constant fines, that do not vary with income, do not include a cash transfer from high to low wage drivers. But that critique only makes sense if we currently had day-fines, and I was proposing to switch to constant fines. In fact constant fines are our status quo, which I’m proposing that we keep. I don’t see we should need transfers to reject an inefficient change and keep things the same.
This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that imply that you think the constant fines are still superior to day fines, even without the high income-low income transfer? Your supporting argument doesn't consider this scenario, though.
But with vouchers replacing all criminall punishment, lack of day fines would allow rich people to face no real punishment.
Imagine the case of a rich teenager killing someone and facing no punishment because their parents pay a several million dollar fine., and it's not even 0.1 % of their several billions in wealth. I can't imagine it'll be met with public acceptance.
Speed variance also increases crash rates a lot and I believe that changes the calculus towards more progressive fines.
But more importantly, why not apply this to crimes? For example, shooting into the air for fun, with a risk of a bullet hitting someone. There's no wage related time saved, but as noted, it doesn't change the solution.
Let’s stick to the standard law and economics stuff we already have but not spend social capital fighting against inefficient wealth transfers in a world where there’s almost universal and justified consensus that dominant forms of wealth accumulation are not just inefficient by actively destructive.
You are jumping way too quickly from "less" to "no". With constant fines the absolute punishment is the same even if the relative punishment is less. Which is as it should be.
I'm a fan of futarchy and of private law, wherein people would choose privately offered laws and then laws would make treaties with each other. When you had a dispute these treaties would say the relevant laws and legal procedures.
Have u invented any mechanism for law generation in addition to law enforcement (and futarchy)? I'm confident that vouchers will be effective but not sure if that's a good thing given the laws we have.
Yes I think constant fines are more efficient than day fines. But without the transfers I couldn't argue that they are better for everyone.
You might complain that ordinary constant fines, that do not vary with income, do not include a cash transfer from high to low wage drivers. But that critique only makes sense if we currently had day-fines, and I was proposing to switch to constant fines. In fact constant fines are our status quo, which I’m proposing that we keep. I don’t see we should need transfers to reject an inefficient change and keep things the same.
This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't that imply that you think the constant fines are still superior to day fines, even without the high income-low income transfer? Your supporting argument doesn't consider this scenario, though.
But with vouchers replacing all criminall punishment, lack of day fines would allow rich people to face no real punishment.
Imagine the case of a rich teenager killing someone and facing no punishment because their parents pay a several million dollar fine., and it's not even 0.1 % of their several billions in wealth. I can't imagine it'll be met with public acceptance.
Yes, criminal punishment should try harder to track $ value of harm, for which time is a poor estimate when wages vary.
I'm pointing out there that day fines are possible. I'm pointing out here that they are often lamentable.
Speed variance also increases crash rates a lot and I believe that changes the calculus towards more progressive fines.
But more importantly, why not apply this to crimes? For example, shooting into the air for fun, with a risk of a bullet hitting someone. There's no wage related time saved, but as noted, it doesn't change the solution.
Point 2 from the details section of your voucher link:
2. If fines vary with wealth or income, then the rich don’t get a free pass to commit crimes.
Seems inefficient to do so.
You lost me. We shouldn't oppose inefficiency?
Let’s stick to the standard law and economics stuff we already have but not spend social capital fighting against inefficient wealth transfers in a world where there’s almost universal and justified consensus that dominant forms of wealth accumulation are not just inefficient by actively destructive.
Indeed it is.
This is a classic argument in the law and economics literature, e.g. Louis Kaplow in the late 80s and 90s.
No, only need their fines and liability to track the harm they will do, we don't at all need them to track the cost or value that the driver gets.