>

Yeah. My statement stands. Say the fine is 5%. If you have $100 million, you lose $5 million. That's a lot of money, I'll grant you, but they still have $95 million. But if you're poor, and you only have $5000, your fine is $250, leaving you with $4750. That 5% is much more precious to the poorer person. This still isn't equitable.
Oh look, another law where the punishment is a fixed fine.
His campaign had almost $3 million (and almost $200,000 in donations). $100,000 is nothing.
All this says is if you're rich, you can lie all you want. >

Fines are nothing but the price to commit a crime. And yes, the rich can afford to do so much crime. And do. >

Income Percentage fines should become standard, because if they are rich or poor, it'll fuck them over either way. But bet rich will heavily lobby against it as income percentage fine will force the rich to abide by the laws. >

This would still be unfair to working class people for the same reason that a flat tax is. >

Mate, the goal is if you commit a crime like park in a red zone without giving a fuck, for poor/middle class people that's gonna hurt your wallet and will not repeat, for rich it's a subscription and will repeat with flat fine. With income percentage, for every class it's going to hurt your wallet and you are not going to commit the crime again. That's the goal of tickets to not do something stupid. If you want to talk about cops that's a whole different story.