Quote:
Originally Posted by Snestorm
The problem with this concept is that someone with a worth of 1.000 (pick your curency) only pays 10, which is squat considering the offense. A minimum fine, and maximum, fine is in order, but a progressive % is not.
With the forsaid taken into account, the concept sounds like a positive idé.
|
In the example I gave, the guy with 800 income per month and a penalty of 50, that would be 6.25%. No have a guy with a monthly income of 250.000. 6.25% would be 15,625.
the idea of eventually progressive % comes from that somebody having 250.000 per month has a much greater fiancial security space that safes him from feeling the negative effect of even having to pay 15625 instead of just 50. Over the year, it may not make a difference for him that he reallyfeels as a real aversive stimulus whether he pays 50 or 15,000. With a yearl yincome of 3 million, both would mean peanuts for him.
Now consider not monthly income, but existing property or bank accounts. Compare for example 3% for some normal guy having 4000 on his banking account, and 3% for somebody having 20 million on his banking account, three villas and six Ferraris.