2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307
subsection (c)

[Razgovory]

You know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee.  Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.

[Syt]

You know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee.  Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.

Switzerland does it with fines for drivers. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/09/bmw-driver-hit-with-128000-fine-for-tailgating-in-switzerland/

[Solmyr]

Finland does the same. And boy do some rich people here whine about it.

[Tamas]

To me it sounds like the obvious way to do it. The penalty is supposed to be punitive and discouraging. When the amount is just pocket change for you, why would you care?

[Josquius]

Definitely the correct way to go about things.
Though that case in the link sounds weird. A fine for driving too close to somebody?

[Josephus]

You know, legal fines should represent a percentage of someone's total wealth or income rather than a flat fee.  Ten Grand is a lot to me but not a lot to someone like Musk.

I've felt that way for years. Never mind this big stuff but even traffic violations. Paying $240 for speeding on a highway is going to effect a low income earner a lot more than, say, a lawyer. Which is why it's always guys in fancy cars speeding down the highway.

EDIT: I see you guys agree.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe. I'm a little unsure. Philosophically I broadly think the punishment should be tied to the crime and take account of mitigations or aggravating circumstances related to the individual (and crime), rather than tied to the individual and variable.

It would also matter how you define wealth. For example add in housing wealth and assets (like pensions) and it would be very possible that elderly people end up with massive fines. While, say, a 20 something City lawyer on £100k+ p/a, but renting a flat and not able to actually access any pension funds (or only having just started to build them) will end up with a very low fine - they may have some savings, it will be less than a retired teacher with a paid off mortgage and a pension.

[garbon]

Maybe. I'm a little unsure. Philosophically I broadly think the punishment should be tied to the crime and take account of mitigations or aggravating circumstances related to the individual (and crime), rather than tied to the individual and variable.

It would also matter how you define wealth. For example add in housing wealth and assets (like pensions) and it would be very possible that elderly people end up with massive fines. While, say, a 20 something City lawyer on £100k+ p/a, but renting a flat and not able to actually access any pension funds (or only having just started to build them) will end up with a very low fine - they may have some savings, it will be less than a retired teacher with a paid off mortgage and a pension.

Okay but then that's just getting more precise around the calculations and how it is applied.

There is a problem when it is better for individuals/corporations to simply pay the fine vs cease the prohibited behavior.

[Sheilbh]

Totally agree on corporations - but there it's typically tied to revenue not assets.

Which could work for individuals too but, as we all know, there's plenty of very rich people who don't really necessarily have "income".

I also think in Europe it could breach human rights law. There's been two attempts by Dutch governments to pass wealth taxes and both times the Supreme Court has ruled that they're in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1 property rights specifically) because in both cases it could lead to a scenario where the tax bill on an individual's wealth was higher than their income. That's not gone to the ECtHR so isn't fully confirmed - but is still law other European courts would look at. So I think basing it on wealth you'd very quickly get a human rights challenge, and I think they'd probably have a good case. (Those cases are one of the reasons I am genuinely open to leaving the ECHR if they continue down that road )

(Which may be why the Swiss version is based on reported income - but then you're into the tax problem with the super-rich that they often don't really have reported income).

[crazy canuck]

One of the way we do it is fines for breaches of workplace safety regulations are based on the size of the workforce of the employer.

[HVC]

Base it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well. 

[Sheilbh]

Base it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well. 

I think if we're designing punitive measures and we haven't got landlords, then something's gone dreadfully wrong

[crazy canuck]

If real property holdings are included a lot of people who are barely able to afford their mortgages would say the calculation is off.

[HVC]

Base it on a combination of income and liquid assets. Catching stock heavy people and some trust fund babies. You'd miss capital heavy rich, like real estate guys, but oh well. 

I think if we're designing punitive measures and we haven't got landlords, then something's gone dreadfully wrong

You catch their rental income . Just won't be as proportional without the assets.

But then you have the problem of tracking liquid assets. Do rich people even declare those? I'm sure the government could track it, not sure if they do.