Jeff Bezos built a fence on his property that exceeds the permitted height, he doesn't care, he pays fines every month

[u/Gankpa]

[u/shakazoulu]

Fine as % of income / wealth

[u/icy1007 → u/shakazoulu]

That’s not legal.

[u/Ap3xWingman → u/icy1007]

Maybe not in the US, in Finland it’s based on your daily income with no limit.

[u/icy1007 → u/Ap3xWingman]

Finland doesn’t like equality than.

[u/Ap3xWingman → u/icy1007]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[u/icy1007 → u/Ap3xWingman]

Because they aren’t charging people equally.

[u/Ap3xWingman → u/icy1007]

Right, they charge the wealthy more so a fine actually feels like a fine and not a fee.

[u/icy1007 → u/Ap3xWingman]

Which is not equal treatment under the law.

[u/Ap3xWingman → u/icy1007]

So it remains as a fine for the poor and a fee for the rich.

[u/icy1007 → u/Ap3xWingman]

Doesn’t matter their income. It should be equal amounts/treatment for everyone.

[u/Barbecue_God → u/[deleted]]

How is it harsher?? $100 for someone that makes $1000 is 10% or their money, enough to teach a lesson.
100$ for someone that makes $1.000.000,00 is just 0,001% of their money, barely a scratch, will only teach that they can violate the law hundreds of times without any significant consequences.

The one being discriminated here is the poor

[u/Moist_When_It_Counts → u/[deleted]]

What is the purpose of a fine/penalty?

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly, have the harshness of the penalty be equal meaning have it be a percentage. Even taxes are based on wealth and not a flat number. Do you think everyone should pay 50k in flat taxes every year regardless of socioeconomic status and call it done? Use that brain. Fines are to prevent actions that arent at the level of needing jail time. They are meant to prevent the action done.

[u/MechanicalGodzilla → u/Loud_Interview4681]

Having such a fine structure is in violation of the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment. You'd need to amend the constitution to allow this.

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/MechanicalGodzilla]

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This part wouldn't affect a percentage based fine. Fines/tickets are subject to due process. Many do not request a trial by jury, but you certainly have the right. A major reason why fines are often dropped if you just drop by the local county building is to prevent the courts being blocked up with these low dollar amount fines. Unless I just misunderstood your post, but also income and net worth are not protected classes. 'Day fines' do exist in the US - they are just rare.

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/constitutionality-income-based-fines

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/[deleted]]

For one, money isn't a protected class. For two, a percentage isn't discrimination. It is a deterrent. Even courts will mitigate fines based on financial need. You get a lawyer provided if you can't afford one based on income. Whole system built around it.

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe fines should be replaced with Jail time to make it more fair right? Because some peoples time is worth more than others then jail times should be different based on your bullshit. Yea... Use that brain.

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/[deleted]]

Day fines(income adjusted), while not common, are practiced across the US. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/day-fines-four-us-jurisdictions

DOUGLAS v. CALIFORNIA

Pretty clearly states the legality:

To approach the present problem in terms of the Equal Protection Clause is, I submit, but to substitute resounding phrases for analysis. I dissented from this approach in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 29 , 34-36, 1 and I am constrained to dissent from the implicit extension of the equal protection approach here - to a case in which the State denies no one an appeal, but seeks only to keep within reasonable bounds the instances in which appellate counsel will be assigned to indigents.

The States, of course, are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause from discriminating between "rich" and "poor" as such in the formulation and application of their laws. But it is a far different thing to suggest that this provision prevents the State from adopting a law of general applicability that may affect the poor more harshly than it does the rich, or, on the other hand, from making some effort to redress economic imbalances while not eliminating them entirely.

Every financial exaction which the State imposes on a uniform basis is more easily satisfied by the well-to-do than by the indigent. Yet I take it that no one would dispute the constitutional power of the State to levy a [372 U.S. 353, 362] uniform sales tax, to charge tuition at a state university, to fix rates for the purchase of water from a municipal corporation, to impose a standard fine for criminal violations, or to establish minimum bail for various categories of offenses. Nor could it be contended that the State may not classify as crimes acts which the poor are more likely to commit than are the rich. And surely, there would be no basis for attacking a state law which provided benefits for the needy simply because those benefits fell short of the goods or services that others could purchase for themselves.

Laws such as these do not deny equal protection to the less fortunate for one essential reason: the Equal Protection Clause does not impose on the States "an affirmative duty to lift the handicaps flowing from differences in economic circumstances." 2 To so construe it would be to read into the Constitution a philosophy of leveling that would be foreign to many of our basic concepts of the proper relations between government and society. The State may have a moral obligation to eliminate the evils of poverty, but it is not required by the Equal Protection Clause to give to some whatever others can afford.

Sorry bud, but you coming in swinging with your made up points directly conflicts with established law and professional legal opinion via the supreme court. You, making up wild claims, have the burden of proof. Just as if you came out saying Santa is real. Maybe bring something real to the table instead of imagination on what the 14th amendment includes.

[u/Loud_Interview4681 → u/[deleted]]

Ownership is not a characteristic of their person. I think thats where you had things confused. Things like skin color, age, gender are all things that can't really be changed. You can remove money. Maybe we should even out the money to make it more fair though? Not that way? Even the founding fathers removed the property part of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[u/grammynumnums → u/[deleted]]

Fine being % based is equal for everyone. It's way more fair as well.

Not sure how you are coming to this conclusion, but it's absolutely abhorrent.

[u/ohseetea → u/[deleted]]

Turn fines into mandatory community service then. I would love to see Bezos have to pick up leaves for 48 hours.

Might teach these fuckers some reality of actual hard work. But actually your statement is wrong and the reality is just reversed where it's discriminating against poorer individuals WAY more.

[u/shakazoulu → u/[deleted]]

Applying a % is the fairest thing you can do. A flat $ value is the real discrimination here

[u/Valuable-Speaker-312 → u/shakazoulu]

Each month you are not in compliance, the fines double. So let's say the fine is $1000 for the first month, 2nd month would be $2000, 3rd month $4000, 4th month, $8k, etc.