@house70, actually there are countries where the fines for speeding are done EXACTLY like that. If your income is $10m annually and you get a speeding ticket, you'll pay 100 times more (or at least some relatively large amount more) than a person whose income is only $100k annually. And according to most of the defendants - even the rich ones who pay more - the system works successfully as the deterrent it was intended to be. There are record fines of over $100k in at least one of those countries. Here's a Google search result link that explains more:
http

/autos.aol.com/article/highest-speeding-fines/
No one is put into the poor house - and that's the good part. If you have a hard time putting a loaf of bread on the table, you're not going to get crushed with a $1000 fine. But if you pour Cristal as easily as you do Evian (what's
tap water?), then a $50 ticket isn't going to really deter you the way it was intended... but a $5000 ticket very well might make you think twice.
That's a world different from the silicon valley tycoons who spin their Porsches on Skyline Blvd and get off with a slap on the wrist if they're not in a coffin.
Personally, the selfish part of me prefers the "one fine fits all" approach because it means that I'll pay less. Societally, though, well, that would be selfish of me. If my level of disposable income makes the fine little more than an
erratum, then I can get away with something that a person with less disposable income cannot. I don't expect to be lynched and thrown in a Gulag, mind you, but a poor person has a right to expect to be treated equitably and justly as much as a rich person.