I understand the rationale; I just don't agree with it.  The punishment
for committing a crime should be a function of the seriousness of the
offense, nothing else.  And a crime isn't somehow more serious when it's
committed by a relatively well-off person than it is by a relatively poor
one.  

I'd say it's socially unjust to penalize one person more heavily than
another for committing the same crime, particularly because of circum-
stances that are irrelevant to the commission of the offense.  And on
a more practical (if decidedly un-PC) level, perhaps it's fitting that
monetary penalties fall harder on the less well-off.  Since most crim-
inals are from the lower socioeconomic classes, it makes sense to have
a stronger deterrent where they're concerned.

Life isn't fair.  Some people are wealthier than others.  Some people are
smarter, more attractive, or more talented than others.  A fundamental
difference between our societies is that to an American, being able to
more easily absorb the expenses of living, whatever they may be, is an
incentive to better oneself.  To a European, it's an excuse to dispro-
portionately penalize the well-off.  That's the result of centuries of
class resentment, which our own history largely lacks.  

America is known as the land of opportunity, and Americans are known
for our optimism.  That's why rather than thinking of the weathy as a
class of oppressors who got where they are on the backs of the prole-
tariat, we admire them and aspire to join them.

Looking at the rest of the world through the lens of one's own society is
hardly unique to Americans.

[...]

Ouch!  Sales tax is set at the state level in America, with counties and
cities often adding their own (proportionately low) sales taxes.  The
current sales tax where I live (the Silicon Valley area of California)
is, IIRC, 8.5%.

Thanks for the explanation.

Geoff

--
"If it rains after a liberal washes his car, they say
it's a right-wing dirty trick." -- Ann Coulter