I'd like to point out that Finland is not Scandinavian, because they'd want me to

They have had at least a couple of instances of over $100k speeding tickets, for example.

I've become rather favorable of the idea ticketing proportional to income/capital. It's always bothered me that, in a system where everyone pays the same ticket price, essentially, a rich person can just eat a ticket as simply the cost of driving. I think that it should affect them at the same magnitude as anyone else. One thing that pops into my mind, however, is what happens if someone gets their ticket payed for by someone else? For example, what happens if a rich parent's child gets a speeding ticket? The child, who may have a very low income, and, as a result, a very low ticket price comparatively, could have that ticket payed for by their parents, so the punishment wouldn't affect them as much as someone else who was poorer.

Net worth, not income.

All net worth including stocks, property, etc.

And if a company is the perpetrator, it might just have to go out of business or be acquired by the government.

Similar to what I mentioned here, assuming that the punishment is a fine, what happens if that person simply gets their fine payed for by someone else? They could artificially lower their income, and pay their fine through a proxy.

but that would disincentivize their activities. wow, very anti-business bro, don't be such a pinko

with a base percentage of 125%.

Given that that is greater than 100%, what would you say happens if they don't have the resources to pay that extra 25%?

I like the way you think, you would do well in the Australian property ~~racket~~ market

Perhaps there could be a mandatory minimum fine?

Hm, garnering wages in this way (ie as if paying off a debt which matches the cost of their crime) might disproportionally affect the poor. For example, assuming no overhead, a person who makes 50k year could pay off a 100k in 2 years, whereas a person who makes 10k a year would pay it off in 10. This may actually have an effect opposite of what OP seemed to be intending — the punishment should have equal weight to everyone.

Perhaps a way to improve your idea to mitigate the mentioned issue would be to also scale the total fine to be repayed by income. Sort of like a progressive income tax.

He's a tipped employee.

Just seems like the poor get punished, while the rich don't.

I think they are saying time-served would be based on the value of the crime divided by the median income. In OPs example, median income is 50k.

Whatever you get from the holdup counts as income, so your fine will just be a percentage of that.