Okay, this will be my last posting on the topic. Not because I am annoyed at you but merely because my number of posts per day is limited and I feel like I generally got my point across even if I feel like you seem to unintentionally be missing part of it. Really not meaning to have a go at you.
Then where does it end? We all want consistency but then we want more punishment to the people who do better in life (earn more).
As I said, in my opinion it would ideally not end anywhere. The point is consistency and it is NOT more punishment, it is equal punishment in relative terms. The goal is not to hinder people in doing good in their life but to exact punishment for wrong doing that is punishing in a comparable way. Just imagine it was the other way around and speeding 10 km/h costs £8k. In that case the likes of Klopp and Mourinho could still drive their car to work and even risk getting the fine, because it won't hurt them really. I for example pretty much could not drive a car anymore because that would be me risking my livelihood.
So would that be a fair charge for speeding? It would be a fine that would hurt millionaires a bit, they might actually feel it. For most other people it is just completely disproportionate. That is what I am trying to say here. A punishment (and that is what it is supposed to be in both the FA's case and for speeding) should be proportionate to what the person being punished is able to afford. It should "hurt" people that have to pay it equally and that is just not possible with a fixed amount.
The tax system is bad enough.
I think this is an ideological point. As someone working in academia I am probably going to earn a proper wage at some point. Still I feel like the rich should be taxed even more than they are now (speaking for Germany here). Especially estate taxes and property taxes are something I am a big proponent of but I think this would be going too far here.
Switzerland may operate this way but I'm pretty sure most other countries don't.
You are correct, most other countries don't. But is that a good thing? I think most other countries don't because the people earning higher wages make the laws. So it is of course not in their interest to pay higher fines even though that would both be fairer and more effective as a deterrent.
A money punishment will always hurt some more, and some less. It certainly hurts Klopp a lot less than someone like Howe for instance.
That is probably true but this inequality could be minimized by for example tying fines to income or wealth. If you do not mind the unfairness then you should not complain if speeding costs £8k either right?
I think a fair punishment is a ban of some sort (touchline ban for X amount of games?) As it will hurt every manager equally regardless of income.
After all that back to topic: If this is indeed Klopp's first punishable (or indeed punished) offense I feel like that would be a bit harsh for what I feel is not a major offense. Here people can of course be of differing opinions and I think consistency with comparable solutions should be upheld.
