If a punishment falls below the threshold of perception, it's not a punishment.
A guy who can afford a Ferrari can and will laugh off fines unless they are proportional to his income.
A loss of $200 matters when your take home per week is $500. A loss of $200 when your take home per week is $80k is almost literally nothing.
As typical for me I end with a Heinlein quote.
"Corporal punishment in schools was forbidden by law," he had gone on. "Flogging was lawful as sentence of court only in one small province, Delaware, and there only for a few crimes and was rarely invoked; it was regarded as 'cruel and unusual punishment.'" Dubois had mused aloud, "I do not understand objections to 'cruel and unusual' punishment. While a judge should be benevolent in purpose, his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment -- and pain is the basic mechanism built into us by millions of years of evolution which safeguards us by warning when something threatens our survival. Why should society refuse to use such a highly perfected survival mecahnism?
his awards should cause the criminal to suffer, else there is no punishment