374
Make fines for companies breaking the law to make money a percentage of the profit generated from it, with a base percentage of 125%.
but that would disincentivize their activities. wow, very anti-business bro, don't be such a pinko
exactly. not so much of a 'free' market when businesses cant even break the law
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 would assume bankruptcy if you couldnt pay it off.
If someone steals a TV from Walmart they don't get to keep the TV and pay $100 dollars in fines. It would make sense they have to pay 100% of the TV if it isn't confiscated back, and then "damages" on top of it.
That's the idea I got from reading what they said
Why imprison? 100k means you work for free at chipotle until you pay it off.
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.
I don't think you read what I said: if mr white collar criminal steals $100k he works at chipotle for however long it takes to pay it off. Not at his old job. At chipotle.
If it were his old job, agreed 100
We can make this progressive by for example adjusting the employer by crime. 200k: mcd's. 500k: Walmart. 1m+: your states dmv.
Ahh, yeah, I think I did misunderstand you — my bad! I didn't realize that you were describing something like indentured servitude.
Only the best for Enron! I mean they only destroyed the energy economy of the west for decades and counting. Plus California already re-affirmed their support for slavery, so it's either work as a free man at the DMV for the rest of your life or work as a prisoner printing license plates.
Trouble is that charging, let alone convicting, the establishment of financial crimes has always been all but impossible.
In the UK, Boris giving huge taxpayer's cash to his mates for pointless never-delivered contracts. Post Office crimes against postmasters for false convictions waved away because they still control the NHS. That list is endless.
I think it should be all the money you made from the crime + punitive damages based on a percentage of the total amount of money you stole/defrauded.
It just needs to be completely unprofitable to break the law, in any circumstance (it doesn't necessarily have to be a financial crime). If the fines take away less money than you make continuing to break the law, that's just the cost of business. The punishment need to actually deter the crime by making such crimes unprofitable.
100k would probably get someone 8 months.
If they are higher up it would be like 4 months
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.
plus televised caning.
I think it should be proportional to the lives affected. You embezzeled 100000 people you will spend 100000 years in jail. White collar crimes deserve harsher punishment than blue collar crimes.
I.e. 100k embezzlement gets you 2.5 years
For whom? Your post title seems to talk about having proportionate punishments:
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income.
yet you only stated a single punishment without mention to whom it would apply, and how it would differ for someone else.
*average national (I should have said that part) yearly income. Formula below
Financial crime / avg. Nat. Income = years in jail
I. E 100k/40k=2.5 years
1mill/40k=25 years
Hopefully that clears up the math behind my dumbass high in the shower thought
Thank you for the clarification 😊.
Well clearly someone who lost their job and steals toilet paper gets life in prison, as it is $8/0. Kidding, but yeah, I guess average annual income means if you are poorer, you get punished more for stealing the same object. Not sure that's a good idea
average annual income means if you are poorer, you get punished more for stealing the same object. Not sure that’s a good idea
I'm inclined to agree.
Instead, punishment for ALL crime should be proportional to the perpetrator's annual income. That's how they do it in Finland (and it seems also some ~~other~~ Scandinavian countries), for instance. They have had at least a couple of instances of over $100k speeding tickets, for example. This makes incredibly SOOOO much sense that it will never happen in most capitalist countries.
Some references: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine
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.
Yes, it makes an incredible amount of sense to fine people proportionally to wealth/income. I don't know what they do to prevent the scenario you're describing, but would hope that they have addressed that possibility.
Whoever downvoted me must be a millionaire?
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
374 points (98.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
29819 readers
94 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS