this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
373 points (98.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30037 readers
554 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

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. 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.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
373
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Lupo@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I.e. 100k embezzlement gets you 2.5 years

Edit.

I meant this to be the national average income (40k if I round up for cleaner math), not based on the individuals income, it's a static formula.

Crime$$$/nat. Avg. Income = years in jail

100k/40k = 2.5 years

1mill /40k=25 years

My thoughts were, if they want to commit more crime but lessen the risk, they just need to increase the average national income. Hell, I'd throw them a bone adjust their sentences for income inflation.

Ie

Homie gets two years (80k/40k=2), but the next year average national income jumps to 80k (because it turns out actually properly threatening these fuckers actually works, who'd've figured?), that homies sentence gets cut to a year he gets out on time served. Call it an incentive.

Anyways, more than anything, I'm sorry my high in the shower thought got as much attention as it did.

Good night

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It should be proportional to the personal income of whoever committed the crime

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 64 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Net worth, not income.

All net worth including stocks, property, etc.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Oh no. My collection or rare mighty beans.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Farmers getting a hard time on this policy

[–] sibannac@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

How would debt play into this? Would that be factored as a discount on the time served or increase it?

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Farmers regularly drive around in multimillions worth of vehicles so they are definitely on that hook

[–] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Those sweet, sweet unrealised gains

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.