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

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

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.

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

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ahh, yeah, I think I did misunderstand you — my bad! I didn't realize that you were describing something like indentured servitude.

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.