this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024

373 points (98.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30039 readers

1028 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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 76 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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

[–] essell@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'd like to point out that Finland is not Scandinavian, because they'd want me to

[–] positiveWHAT@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Finne, Fennoscandia then.

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

I believe they'd say Nordic

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

But it should be, since the mountain range that gives Scandinavia its name does stretch into Finland

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you, I knew this but forgot it when I was posting.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 57 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Revenue, not income. Income and profits are too easy to hide.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago (6 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

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] 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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Make fines for companies breaking the law to make money a percentage of the profit generated from it, with a base percentage of 125%.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

but that would disincentivize their activities. wow, very anti-business bro, don't be such a pinko

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago

exactly. not so much of a 'free' market when businesses cant even break the law

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

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%?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So if I have a net loss for the year, I’ll get paid to commit crimes?

[–] metaStatic@kbin.earth 10 points 2 weeks ago

I like the way you think, you would do well in the Australian property ~~racket~~ market

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why imprison? 100k means you work for free at chipotle until you pay it off.

[–] 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) (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is the embezzler a $7.25 or otherwise minimum wage worker or a well-paid nepo baby?

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

He's a tipped employee.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

100k would probably get someone 8 months.

If they are higher up it would be like 4 months

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] Lupo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

To clarify, I meant national average. As in, an average American makes 40k a year, white collar crime 1 mil, get 25 years since that's how long it would take an average American to get 1 mil.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just seems like the poor get punished, while the rich don't.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] plunging365@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

plus televised caning.

[–] tehWrapper@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I have no income.. does that mean I can hold up a bank?

[–] ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Whatever you get from the holdup counts as income, so your fine will just be a percentage of that.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments