374
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
85 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
[–] 77 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent