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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 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

  • 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 57 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 52 points 2 years ago (11 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Net worth, not income.

    All net worth including stocks, property, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago (4 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%.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    plus televised caning.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    100k would probably get someone 8 months.

    If they are higher up it would be like 4 months

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago (6 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    FYI, the median personal income for a person working full time, year round is just above $60,000 in the US, so 1 million dollars of crime might only deserve 16 years, 8 months.

    JPMorgan Chase has paid out $30,000,000,000 in fines over the last 20 years or so. That means if you apply similar logic to companies, their executive team owes up to 500,000 years in prison collectively, which is only 3,000 years per member of the senior leadership team.

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

    Source on median income pls?

    US Census seems to put it at ~42k/year

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›