Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income.

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

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.

Whoever downvoted me must be a millionaire?

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

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%?

Good point.

Net worth, not income.

All net worth including stocks, property, etc.

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

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.

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.

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

Perhaps there could be a mandatory minimum fine?

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.

He's a tipped employee.

If you want people to see this comment, I'd recommend updating your post's body with such types of clarifying information instead of adding the information as a comment. This comment of yours was buried down towards the end of the comment section for me.

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

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.

*average national (I should have said that part) yearly income. Formula below

Financial crime / avg. Nat. Income = years in jail

I. E 100k/40k=2.5 years

1mill/40k=25 years

Hopefully that clears up the math behind my dumbass high in the shower thought

Well clearly someone who lost their job and steals toilet paper gets life in prison, as it is $8/0. Kidding, but yeah, I guess average annual income means if you are poorer, you get punished more for stealing the same object. Not sure that's a good idea

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

There could theoretically be a mandatory minimum fine.

Yes

Well that would be income.

How so?

Considering with many financial crimes the fine is less than the ill begotten profits, changing the fine from the current “cost of doing business” to an actual punishment is a matter of correcting a perverse incentive.

Imo, I don't think that OP is necessarily advocating for a harsher punishment for anyone, but more that whatever punishment is enforced should be felt equally by everyone.

Ok, rich boi bootlicker.

Beating your wife used to get you little to no punishment, and was much more commonplace.

Punishing people at all has solved many problems though. The shit they're dealt now are discovery taxes, not punishments.

I see many down-votes. I assume these are the positions people are having (please correct me if I'm wrong or mischaracterizing):

• JubilantJaguar: There is no evidence for harsher punishments having an effect any more than moderate punishments. I even go as far as saying that punishment at all is not beneficial.
• Comments critical of JubilantJaguar: How can you say that punishment doesn't work when rich criminals basically can go home for free after committing their crimes? How can you say that punishment doesn't work when domestic abuse used to be widespread?

While looking for the middle ground or a compromise can be seen as absurd, the evidence seems to support parts of both of these stances. For example, moderate punishment has been shown to reduce crime much more than harsh crime.

A simple example is how many countries around the world no longer execute people in public as a form of punishment. For the vast majority of those countries, violent crime has been reduced drastically. In the light of these two facts (less executions and less violent crime), is it really tenable to argue that "harsher punishments result in less crime"? So, what is actually causing crime to be deterred?

Some people have thought long and hard about this problem, and we now have the evidence to understand what drives crime down. Here's one such person and their summary of their findings: "An effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons is critical to sustainable reductions in lethal violence" (https://igarape.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Homicide-Dispatch_1_EN.pdf)

I know lethal violence is different to non-violent crime, such as wage theft. However, imagine a CEO making the decision to steal wages. Where is he located? Who, if anyone, surrounds him? What is his demeanor? Now imagine a society with "an effective rule of law, based on legitimate law enforcement, victim protection, swift and fair adjudication, moderate punishment, and humane prisons". What kinds of institutions would this society have? How would you feel walking in the streets or laboring in this society? Now, think about the CEO and the society at the same time. Are those two compatible? Would that criminal CEO really go home free in a society with those characteristics?

I assume there is an impulse to say that capitalism leads to classes of people who are treated fundamentally differently. Indeed, there is clear evidence that capitalism can lead to persistent inequalities (e.g. Piketty, Shaikh), which can enable extractive political institutions. Money can buy political privileges. However, capitalism is not the only force that shapes the world. Democracy is also incredibly powerful. They are two different vectors, two different carts pulling societies around the world in different directions. Without democracy as a counterweight, we wouldn't have the kinds of protections, rights, and guarantees that so many of us have. Are we ready to deny the legacy of democracy by insisting that we cannot remotely bring justice to wealthy criminals? Are we ready to deny the democratic values that so many of us have today? Are we ready to deny the effect that collective action for democracy has had in our institutions?