Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income.
Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income.
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're viewing a single thread.
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
otherScandinavian 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
I'd like to point out that Finland is not Scandinavian, because they'd want me to
Finne, Fennoscandia then.
I believe they'd say Nordic
But it should be, since the mountain range that gives Scandinavia its name does stretch into Finland
Thank you, I knew this but forgot it when I was posting.
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.
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.
Whoever downvoted me must be a millionaire?