this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
365 points (98.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30029 readers
786 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

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. 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.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
365
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.

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
[โ€“] 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%?

[โ€“] 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