3 ms·

I mean, you can make a case for that. But you can also make a case that not much else seems to really deter these high net worth people from doing illegal thing

by ufmace 8y ago

I mean, you can make a case for that. But you can also make a case that not much else seems to really deter these high net worth people from doing illegal things. What would you propose as an appropriate punishment for willfully breaking tax law?

leetcrew 8y ago
how about paying x * amount of tax evaded, where x > 1 and the penalty is uncapped? if a significant fraction of tax evasion lead to convictions, it wouldn't be good business to try. the obvious issue is that we don't see a high conviction rate for tax evasion, but this is an issue regardless of whether the penalty is jail or a fine. no matter how severe the penalty is for a crime, people seem to do it anyway if there is a strong incentive and they don't believe they will be the unlucky individual. sooner or later everyone is doing it, just to keep up, and the only people who actually get hit with the hammer are the lowest-hanging fruit (often small fish) or those who get singled out for political reasons.
int_19h 8y ago
For example, massive fines, that are larger than their net worth, so that they are forced to pay a portion of their income for a while afterwards. But, yes, prison should not be used as a punishment, but rather to isolate people who are physically dangerous (note that this does not equal violent crime - it's possible for a person to commit a crime of violence, but not actually be a danger to society afterwards). If we really want to have a physically punitive justice system, corporal punishment is infinitely better than years in prison: it teaches a lesson, but people can move on quickly from that - it doesn't turn their whole life upside down, and it doesn't put them in an environment where they're more likely to criminalize than rehabilitate. But ideally, the system should be preventative only where necessary (i.e. isolate the danger), and rehabilitative otherwise.

by ufmace 8y ago

leetcrew 8y ago

how about paying x * amount of tax evaded, where x > 1 and the penalty is uncapped? if a significant fraction of tax evasion lead to convictions, it wouldn't be good business to try. the obvious issue is that we don't see a high conviction rate for tax evasion, but this is an issue regardless of whether the penalty is jail or a fine. no matter how severe the penalty is for a crime, people seem to do it anyway if there is a strong incentive and they don't believe they will be the unlucky individual. sooner or later everyone is doing it, just to keep up, and the only people who actually get hit with the hammer are the lowest-hanging fruit (often small fish) or those who get singled out for political reasons.

int_19h 8y ago

For example, massive fines, that are larger than their net worth, so that they are forced to pay a portion of their income for a while afterwards. But, yes, prison should not be used as a punishment, but rather to isolate people who are physically dangerous (note that this does not equal violent crime - it's possible for a person to commit a crime of violence, but not actually be a danger to society afterwards). If we really want to have a physically punitive justice system, corporal punishment is infinitely better than years in prison: it teaches a lesson, but people can move on quickly from that - it doesn't turn their whole life upside down, and it doesn't put them in an environment where they're more likely to criminalize than rehabilitate. But ideally, the system should be preventative only where necessary (i.e. isolate the danger), and rehabilitative otherwise.