6 ms·

If you earn 3k a month, one month you get paid 100k, and you spend 5k on normal things, you aren't going to be arrested. If you earn 3k a month, one month you

If you earn 3k a month, one month you get paid 100k, and you spend 5k on normal things, you aren't going to be arrested. If you earn 3k a month, one month you get paid 100k, and you spend 95k on stuff you don't normally buy, you are going to be arrested. If you pick up 20 centrs from the floor and spend it, you won't be arrested. If you find $50k in a bag and spend it, you will be.

notfromhere 7y ago
I'm pretty sure if you find a bag of money on public property, you're under no obligation to actually return it.
- harryh 7y ago
  This is not correct. If you find a bag of money (or, much more common: a wallet) and you can identify the owner you are obligated to return it. Not doing so is a crime. As it should be.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    California Civil Code section 2080.1 for example "the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city" https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-2080-1.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-2080-1.html
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      I'm sure that'll make for some great "well we can't get them on anything else" prosecutions in a few decades as inflation works its magic. Hard coding dollar amounts into law is beyond stupid. At least it's a civil infraction so you should only get a fine in most cases. (I'm making the charitable assumption that having the amount decrease over time was not intended).
      - tptacek 7y ago
        "Well, if we can't get them on anything else, we'll get them on theft" seems OK to me.
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Writing catch-all laws especially ones that require law abiding people to go out of their way in order to follow them seems pretty darn dystopian but I see how one could turn a blind eye to it if it's used for something they want.
        isostatic 7y ago
        How do you have to "go out of your way" to follow a law which says "don't take stuff you don't own"?
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Read the cited law. It says you are obligated to report anything you find over $100 to the police. If a bartender finds a wallet with $150 in it, sticks it behind the bar and doesn't report it and the patron comes back alleging it had $200 in it he/she could get screwed. I'm sure you could come up with other examples. The point is that using a specific dollar amount is stupid. Give it some time and $100 will be a lot more like $50. Sure, the law can be changed if the relative value gets too low but there will never be any will to do it unless a real sob story comes along because people don't find property that the owner subsequently wants back all that often.
        isostatic 7y ago
        Bartender could simply leave it alone
      - londons_explore 7y ago
        Hardcoding dollar amounts into law isn't so bad because future laws can update them. For example, a future law might say "All dollar amounts put into law more than 10 years ago are hereby doubled". The UK has a similar system for fines. Laws are written that if a particular offence occurs, a "Band A fine shall apply", and a separate bit of regulation says what each band of fine or punishment entails.
  - cafard 7y ago
    A New York police agency has or had the obnoxious practice of leaving bait wallets on subway platforms, and arresting anyone who picks one up and walks past an officer without returning it.
- isostatic 7y ago
  Does that apply to any property that isn't yours?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    That's way too broad of a question. They can try and prosecute you for anything. Whether it succeeds depends heavily on the specific circumstances.
    - isostatic 7y ago
      The broadness is more in the specific laws in your jurisdiction. However ask yourself if you think these situations are different: If you find $10k in cash in a bag If you find a $10k car parked on the street If you find the latest iphone sitting on a table
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Specific laws aside, the pattern of facts still matters a lot. I get what you're getting at but I'm saying that there are plenty of details that matter regardless of ease of proof that the object isn't yours or whether or not it's foreseeable have been left there under "reasonable" circumstances Cars and phones are trivially easy to track back to their owner, with cash possession is basically ownership. Cars get parked places, phones get left places, cash does not get left lying around and if you leave cash somewhere you basically forfeit ownership of it since that's the cultural norm since ownership can't be proven. The specific facts and details matter very much. Time and attempts to find the property by the owner are particularly important. There's a very big difference between leaving your phone at a bar and leaving your phone at a bar for a week, in the latter case the bartender has a nice new phone they can use.

notfromhere 7y ago

I'm pretty sure if you find a bag of money on public property, you're under no obligation to actually return it.

harryh 7y ago
This is not correct. If you find a bag of money (or, much more common: a wallet) and you can identify the owner you are obligated to return it. Not doing so is a crime. As it should be.
- isostatic 7y ago
  California Civil Code section 2080.1 for example "the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city" https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-2080-1.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-2080-1.html
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    I'm sure that'll make for some great "well we can't get them on anything else" prosecutions in a few decades as inflation works its magic. Hard coding dollar amounts into law is beyond stupid. At least it's a civil infraction so you should only get a fine in most cases. (I'm making the charitable assumption that having the amount decrease over time was not intended).
    - tptacek 7y ago
      "Well, if we can't get them on anything else, we'll get them on theft" seems OK to me.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Writing catch-all laws especially ones that require law abiding people to go out of their way in order to follow them seems pretty darn dystopian but I see how one could turn a blind eye to it if it's used for something they want.
        isostatic 7y ago
        How do you have to "go out of your way" to follow a law which says "don't take stuff you don't own"?
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        Read the cited law. It says you are obligated to report anything you find over $100 to the police. If a bartender finds a wallet with $150 in it, sticks it behind the bar and doesn't report it and the patron comes back alleging it had $200 in it he/she could get screwed. I'm sure you could come up with other examples. The point is that using a specific dollar amount is stupid. Give it some time and $100 will be a lot more like $50. Sure, the law can be changed if the relative value gets too low but there will never be any will to do it unless a real sob story comes along because people don't find property that the owner subsequently wants back all that often.
        isostatic 7y ago
        Bartender could simply leave it alone
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      Hardcoding dollar amounts into law isn't so bad because future laws can update them. For example, a future law might say "All dollar amounts put into law more than 10 years ago are hereby doubled". The UK has a similar system for fines. Laws are written that if a particular offence occurs, a "Band A fine shall apply", and a separate bit of regulation says what each band of fine or punishment entails.
- cafard 7y ago
  A New York police agency has or had the obnoxious practice of leaving bait wallets on subway platforms, and arresting anyone who picks one up and walks past an officer without returning it.
isostatic 7y ago
Does that apply to any property that isn't yours?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  That's way too broad of a question. They can try and prosecute you for anything. Whether it succeeds depends heavily on the specific circumstances.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    The broadness is more in the specific laws in your jurisdiction. However ask yourself if you think these situations are different: If you find $10k in cash in a bag If you find a $10k car parked on the street If you find the latest iphone sitting on a table
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Specific laws aside, the pattern of facts still matters a lot. I get what you're getting at but I'm saying that there are plenty of details that matter regardless of ease of proof that the object isn't yours or whether or not it's foreseeable have been left there under "reasonable" circumstances Cars and phones are trivially easy to track back to their owner, with cash possession is basically ownership. Cars get parked places, phones get left places, cash does not get left lying around and if you leave cash somewhere you basically forfeit ownership of it since that's the cultural norm since ownership can't be proven. The specific facts and details matter very much. Time and attempts to find the property by the owner are particularly important. There's a very big difference between leaving your phone at a bar and leaving your phone at a bar for a week, in the latter case the bartender has a nice new phone they can use.