11 ms·

So will there be criminal charges brought. I highly doubt it. That is typically the problem, a normal person gets the book thrown at them (even if they e.g. com

So will there be criminal charges brought. I highly doubt it. That is typically the problem, a normal person gets the book thrown at them (even if they e.g. commit a crime accidentally), while nobody goes after the big guys because it is deemed to be too expensive or some other reason.

bendergarcia 6y ago
It’s sad, even the place that is supposed to be fair isn’t due to money. Money rules too many of America’s systems. But I have a feeling that money will always find a way to be influential.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Money is just a proxy for power. Power is synonymous with influence.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    There are plenty of influential broke people. Just look at YouTube.
    - albatruss 6y ago
      Exactly. That's why money is a proxy, not equivalent to power.
      - bendergarcia 6y ago
        A YouTuber cant use their likes to get the best lawyer can they? Even if they can (promos), it still means the legal system is unfair. The ones who benefit the system the most benefit from it.
        throwaway3699 6y ago
        Influencers can easily raise hundreds of thousands to fight legal cases if they have an audience that cares about their cause. Edit: s/YouTubers/Influencers
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - luckylion 6y ago
      And they can turn that influence into money very quickly. They might lose some of it when they cash in (or sell out), but it's pretty convertable.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        And the conversion rate is good at quantifying how much actual influence a person has. Which may be less than they think. How much influence a typical YouTuber with 10k subscribers have? Very little, actually - they can affect audience's thinking in a limited domain, or get them to buy some stuff to a limited degree. All restricted to how much a cohort of volunteers cares about what their entertainers tell them. Contrast that with a person wielding a $100. They can literally get someone to do almost anything for them for a couple of hours. Or, in general, they can exchange it for $100 worth of goods and services provided by an industrial civilization. That's what hard influence looks like.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > even the place that is supposed to be fair isn’t due to money What place is that?
  - bendergarcia 6y ago
    The legal system (The court room)
busterarm 6y ago
That's exactly it. Rich people have the resources to fight for longer than you will hold your office. There's a really eye opening report 2 years ago from Charles Rettig, commissioner of the IRS, where he openly states that his agency focuses audits on poorer people, because they have less resources to fight and are more likely to just pay up and move on. Most of the audit resources are targeted at people claiming the earned income tax credit.
- adventured 6y ago
  Edit: I provided actual data - facts - straight from the IRS. If you're going to downvote, I dare you to bring something to the table to counter reality (good luck). > where he openly states that his agency focuses audits on poorer people As incomes rise, audit % rates rise. The IRS does not focus a large share of its energy on poorer people. The people earning under $50,000 per year have a very low audit rate, and that's straight from the IRS data. Once your income climbs over $200,000 your audit rate begins to skyrocket. In terms of volume, 60% of all filers are at $50,000 or lower, so obviously even at a low % of audits they're still going to have a lot of audits. The IRS does audit people filing as having no income at a relatively high rate, because that category frequently attempts to use incorrect deductions to try to hide income. The rate of fraud is very high in that category. Here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2017ntf-irsauditstriggers.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2017ntf-irsauditstriggers.pd... "The majority of audited returns are for taxpayers who earn $500,000 a year or more, and most of them had incomes of over $1 million. These are the only income ranges that were subject to more than a 1% chance of an audit in 2018. " -- [note: the $500k+ group is the majority of audited returns despite the fact that they're a tiny share of all returns, which tells you how low the audit rate is for the poorer categories.] "According to IRS statistics, you’re safest if you report income in the neighborhood of $25,000 to $200,000. These taxpayers were audited the least in 2016." https://www.thebalance.com/top-audit-triggers-that-catch-irs-attention-4153034 https://www.thebalance.com/top-audit-triggers-that-catch-irs...
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    A better characterization, from memory, was that they don't bother with the ultra-rich because it's difficult to win. 200k-1M is probably the danger zone.
ajmurmann 6y ago
And if someone gets charged it's the company which ends up paying a relatively small fine, since companies are people but we cannot send them to prison.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  > but we cannot send them to prison. I think this belief is the problem. At the very least, a company has representatives; if it was to go to jail for a crime, then the C-suite or board could go in its place. A reasonable risk and form of accountability for the high rewards they already get. But I think it's fair to take it a step further: imprison the company. That is, apply any effects you would apply to a prisoner to that corporation. Lack of communication or direct control of assets and funds for the equivalent period of time for a start. Would that be existential, if not company ruining for any large length of time? Sure, just as it is for the average citizen. They'll lose many of the things they own, their jobs and livelihood and sometimes much more with any large prison sentence. Their loved ones and dependants' and acquaintances' lives are dramatically affected. So too can it be made the same for a company. The limit of limited liability should change with scale.
adventured 6y ago
They should all be in prison, they're criminals. And this is likely just the lighter stuff, this is what they're getting caught doing that can be easily tied back back to them directly. Your high doubt is warranted, absolutely nothing will happen to the likes of Sandberg & Co., they're literally protected, representing the ultimate privileged class. Absolutely nobody will dare go near them. You also won't see the hundred billionaires Sergey Brin & Larry Page getting pulled in by the Feds and questioned over the various criminal activities at Google during their reign. They ran away, fled before the curtain came down, specifically to evade the risk of their actions coming back on them as the Feds & states start turning Google inside out and the scrutiny gets intense. It was left for Pichai to deal with.
dls2016 6y ago
Don’t worry... She will be pulled over, peppered sprayed and held 3 months without a hearing.

bendergarcia 6y ago

It’s sad, even the place that is supposed to be fair isn’t due to money. Money rules too many of America’s systems. But I have a feeling that money will always find a way to be influential.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Money is just a proxy for power. Power is synonymous with influence.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  There are plenty of influential broke people. Just look at YouTube.
  - albatruss 6y ago
    Exactly. That's why money is a proxy, not equivalent to power.
    - bendergarcia 6y ago
      A YouTuber cant use their likes to get the best lawyer can they? Even if they can (promos), it still means the legal system is unfair. The ones who benefit the system the most benefit from it.
      - throwaway3699 6y ago
        Influencers can easily raise hundreds of thousands to fight legal cases if they have an audience that cares about their cause. Edit: s/YouTubers/Influencers
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckylion 6y ago
    And they can turn that influence into money very quickly. They might lose some of it when they cash in (or sell out), but it's pretty convertable.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      And the conversion rate is good at quantifying how much actual influence a person has. Which may be less than they think. How much influence a typical YouTuber with 10k subscribers have? Very little, actually - they can affect audience's thinking in a limited domain, or get them to buy some stuff to a limited degree. All restricted to how much a cohort of volunteers cares about what their entertainers tell them. Contrast that with a person wielding a $100. They can literally get someone to do almost anything for them for a couple of hours. Or, in general, they can exchange it for $100 worth of goods and services provided by an industrial civilization. That's what hard influence looks like.
jacquesm 6y ago
> even the place that is supposed to be fair isn’t due to money What place is that?
- bendergarcia 6y ago
  The legal system (The court room)

busterarm 6y ago

That's exactly it. Rich people have the resources to fight for longer than you will hold your office. There's a really eye opening report 2 years ago from Charles Rettig, commissioner of the IRS, where he openly states that his agency focuses audits on poorer people, because they have less resources to fight and are more likely to just pay up and move on. Most of the audit resources are targeted at people claiming the earned income tax credit.

adventured 6y ago
Edit: I provided actual data - facts - straight from the IRS. If you're going to downvote, I dare you to bring something to the table to counter reality (good luck). > where he openly states that his agency focuses audits on poorer people As incomes rise, audit % rates rise. The IRS does not focus a large share of its energy on poorer people. The people earning under $50,000 per year have a very low audit rate, and that's straight from the IRS data. Once your income climbs over $200,000 your audit rate begins to skyrocket. In terms of volume, 60% of all filers are at $50,000 or lower, so obviously even at a low % of audits they're still going to have a lot of audits. The IRS does audit people filing as having no income at a relatively high rate, because that category frequently attempts to use incorrect deductions to try to hide income. The rate of fraud is very high in that category. Here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2017ntf-irsauditstriggers.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/2017ntf-irsauditstriggers.pd... "The majority of audited returns are for taxpayers who earn $500,000 a year or more, and most of them had incomes of over $1 million. These are the only income ranges that were subject to more than a 1% chance of an audit in 2018. " -- [note: the $500k+ group is the majority of audited returns despite the fact that they're a tiny share of all returns, which tells you how low the audit rate is for the poorer categories.] "According to IRS statistics, you’re safest if you report income in the neighborhood of $25,000 to $200,000. These taxpayers were audited the least in 2016." https://www.thebalance.com/top-audit-triggers-that-catch-irs-attention-4153034 https://www.thebalance.com/top-audit-triggers-that-catch-irs...
- refenestrator 6y ago
  A better characterization, from memory, was that they don't bother with the ultra-rich because it's difficult to win. 200k-1M is probably the danger zone.

ajmurmann 6y ago

And if someone gets charged it's the company which ends up paying a relatively small fine, since companies are people but we cannot send them to prison.

anonymousab 6y ago
> but we cannot send them to prison. I think this belief is the problem. At the very least, a company has representatives; if it was to go to jail for a crime, then the C-suite or board could go in its place. A reasonable risk and form of accountability for the high rewards they already get. But I think it's fair to take it a step further: imprison the company. That is, apply any effects you would apply to a prisoner to that corporation. Lack of communication or direct control of assets and funds for the equivalent period of time for a start. Would that be existential, if not company ruining for any large length of time? Sure, just as it is for the average citizen. They'll lose many of the things they own, their jobs and livelihood and sometimes much more with any large prison sentence. Their loved ones and dependants' and acquaintances' lives are dramatically affected. So too can it be made the same for a company. The limit of limited liability should change with scale.

adventured 6y ago

They should all be in prison, they're criminals. And this is likely just the lighter stuff, this is what they're getting caught doing that can be easily tied back back to them directly. Your high doubt is warranted, absolutely nothing will happen to the likes of Sandberg & Co., they're literally protected, representing the ultimate privileged class. Absolutely nobody will dare go near them. You also won't see the hundred billionaires Sergey Brin & Larry Page getting pulled in by the Feds and questioned over the various criminal activities at Google during their reign. They ran away, fled before the curtain came down, specifically to evade the risk of their actions coming back on them as the Feds & states start turning Google inside out and the scrutiny gets intense. It was left for Pichai to deal with.

dls2016 6y ago

Don’t worry... She will be pulled over, peppered sprayed and held 3 months without a hearing.