6 ms·

Yep. If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. It's a civil matter. You have no recourse

Yep. If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. It's a civil matter. You have no recourse except civil law. In many states, you have to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office which may or may not do anything about it. If you decide to simply take $20 out of the till to pay yourself - that's criminal theft. You get arrested, go to jail, and have to fight criminal charges. It's one of the more blatant examples of how the laws of the United States are written to unjustly empower those with wealth that I am aware of.

sneed_chucker 3y ago
> It's one of the more blatant examples of how the laws of the United States are written to unjustly empower those with wealth that I am aware of. The most blatant thing for me will always be the tax code. Alone way that W2 income vs long term capital gains is taxed (not to mention that losses are fully tax deductible) makes the message very clear.
- dontknowwhyihn 3y ago
  Losses are not fully tax deductible.
  - sneed_chucker 3y ago
    Fair enough. It's fully deductible when used to offset capital gains as far as I know. To offset regular income, it's only $3000 a year but losses can be carried forward (though it stays at the dollar value, no inflation is taken into account). So often largely deductible with some caveats. It still seems asinine that bad investments are essentially tax subsidized, but whatever.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Also the deductions arbitrarily denied to individuals. Use a car to drive to your W2 job? That's "commuting" and thus not tax deductible, despite it being utterly required for earning that money.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    Ya let's subsidize people making 50 mile single occupancy vehicle commutes in an F150 instead of one closer and a more efficient vehicle. /s
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Ya let's jump on people making a point with a completely different topic. If you want to increase the price of commuting, raise the gas (/electricity) taxes. That's orthogonal to my point. If you really can't fit this topic in your head without being distracted by OMG CAR, then replace "car" with "subway pass". The point is that in the business context, expenses required to create income are deductible. If you get paid on a 1099, you get treated as a business and can take those deductions. You can even claim a section 179 accelerated depreciation, and immediately deduct half of the capital expense.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    The higher rent you'd pay if you chose to live closer to where you work so that you wouldn't have to drive should also be tax deductible I guess.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      I'd say the amount of rent paid in proportion to time working (+supporting activities) divided by time awake should be fully above-the-line deductible, yes. The point is there are many such deductions that businesses straightforwardly take, that natural persons are told it's all "personal use", despite them being directly necessary to sustain person-as-an-economic-actor.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        I guess I somewhat agree in principle but an indiscriminate tax cut/deduction/universal income would be a much better approach. Easier to administers and much fairer.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  It's totally unfair. Unfortunately, the reality is that capital is highly mobile while labor is not. In an ideal world, capital gains would be taxed much higher than income from labor. However, is too easy to moved the capital to a place where it's taxed at a lower rate.
  - rurp 3y ago
    A good solution would be a flat tax plus a prebate. Tax all income at 15% regardless of the source, with no tax breaks or exceptions. The first $50k or so is tax free, and that could be handled as a prebate where everyone gets paid (taxRate * floor) by the govt[0]. This would be much more progressive than the current system and vastly simpler to implement and enforce. Looking at the current capital gains rate is actually too rosy, since there are so many loopholes and exceptions that wealthy people can use to bring the rate down. The actual effective tax rate billionaires in the US pay is below 10%. I doubt something like this will ever happen given how many selfish interests would fight against it. It sure would be great though if middle class workers didn't pay a higher tax rate than millionaires. [0] I'm throwing out round numbers but have seen research that backs up figures in this ballpark.
hammock 3y ago
> Yep. If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. It's a civil matter. You have no recourse except civil law. If a contractor takes your down payment and then never installs the toilet is that criminal theft? If a contractor installs your toilet without advance payment and then you never pay her, is that criminal theft?
- dfxm12 3y ago
  IANAL, and I don't know how this question relates to the bit you quoted, but in this incredibly vague hypothetical situation, there's probably a contract in place and breach of contract is usually handled in civil court. It could be criminal and prosecuted by the state if any fraud has taken place. That would depend on details not given though.
  - ortusdux 3y ago
    I believe that the typical remedy in both hypotheticals would be civil court -> breach of contract (written or implied) -> place a lien.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Why shouldn't it be considered criminal theft?
- nitwit005 3y ago
  You're not exactly refuting them, just pointing out that there are other forms of effective theft not considered criminal. I suspect most people would be perfectly happy with people facing criminal punishment in large scale wage theft cases. The same probably isn't true for toilet installation disputes.
  - hammock 3y ago
    >You're not exactly refuting them, just pointing out that there are other forms of effective theft not considered criminal. Correct. The point was to raise the question, if that, why not also this?
htss2013 3y ago
Not necessarily. It defaults to a civil matter, but if a DA thinks that the employer knowingly defrauded employees, they could prosecute them criminally. It's pure prosecutorial discretion. But prosexutors have limited resources and don't want to get tied down with business disputes. It's not true that the law itself mandates this to only be in civil court.
toolz 3y ago
What do you suggest is the alternative? To equitably empower the poor and the wealthy even though the poor cost more to empower and have less potential to give back to the country? If you want a wealthy country, I imagine you have strike a balance that favors empowering the wealthy.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  Toolz, I think you're arguing for slavery.
  - toolz 3y ago
    Surely you don't think slavery is an attempt at striking a balance?
- maxbond 3y ago
  Not the GP, but I actually don't care at all about living in a "wealthy country," I'd like to live in a country where our resources are allocated appropriately, we're able to invest in ourselves and our futures, and people have access to what they need regardless of their wealth, influence, or ability. That doesn't require wealth as much as it requires equity. We get wealthier every year but we don't get more equitable, and our investment in things like education, health care, and infrastructure is definitely not rising accordingly. It has never been the case that we simply weren't wealthy enough to build a just society, it's that our society is structured to promote inequality and maximize the influence of the wealthy.
  - toolz 3y ago
    I think not caring about living in a wealthy country is a perfectly fine value judgement to make for yourself, but as someone with just a modest amount of experience living in poor countries, I highly value wealth. Maybe my value system that blames wealth is misappropriating the value to wealth when really it's things that correlate with wealth? That's possible of course, but with such consistent correlation I have to imagine it's hard to separate wealth from the society that I most prefer living in. Happy to be wrong, as equity is a lot more palatable emotionally.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. Yes, it is, in California, at least (and, as of this year, if it was over $950 instead of $20, it would be felony grand theft of wages, rather than a misdemeanor theft.) Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something, doesn’t improve recovery for the victim, and is usually slower, so actual recovery is probably going to happen through civil/administrative process even if a crime is on the books and applicable.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended. It would still take a public prosecutor to care, and the failure to pay as required is already a strict-liability tort. Not sure that enabling discretionary criminal punishment of acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent in this domain helps anyone.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      > acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent This point we disagree on. Wage theft is almost always intentional, always reckless, and should be considered negligent as a default. Wage theft is one of the places where I am okay with guilty until proven innocent because of the huge power disparity between the affected parties.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    It should be and is in terms of civil law. It isnt and shouldn't be in terms of criminal law. Someone drops a zero on you paycheck, you can sue them civially simply because it happened. However, a simple mistake should not be a felony when there is already a path to redress accidental damages.
chung8123 3y ago
I wonder how you could make that criminal. Do you charge the manager making the schedule?
- dbingham 3y ago
  I mean, I think charging whoever executed the action that resulted in the theft is a reasonable starting point. You would then have to make sure to include a consideration of conspiracy in the case where the owners pressured the manager - just as you would consider conspiracy in a case where a thief was hired by someone else to execute a theft.

sneed_chucker 3y ago

> It's one of the more blatant examples of how the laws of the United States are written to unjustly empower those with wealth that I am aware of. The most blatant thing for me will always be the tax code. Alone way that W2 income vs long term capital gains is taxed (not to mention that losses are fully tax deductible) makes the message very clear.

dontknowwhyihn 3y ago
Losses are not fully tax deductible.
- sneed_chucker 3y ago
  Fair enough. It's fully deductible when used to offset capital gains as far as I know. To offset regular income, it's only $3000 a year but losses can be carried forward (though it stays at the dollar value, no inflation is taken into account). So often largely deductible with some caveats. It still seems asinine that bad investments are essentially tax subsidized, but whatever.
mindslight 3y ago
Also the deductions arbitrarily denied to individuals. Use a car to drive to your W2 job? That's "commuting" and thus not tax deductible, despite it being utterly required for earning that money.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Ya let's subsidize people making 50 mile single occupancy vehicle commutes in an F150 instead of one closer and a more efficient vehicle. /s
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Ya let's jump on people making a point with a completely different topic. If you want to increase the price of commuting, raise the gas (/electricity) taxes. That's orthogonal to my point. If you really can't fit this topic in your head without being distracted by OMG CAR, then replace "car" with "subway pass". The point is that in the business context, expenses required to create income are deductible. If you get paid on a 1099, you get treated as a business and can take those deductions. You can even claim a section 179 accelerated depreciation, and immediately deduct half of the capital expense.
- qwytw 3y ago
  The higher rent you'd pay if you chose to live closer to where you work so that you wouldn't have to drive should also be tax deductible I guess.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I'd say the amount of rent paid in proportion to time working (+supporting activities) divided by time awake should be fully above-the-line deductible, yes. The point is there are many such deductions that businesses straightforwardly take, that natural persons are told it's all "personal use", despite them being directly necessary to sustain person-as-an-economic-actor.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      I guess I somewhat agree in principle but an indiscriminate tax cut/deduction/universal income would be a much better approach. Easier to administers and much fairer.
ajmurmann 3y ago
It's totally unfair. Unfortunately, the reality is that capital is highly mobile while labor is not. In an ideal world, capital gains would be taxed much higher than income from labor. However, is too easy to moved the capital to a place where it's taxed at a lower rate.
- rurp 3y ago
  A good solution would be a flat tax plus a prebate. Tax all income at 15% regardless of the source, with no tax breaks or exceptions. The first $50k or so is tax free, and that could be handled as a prebate where everyone gets paid (taxRate * floor) by the govt[0]. This would be much more progressive than the current system and vastly simpler to implement and enforce. Looking at the current capital gains rate is actually too rosy, since there are so many loopholes and exceptions that wealthy people can use to bring the rate down. The actual effective tax rate billionaires in the US pay is below 10%. I doubt something like this will ever happen given how many selfish interests would fight against it. It sure would be great though if middle class workers didn't pay a higher tax rate than millionaires. [0] I'm throwing out round numbers but have seen research that backs up figures in this ballpark.

hammock 3y ago

> Yep. If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. It's a civil matter. You have no recourse except civil law. If a contractor takes your down payment and then never installs the toilet is that criminal theft? If a contractor installs your toilet without advance payment and then you never pay her, is that criminal theft?

dfxm12 3y ago
IANAL, and I don't know how this question relates to the bit you quoted, but in this incredibly vague hypothetical situation, there's probably a contract in place and breach of contract is usually handled in civil court. It could be criminal and prosecuted by the state if any fraud has taken place. That would depend on details not given though.
- ortusdux 3y ago
  I believe that the typical remedy in both hypotheticals would be civil court -> breach of contract (written or implied) -> place a lien.
jakelazaroff 3y ago
Why shouldn't it be considered criminal theft?
nitwit005 3y ago
You're not exactly refuting them, just pointing out that there are other forms of effective theft not considered criminal. I suspect most people would be perfectly happy with people facing criminal punishment in large scale wage theft cases. The same probably isn't true for toilet installation disputes.
- hammock 3y ago
  >You're not exactly refuting them, just pointing out that there are other forms of effective theft not considered criminal. Correct. The point was to raise the question, if that, why not also this?

htss2013 3y ago

Not necessarily. It defaults to a civil matter, but if a DA thinks that the employer knowingly defrauded employees, they could prosecute them criminally. It's pure prosecutorial discretion. But prosexutors have limited resources and don't want to get tied down with business disputes. It's not true that the law itself mandates this to only be in civil court.

toolz 3y ago

What do you suggest is the alternative? To equitably empower the poor and the wealthy even though the poor cost more to empower and have less potential to give back to the country? If you want a wealthy country, I imagine you have strike a balance that favors empowering the wealthy.

ribosometronome 3y ago
Toolz, I think you're arguing for slavery.
- toolz 3y ago
  Surely you don't think slavery is an attempt at striking a balance?
maxbond 3y ago
Not the GP, but I actually don't care at all about living in a "wealthy country," I'd like to live in a country where our resources are allocated appropriately, we're able to invest in ourselves and our futures, and people have access to what they need regardless of their wealth, influence, or ability. That doesn't require wealth as much as it requires equity. We get wealthier every year but we don't get more equitable, and our investment in things like education, health care, and infrastructure is definitely not rising accordingly. It has never been the case that we simply weren't wealthy enough to build a just society, it's that our society is structured to promote inequality and maximize the influence of the wealthy.
- toolz 3y ago
  I think not caring about living in a wealthy country is a perfectly fine value judgement to make for yourself, but as someone with just a modest amount of experience living in poor countries, I highly value wealth. Maybe my value system that blames wealth is misappropriating the value to wealth when really it's things that correlate with wealth? That's possible of course, but with such consistent correlation I have to imagine it's hard to separate wealth from the society that I most prefer living in. Happy to be wrong, as equity is a lot more palatable emotionally.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If you are a retail worker and your boss withholds $20 from your paycheck, it's not considered criminal theft. Yes, it is, in California, at least (and, as of this year, if it was over $950 instead of $20, it would be felony grand theft of wages, rather than a misdemeanor theft.) Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something, doesn’t improve recovery for the victim, and is usually slower, so actual recovery is probably going to happen through civil/administrative process even if a crime is on the books and applicable.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
> Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended. It would still take a public prosecutor to care, and the failure to pay as required is already a strict-liability tort. Not sure that enabling discretionary criminal punishment of acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent in this domain helps anyone.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    > acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent This point we disagree on. Wage theft is almost always intentional, always reckless, and should be considered negligent as a default. Wage theft is one of the places where I am okay with guilty until proven innocent because of the huge power disparity between the affected parties.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  It should be and is in terms of civil law. It isnt and shouldn't be in terms of criminal law. Someone drops a zero on you paycheck, you can sue them civially simply because it happened. However, a simple mistake should not be a felony when there is already a path to redress accidental damages.

chung8123 3y ago

I wonder how you could make that criminal. Do you charge the manager making the schedule?

dbingham 3y ago
I mean, I think charging whoever executed the action that resulted in the theft is a reasonable starting point. You would then have to make sure to include a consideration of conspiracy in the case where the owners pressured the manager - just as you would consider conspiracy in a case where a thief was hired by someone else to execute a theft.