Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

1,710

Joined

2 yr. ago

[…] trickle-down economics is an absurd nonsense theory […]

Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by "trickle down economics"?

1. [Trickle Down Economics] doesn’t exist and 2) nothing of value is created out of it.

How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?

There is no such thing as trickle down economics.

How exactly are you defining trickle down economics?

Trickle down economics refers to things that benefit the wealthy (mostly government policies, particularly related to taxes and subsidies) that will allegedly benefit everyone by “trickling down.”

Addressing specifically the point of taxes (eg lowering taxes on the wealthy), I think it's important to note the idea of the Laffer Curve.

For clarity, would you mind outlining exactly how what OP proposed is an example of the Broken Window Fallacy?

How exactly are you defining "trickle down economics"? It has been my experience that a lot of people use that term differently.

Imo, I don't think that OP is necessarily advocating for a harsher punishment for anyone, but more that whatever punishment is enforced should be felt equally by everyone.

How so?

There could theoretically be a mandatory minimum fine.

If you want people to see this comment, I'd recommend updating your post's body with such types of clarifying information instead of adding the information as a comment. This comment of yours was buried down towards the end of the comment section for me.

Perhaps there could be a mandatory minimum fine?

Similar to what I mentioned here, assuming that the punishment is a fine, what happens if that person simply gets their fine payed for by someone else? They could artificially lower their income, and pay their fine through a proxy.

Good point.

They have had at least a couple of instances of over $100k speeding tickets, for example.

I've become rather favorable of the idea ticketing proportional to income/capital. It's always bothered me that, in a system where everyone pays the same ticket price, essentially, a rich person can just eat a ticket as simply the cost of driving. I think that it should affect them at the same magnitude as anyone else. One thing that pops into my mind, however, is what happens if someone gets their ticket payed for by someone else? For example, what happens if a rich parent's child gets a speeding ticket? The child, who may have a very low income, and, as a result, a very low ticket price comparatively, could have that ticket payed for by their parents, so the punishment wouldn't affect them as much as someone else who was poorer.

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%?

Hm, garnering wages in this way (ie as if paying off a debt which matches the cost of their crime) might disproportionally affect the poor. For example, assuming no overhead, a person who makes 50k year could pay off a 100k in 2 years, whereas a person who makes 10k a year would pay it off in 10. This may actually have an effect opposite of what OP seemed to be intending — the punishment should have equal weight to everyone.

Perhaps a way to improve your idea to mitigate the mentioned issue would be to also scale the total fine to be repayed by income. Sort of like a progressive income tax.

I.e. 100k embezzlement gets you 2.5 years

For whom? Your post title seems to talk about having proportionate punishments:

Punishment for financial crimes should be proportionate to the average yearly income.

yet you only stated a single punishment without mention to whom it would apply, and how it would differ for someone else.

Bio is like a freshman/sophomore course.

In your opinion, should it be — ie should it be taught at all?

Imo, it's more an erosion of critical thinking rather than a lacking of specific biology facts.

Mainstream economics is nothing but ideologically charged excuses for the status quo.

Would you mind defining exactly what you mean by "mainstream economics"?