• brisk@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    A percentage of income still isn’t equitable though.

    If you’re destitute a week’s income means you starve.

    If you’re a millionnaire a week’s income stings bit doesn’t affect much.

    If you’re a billionnaire there is a good chance you don’t technically have an income, and if you do you can lose half of your wealth without feeling it.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is true, but you could still have a progressive fine. Very good point with the billionaire, though. They live in a completely different world, in terms of how their wealth flow works. Still, it seems like an alternative fine system could be worked out that would hit them hard.

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        The real solution is to remove the classes so high above everyone that the rules don’t apply. This is a difficult problem only because we’re talking about people who are so ludicrously wealthy a fine for literal hundreds of millions of dollars wouldn’t make them homeless.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I agree. John Oliver once referred to billionaires as something like a bug in the structure of the system, and I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis. Unfortunately, they’re a bug that’s not so easily dislodged. Until then, designing systems that are able to deal with their existence is the best way to deal with them.

    • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The billionaire might not feel it, but the money gained could be significant for all sorts of good things that help lift the burdon of the lower class.