you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 11 months ago*

    You can have an income- and wealth-dependent fine.

    It could be as a % of your total income (bonus included) + wealth (including stocks, full ownership chain included).

    1.5% of income, 5% of wealth in bank account, 10% of stock value. If any of these three exceeds 300x the median of the lowest 10%'s salary (let's say that that's 10k), then it's 80% for all three. That would hit the ultra-wealthy more and so it'd be fairer.


    For a poor person earning less than โ‚ฌ10,000 a year and having โ‚ฌ1,000 in bank and no stocks, that'd be โ‚ฌ200.

    For someone earning โ‚ฌ40,000 a year, having โ‚ฌ80,000 in bank and โ‚ฌ10,000 in stocks, that'd be โ‚ฌ5,600.

    For a billionnaire who has 1 billion, let's say โ‚ฌ2,000,000 per year as "income", โ‚ฌ100,000,000 in "bank account", and the rest of 1 billion in stocks. Then they'd be paying โ‚ฌ 801.6 million.

  • source
  • parent