Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
It’s 110%, not 10%.
Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Don’t conflate refunds from fine. Its not an earnings, its a refund.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
And here in lies the problem.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
How delicate do you have to be to believe disagreement as an attack . Comical gold.