[trevortheblack]

Six percent annual turnover for non-compliance seems too low.

Should be six percent for first offense, 12% for second, 25% for third, etc.

Until the company fixes it's compliance or becomes insolvent.

[icedchocolate]

This opinion is terrifying to me. Why has our culture become so authoritarian?

[yifanl]

The alternative is that corporations can (or rather, can continue to) factor in selectively breaking laws as a line item in their operating costs, which is unappealing for certain people for a variety of reasons.

[hiptobecubic]

Escalating punishment based on repeat offense until we find a level that is convincing enough to stop you from offending is not a particularly new idea.

[account42]

If an individual continues to defy the law they get sent to jail. Why should corporations get away without similar escalating consequences?

[sumedh]

because companies knowingly violate laws then get a slap on the wrist when they get caught and no one goes to jail when they are caught.

[doh]

Fines are fine balance between motivational and liquidating.

I think 6% is quite a lot, even if one has 40% margin. Investors will be highly distraught and seek remedies from the current management. But for instance at 20% they will blame the regulators and push the company to fight in courts.

In any way, government wants to motivate change in behavior not taking companies out of business.

[account42]

> In any way, government wants to motivate change in behavior not taking companies out of business.

Taking maliciously noncompliant comanies out of business can be a way to motivate others to not try to skirt the law.