Incentivizing whistleblowers by appealing to greed is counterproductive! "US to pay big sums for Wall St tip-offs"

Source: www.ft.com

Tom Usher wrote or added | "People who provide original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action will now be entitled to 10 per cent to 30 per cent of any sanction collected over $1m."

So the SEC will settle for $999,999 in a case to avoid paying out 10%+ of 1,000,001. Anyway, this is all pretty ugly stuff. For someone to get 10% of a billion dollar settlement or award is a terrible incentive. People may even facilitate or set up stings or entrapment rings within corporations to get such rewards.

Selfishness is the worst incentive. It is the wrong spirit!

Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe

Shared.

Tom Usher

Thanks Khmais Bouguerra for liking this post/link.

Hey, Chris, thanks for letting me know you shared the link.

Over on Chris's Wall, Diarmuid Breatnach left the following comment about the post:

Diarmuid Breatnach

You mean it might actually work? Can't have that!

It prompted me to reply:

Tom Usher

Diarmuid,

It's more of the same racket. Someone needs to blow the final whistle on finance capitalism. The whole thing is a scam, a giant Ponzi scheme. Interest to the banksters is a black hole sucking the labor out of the captives. The SEC shouldn't exist because finance capitalism shouldn't exist. Let's stay focused. Let's not be distracted by the usurers' shell games duping the masses.

Greed is not the answer to the problem of greed. Getting rid of greed is the solution. Everything else is a hypnotic spell.

Lesser of evils is tricky business. Let's make sure we include ultimate truths, not confine ourselves to half-truths at best.

Diarmuid Breatnach

Don't worry, Tom, I know where I want to go and what I want to save and the latter does not include finance capital. But it tickled me that they were proposing using greed to reward whistle-blowers on greedy capitalists, then proposed dropping the scheme because too many capitalists would get exposed.

I hit the "like" link on Diarmuid's comment.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.