What's wrong with rise in net worth over a year?

If I go into debt that year does that mean the fine gives me money?

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe debt reduces your net worth. Irresponsible use of that debt does, but if I borrow $250k to buy a house, the value of that house offsets the debt. It's a wash in the end, is it not?

Well obviously the grandparent should be read as "If my net wealth decreases over a year then should the fine give me money?"

In Soviet Sweden, the fine pays you. /ducks

maybe i took "true" too literally.

What are some legal ways for an individual to be compensated that wouldn't appear in the tax documentation of either the individual or the company in question?

"Legal" is used here to mean "would stand up in a court of law in the relevant jurisdiction."

The fact is that if Eric Schmidt were fined 100% of his "net worth" he would be among the rich again within a year or two.

Suppose a professional gambler made exactly the same amount as Eric Schmidt per year. This "system" would fine them equally. But the gambler relies on his bankroll as his asset, whereas Schmidt relies on his reputation and personal network.

How can you make this fair?

1) Whether yearly income is representative of present and/or future net worth is entirely unrelated to whether the magnitude of said income is discoverable.

2) Everyone has a different definition of "fair." Which one are you using?

(1) The original question is ["elsewhere it's like [this], is that better?"]

I merely point out a major caveat.

(2) From the article: "In reality, fairness is not so much about the actual distribution of loot as it is about the psychology of how you feel about it."