sergejm:

nornen:
Oni enrompas en banko ---substantiviginte---> enrompigxo en banko (kun igx).
Oni fondas bankon ---substantiviginte---> fondigxo de banko (kun igx).

Oni enrompiĝas en bankon , oni enrompas sin en bankon ---substantiating---> enrompiĝo en bankon
Oni fondas bankon ---substantiating---> fondado de banko.
Banko fondiĝas ---substantiating---> fondiĝo de banko.

Where did you take the "oni enrompigxas" from? What sense does the -igx- infix have in this case?

vortaro:ili aliris, por enrompi la pordon

How can one break into oneself as in "oni emrompas sin"? This doesn't make any sense at all.
How do you arrive at "fondado" when starting with "fondas"? Where does the -ad- come from? Why should the act of founding the bank become longer, just because it is a substantive now?

-ado is a common suffix for substantiate a verb.
manĝi - manĝado (eating), not manĝaĵo (food)! manĝo may be both food and eating.
martelo - marteli - martelado
But there is no need to use it if the varb already has verb suffix, e.g. -igi, -iĝi.

nornen:Kial vi enmetis -igx- en la lastajn du, kvankam vi ne enmetis gxin en la unuajn du?

nornen:Where did you take the "oni enrompigxas" from? What sense does the -igx- infix have in this case?

I am glad that Sergej shared his expertise with us. Another way of translating "enrompiĝi" into German would be:
"sich Zugang verschaffen" ("to gain access" )

There it becomes clearer where -iĝ derives from. Nonetheless my translations contain a mistake as Sergej pointed it out:

Kio estas serurrompilo kontraŭ akcio?
Kio estas enrompiĝo en bankon kontraŭ la fondiĝo de banko?
Kio estas mortigo de viro kontraŭ la dungo de viro?

I hope that this is correct now and does justice to Brecht.

The definition of -ad- in the Universala Vortaro is not complete, as it expresses duration only with verbal roots (iradi etc.), while with other roots it merely nominalizes the verbal derivate, e.g. krono → kroni → kronado (also as a single, short act). With verbal roots, however, -ad- sometimes is used pleonastically without the expression of duration, or to make clear that the ongoing action is meant, not the object (as with manĝo = 1. manĝaĵo, 2. manĝado).

For the translation, please see the definition in PIV:

enrompi. rompi, por eniĝi, penetri: ili aliris, por enrompi la pordonX; fari enrompon en la urbonZ; li estis kondamnita kiel enrompisto.

I would translate:

Kiom gravas serurrompilo kontraŭ akcio?
Kiom gravas enrompo en bankon kontraŭ fond(ad)o de banko?
Kiom gravas mortigo de viro kontraŭ la dungo de viro?

Kirilo81:Kiom gravas serurrompilo kontraŭ akcio?
Kiom gravas enrompo en bankon kontraŭ fond(ad)o de banko?
Kiom gravas mortigo de viro kontraŭ la dungo de viro?

I like your translations more than mine. It looks much more like Esperanto. Thanks for that.

kaŝperanto:The phrase being translated is:
"What is the burgling of a bank to the founding of a bank"

What is the context? Is someone really asking whether a bank burglary can be compared to the founding of a bank? What does the speaker wish to compare, and for what reason? Knowing the answers to these questions would better enable us to translate the meaning.

Miland:

kaŝperanto:The phrase being translated is:
"What is the burgling of a bank to the founding of a bank"

What is the context? Is someone really asking whether a bank burglary can be compared to the founding of a bank? What does the speaker wish to compare, and for what reason? Knowing the answers to these questions would better enable us to translate the meaning.

I suppose, that Bert Brecht's intention was something like this (and obviously I can't know for sure):
Both a lockpick and financial shares are means of stealing money.
Both a bank robbery and the simple creation of a bank are means of stealing money. I.e. the raison-d'être of banks is to rob us of our money.
Both killing a man and employing a man are means of annihilating a human being.

Just my interpretation. But it fits in quite well with the general works of Brecht.

Bertolt Brecht intented to critize the society with these sentences. What he really tells is the following:

For what do you use a lockpick if you could just hold stocks and steal other people's wealth?
For what do you rob a bank if you could just found a bank yourself and rob the entire society?
For what do you kill a man if you could just hire him and let him work as a slave for you?

ustra:Bertolt Brecht intented to critize the society with these sentences. What he really tells is the following:

For what do you use a lockpick if you could just hold stocks and steal other people's wealth?
For what do you rob a bank if you could just found a bank yourself and rob the entire society?
For what do you kill a man if you could just hire him and let him work as a slave for you?

I more or less interpreted it the same way, but was unable to put it so nicely into words. Chapeau!
Und der Haifisch, der hat Z"ahne....

ustra:Kio estas serurrompilo kontraŭ akcio?
Kio estas enrompiĝo en banko kontraŭ la fondiĝo de banko?
Kio estas mortigo de viro kontraŭ la dungo de viro?

Kirilo81:Kiom gravas serurrompilo kontraŭ akcio?
Kiom gravas enrompo en bankon kontraŭ fond(ad)o de banko?
Kiom gravas mortigo de viro kontraŭ la dungo de viro?

IMO the use of "kontraŭ" in these translations is too (German-biased) idiomatic (like discussed in the "Standardization"-thread). One could use "komparite al" instead.