Should This be Law?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.

How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?

If they are known criminals lock them up![/quote]

Exactly. If there’s no material proof of their making their money illegally, then they are not known criminals, and their property should remain in their possession. A criminal smart enough to elude the current system can also elude the proposed system, so in addition to going against our social principles, the idea is unlikely to even achieve anything.

42

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.

How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?

If they are known criminals lock them up!

The implication is that, like Al Capone, everyone knows that they are criminals, but there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a trial. [/quote]

So we punish them without a trial. Hmmm. Something is missing here.

As you have already questioned, who makes the call? Is evidence needed?

43

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.

I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.

I cannot even begin to understand what this means.

You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)

So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.

[/quote]

We weren’t going after Iraq. We were going after Sadam. Having WMD would have been the least of his crimes. People seem to forget or don’t care that this guy was right up there with Hitler. Maybe he didn’t kill quite as many people but he made up for that in shear brutality. History may point out many of GWB faults and blunders but it will also remember that he gave the order to capture one of the worste dictators in the history of man kind.

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sidenote: EE, worst fucking case of backne I’ve ever seen. WTF man, I know you gotta wait over there for the NHS but that’s fucking terrible!!![/quote]

There is no acne on my back none at all, if it looks red raw then thats becuase the pic was taked right after the tattoo was done

45

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This would apply to known criminals that are ‘untouchable’ by normal methods, that have wealth way beyond reasonable explanation.

How would this be determined? Who decides what is “way beyond reasonable explanation,” or how is it defined?

If they are known criminals lock them up!

The implication is that, like Al Capone, everyone knows that they are criminals, but there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a trial.

So we punish them without a trial. Hmmm. Something is missing here.

As you have already questioned, who makes the call? Is evidence needed?[/quote]

This would not be the responsibility of one single police officer making the call.

I think it is workable

It would have to involve the police force reporting a criminal to a special court who then investigate a persons in come and wealth.

Then that person can be brought into court and given chance to give a reasonable explanation of how the acquired their wealth, they would not need to show receipts or proof of purchase but just that they have earned sufficient money legally.

It would have to be a tight process.

Anyway I see from your reactions that my hopes of making Prime Minister are pretty slim.

46

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.

I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.

I cannot even begin to understand what this means.

You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)

So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.

We weren’t going after Iraq. We were going after Sadam. Having WMD would have been the least of his crimes. People seem to forget or don’t care that this guy was right up there with Hitler. Maybe he didn’t kill quite as many people but he made up for that in shear brutality. History may point out many of GWB faults and blunders but it will also remember that he gave the order to capture one of the worste dictators in the history of man kind.[/quote]

So you are going after Robert Mugabe next then? Oh no he has no oil, fuck it then leave him too it yeah!

Nice morales :slight_smile:

47

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Electric_E wrote:

Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?

Cheers

Impossible, unworkable, ridiculous and too extreme.

I’ve got all kinds of stuff with no receipts, so I could never actually prove I bought them legally. Why should I have to keep all my receipts? What if I receive a gift that I couldn’t personally afford. I lose it? Someone working a low-wage job could potentially drive an expensive car if they manage their money properly and/or got a good deal on it. Why should they lose their car and then have to have every aspect of their finances scrutinized in order to get it back? Who does that help? Suppose I’m dating a cop’s daughter, and he doesn’t approve, he can just take all my stuff and make my life miserable on the grounds that I haven’t “proved” that I bought it all and can afford it. There is way too much room for abuse in a witch-hunt style system like this.

And then, once someone goes through all this nonsense and gets their stuff back, what’s to stop another cop from just confiscating it again and making them redo the entire thing?

I think “Innocent until proven guilty” was already mentioned. There’s a reason for that.

You would not have to show receipts for everything you own. You can show that you earn a legitamate wage and that your possesions are reasonable to what you earn.

This law would not target everyman with stuff he may or may not have receipts for, but it will target the big time criminals that have great wealth with no legitamate proff of income.

I think ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is an outdated concept and it’s time to start getting radical and pro active.
[/quote]

Well, much like gun legislation, do you really think this would deter CRIMINALS? It would just be more bureaucratic red-tape BS that HONEST hardworking people would get stuck holding onto shoeboxes and folders of receipts.

Also, it’s a slippery slope from something like that to “well, you don’t have the APPROVED proof” or “that company that paid you was known to have sold items that were used by terrorists - we need to confiscate your paychecks for the last 8 months as it’s blood money.”

No thanks!

48

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.

I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.

Let’s say for example:

You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)

This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.

Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.

What do you think?

Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?

Cheers
[/quote]

You should be a politician. Can you immagine how many more jobs and bearucrats we could add by implementing this. Not to mention more staff for the courts. This would all cost the tax payer much more that any gains in tax revenue from the crooks we can’t catch now for tax evasion.

How about a plan that would not only tax these people but end up saving the average tax payer and enourmous amount of $. It’s called consumption tax. Instead of capital gains or personal income tax it would be just a sales tax. No one can escape this tax unless the didn’t buy anything. Usually those who recieve income illeagally also consume much more.

Other benefits

No need to hire a tax accountant. Saves you $.

Reduce the size of the IRS enonorously. Save the tax payer.

Businesses will move here instead of leave here because no capital gains tax.

Consumption tax taxes goods from forein companies as much as domestic companies are taxed today by capital gains tax. Yay…more jobs here and my 401k does much better.

Encourage savings (investment) rather than consumption. Yay…even more job creation and great new products and services that make our lives better.

49

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.

This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.

I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.

I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :)[/quote]

You are very right wing! LOL. Is that tattoo inked deeper on one side? :wink:

I went back and re-read after I posted, and really, the ‘it’s not for everyman’ that this would be intended…

but much like INCOME tax here in the states (developed as a TEMPORARY fix to a problem but still in effect) - when does the government ever just ‘turn off’ an income source? It’s too dangerous, would be handled by morons, and would just basically install a hoarding mentality on the citizens.

50

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.

I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.

I cannot even begin to understand what this means.

You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)

So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.

We weren’t going after Iraq. We were going after Sadam. Having WMD would have been the least of his crimes. People seem to forget or don’t care that this guy was right up there with Hitler. Maybe he didn’t kill quite as many people but he made up for that in shear brutality. History may point out many of GWB faults and blunders but it will also remember that he gave the order to capture one of the worste dictators in the history of man kind.

So you are going after Robert Mugabe next then? Oh no he has no oil, fuck it then leave him too it yeah!

Nice morales :slight_smile:
[/quote]

That makes no sense. If we can’t them all, don’t go after any of them? Obviously you have to prioritize. If they are equally as brutal to their own people then there has to be some other criteria. I have yet to see us take any oil but freeing this from the hands of a madman help the the WORLD oil prices once production ramps. Also, if there is a chance that one of them has WMD wouldn’t that be a criteria.

Also, how do know what we have or haven’t done to dispose of Mugabe. All you know is that we weren’t successful.

51

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.

I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.

I cannot even begin to understand what this means.

You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)

So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.

We weren’t going after Iraq. We were going after Sadam. Having WMD would have been the least of his crimes. People seem to forget or don’t care that this guy was right up there with Hitler. Maybe he didn’t kill quite as many people but he made up for that in shear brutality. History may point out many of GWB faults and blunders but it will also remember that he gave the order to capture one of the worste dictators in the history of man kind.

So you are going after Robert Mugabe next then? Oh no he has no oil, fuck it then leave him too it yeah!

Nice morales :slight_smile:

That makes no sense. If we can’t them all, don’t go after any of them? Obviously you have to prioritize. If they are equally as brutal to their own people then there has to be some other criteria. I have yet to see us take any oil but freeing this from the hands of a madman help the the WORLD oil prices once production ramps. Also, if there is a chance that one of them has WMD wouldn’t that be a criteria.

Also, how do know what we have or haven’t done to dispose of Mugabe. All you know is that we weren’t successful.[/quote]

This Morales guy - who is he dictating?

:wink:

52

[quote]LightsOutLuthor wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.

This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.

I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.

I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :slight_smile:

You are very right wing! LOL. Is that tattoo inked deeper on one side? :wink:

I went back and re-read after I posted, and really, the ‘it’s not for everyman’ that this would be intended…

but much like INCOME tax here in the states (developed as a TEMPORARY fix to a problem but still in effect) - when does the government ever just ‘turn off’ an income source? It’s too dangerous, would be handled by morons, and would just basically install a hoarding mentality on the citizens.
[/quote]

This is far from right wing. True conservatives want less government. This just creates another tax payer funded boondoggle. How’s the war on drugs coming? How about the war on poverty? Besides there will be no money left after the war on global warming starts.

53

This is why we have a constitution, and bill of rights.

To just assume a person is guilty is a big mistake.

Unfortunately this is going on right now. As I understand it if there was a real challenge to it’s constitutionality these laws would fall.

I know of at least one story of professional gamblers having their money seized at an airport, and having to go to court to prove that they had legitimately earned the money. (They did report all earnings on their taxes.)

In these cases they need the cash on hand. They also do not want the casinos to know they are coming, and they also would prefer that people do not know they are carrying that much cash, for obvious safety reasons.

Anyway if somebody has a lot of cash and no discernible source of income, then the government here will begin to wonder, and probably start an investigation.

This is the whole reason for money laundering. This would simply cause the laundering of money to become more prevalent.

There are also the swiss bank accounts, and people who simply move out of a country to avoid prosecution.

There are no “big fish” who would be hit by this type of law. Only the small guys who would have drawn interest on themselves in the first place without such a law, and the scores of innocent who would get caught up in such a law simply because they didn’t keep good records.

54

[quote]dhickey wrote:
LightsOutLuthor wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.

This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.

I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.

I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :slight_smile:

You are very right wing! LOL. Is that tattoo inked deeper on one side? :wink:

I went back and re-read after I posted, and really, the ‘it’s not for everyman’ that this would be intended…

but much like INCOME tax here in the states (developed as a TEMPORARY fix to a problem but still in effect) - when does the government ever just ‘turn off’ an income source? It’s too dangerous, would be handled by morons, and would just basically install a hoarding mentality on the citizens.

This is far from right wing. True conservatives want less government. This just creates another tax payer funded boondoggle. How’s the war on drugs coming? How about the war on poverty? Besides there will be no money left after the war on global warming starts.[/quote]

Did you think I wouldn’t read this the first time?

While I ALSO know the TRUE meaning of conservative - many of those “wars” you speak of were started by so-called conservative politicians, and any sort of action like this ‘take away’ plan would be very much MORE government.

Anyways…my point is that it’s a slippery slope…when is proof not proof enough?

“But Mr. McCarthy, I can PROVE I’m not a Communist!”

-for the record, I’m a fairly conservative guy myself - smaller government is good, and smaller government operating in check as it was designed is even better

55

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So we punish them without a trial. Hmmm. Something is missing here.

As you have already questioned, who makes the call? Is evidence needed?[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you.

But, to a certain extent, we already have a system like EE is proposing.

56

[quote]dhickey wrote:

This is far from right wing. True conservatives want less government. This just creates another tax payer funded boondoggle. How’s the war on drugs coming? How about the war on poverty? Besides there will be no money left after the war on global warming starts.[/quote]

They declared a war on poverty, and yet they have not bombed the slums.

[photo]15373[/photo]

57

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sidenote: EE, worst fucking case of backne I’ve ever seen. WTF man, I know you gotta wait over there for the NHS but that’s fucking terrible!!!

There is no acne on my back none at all, if it looks red raw then thats becuase the pic was taked right after the tattoo was done
[/quote]

I think it’s Bacne, it just formed in a really cool pattern is all.

58

[quote]Electric_E wrote:
pat wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Are there any countries that do similar?

Cheers

Saudi Arabia.
Can you prove that everything you own is legally obtained? It does not matter if it is, can you prove it?

Fuck me you daft cunts…

[/quote]

Despite being a daft cunt, I will not fuck you as I am not a homosexual…You’ll have to get yourself another piece of ass, sorry.

59

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sidenote: EE, worst fucking case of backne I’ve ever seen. WTF man, I know you gotta wait over there for the NHS but that’s fucking terrible!!!

There is no acne on my back none at all, if it looks red raw then thats becuase the pic was taked right after the tattoo was done

I think it’s Bacne, it just formed in a really cool pattern is all.[/quote]

I know. I was joking a little with EE.

The court system here is so cluttered that maybe EE is on to something. No special court (sondergericht, anyone?) though, just give the cop special powers, like Judge Dredd.

I’d volunteer for something like that. When some shithead passes me on the interstate, me doing the speed limit or a little above and they doing 90. Fuck 'em, man, pull 'em over and blow up their car. Sweet!!

60

[quote]

Did you think I wouldn’t read this the first time?

While I ALSO know the TRUE meaning of conservative - many of those “wars” you speak of were started by so-called conservative politicians, and any sort of action like this ‘take away’ plan would be very much MORE government.

Anyways…my point is that it’s a slippery slope…when is proof not proof enough?

“But Mr. McCarthy, I can PROVE I’m not a Communist!”

-for the record, I’m a fairly conservative guy myself - smaller government is good, and smaller government operating in check as it was designed is even better[/quote]

Sorry for the double post. So called concervatives are not always conservatives. In fact I see very few republicans acting like conservatives at all. The whole country has gone so far left it’s hard to see how we get back to anywhere near sanity. The gov’t taking 40% of my income tells me we are only 10% from being half socialist. Considering Socialism has been a disaster anywhere practiced, I am sure it sounds attractive to liberals.