Customs racket

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Are you suggesting we let criminals KEEP their illegally gained finances on which they have NOT paid taxes?

Don't be silly.

are you suggesting that if they did pay taxes on it, that they should keep it?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Don't be silly.

are you suggesting that if they did pay taxes on it, that they should keep it?

Nope that was not what I said.

Glad you don't think they should keep their ill gotten gains.So do you think the government shouldn't keep the money that has been illegally earned?

If so whom should have it?

Because I personally think that the government should keep it and use it to run the country and offset the costs of fighting crime.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Nope that was not what I said.

That's ok then.

Glad you don't think they should keep their ill gotten gains.So do you think the government shouldn't keep the money that has been illegally earned?

Yes.

If so whom should have it?

Nobody. they should burn it.

Because I personally think that the government should keep it and use it to run the country and offset the costs of fighting crime.

They could seize billions and billions, and they'd still want our money.

Just imagine if they didn't need our money because we won a court battle where it was ruled that they have enough out of the proceeds of crime.
we'd effectively be encouraging crime to fund the countries spending. but we can't do that because it's not morally right. so instead we'll use crime money and carry on paying taxes etc..

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Because I personally think that the government should keep it and use it to run the country and offset the costs of fighting crime.

Not sure I agree there, unless you mean offset as in reducing the burden on the taxpayer. Though, rather than adding to the existing crime budget I think they should use the money to fight cancer instead.

My reasoning is that the more money we pour into law enforcement, the less efficient it becomes, and the more efficient criminals become at circumventing it. In a nutshell, its a financial black hole, a war that will never end in the current climate. You pour another 10 billion into fighting crime, and I guarantee you crime will still be there, just in a slightly different form from before. The tax payer loses whilst the government "creates jobs" (on the back of the taxpayer of course). Even as crime is reduced in some areas, local law enforcement will find new ways to spend the existing budget, again the tax payer loses.
Even with the fortune spent on installing CCTV in retail areas, the criminals just do their stuff elsewhere - but you're not really reducing crime at all. If anything, those who can least afford to spare money get robbed instead of the retail giants. Who wins, society or big business? I've never heard of a thief who went clean because he/she couldn't find anything to steal. Never heard of a junkie who went clean because there was noone around to rob, nothing to steal.
I'm not suggesting we cut funding to law enforcement however. To fight crime you have to fight the causes of crime, which we are incapable of doing because we as a society cannot agree on exactly what the cause of crime is. Its much simpler to just chase the bad guys and lock 'em up, food, room and board - courtesy of the tax payer. Thats the American way, except they have the funds to lock'em up and throw away the key, so that's what they do. It solves nothing, and that's partly why America has so many problems today.

---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

They could seize billions and billions, and they'd still want our money.

Absolutely, rather than subsidise the tax payer - the gov pensions would simply be described in terms of carats rather than gold-platedness.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

snippety snip snip...
Absolutely, rather than subsidise the tax payer - the gov pensions would simply be described in terms of carats rather than gold-platedness.

Not this old chestnut again.....

My wife is a civil servant, with 25 years service, and will work another 15 years before she retires at 66.

When she does, as an Executive Officer, her pension will be 40/60ths of her salary, so her pension will be the equivalent of £700 per month after tax (and most of the Civil Service are her grade or below - around 90% at the last (conservative) estimate).

Must be a new definition of "gold plated" I hadn't come across before - £160 per week....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

so her pension will be the equivalent of £700 per month after tax

That and yours put together. you'll be loaded!

Originally Posted by Gary L

That and yours put together. you'll be loaded!

Trudat....

(actually, not true - as I have changed jobs frequently to enable my meteroic rise to mediocrity, I have (to date) five separate small pension funds (four company and one private), which, unfortunately, will not keep me in the style to which I hope to become accustomed....)

Anyhoo, back on topic, eh?

Government has to spend money to police the country, borders and so on therefore seems only right that when they catch nefarious types they confiscate the money and put it back into the government coffers. Not sure what else people would prefer they do i know some will probably say we should destroy it but then as many would complain about that buggered position from where i stand. Personally as a law abiding person i have no problem with the current system.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

snip..snip..I have (to date) five separate small pension funds (four company and one private) which, unfortunately, will not keep me in the style to which I hope to become accustomed....)

To cut down on the expense, you could always try growing your own.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

To cut down on the expense, you could always try growing your own.

We do already - apples, plums, herbs (not that sort), tomatoes and strawberries.

Back garden isn't big enough to allotmentise (made up word alert!!!).

Anyway, if I do that, it would minimise any fiscal trickle-down effect, and lessen the income of the local shops.....

[Sparkle]

Gardening sentence deleted to please the maggy-mod.

Let's keep to the topic please.