6 ms·

>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be ma

by aminok 10y ago

>If UBI is to be instated, we would also have to implement harsh laws to prevent the upper classes from evading taxes. Moving wealth to a tax haven should be made a criminal offence (with jail time). How about you don't instate something that requires harsh authoritarian penalties against non-violent behavior to work.

mynewtb 10y ago
Crime does not have to be violent to deserve drastic penalty.
- aminok 10y ago
  Anything can be made a crime by passing a law. But only violent and/or fraudulent behavior should be illegal. Laws imprisoning those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade are unjust, and should be abolished.
- zeta0134 10y ago
  I feel like the punishment should be appropriate to the crime though. Leave jail for the criminally dangerous, those whose freedom would be a physical danger to others. (Murderers, rapists, etc.) Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
  - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
    The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. A disproportionate and non monetary punishment will be far more effective at deterring them.
    - Spivak 10y ago
      > The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. Then write the law so that the penalty can never possibly be worth the cost. Jail is downright inhumane, and the only reason we should tolerate it is the case when the person is violent and there is good reason to believe that in the absence of imprisonment they will be a danger to others. And they should remain in jail only as long as the threat of danger remains credible.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    >>Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. That'd acceptable if at least the following conditions hold: a. First and foremost, the fraudster should be ashamed publicly and in a very visible manner on social media, television/radio and newspaper. e.g. The fraudster be made to wear clothes that are deemed filthy and be made to hold a placard stating "I repeat that I am a fraudster and I don't deserve to be a citizen of this nation. I also state that my relatives and my friends and my associates can be fraudsters themselves because they liked to hang out with me. They are free to disassociate themselves from me but if they continue to associate with me you know that they are also fraudsters." This video and news should be sent to all people who are associated with the fraudster. b. the fine should be such that all assets/money belonging to the fraudster should be confiscated and along with all the assets of the relatives that have been linked to the fraudster's money; (it's very easy to game the system otherwise). The relatives should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted. c. The fraudster should be banned from doing any financial sector job; only physical labour jobs should be allowed. d. The fraudster should not be allowed to leave the country e. All the money the fraudster has spent on the legal battle (fee of the attorney) should also be confiscated from the attorneys (this is also important, as the attorneys will be forced to act more ethically not because they are honest but just because of the risk involved). I know they will find other ways to get rewarded but at least those will not be as straight forward. The attorneys also should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted. f. Any money not recovered from the fraudster should automatically be treated as loan-default and the fraudster be prosecuted for default in addition to the fraud charges and the applicable legal process be initiated. In short, even the filthy rich fraudsters [1] should not be able to game the system. The punishment should be such a deterrent that even the filthy rich fraudsters should shiver at the thought of it. >>Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest. But they are still causing irreparable harm to the societal fabric and other people will fast lose their faith the legal system if the filthy rich fraudsters don't get punished in a big way. [1] anyone controlling the big banks and big corporations like Goldman Sachs.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
People already go to prison for tax evasion, if they're doing it systematically and deliberately. I don't understand the (apparently popular) argument that serious criminal penalties should only be handed out for direct physical violence. Look at all the horrible shit that happened during the housing collapse--taking someone's home away under false pretenses (and under threat of police violence!) is just as destructive as if you'd burned it down while they were away.
- aminok 10y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right. No one should go to prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency that they earned in a private trade. There is so much admiration for the covert mass surveillance that Edward Snowden uncovered and exposed to the world yet we seem to not blink an eye at the blatant and overt mass surveillance of private financial transactions - where we are legally required to totally surrender our financial privacy to the government - that has to be imposed on people so that there can even be an income tax. Refusing to hand over your private income is totally incomparable to fraud. I honestly have trouble understanding how people can make these kinds of arguments.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    So we should completely abolish taxes, then? I assume this is one of those plans where we privatize all government services and the free market makes everything perfectly efficient and utopic, except for the people who can't afford to pay their police bill?
    - aminok 10y ago
      We should only allow the government to raise revenue from a split-rate property tax and user fees for government services used. Non-payment of the former should only be punishable by land expropriation, and not imprisonment.
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
madaxe_again 10y ago
A better punishment would be to strip them of their nationality, and then send them after their money. British overseas territories would become overcrowded hell-holes in short order. Treasure islands become penal colonies. The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.
- aminok 10y ago
  That would be a great solution, although I think the consequence for the tax havens would be the opposite of what you envision. >The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to. Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.
  - visarga 10y ago
    Cyprus is full of rich Russians, and it is far from a penal colony.
  - akx 10y ago
    They implicitly agree with the debt by assuming a nationality.
    - roblabla 10y ago
      Did you really chose your nationality ? I get the idea that to live, you will probably need the assistance of your government at one point or another. And that the government needs money. So taxes. But saying it was something you could chose ? Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?
      - akx 10y ago
        > Did you really chose your nationality ? Naturally one doesn't get to choose their initial nationality. At some point, though, you (may) have the option to emigrate elsewhere, and assume another nationality, and thus assume that other nationality's perks and burdens. > Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? > Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ? Depends on how much you're willing to give up. For instance, you can liquidate all of your assets and, say, start living on a boat in international waters. Or if you're willing to ilve on a sovereign country's land, just move into a forest where no one will ever find you. Depending on freedom-to-roam laws, that may even be reasonably legal.

by aminok 10y ago

mynewtb 10y ago

Crime does not have to be violent to deserve drastic penalty.

aminok 10y ago
Anything can be made a crime by passing a law. But only violent and/or fraudulent behavior should be illegal. Laws imprisoning those who refuse to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade are unjust, and should be abolished.
zeta0134 10y ago
I feel like the punishment should be appropriate to the crime though. Leave jail for the criminally dangerous, those whose freedom would be a physical danger to others. (Murderers, rapists, etc.) Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest.
- aoeuasdf1 10y ago
  The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. A disproportionate and non monetary punishment will be far more effective at deterring them.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    > The problem is then the rich will do a simple expected value computation to decide whether to do fraud. Then write the law so that the penalty can never possibly be worth the cost. Jail is downright inhumane, and the only reason we should tolerate it is the case when the person is violent and there is good reason to believe that in the absence of imprisonment they will be a danger to others. And they should remain in jail only as long as the threat of danger remains credible.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>Fraud? If it's money that was gained, then it should be money lost. Fine them into the dirt, but I don't think jail time is appropriate. That'd acceptable if at least the following conditions hold: a. First and foremost, the fraudster should be ashamed publicly and in a very visible manner on social media, television/radio and newspaper. e.g. The fraudster be made to wear clothes that are deemed filthy and be made to hold a placard stating "I repeat that I am a fraudster and I don't deserve to be a citizen of this nation. I also state that my relatives and my friends and my associates can be fraudsters themselves because they liked to hang out with me. They are free to disassociate themselves from me but if they continue to associate with me you know that they are also fraudsters." This video and news should be sent to all people who are associated with the fraudster. b. the fine should be such that all assets/money belonging to the fraudster should be confiscated and along with all the assets of the relatives that have been linked to the fraudster's money; (it's very easy to game the system otherwise). The relatives should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted. c. The fraudster should be banned from doing any financial sector job; only physical labour jobs should be allowed. d. The fraudster should not be allowed to leave the country e. All the money the fraudster has spent on the legal battle (fee of the attorney) should also be confiscated from the attorneys (this is also important, as the attorneys will be forced to act more ethically not because they are honest but just because of the risk involved). I know they will find other ways to get rewarded but at least those will not be as straight forward. The attorneys also should be given a notice that they should declare all such linked assets/money voluntarily and should return the same within a specified period and failing to do so they should also be declared as party to the original fraud and thus fraudsters themselves and be prosecuted. f. Any money not recovered from the fraudster should automatically be treated as loan-default and the fraudster be prosecuted for default in addition to the fraud charges and the applicable legal process be initiated. In short, even the filthy rich fraudsters [1] should not be able to game the system. The punishment should be such a deterrent that even the filthy rich fraudsters should shiver at the thought of it. >>Making money illegally doesn't make someone a murderer, it just makes then dishonest. But they are still causing irreparable harm to the societal fabric and other people will fast lose their faith the legal system if the filthy rich fraudsters don't get punished in a big way. [1] anyone controlling the big banks and big corporations like Goldman Sachs.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

People already go to prison for tax evasion, if they're doing it systematically and deliberately. I don't understand the (apparently popular) argument that serious criminal penalties should only be handed out for direct physical violence. Look at all the horrible shit that happened during the housing collapse--taking someone's home away under false pretenses (and under threat of police violence!) is just as destructive as if you'd burned it down while they were away.

aminok 10y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. No one should go to prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency that they earned in a private trade. There is so much admiration for the covert mass surveillance that Edward Snowden uncovered and exposed to the world yet we seem to not blink an eye at the blatant and overt mass surveillance of private financial transactions - where we are legally required to totally surrender our financial privacy to the government - that has to be imposed on people so that there can even be an income tax. Refusing to hand over your private income is totally incomparable to fraud. I honestly have trouble understanding how people can make these kinds of arguments.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  So we should completely abolish taxes, then? I assume this is one of those plans where we privatize all government services and the free market makes everything perfectly efficient and utopic, except for the people who can't afford to pay their police bill?
  - aminok 10y ago
    We should only allow the government to raise revenue from a split-rate property tax and user fees for government services used. Non-payment of the former should only be punishable by land expropriation, and not imprisonment.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago

madaxe_again 10y ago

A better punishment would be to strip them of their nationality, and then send them after their money. British overseas territories would become overcrowded hell-holes in short order. Treasure islands become penal colonies. The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to.

aminok 10y ago
That would be a great solution, although I think the consequence for the tax havens would be the opposite of what you envision. >The irony being that most evaders' ancestors were the ones building penal colonies to send their debtors to. Difference is that those debt obligations were voluntarily assumed, whereas tax debt is an odd form of debt that is imposed on someone without their agreement.
- visarga 10y ago
  Cyprus is full of rich Russians, and it is far from a penal colony.
- akx 10y ago
  They implicitly agree with the debt by assuming a nationality.
  - roblabla 10y ago
    Did you really chose your nationality ? I get the idea that to live, you will probably need the assistance of your government at one point or another. And that the government needs money. So taxes. But saying it was something you could chose ? Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ?
    - akx 10y ago
      > Did you really chose your nationality ? Naturally one doesn't get to choose their initial nationality. At some point, though, you (may) have the option to emigrate elsewhere, and assume another nationality, and thus assume that other nationality's perks and burdens. > Say I want to live by my own rules, outside a nation. What are my options ? > Similarly, can I "give up" my nationality and if so, what happens ? Depends on how much you're willing to give up. For instance, you can liquidate all of your assets and, say, start living on a boat in international waters. Or if you're willing to ilve on a sovereign country's land, just move into a forest where no one will ever find you. Depending on freedom-to-roam laws, that may even be reasonably legal.