Britain's unexplained wealth orders give the state too much power(washingtonexaminer.com)
washingtonexaminer.com
Britain's unexplained wealth orders give the state too much power
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/britains-unexplained-wealth-orders-give-the-state-too-much-power
15 comments
This is why we Yanks have the fourth amendment. So the government can't just arbitrarly take things from the citizens... And just ignore the civil forfeiture...
Rich people are rich because they have stolen from society. You don't think Jeff Bezos became the richest guy in the world by refusing to cut corners or underpay workers? No, amazon routinely does both of those (https://stallman.org/amazon.html). There is always, always, a hidden human cost to large sums of money.
I'm not scared of the government coming in and taking my stuff. What I am scared of is rich people taking my labour and not paying me for it, and rich people using their vast sums of money to pay for coverups that allow them to keep their vast sums of money and avoid paying their taxes.
And, oh, wait. We have ample evidence that rich people all over the world are doing that en masse:
https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-t...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-pe...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/here-are-5-ways-the-super-ri...
I'm not scared of the government coming in and taking my stuff. What I am scared of is rich people taking my labour and not paying me for it, and rich people using their vast sums of money to pay for coverups that allow them to keep their vast sums of money and avoid paying their taxes.
And, oh, wait. We have ample evidence that rich people all over the world are doing that en masse:
https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-t...
The poorest 10 per cent of households in the UK pay a
greater proportion of their income in tax than the
richest 10 per cent, new analysis has revealed.
[...]
Dr. Wanda Wyporska, Executive Director of The Equality
Trust, said: “When the super-rich are paying less in
taxes than their cleaners, you know something has gone
disastrously wrong with our broken, regressive tax
system.
The companies, which include tech giants such as Amazon
and Netflix, should have paid a collective $16.4 billion
in federal income taxes based on the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act's 21 percent corporate tax rate, according to the
left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Instead, these corporations received a net tax rebate of
$4.3 billion. The analysis is based on the corporations'
annual financial reports, which were filed earlier this
year to report their 2018 results.
[...]
Amazon won't pay a cent in federal income tax this year,
despite its profits soaring to $11.2 billion in 2018,
nearly double the $5.6 billion it earned the previous
year, ITEP said. In fact, Amazon claimed a federal
income tax rebate of $129 million, the study found. It
would be the second year in a row Amazon paid no federal
tax, giving the retail giant an effective tax rate of -1
percent.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-pe...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/21/here-are-5-ways-the-super-ri...
That 50k is an arbitrary number and can be lowered at any moment. Rich people's problems may one day be everyone's problems. This is a scary law on my limited understanding.
There are lots of laws with arbitrary numbers in them. That's because don't get justice from fair laws, you get justice from a fair legal system.
You can have the bestest and fairestest laws in the world, that doesn't give you anything if you are facing a corrupt legal system.
If you've got a ridiculous code of law and a somewhat competent legal system, you should be fine.
So, in my opinion you should be worried to get competent people into the right places.
You can have the bestest and fairestest laws in the world, that doesn't give you anything if you are facing a corrupt legal system.
If you've got a ridiculous code of law and a somewhat competent legal system, you should be fine.
So, in my opinion you should be worried to get competent people into the right places.
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they need to show that the initial step taken somehow leads to the bad outcome mentioned. The obvious solution is to stay at 50k. I think that the political situation still would create a huge uproar if it were lowered significantly.
and what if the 50k figure never changes?
50k will conveniently be worth less over a few decades - the slippery slope is a built-in feature unless actively changed
50k will conveniently be worth less over a few decades - the slippery slope is a built-in feature unless actively changed
Rich people's problems may one day be everyone's problems.
At some level, this law is a response to how slow the courts are in enforcing other laws. In the case described, the money is surely the proceeds of a crime. But it might take 10 years to prosecute that crime, given multiple jurisdictions and a well-lawyered defendant. Meanwhile, the money causes harm by distorting the economy.
So I understand the desire to do something in the meantime. But let's not lose sight of the proper solution: swift justice for the actual crime.
So I understand the desire to do something in the meantime. But let's not lose sight of the proper solution: swift justice for the actual crime.
Ugh, that seems very biased given the extensive cases of money laundering that led to UWOs coming into law in the first place.
"Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute"
Ah, the Cato institute who would like states to have no power to speak of, on anything much.
This seems a more balanced brief overview of UWOs, which notes they're not being used often enough yet:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/10/25/how-the...
"Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute"
Ah, the Cato institute who would like states to have no power to speak of, on anything much.
This seems a more balanced brief overview of UWOs, which notes they're not being used often enough yet:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vishalmarria/2018/10/25/how-the...
I immediately thought of an excerpt from "Empire of Things" by Frank Trentmann. It is somewhat out of context, considering the parent article describes the legal validation of economic gains displayed as luxury assets, whereas the following excerpt describes the states attempt to preserve the economic virtues of the populace:
“In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Venice senate passed more than a dozen laws and regulations against [sumptuous lifestyles]. Lavish weddings and expensive fur-lined coats made visible inequalities in wealth and status that threatened the republic’s ideal of equality and restraint. They also triggered a competitive spending spree which pushed some citizens into debt.”
“In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Venice senate passed more than a dozen laws and regulations against [sumptuous lifestyles]. Lavish weddings and expensive fur-lined coats made visible inequalities in wealth and status that threatened the republic’s ideal of equality and restraint. They also triggered a competitive spending spree which pushed some citizens into debt.”
When growing up in post-communist eastern Europe, I was a huge fan of such laws. Ill-gotten gains, many rich people with unexplained wealth. Partially tax evasion, but largely theft and receiving bribes. Especially for corrupt politicians, I think such law is necessary.
The problem is selective enforcement.
The problem is selective enforcement.
Selective enforcement could indeed be a problem.
That doesn't sound too goo- oh,
Given that the average annual income of someone in the UK is 22,000£, and there are currently 4 million children in the UK that cannot afford to eat (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/05/four-million...), with a preliminary study from the UN claiming that 8.4 million people in the UK are affected by food shortages, this just falls under 'rich people problems'.
Besides, if you buy something that is over 50,000£, surely you would keep the reciept for insurance reasons, or just plain book-keeping. If you don't, and the taxman shows up and asks where you got it, then that's your fault for not having possession of those records. If you can afford to buy a single thing that is twice the average salary, then you can afford to pay someone to do that book-keeping for you, surely.