The nurse is called to a patient`s room four days after abdominal surgery Why take a stand on flat rates? Why not with a flat-rate assessment – the same amount per person? With a flat rate, the rich pay more in real dollars, so why not this confiscation too? Some criminals may be content to serve a prison sentence if they know that their assets will be available after their release or that their non-incarcerated families can continue to benefit from the proceeds of crime. That is why asset confiscation is such an important measure to prevent and combat organized crime. It is also an equally important tool to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the legal economy. In Nazi Germany, the use of the Reich Escape Tax moved away from deterring wealthy citizens from moving abroad and was instead used as a form of „legalized theft“ to confiscate Jewish property. The departure of Jewish citizens was desired and authorized by the Nazi government – even after the invasion of Poland – until a decree issued by Heinrich Himmler on October 23, 1941 prohibiting Jewish emigration. The tax was regularly increased and used as a „partial expropriation“[4]:12 to confiscate the property of Jewish refugees who were persecuted and forced to flee their homeland. First, some basics. The purpose of the tax is to finance the state. In fact, the origins of taxes lie in the collection of funds to finance wars. (By the way, due to the reluctance of previous generations to contemplate a permanent state of war, income tax is now only an annual measure that must be approved and reintroduced by Parliament every year, hence the need for an annual budget law. How ironic, then, that although we collect more than enough tax dollars each year to fund our defense, governments of all stripes have reduced defense funding in the distribution of tax revenues in recent years to such an extent that our ability to defend ourselves effectively must now be questionable.) Remember, we have never paid less tax. Social mobility has declined in the United States in recent decades and economic stratification has deteriorated. With the tax rates of the 1990s that we want to come back to, we were prosperous and at peace.

Yet we hear dark speeches about communism and confiscation. There is a strange pathology in this country right now. The idea of punishing „unpatriotic desertion“ (relocating abroad to avoid taxes) was not new. In 1918, the German government adopted the „Anti-Tax Evasion Act“ (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 951), which was repealed in 1925. [6]: 298 If convicted, property cannot be confiscated until the owner has been convicted of certain crimes. Criminal forfeiture is a common approach to asset seizure, where investigators collect evidence, track and secure assets, prosecute and obtain a conviction. After conviction, confiscation may be ordered by the court. The standard of proof required for the confiscation order (usually beyond doubt) is often the same as that required for a criminal conviction. Fair enough up to a point.

If we had uniform tax rates, I would see that as a representational function. Instead, we have a system in which the majority can unite and vote for a share of the income of the wealthy minority. It is a confiscation, although I agree that there are good reasons, practical and moral, to pay a larger share for those of us who have succeeded. 4. Different people will have different views on the appropriate size and scope of government and the tax base required to support it. But we have been answering the tax question for quite some time: after all, we are borrowing to make up the spending gap. And as someone who spends their working time in the world of private equity: Read – Investing for growth – I can tell you unequivocally that the proposed tax regime is holding back investment and growth. You leftists can deny it if you want, but only at the risk of the less wealthy.

When we talk about a „moral obligation“ to pay one`s „fair share“ of taxes, we confuse a number of issues. First, there is the state`s decision on how much money it collects through taxes and what it spends that money on. This is the fundamental objective of the Chancellor of the Exchequer`s annual budget. It is inevitable and rightly a political process. On a personal level, we may disagree with the Chancellor on the amount and the objectives. But it is the result of a legitimate democratic process. In part, we elect MEPs to take such decisions on behalf of society. Forfeiture is also known as confiscation in some jurisdictions. The two terms are used interchangeably in this module. Confiscation of assets or property is the permanent seizure of property by order of a court or administrative proceeding, whereby ownership of assets derived from criminal activities is transferred to the State. Persons or entities that held such funds or assets at the time of confiscation or confiscation lose all rights to the confiscated assets (FATF, 2017; McCaw, 2011; Ramaswamy, 2013).

I do not particularly like using the word „seizure“ because it tends to reduce some real differences between taxation and confiscation, such as: eminent estate, confiscation of weapons, shampoo bottles, nail clippers. In our system, taxation is by representation, seizure by police forces (including important domain authorities) is different. As I have said so many times. I have my stock. I am pleading on behalf of the Average Joe. Because the idea that AJ won`t also be open to higher taxes is absurd at first glance. And secondly, the „rich“ have and will pull their horns, to the detriment of the AJs of the world. Do you remember the luxury tax on yachts? Bright.

No, cruel….. Although the Organized Crime Convention does not mention this type of confiscation, the Convention against Corruption includes it in Article 54(1)(c), which calls on States to „consider such measures as may be necessary to permit the confiscation [of property acquired or involved in an offence established in accordance with this Convention] without criminal conviction in the following cases: in which the offender cannot be prosecuted for death, absconding or absentee, or in other appropriate cases“. It is utterly ridiculous that you would say that rich people need the government to calm their sensitive feelings, hurt by the need to contribute to the nation without which they would have no wealth, while using emotionally charged words to describe taxation. Why not just call it a money rape and call it one day? Personally, I don`t care what you call it, but you probably shouldn`t complain about the plight of poor oppressed billionaires while you`re doing it. This is unseemly. Confiscation or conviction-based confiscation: State confiscation of proceeds of crime for which a conviction of an offender has been recorded. This is also known as criminal forfeiture or confiscation in some jurisdictions. „Forfeiture“ seems to refer to what the government doesn`t do with your stuff after you haven`t paid taxes in a few years, no taxes. Criminal Law Theory. According to this, there is no moral obligation to pay the tax, but only to accept the penalty if a penalty is imposed for non-payment. Later, theologians wrote the theory of criminal law Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (d. 1495) and Martin aspilcueta (Doctor Navarrus; died 1586).

However, it is not at all clear whether these theologians would have applied the theory of criminal law to such an imposition as it exists today. Two fundamental reasons explain the theory: the desire to protect citizens from heavy and unfair taxation, and a somewhat voluntarist legal concept. Among contemporary theologians, there is a growing tendency to deny the existence of pure penal laws. Moreover, Scripture and repeated teachings in the Church seem to require a moral obligation with respect to the payment of taxes themselves, not an obligation that binds only with respect to the acceptance of punishment. That is what I think you mean, but you do not seem to be aware of the elitism that it seems. Many people work very hard just to keep an income just above the poverty line.