Lofunzo wrote: slomo007 wrote: Lofunzo wrote:
Mookie4ever wrote:Lofunzo I don't think that you are getting the concept.
First of all - drug dealers are not going to pay the tax. Nobody's expecting them to.
Secondly, a little time is nothing to a dealer. They are expected to spend some time behind bars in order to get street credibility.
What burns me and a lot of people is that there is no way to get them to give back the money they have made off of crime. They spend their time behind bars then get out and return to their big bank accounts. There are no civil lawsuits that you can bring against them for a criminal offence.
But if they have been evading taxes you have an excuse to take all of their toys and to clean out their bank accounts.
That is what this law is for.......to get the dealers to pay a tax on their drugs.
If you were a drug dealer, would you walk into any type of government agency and say, "Hi, I'm a drug dealer, I need tax stamps"?? Highly doubtful.
I understand that but he said that they didn't believe that the dealers would do that but that's what the article says that it is intended for.
Maybe the article is "wrong" but the entire idea is a very good one. It essentially allows the government to confiscate (due to tax evasion) the property of drug dealers. They do not at all believe that any stamps will be sold. That is not the point; the point is that it gives them another charge to file against the drug dealers, a monetary
charge so that they won't return to the money they made off dealing once they have "served their time" in jail.
IMO, this is a great idea, but more important is that jail sentences need to be longer and in many times, indefinate for the dealers, to increase their risk.