| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sister Omega
United Kingdom
2085 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 11:44:26
|
Njucks atatement seems to be self explantary regarding the eviction of the Squatters. Without proper planning permission it is illegal for those people without a permit to occupy the location. For example if one was to do the same thing in Britain you would be taken to court, and the obstruction demolished if you didn't comply. Or have you goods confiscated on the stop if you are trading on the street without the right permits. As Serrekunda has rapidly expanded in a relatively short space of time it's importamt that properly planning is implemented to prevent fire hazards which partically destroyed the market, and destroyed numerous peoples livelihoods inside and outside of the market. It is also important to add that KMC consult with traders and the local community to make sure different opinions are taken into consideration through an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Peace
Sister Omega |
Peace
Sister Omega |
 |
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 13:57:25
|
| i regret my comment on Serrekunda Market and i withdraw it. i apologise for it as well. |
|
|
|
gambiabev
United Kingdom
3091 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 15:18:40
|
| Well done! Sometimes in the heat we all post things we perhaps slightly regret. It is a good person tha can retract and apologise. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 18:45:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
NO ONE SQUATS IN THE GAMBIA.
once again you're generalising. and you statement is not true. NO squatters in the whole country? you surprise me.
You're missing the point. operating a business and erecting a structure are controlled by two different offices. taxes are collected even if you dont have a physical location. people who walk in the streets selling stuff are taxed, daily.
thats different from squatting. if they were not squatting why aren't they still there, legally? dont confused the two.
where jambo was talking about is in bakau right opposite the Bank. its were illegal. period
The important issue you seem to be missin is this.
If they are actual squatters, then the law should be applied and evicted. However, once the state has decided to collect taxes from them, then that inevitably legitimises their business and therefore have rights to not be called squatters, have rights to be treated descently. That is why i broght the analogy of taxing drug dealers and then turn around and arrest them for selling drugs. YOU CANNOT RUN WITH HARES AND HUNT WITH THE HOUNDS.
Well i have noticed that you apologised. I hope you see the light. |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:05:34
|
''However, once the state has decided to collect taxes from them, then that inevitably legitimises their business and therefore have rights to not be called squatters, have rights to be treated descently.''
we are saying the same thing.however just because people are taxed doesn't mean their activity is legitimate as i mentioned these can be controlled by two different institutions sometimes the same one.
when the Serrekunda market burnt couple of years back. the report found out that, as you say KMC was taxing these people although their structures were made from ''corrugated iron sheets'' and not part of the market structure. when the fire service came to put the fire out they could go through because of these. millions were lost.
the same is true in Banjul. near Education in the morning you find people selling stuff on the pavement. BCC collects their tax because these people and their goods are mobile. this tax doesn't legitimise their activity. but later in the day these people are evicted by the Police because they're selling on the Pavement and thats wrong.
they are taxed because they are engaged in a commercial activity and hence liable to pay tax. these examples are just to support what you're saying but this is not squatting.
Squatting even if taxed will never give anyone ownership of the place they occupy. thats my point so those who squat are fooling themselves. this is what has happended and they are the loosers in this specific case, painful as it is, irrespective of what taxed they paid before.
Taxation has many forms. taxing an income and land tax or rent tax etc are not the same. they are taxed for the income they earn on the day but never for the occupancy of land in the same way as people in registered compounds pay tax. there is a difference.
you can be an illegal immigrant in a country and pay all your taxes, does that mean your presence in the host country is legitimate.
c'on. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:13:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
''However, once the state has decided to collect taxes from them, then that inevitably legitimises their business and therefore have rights to not be called squatters, have rights to be treated descently.''
we are saying the same thing.however just because people are taxed doesn't mean their activity is legitimate as i mentioned these can be controlled by two different institutions sometimes the same one.
when the Serrekunda market burnt couple of years back. the report found out that, as you say KMC was taxing these people although their structures were made from ''corrugated iron sheets'' and not part of the market structure. when the fire service came to put the fire out they could go through because of these. millions were lost.
the same is true in Banjul. near Education in the morning you find people selling stuff on the pavement. BCC collects their tax because these people and their goods are mobile. this tax doesn't legitimise their activity. but later in the day these people are evicted by the Police because they're selling on the Pavement and thats wrong.
they are taxed because they are engaged in a commercial activity and hence liable to pay tax. these examples are just to support what you're saying but this is not squatting.
Squatting even if taxed will never give anyone ownership of the place they occupy. thats my point so those who squat are fooling themselves. this is what has happended and they are the loosers in this specific case, painful as it is, irrespective of what taxed they paid before.
Taxation has many forms. taxing an income and land tax or rent tax etc are not the same. they are taxed for the income they earn on the day but never for the occupancy of land in the same way as people in registered compounds pay tax. there is a difference.
you can be an illegal immigrant in a country and pay all your taxes, does that mean your presence in the host country is legitimate.
c'on.
I totally disagree. If any branch of the state collects taxes, they are actually legitimisisng the business. UNLESS UNDER AN INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENET WHERE THERE IS NO SYSTEM. IN THAT CASE, THE LEFT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE RIGHT EXISTS.
Taxes are sanctioned by the CONSTITUTION and then translates into a financial act. Therefore, when a tax is levied, such levy is derived from authority of the constitution. To say that being taxed does not guarantee the tax payer anything, therfore TELLS ME THE TAX COLLECTION IS ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE AND SHOULD BE RETURNED. TAX IS LEGITIMATE. THERFORE COLECTING ILLEGITIMATE TAX IS ILLEGAL AND COLLCETORS SHOULD BE FINED AND IMPRISONED. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:18:21
|
i don't agree. your looking at it from the otherside first.
sometimes the employment laws of a country can allow an illegal immigrant to find work. poeple find work in the US, UK and pay tax on their pay slips every week. this will never legitimise their stay there. again immigration is one office. inland revenue is another.
the tax on their pay slip is not ILLEGAL TAXATION. thats wrong. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:24:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
''However, once the state has decided to collect taxes from them, then that inevitably legitimises their business and therefore have rights to not be called squatters, have rights to be treated descently.''
we are saying the same thing.however just because people are taxed doesn't mean their activity is legitimate as i mentioned these can be controlled by two different institutions sometimes the same one.
when the Serrekunda market burnt couple of years back. the report found out that, as you say KMC was taxing these people although their structures were made from ''corrugated iron sheets'' and not part of the market structure. when the fire service came to put the fire out they could go through because of these. millions were lost.
the same is true in Banjul. near Education in the morning you find people selling stuff on the pavement. BCC collects their tax because these people and their goods are mobile. this tax doesn't legitimise their activity. but later in the day these people are evicted by the Police because they're selling on the Pavement and thats wrong.
they are taxed because they are engaged in a commercial activity and hence liable to pay tax. these examples are just to support what you're saying but this is not squatting.
Squatting even if taxed will never give anyone ownership of the place they occupy. thats my point so those who squat are fooling themselves. this is what has happended and they are the loosers in this specific case, painful as it is, irrespective of what taxed they paid before.
Taxation has many forms. taxing an income and land tax or rent tax etc are not the same. they are taxed for the income they earn on the day but never for the occupancy of land in the same way as people in registered compounds pay tax. there is a difference.you can be an illegal immigrant in a country and pay all your taxes, does that mean your presence in the host country is legitimate.
c'on.
Tax, no matter what is all the same. It does one thing: legitimises the transaction. Road tax, income tax duties etc all indicate that the state or the LEGALLY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY, HAS A BASIS UNDER LAW TO CLOOECT IT AND THAT THE TAX PAYER IS ENGAGED IN A LEGITIMATE TRANSACTION WHICH UNDER THE LAW IS LEGAL TO PURUSE WITHOUT LET OR HINDERANCE. THERE IS A CONTRCAT IN TAX ADMINISTRATION. THE COLLECTOR MUST GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF THE PAYEE WHO MUST ENJOY LIBERTY TO DO BUSINESS WITHOUT LET. WHICH ALSO INCLUDES PROTECTION FROM ABUSE BOTH FROM THE COLLECTOR (STATE, COUNCIL ETC) AND ANY ONE FOR THAT MATTER ( ANOTHER BUSINESS, CRIMINALS ETC.) THROGH PROVISION OF A STABLE ENVIRONMENT TO DO BUSINESS. THE PAYEE MUST ENJOY FREEDOM TO DO HIS BUSINESS, WHICH INCLUDES HAVING A JUDICIAL SYSYTEM AND LAW ENFORCEMENT NECEASSARY FOR BUSINESS. THIS IS AT THE VERY HEART OF SOVEREINGTY. TAXES CAN ONLY BE COLLCETD FROM A LEGITIMATE INSTITUTION WHO MUST BE MANNED BY COMPETENT PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE TAXED.
I DONT WANT TO GO DEEP INTO TAX ADMINISTRATION WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF BANTABA BUT THIS THE BASIC INGREDIENT IN TAX ADMINISTRATION. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:27:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
i don't agree. your looking at it from the otherside first.
sometimes the employment laws of a country can allow an illegal immigrant to find work. poeple find work in the US, UK and pay tax on their pay slips every week. this will never legitimise their stay there. again immigration is one office. inland revenue is another.
the tax on their pay slip is not ILLEGAL TAXATION. thats wrong.
EMPLOYERS ARE IGNORING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT ACT AND SHOULD BE PUNIISHED. THAT IS AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.No, an illegal immigrant is not alowed by any law in the United Sates or Britain to find work. However, under US law, any immigrant who submits a case to the Immigration authorities and has been pending for 180 days, has a right to apply for work authorisation which shall be issued but is a temporary document. Infact this document expires within 12 months and if your case is not resolved, subsequent extensions of the work document MUST be paid for by the a[pplicant and right now stands at175.oo dollars.Europe is more social in thinking and hence a lot of welfare programs. In the US you have to work and earn a living. They dont encourage laziness which i like. |
Edited by - kondorong on 17 Jul 2006 19:41:29 |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:35:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
i don't agree. your looking at it from the otherside first.
sometimes the employment laws of a country can allow an illegal immigrant to find work. poeple find work in the US, UK and pay tax on their pay slips every week. this will never legitimise their stay there. again immigration is one office. inland revenue is another.
the tax on their pay slip is not ILLEGAL TAXATION. thats wrong.
EMPLOYERS ARE IGNORING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT ACT AND SHOULD BE PUNIISHED. THAT IS AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.
No, an illegal immigrant is not alowed by any law in the United Sates or Britain to find work. However, under US law, any immigrant who submits a case to the Immigration authorities and has been pending for 180 days, has a right to apply for work authorisation which shall be issued but is a temporary document. Infact this document expires within 12 months and if your case is not resolved, subsequent extensions of the work document MUST be paid for by the a[pplicant and right now stands at175.oo dollars.Europe is more social in thinking and hence a lot of welfare programs. In the US you have to work and earn a living. They dont encourage laziness which i like.
|
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:35:27
|
you're wrong. just because you pay tax doesn't guarantee you anything.
i can erect an illegal structure and conduct business and live there squatting. a tax collect can pass by during his daily rounds and collect his money.
eventually when the rightfull owner of the land or the building permit guys come by i will loose everything irrespective of long long i have been paying tax.
you go to The Gambia and build a shop on someone's empty plot of land. you can make you millions and pay you taxes. Those taxes will never legitimise you occupancy. infact if it is my land i will charge you 'rent' retrospectively.
i have tried to give you different examples. if you're not convinced then i give up. but you are wrong will this type of thinking. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:39:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
you're wrong. just because you pay tax doesn't guarantee you anything.
i can erect an illegal structure and conduct business and live there squatting. a tax collect can pass by during his daily rounds and collect his money.
eventually when the rightfull owner of the land or the building permit guys come by i will loose everything irrespective of long long i have been paying tax.
you go to The Gambia and build a shop on someone's empty plot of land. you can make you millions and pay you taxes. Those taxes will never legitimise you occupancy. infact if it is my land i will charge you 'rent' retrospectively.
i have tried to give you different examples. if you're not convinced then i give up. but you are wrong will this type of thinking.
You see this where you miss the point. The momenet you ereceted an illegal structure, the whole transaction including tax collection becomes illegal. TAX IS LEGITIMATE UNDER THE LAW CONFIRMING YOUR BUSINESS IS LEGITIMATE. IN THE XAMPLE YOU GAVE, YOUR STRUCTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEEN DEMOLISHED IN THE FORST PLACE. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO START BUSINESS ILLEGALLY. |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:41:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
i don't agree. your looking at it from the otherside first.
sometimes the employment laws of a country can allow an illegal immigrant to find work. poeple find work in the US, UK and pay tax on their pay slips every week. this will never legitimise their stay there. again immigration is one office. inland revenue is another.
the tax on their pay slip is not ILLEGAL TAXATION. thats wrong.
EMPLOYERS ARE IGNORING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT ACT AND SHOULD BE PUNIISHED. THAT IS AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.
|
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:44:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
i don't agree. your looking at it from the otherside first.
sometimes the employment laws of a country can allow an illegal immigrant to find work. poeple find work in the US, UK and pay tax on their pay slips every week. this will never legitimise their stay there. again immigration is one office. inland revenue is another.
the tax on their pay slip is not ILLEGAL TAXATION. thats wrong.
THE TAX ON THE PAY SLIP IS WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THE JOB ITSELF IS ILLEGAL. THERFORE ANYTHING ERANED THROUGH IT IS ILLEGAL. THIS IS WHY UNDER DRUG ENFORCEMENT LAW, PRPOPERTIES OF DRUG DEALERS LIKE HOUSE, CAR ETC ARE ATTCHED BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH AN ILLEGITIMATE BUSINESS. |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2006 : 19:44:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
THAT IS AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.
it has because the TAX is already deducted and the person is employed. as i said earlier you're looking at it from the other side. both the employer and the person will eventually be punished irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. you see the point. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
