Talk:Racketeering

message: The ANC shouldn't be on this list. It's a legitimate political party. Unless someone can come up with a good justification for including it, it should be removed from the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.236.47 (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: African National Congress

message: I have removed MegaUpload from the "See Also" list. It simply does not meet the criteria of a racket. Thus far it has only been established as a company potentially involved in illegal activities, and not a "racket". With that criteria, any company/organization/group engaged in illegal activities could be labeled as a racket. This is simply not the case. We must be careful not to extend our scope of the definition, and maintain logic and reason when defining something as one thing or another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.173.148 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of MegaUpload 

message: I added FIFA because the top board of the company was just arrested for racketeering.  Would love to know why someone deleted this entry.  Please explain.  I will keep adding it.  
Is that enough references for you for the racketeering of FIFA?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.231.17 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that violation of the United States law Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act should not be conflated with the commission of racketeering in a general sense.  According to the referenced article, the companies were found liable for conspiracy and fraudulently misrepresenting the health risks.  While these may be covered under a law titled Racketeering, this appellation does not mean that the acts covered meet the common definition of the term. ENeville (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobacco Industry

message: Perhaps the most used racketeering scam needs to be mentioned: Pizzo_(extortion)
This scam is basically a service supplied by organised crime organisations to shops in which they
* promise not to destroy property in the shop or the shop itself
* protect the shop from other criminal organisations, and smaller gangs
Obviously, the first is illegal and so generates frustration, but the second seems like a useful service
109.133.100.120 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what happens if you don't pay taxes? The government puts you in jail, therefore destroys your life. This is considered "legal", but in fact it's the same method like the racketeers use. And should I talk about how man jews were legally murdered in Nazi germany some 70 years ago? Laws aren't good only because they're laws. If they destroy privacy or attack innocent people, these are crimes, no matter if legal or not.--178.197.236.217 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually if you don't pay your taxes, they send you a letter telling you what you owe in taxes, interest and a monetary penalty. Then you have a tax debt that they may collect by garnishing your wages or selling your property. But the government won't throw you in jail for not paying taxes alone. Not paying your taxes is not a crime, after all you may not be able to pay them for some misfortune. At least in most western nations. They only throw you in jail if you falsify your tax returns or deliberately fail to file a return and then give them some frivolous excuse like "the tax law is invalid" or "taxes are racketeering". Or if you don't pay the use-fee for the license plate and driver's license and then use the road (a service) the government owns because doing so is basically theft of service. You can live a basic life earning less than the allowed tax exemption and never use the government's services, then you will never have to be responsible to pay a cent in taxes. In neither case will the government burn down or otherwise vandalize your house or your store. If you don't like what the government does with your taxes and/or you don't want populist fascists like Hitler and Trump to run the government, you need to vote. 104.234.240.207 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In EU country where i live government vandalizes property, at minimum, to gain forced entry,  if protection money, called "property tax", is not paid. Then they use violence or threats of it to remove owner. From the owner's perspective it's no difference, if housed is burnt down or he is violently removed from it, as now house can not be used anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.131.208 (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Racketeering scams

message: When you really think about it, the state as an institution qualifies as a racket.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.129.184 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely not. Since when can you vote the people in charge of a racket out of power? Go vote if you don't like what the government does. 104.234.240.207 (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government 

message: why does this article contain no  mention of gambling? is this not closely related? Tango303 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  gambling? 

message: Is there any actual reason that said departments are listed, or is this vandalism by Anarchists? Doctordubin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Government Agencies Section 

message: What is a wire room? 2001:630:53:479:E5D2:127D:AA83:3348 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "wire room" redirect here? 

message: As a resident of BC I'm also not a fan of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, but they're not a racket. And even if they were, the inclusion of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia still makes no sense as they're no different than many other (essentially all?) vehicle insurance corporations and so the item in the list should be Insurance Companies in general, not a specific one. I think the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia should be removed from this list, or changed to Insurance Companies in general if someone wants to make an argument for why Insurance Companies in general are a racket (though that's outside the scope of my point here). 96.48.47.48 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia listed here? 

message: It's not just to "solve a problem"  Private landlords are racketeers. Cheaply produced products are rackets  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:69ED:5778:35D5:2EB0 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem? 

message: Nothing in the article contents suggest that health insurance has anything to do with racketeering, and its inclusion in the See Also section is very suggestive and misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.119.236 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was vandalism.  It has since been removed.  --Jayron32 01:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Health Insurance" in See Also?