4 ms·
You're commenting on an article about how easy it is to hide assets overseas, and you're telling me it's hard to hide assets?
by cynicalkane 10y ago
You're commenting on an article about how easy it is to hide assets overseas, and you're telling me it's hard to hide assets?
- danieltillett 10y agoThe assets are not really overseas - just their supposed intermediate owner is. Almost all the assets are physically located in the major western countries. My suggestion is tax the assets directly. Don’t tax their owner, just have the asset itself owe the tax. For example, if you have a building and land then $x dollars in tax are due each year by the land and building. You don’t then have to worry about who owns the asset or if the ultimate owner is on or offshore. Of course proposing such a suggestion is a great way to have the shortest career in politics possible. The mega wealthy are fully aware that if this idea ever gained traction they would be history - good thing I never plan to run for office :)
- chii 10y agoHow can an inanimate object owe tax? You'll have to eventually find the owner
- evgen 10y agoWe don't care who the owner is, just that the tax is paid. If a taxable object does not have its taxes paid the state declares it in arrears and siezes/sells the asset to pay the tax. Problem solved.
- ddebernardy 10y agoFYI such a tax exists in France already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth A purported merit is that it should desensitize to sit on real-estate assets. It also comes with the twist that you can get a rebate by investing in privately owned SMBs. Methinks that if you deploy that large scale you'd end up fueling tech-bubbles.
- danieltillett 10y agoAt least investing in small and medium sized businesses would be a productive use of capital compared to just being a wealthy landowner.