6 ms·

It seems kind of strange to me that govt actors complain about money laundering while using their monopoly of force to protect the property rights of people (at

It seems kind of strange to me that govt actors complain about money laundering while using their monopoly of force to protect the property rights of people (at least human people, not corporate “people”) who won’t even admit ownership. It seems like if representatives were earnest about addressing this sort of money laundering they might propose some way to stop doing that for owners of massive property holdings who won’t show themselves. In my home state, the real names and contact info for owners of small houses and residential lots are available from the tax assessors database online. That we have reporting requirements for $10,000 in cash deposits, but apparently not for office buildings and yachts seems to suggest that the wealthy are practically subject to a different system of law then the rest of us. Has it been proposed that owners of this sort of property publicly report real ownership? There are cases where we have managed to create all sorts of de-anonomizing reporting requirements for the non-billionaires (e.g. for cash deposits). There are limitations on property rights for absentee owners (even non-anonymous ones) as with squatter’s rights. Is it so illiberal to decline to enforce property rights for anonymous shell corporations that countries that don’t do it will be ostracized? Is it so hard to require that the real name of owners be published on a title, or just politically impossible?

lopmotr 9y ago
You mean seizure of land? That's quite a risky thing to do. Plenty of now 3rd world countries destroyed themselves doing that. If people can't trust the government to enforce property rights, then how can they invest in property safely? That could then limit investing in business that owns property. Maybe it would be safe for the economy if it's done according to a law which is not retroactively applied to existing owners. Something like requiring new owners to be personally identified before they can even be granted ownership. Then there's no seizing required.
- pjc50 9y ago
  More like "bona vacantia". Or, if the UK had a meaningful property tax, a requirement to file said tax non-anonymously. (The UK could also do with cadastral mapping to solve a different set of problems; available only in Scotland)
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    (Would the opposite of "anonymous" be "nonymous"?)
    - morsch 9y ago
      No, the word you're looking for is onymous[1]. The internal structure is an-onymous: c. 1600, "without a name;" 1670s, "published under no name, of unknown authorship," from Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anonymos "without a name," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + onyma, Æolic[4] dialectal form of onoma "name" (from PIE root *no-men- "name").[2] Onoma survives in onomatopoeia[3] (and other words). [1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/onymous https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/onymous "Used Rarely" [2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/anonymous https://www.etymonline.com/word/anonymous [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia [4] Aeolic Greek (/iːˈɒlɪk/; also Aeolian /iːˈoʊliən/, Lesbian or Lesbic dialect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_Greek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_Greek
      - cgio 9y ago
        In modern greek it would be eponymous.
- elipsey 9y ago
  I didn't mean to propose that, but I see the problem that land is _already_ owned anonymously. Also, we (in the U.S.) already do this in limited circumstances. For example, if I don't pay my property taxes for long enough, my property will by auctioned by the state. My tax standing is publically reported from the tax assesor's database so that my neighbors can hunt for bargains. Perhaps legislation could add ownership reporting requirements for future purchases, or require better identity reporting for future property tax payments.
  - koolba 9y ago
    That’d likely eliminate the scamola of a business known as “title insurance” as well.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      Title insurance is an American problem; it's present in other jurisdictions, but most systems make it easy to determine if title is clear. (England has its own craziness of chancel repair liability instead)
      - robin_reala 9y ago
        And crazy is definitely the right word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability I’ve just sold my property in the UK and at the advice of my solicitors took out easement insurance to guard against denial of access of the private road that leads to the house that no-one knows who owns (even though the local council maintain it).
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    I don't see how it can fairly be changed for existing owners without screwing them over. It's different with property tax defaults and eminent domain because there's existing law that people know about and can plan around. Not just "tell us who you are and get imprisoned in your own country for corruption or we'll take your house".
- Lionsion 9y ago
  > You mean seizure of land? That's quite a risky thing to do. Not really, it happens all the time, see eminent domain and adverse possession, etc. It's generally viewed as against public policy for land to be left unused. Perhaps they could assess special, onerous taxes on property without a clear owner, and require said owner(s) identify themselves clearly when they're paid. If they don't, the property could be seized to pay the taxes.
- baud147258 9y ago
  > You mean seizure of land? [...] Plenty of now 3rd world countries destroyed themselves doing that. Didn't the South African government recently decided to do that? Taking white-owned farmland without compensation? We'll see how it goes.
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
    You don't have to wait for that. Just look what happened in Zimbabwe.
    - baud147258 9y ago
      I'm interested how it goes there. I know what happened in Zimbabwe.
rwmj 9y ago
The UK government has no intention of making any effective changes to reveal the beneficial owners of property (although it makes a lot of noise about it to keep the "plebs" happy). Indeed after Brexit tax evasion and laundering the money of kleptocrats may be some of the few growth areas available. If you want to find out what's really happening, I recommend reading Private Eye.
paulsutter 9y ago
Apparently ownership stakes under 25% are not reported, which could be used by persons of any means to hide ownership. It’s a weird loophole that has nothing to do with the wealthy vs the little guy. It’s available to anyone willing to fill out a bunch of paperwork.
- gregcoombe 9y ago
  I wonder if changing this from a percentage to an amount (say, the $10,000 mentioned above) would close this loophole.
  - paulsutter 9y ago
    Sounds like Chesterton’s fence. Would you want your NVIDIA holdings a public record?
    - kuschku 9y ago
      In several nordic countries, all citizen's tax filings are public record. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it.
      - dmitrygr 9y ago
        Ok, let me explain: You are in Nordic country N, and your filings show your income of $X (a high number). Your relatives A,B,C live in country R, which features large amount of mobsters. Said mobsters learn of the value of X via N's public info system, and make lives of A,B,C uncomfortable or dangerous or downright kidnap them to receive a chunk of $X. And no, A,B,C cannot always move for a variety of reasons.
        mieseratte 9y ago
        You're not wrong. In fact, as a human, you're very right. It's possible such a law would have very negative externalities. However, a nation really only owes loyalty to its people. You can't stop an otherwise positive because some people might get hurt. We'd get nothing done in that case.
TallGuyShort 9y ago
My state has that information available from the tax assessors office as well, however land can still be owned by a corporation and it can be slightly out of date and it's not clear who is actually responsible for the property and what it's status is if the corporation doesn't want you to find out. In my neighborhood, for example, there is some land still possibly owned by the developer, a hedge fund, and another company, but it has changed hands multiple times recently, often enough that there is little confidence in the current publicly reported documentation. They have used this to their advantage to avoid taking responsibility for HOA obligations that they are failing to meet. It takes a level of motivation to push through legal proceedings and a level of cooperation from the local government that quite simply, no one is willing to give. Even if one got that far, I'd imagine that the legal complexity of the various real estate contracts involve give them all plenty of ammunition to stall the process and suggest that somebody else may actually have responsibility for the problem until you give up. Tax assessor's information is not actually enough for the buck to stop with anyone.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Start squatting on it, the real owners will turn up pronto :)
  - cbogie 9y ago
    I have a hunch their henchmen will turn up first.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Good point.
    - evgen 9y ago
      I would guess that said henchmen would need some sort of proof that they are acting on the authority of the rightful owner or else they would just be another group of squatters.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
EGreg 9y ago
You should read Progress and Poverty, a book that used to be a bestseller and well known to most intellectuals throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, but somehow has been forgotten. It was by Henry George - whose proposal was a single land tax, and of course the point is in theory that it’s easy to see who owns what. I have a copy and the accolades on the back read like a who’s who of world leaders, thinkers and poets.
isostatic 9y ago
Why do people have 'property rights'? They're an artificial construct as much as government is. If you want to monopolise an area of land, you need to pay your fair share. Perhaps for this building the land may cost society (through externalities) £2m a year, so unless that is paid (by whoever), the land gets repossessed and sold to pay the outstanding tax bill. Far more equitable way of funding society than charging those who work for a living. A land value taxation ensures that whoever the 'owner' is, the cost to society of that owner monopolising the land is paid.
amygdyl 9y ago
You are arguing for the easement of separation of state and the judiciary via executive fiat. This would be the most significant retrograde of constitutional development.

lopmotr 9y ago

You mean seizure of land? That's quite a risky thing to do. Plenty of now 3rd world countries destroyed themselves doing that. If people can't trust the government to enforce property rights, then how can they invest in property safely? That could then limit investing in business that owns property. Maybe it would be safe for the economy if it's done according to a law which is not retroactively applied to existing owners. Something like requiring new owners to be personally identified before they can even be granted ownership. Then there's no seizing required.

pjc50 9y ago
More like "bona vacantia". Or, if the UK had a meaningful property tax, a requirement to file said tax non-anonymously. (The UK could also do with cadastral mapping to solve a different set of problems; available only in Scotland)
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  (Would the opposite of "anonymous" be "nonymous"?)
  - morsch 9y ago
    No, the word you're looking for is onymous[1]. The internal structure is an-onymous: c. 1600, "without a name;" 1670s, "published under no name, of unknown authorship," from Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anonymos "without a name," from an- "without" (see an- (1)) + onyma, Æolic[4] dialectal form of onoma "name" (from PIE root *no-men- "name").[2] Onoma survives in onomatopoeia[3] (and other words). [1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/onymous https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/onymous "Used Rarely" [2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/anonymous https://www.etymonline.com/word/anonymous [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopoeia [4] Aeolic Greek (/iːˈɒlɪk/; also Aeolian /iːˈoʊliən/, Lesbian or Lesbic dialect) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_Greek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolic_Greek
    - cgio 9y ago
      In modern greek it would be eponymous.
elipsey 9y ago
I didn't mean to propose that, but I see the problem that land is _already_ owned anonymously. Also, we (in the U.S.) already do this in limited circumstances. For example, if I don't pay my property taxes for long enough, my property will by auctioned by the state. My tax standing is publically reported from the tax assesor's database so that my neighbors can hunt for bargains. Perhaps legislation could add ownership reporting requirements for future purchases, or require better identity reporting for future property tax payments.
- koolba 9y ago
  That’d likely eliminate the scamola of a business known as “title insurance” as well.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Title insurance is an American problem; it's present in other jurisdictions, but most systems make it easy to determine if title is clear. (England has its own craziness of chancel repair liability instead)
    - robin_reala 9y ago
      And crazy is definitely the right word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability I’ve just sold my property in the UK and at the advice of my solicitors took out easement insurance to guard against denial of access of the private road that leads to the house that no-one knows who owns (even though the local council maintain it).
- lopmotr 9y ago
  I don't see how it can fairly be changed for existing owners without screwing them over. It's different with property tax defaults and eminent domain because there's existing law that people know about and can plan around. Not just "tell us who you are and get imprisoned in your own country for corruption or we'll take your house".
Lionsion 9y ago
> You mean seizure of land? That's quite a risky thing to do. Not really, it happens all the time, see eminent domain and adverse possession, etc. It's generally viewed as against public policy for land to be left unused. Perhaps they could assess special, onerous taxes on property without a clear owner, and require said owner(s) identify themselves clearly when they're paid. If they don't, the property could be seized to pay the taxes.
baud147258 9y ago
> You mean seizure of land? [...] Plenty of now 3rd world countries destroyed themselves doing that. Didn't the South African government recently decided to do that? Taking white-owned farmland without compensation? We'll see how it goes.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  You don't have to wait for that. Just look what happened in Zimbabwe.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    I'm interested how it goes there. I know what happened in Zimbabwe.

rwmj 9y ago

The UK government has no intention of making any effective changes to reveal the beneficial owners of property (although it makes a lot of noise about it to keep the "plebs" happy). Indeed after Brexit tax evasion and laundering the money of kleptocrats may be some of the few growth areas available. If you want to find out what's really happening, I recommend reading Private Eye.

paulsutter 9y ago

Apparently ownership stakes under 25% are not reported, which could be used by persons of any means to hide ownership. It’s a weird loophole that has nothing to do with the wealthy vs the little guy. It’s available to anyone willing to fill out a bunch of paperwork.

gregcoombe 9y ago
I wonder if changing this from a percentage to an amount (say, the $10,000 mentioned above) would close this loophole.
- paulsutter 9y ago
  Sounds like Chesterton’s fence. Would you want your NVIDIA holdings a public record?
  - kuschku 9y ago
    In several nordic countries, all citizen's tax filings are public record. I certainly don't see anything wrong with it.
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      Ok, let me explain: You are in Nordic country N, and your filings show your income of $X (a high number). Your relatives A,B,C live in country R, which features large amount of mobsters. Said mobsters learn of the value of X via N's public info system, and make lives of A,B,C uncomfortable or dangerous or downright kidnap them to receive a chunk of $X. And no, A,B,C cannot always move for a variety of reasons.
      - mieseratte 9y ago
        You're not wrong. In fact, as a human, you're very right. It's possible such a law would have very negative externalities. However, a nation really only owes loyalty to its people. You can't stop an otherwise positive because some people might get hurt. We'd get nothing done in that case.

TallGuyShort 9y ago

My state has that information available from the tax assessors office as well, however land can still be owned by a corporation and it can be slightly out of date and it's not clear who is actually responsible for the property and what it's status is if the corporation doesn't want you to find out. In my neighborhood, for example, there is some land still possibly owned by the developer, a hedge fund, and another company, but it has changed hands multiple times recently, often enough that there is little confidence in the current publicly reported documentation. They have used this to their advantage to avoid taking responsibility for HOA obligations that they are failing to meet. It takes a level of motivation to push through legal proceedings and a level of cooperation from the local government that quite simply, no one is willing to give. Even if one got that far, I'd imagine that the legal complexity of the various real estate contracts involve give them all plenty of ammunition to stall the process and suggest that somebody else may actually have responsibility for the problem until you give up. Tax assessor's information is not actually enough for the buck to stop with anyone.

jacquesm 9y ago
Start squatting on it, the real owners will turn up pronto :)
- cbogie 9y ago
  I have a hunch their henchmen will turn up first.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Good point.
  - evgen 9y ago
    I would guess that said henchmen would need some sort of proof that they are acting on the authority of the rightful owner or else they would just be another group of squatters.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago

EGreg 9y ago

You should read Progress and Poverty, a book that used to be a bestseller and well known to most intellectuals throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, but somehow has been forgotten. It was by Henry George - whose proposal was a single land tax, and of course the point is in theory that it’s easy to see who owns what. I have a copy and the accolades on the back read like a who’s who of world leaders, thinkers and poets.

isostatic 9y ago

Why do people have 'property rights'? They're an artificial construct as much as government is. If you want to monopolise an area of land, you need to pay your fair share. Perhaps for this building the land may cost society (through externalities) £2m a year, so unless that is paid (by whoever), the land gets repossessed and sold to pay the outstanding tax bill. Far more equitable way of funding society than charging those who work for a living. A land value taxation ensures that whoever the 'owner' is, the cost to society of that owner monopolising the land is paid.

amygdyl 9y ago

You are arguing for the easement of separation of state and the judiciary via executive fiat. This would be the most significant retrograde of constitutional development.