5 ms·

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.

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".
- paulmd 9y ago
  To go back to the whole "different rules apply to the rich and the poor", nobody would bat an eye if this were done as part of AML for poorer people. What about the person who took out $10k cash and is now subject to AML reporting if he wants to deposit it, would you say that we should re-tag all the bills so that we can know who took out money before the rule applied? Of course not, that's absurd, you would have to put up with AML like everyone else. And to be clear, that's what we're discussing here - a form of money laundering reporting. No actual property is seized from someone who obeys the new laws, and all they need to do is disclose ownership. The idea that this is somehow an onerous burden is just a reflexive boot-licking defense of the rich. They will be fine.
  - vostok 9y ago
    For what it's worth, I've taken out $10k in cash and deposited it about a month later. I assume that the bank had to do some paper work on the bank end, but I wasn't exposed to it at all.

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".

paulmd 9y ago
To go back to the whole "different rules apply to the rich and the poor", nobody would bat an eye if this were done as part of AML for poorer people. What about the person who took out $10k cash and is now subject to AML reporting if he wants to deposit it, would you say that we should re-tag all the bills so that we can know who took out money before the rule applied? Of course not, that's absurd, you would have to put up with AML like everyone else. And to be clear, that's what we're discussing here - a form of money laundering reporting. No actual property is seized from someone who obeys the new laws, and all they need to do is disclose ownership. The idea that this is somehow an onerous burden is just a reflexive boot-licking defense of the rich. They will be fine.
- vostok 9y ago
  For what it's worth, I've taken out $10k in cash and deposited it about a month later. I assume that the bank had to do some paper work on the bank end, but I wasn't exposed to it at all.