this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
682 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19224 readers
3086 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As much as I'd like to see that done, I'm sure businesses would just use shell-people to buy the homes.

[–] ByteJunk 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sounds perfect, do it. I wanna see your income statement when you own 20 apartments.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 7 points 1 month ago

Don't remember what the business was but there have been cases of businesses using individuals names on paperwork, saying they own the business, but that person has zero responsibility and gets no pay for it. Probably it was on an episode of Last Week Tonight.

[–] finitebanjo 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not only would it make sense for each of the shell people to have the income on their own tax statements when running that sort of subsidizing loan operation, but its actually got fiscal incentive to be done that way because it puts them in lower brackets.

Plus, given the number of foreign owners invested in US properties, it would be difficult or possibly even impossible to charge and expedite them for tax evasion given the tightly constrained budget of the IRS and therefor their inability to go after people without a gaurantee they can earn more back than they spend on the court proceedings.

[–] ByteJunk 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't follow your reasoning. If companies cannot own houses, how do you propose this shell-ownership would work? Wouldn't the owner just be free to sell the house at any time and pocket the cash for themselves?

As for tax evasion by foreigners that own real estate, I mean how is that even a problem? There's millions of foreigners that do business in the US everyday, plus, these ones have actual immovable assets that can be seized...

[–] finitebanjo 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Financing.

The shell-owners would get paid to be a shell, and the properties would get financed under their names, thus circumventing the law.

Because what I described above could be considered tax evasion, that is why it becomes another new problem when dealing with foreign investors.

The US Government sells seized real estate dirt cheap, but that negatively impacts the shell owners who could fight it in court.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right. And tax fraud is a crime, so then could be massively fined or locked up for it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the only penalty for a crime is a fine, then the crime is legal for a fee.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

That's not actually what those words mean, although I understand what you're saying. Also, if you're trying to imply that fines cannot be used to greatly dissuade various undesirable behaviors, the real world would disagree with you.