• alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    By shifting the tax to property and away from income tax, you break that cycle.

    Elon can have a Panama based LLC that doesn't pay income tax, but that only means he avoids the $25K income tax and loses the $50K tax benefit.

    The $10M property tax must still be paid, because it is levied on the properties.

    He might be able to then subtract the $10M from his tax obligations in Panama, but for the country where the property resides (e.g. USA), that does not matter.

      • alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That mode of attack won't work.

        Elon could take a risk by putting each property on the name of some homeless person and paying them an income so that the benefit matches the tax savings. It would avoid some tax, but it would also be quite easy for the homeless person to renege on the deal and keep (or sell) the property.

        Trying to sue in court would massively backfire, since you'd have to admit in court that you were engaging in tax evasion.

        And putting it on the name of some middle class homeowner will have all the same risks, without any tax benefit.

        You'll have to be more specific with how you see this failing.

        • AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tax evasion with existing laws works predominantly because the agencies are underfunded and not equipped to track and follow the tax evasion schemes of the ultra rich, while they simultaneously lobby for that to stay that way or become even worse.

          No matter the change of code, these issues will not go away, because there's always some way to hide what you have, no matter the laws. While the current state of tax laws (no matter where) is very sub-optimal and heavily favors the rich, there is no way that a mere change in law would change that status whatsoever.

          Since I personally do not evade taxes, I couldn't tell you all the loop holes some high powered, high paid professional would find in your proposed scheme, so my assumptions are pretty low level.

          Your proposal hinges on even knowing what they own. That's already heavily obfuscated beyond some prestige projects they like to flaunt. I don't think that it would be feasible to enforce finding and knowing what they own, because it's already hidden in layers and layers of proxies, including non-profits, charities, etc.

          • alvvayson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, so I have to trust your ignorance?

            Sorry.

            Large scale tax evasion and avoidance happens on capital gains tax and inheritance tax.

            Sales tax, property tax and labor income tax are mostly immune, since it is much more difficult to move property or economic activity to Panama and much easier to move ownership of financial assets.

            These are well known truths that I am not going to debate or ignore.

            • AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              How about instead of calling me ignorant you take the opportunity to share your insights? Share some sources for the claims you just made and teach, rather than attack me for not knowing better.

              My point is that laws are nearly irrelevant at a certain point of wealth unless they're aggressively enforced specifically against that class of wealthy individuals and companies that are the main culprits in not only evading but also continually eroding tax laws and enforcement. Laws alone do (nearly) nothing to stop any of this.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what? It's the property the owes the tax, is the point. Someone has to pay it. In this case it would be whatever the proxy is.