Technically yes, but the problem is that they can afford to hold their investments in many small companies so they won’t even have to pay that much tax.
Just adding government oversight for this idea is going to be a costly nightmare.
Technically yes, but the problem is that they can afford to hold their investments in many small companies so they won’t even have to pay that much tax.
Just adding government oversight for this idea is going to be a costly nightmare.
SoulWager@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Maybe the value of real estate held by corporations is assigned proportionally to the shareholders? Maybe the tax rate is determined by whichever entity has the largest accumulation. I don’t see why it needs to be particularly complicated, can certainly make it enforceable and effective with less complexity than the current tax system.
boonhet@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Hmm, maybe. I still don’t like the fact that some rich dude could just go and say “Hmm such a nice home they’ve built for themselves, I think I will forcibly buy it”. There’s so much more value to a home than the land it sits on and the building materials. There’s a lot of sentimental value once you’ve lived somewhere for years or decades even.
If there was an exception for primary residences, your idea might be a lot less horrible. Again something that could likely be schemed through, but at the very least, it’d just be investment properties that get targeted. I don’t give a fuck about those.