FinCEN proposes new rule for residential real estate held in trusts or LLCs
fincen.gov
fincen.gov
Will FinCEN publish these records? It would defeat the purpose of putting a home in an llc for anonymity.
Under the proposed rule, persons involved in real estate closings and settlements would continue to be exempt from the anti-money laundering compliance program requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. I.e. loans, banks.
https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fact-sheet-benefic....
That's too bad; methinks the Feds should also need a court order. Though, I suppose with FISA courts rubber-stamping warrants, it wouldn't even be a nuisance.
> Federal government agency access to BOI. Under the Access Rule and as authorized by the CTA, FinCEN may disclose BOI to Federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activity if the requested BOI is for use in furtherance of such activity. “Law enforcement activity” includes both criminal and civil investigations and actions, such as actions to impose civil penalties, civil forfeiture actions, and civil enforcement through administrative proceedings. Prior to requesting BOI, Federal agency users will be required to certify that the agency is engaged in a national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activity and that the information requested is for use in furtherance of that activity. They will also be required to provide the specific reasons why the requested information is relevant to the activity.
That's a legitimate desire, and I think we should make privacy and the motives behind it available to everyone, not only those who can afford the expense and effort to set up and maintain an LLC.
(I'd expect the solution to be a combination of changes: outlaw most data-brokering and trading of personal data, hold organizations responsible for the data they hold so much that they treat unnecessary personal data like an existential-threat toxic liability, change practices to make SWAT-ing not be such a risk even if some psycho did get hold of someone's address, hold demagogues responsible for using conspiracy theories they know are false to incite mentally ill people, and more.)
> That's a legitimate desire, and I think we should make privacy and the motives behind it available to everyone, not only those who can afford the expense and effort to set up and maintain an LLC.
I'm on the fence about that. Why should someone not be able to determine who owns a particular piece of property?
I am quite sure that rich and powerful people will do some decent but firm pushback if FinCen goes too far in making records public.
Edited: replaced 'privacy-oriented' with 'liberty-oriented' in light of Bruce Schneier's blog.
One of the main steps is buying or renting under a LLC. Anyone can do that with planning.
Bruce Schneier said: "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as 'security versus privacy.' The real choice is liberty versus control."
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal...
Which, if you ever want to have anything of your own or be better than median in some way should concern you greatly.
Some people will not rest until you’re poorer and more miserable than them, no matter what. Even if it means hurting themselves (and everyone else) to do it.
Crabs in a bucket mentality is deeply destructive and dangerous.
If you want the most valuable land, you should be operating enterprises that provide values high enough to pay for the land.
If property taxes don't vary based on who owns them, but rather by some standardized valuation, then why does it matter if it is owned by an LLC, a Corp, or some individual? The tax is the same and needs to be paid regardless. The land will need to be used effectively, or it's a cost on a balance sheet somewhere coming out of someone's pocket.
The 'utility based value' is always the same then, correct? And the incentive to use it effectively is the same too, correct?
The 'value' of these kinds of rule changes is because, eventually, the tax WILL be different based on who owns it. 'Good people' (based on the current political winds) of course being given good rates, and 'Bad people' getting punitive rates or having it outright seized.
For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.
If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.
If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?
Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.
Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.
Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.
Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.
That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.
Is 'no'? Couldn't you have just answered with that?
You keep attempting to frame some sort of argument that the ‘sin’ is wealth or not, and the discussion is about if it is okay to take wealth or not.
I’m only interested in if someone is doing something identifiably harmful to others or not, and how to ensure someone is following the rules or not. And if the outcome works.
These are not the same thing, though there is overlap.
That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?
If someone is ‘bad’ because they have wealth, the only available ‘good’ solution is to not have wealth. That is crabs in a bucket, and destructive.
If someone is ‘bad’ because they are breaking a rule or harming someone, the ‘good’ solution is for them to follow the rule or to stop harming someone.
That can actually make things better, assuming those rules or lack of harm actually works or produces wealth, because people can do that and be wealthy. There is incentive to produce and be more.
The big challenge right now is if you actually follow the rules, apparently you get screwed. Following the rules doesn't produce much wealth. Or at least that is the direction things are going.
And if you have wealth, especially if you follow the rules, you’ll be hounded and be at a significant disadvantage. Unless you don’t play by the rules.
Notably, this has always been the case to some degree.
The issue is the corruption, and the rules that are penalizing things either based on attributes someone cannot change, or encouraging things that destroy wealth, instead of encouraging people to change to be more successful by doing what society needs.
Now, perhaps the issue is that no one knows what 'the right thing' is, or what society actually needs in a sustainable way. In which case, actually talking about that might be helpful!
Or no one is willing or able to agree on some reasonable degree of potential harm. Everything has to be perfect (which is impossible).
We can only get to those discussions if we first face the actual argument we're even having though.
By having an answer which means one thing but you contend means another then you are having me guess at what the answer is. Answer the question or refuse to answer the question, or ask for a refinement of the question. Don't write an answer and then go off about how it doesn't mean what it obviously appears to mean.
> That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?
Hmmm...who is putting words into which person's mouth?
You are writing a load of lecture material which is what you want to say but is not applicable to the question I asked:
'Do you believe that wealth is an inherent right even if the accumulation of that wealth or the holding of that wealth is a detriment to society?'
I've been quite clear on my position (direct and implied). Why won't you be?
I'm interested in desired outcomes and expected behaviors and tradeoffs, not idealism. Sophistry is the enemy of realism and truth. A type of 'crabs in the bucket' mentality, actually, as it's about 'winning the debate' instead of 'coming to the truth'.
For example, your question is presupposing that there is ANY course of action that won't produce an outcome with some 'detriment to society', or at least some part of it. Or that a course of action could not have both positives AND negatives for the same people in society. Or that a right is ever actually inherent/inalienable, or not. Or that folks in a society may have the right to determine (independently) what they consider to be to their detriment or not.
Among other things.
What desired outcome are YOU advocating for?
Will you actually address the real questions?
This is an easy question to answer, and you answered it and then un-answered your answer. Probably because when I clarified your answer to mean what it meant (by taking control of things away from people who are using them in a way society deems not useful or harmful, you are removing their wealth and thus they do not have a right to it) you violated some kind of principle you thought you held and had to backtrack.
Instead of engaging with this thought process you just proceeded to deliver a few unwanted lectures on things that you felt necessary. I must assume you lack the self-awareness and/or are regarding the question as loaded because it uses a word: wealth, which has a very distinct meaning (but you feel is being used ideologically).
Ciao!
The best approach would be one where the government issues long-term leases to parcels of land, but property taxes are an okay-ish alternative if that (or LVTs) aren't feasible. Note that this is already what we do for things like the EM spectrum: the government owns it in the public trust, then leases it with an open bidding process.
Ok then. Share with us your email and social media passwords -- and give us access to your Google Photos while you're at it. Otherwise -- what are you hiding?
I am sure the Dutch didn't think recording the religion/race was a problem. Until it was. Took some work to limit the damage [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_bombing_of_the_Amsterdam_...
What will really happen is that we find out that there are millions of LLCs owned by a few corporate investment offices that are driving up the price of housing for my fellow citizens, actual human beings who I value far more than any legal fictions.
Anyway, just to paint maybe some more realistic threat models: Swatting. People suing rich people to get "go-away" money. Targeted robberies or abductions.
Privacy is a right, also for rich people. For any information that is private, I can find a good reason for it to not be private.
> to combat and deter money laundering in the U.S. residential real estate sector by increasing transparency.
wealth transfer is obscene.
[edit] to provide clarity. Holding assets in trusts or LLCs has nothing to do with doing anything illegal, and you will find politicians, people working in 3 letter agencies etc all do the same, we all pay taxes just like you. So attempting to leaving a comment with a critical view particularly in contexts where it might be seen as unfair, unjust, or disproportionately benefiting the already wealthy at the expense of others just shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Even though my initial comment has nothing to do with taxes I will leave you with this.
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
This quote captures the essence of tax planning and the legal right of individuals and businesses to minimize their tax liabilities within the bounds of the law. - Judge Learned Hand
Oh.
https://smartasset.com/estate-planning/how-to-avoid-estate-t...
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/estate-planning...
If you die with assets... you assets are going to be transferred to beneficiaries in accordance with a will if you have one. It's a lengthy legal process called probate. Because its going through the court system the filings are all public record too.
If you put your assets into a trust (generally a revocable or living trust)... when you die you aren't dying with any assets. The trust "lives on" and has the rules for distribution codified into it. No probate court. No public record of assets, etc. Tends to be a faster, more efficient for everyone process as I understand it.
I'd love a link backing this bold assertion.
But that's not going to be a major source of real estate transactional volume.
Except in parts of Canada. This just came across HN earlier this week:
Where else could you drop large quantities of cash then translate that to clean money?
If there’s more of the thing that you use to account for stuff, but stuff doesn’t become more, the number in your units of account goes up.
Edit: Apart from that, there’s monetary premium put on real estate, as people effectively use it to short the currency by buying it with debt.
I imagine if this route was banned, it would be a lot easier to figure out where a person lives, which would generally result in decreased privacy, safety, and security.
That being said, I think the number of people who live in fear of being swatted in their homes is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people who rent a home owned by a mysterious and unaccountable corporate landlord.
That being left aside, I am concerned about home intrusions much more than I am with economic equity for all _and_ I don’t think this measure will be a particularly effective control on the latter.