31–40 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. 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?
You're comparing a democratic government's lawful actions to your silly demands on the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is public benefit to knowing the beneficial owner of real estate. It is the physical assets of a community and the community benefits from knowing who ultimately owns those assets.
Ultimately, this appears to be yet another step in the direction of deep control of society over wealth and the people who have it. 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 b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The expression "If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear" is one of the most scary sentences. 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_...
Perhaps it was both tongue-in-cheek and not. But if they're not doing anything "wrong" then what is there to fear? Nothing. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The expression "If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear" is one of the most scary sentences. 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_...
Perhaps it was both tongue-in-cheek and not. But if they're not doing anything "wrong" then what is there to fear? Nothing. 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.
It is common for liberty-oriented officials to put their own home into an LLC and have an appointed officer/manager as the public-facing contact. 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.
> to combat and deter money laundering in the U.S. residential real estate sector by increasing transparency.
It is common for liberty-oriented officials to put their own home into an LLC and have an appointed officer/manager as the public-facing contact. 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.
If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. I would take the hypothetical fear and pushback by these "types" as a strong positive signal that this is an effort that is vitally worth doing for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is public benefit to knowing the beneficial owner of real estate. It is the physical assets of a community and the community benefits from knowing who ultimately owns those assets.
Ultimately, this appears to be yet another step in the direction of deep control of society over wealth and the people who have it. 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 b…
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.
This is deeply needed, one of the big causes of housing inflation is using it to launder money. Higher housing costs are better because you can launder more. Its like when rich people can't have a money trail for some shady activity so they sell art to each other for a wild amount. This will require all owners to be named instead of a nameless llc. Should help curb the process.
Can't some lawyer just be used as a proxy for holding the real estate?
I think this is great for AML, and also for making the activities of institutional buyers of real estate a little clearer. I'm reminded of this article specifically: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/veritas-san-franci...
I think this is great for AML, and also for making the activities of institutional buyers of real estate a little clearer. I'm reminded of this article specifically: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/veritas-san-franci...
It’s also great for sending a swat team to your house, which might have a bit more sudden of an impact than the change you’re envisioning.