Italy shocks banks with 40 percent windfall tax for 2023 • Hacker News Board

Re: Italy shocks banks with 40 percent windfall tax for 2023

#71

Post by ffhhttt » Wed, Aug 09, 2023, 7:12 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #69

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

highly religious countries trend more conservative. Italy is a highly conservative country. Not sure if that explains their financial problems, probably not. on edit: An Italian coworker just pointed out he wouldn't say Italy was very conservative, which I guess in a lot of ways is true - especially when compared to U.S and some other countries. Maybe actually the 'Conservative' - 'Liberal' labeling doesn't work well…

To expand a bit: Italy is economically conservative. People don't like to invest, banks don't like to lend to businesses, and when businesses fail (which is just part of the capitalism game) everyone cries for the State to make them whole. Most people favour long-term assets like real estate, and as soon as any profit is generated it is typically "privatized" rather than reinvested. Obviously I'm painting with a very…

> To expand a bit: Italy is economically conservative. People don't like to invest, banks don't like to lend to businesses, and when businesses fail

That’s true. A lot (most?) of Europe seems to be like that, though

Re: Italy shocks banks with 40 percent windfall tax for 2023

#72

Post by tomatocracy » Wed, Aug 09, 2023, 8:01 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #57

lockhouse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a great example of it! In 1759, Arthur Guinness signed a 9,000 year lease for his brewery. https://www.historydefined.net/how-the-guinness-brewery-sign...

OTOH, https://acdc-beverage.com/guinness-a-brand-that-doesnt-pay-r... : > Guinness actually doesn’t pay any rent for its iconic St. James’s Gate Brewery in Dublin. That’s because the site has been owned by the Guinness family since 1876, and the current lease runs until 2031. From 1759 to 1876 is 117 years. FWIW, as far as I can tell, a 9,000 year lease would have conflicted with the rule against perpetuities. Certai…

I don't think the rule against perpetuities ever prohibited the creation of very long leaseholds, so long as the lease itself vested within the period, because the reversion would already have been vested at the grant of the lease. There are plenty of examples of 999-year leases granted in the 19th century for example.

Re: Italy shocks banks with 40 percent windfall tax for 2023

#73

Post by eesmith » Wed, Aug 09, 2023, 8:23 PM UTC

tomatocracy wrote: post #72

eesmith wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, https://acdc-beverage.com/guinness-a-brand-that-doesnt-pay-r... : > Guinness actually doesn’t pay any rent for its iconic St. James’s Gate Brewery in Dublin. That’s because the site has been owned by the Guinness family since 1876, and the current lease runs until 2031. From 1759 to 1876 is 117 years. FWIW, as far as I can tell, a 9,000 year lease would have conflicted with the rule against perpetuities. Certai…

I don't think the rule against perpetuities ever prohibited the creation of very long leaseholds, so long as the lease itself vested within the period, because the reversion would already have been vested at the grant of the lease. There are plenty of examples of 999-year leases granted in the 19th century for example.

Yes, it looks like you're quite right. Thanks for correcting me!

I've confirmed it with several sources, from several different legal systems:

> The rule is not concerned with the duration of interests. A lease for 999 years does not violate the rule; nor does an estate in fee simple, which may last for ever. The rule is satisfied if an interest must 'vest' within the per- petuity period, even though the interest may last beyond it. - http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1969/19...

> Although a lease may be given for an unlimited term or even in perpetuity, the reversion is clearly not obnoxious to the rule, since it is a vested interest. - in LEASES AND THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1... (there are many concepts and words I don't understand)

> It’s not related to the rule against perpetutities at all. The rule deals with interests in proprerty which are floating around in a trust, waiting to be vested in someone. They can only float around unvested like this if the terms of the trust require that the must vest in someone within the perpetutity period. - https://davidallengreen.com/2023/03/happily-ever-after-disne...

I was particularly happy about a comment in that last link: "When I was a law student I think I understood the rule against perpetuitities for about an hour – luckily that coincided with my exams."

Re: Italy shocks banks with 40 percent windfall tax for 2023

#74

Post by tomatocracy » Wed, Aug 09, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #73

tomatocracy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the rule against perpetuities ever prohibited the creation of very long leaseholds, so long as the lease itself vested within the period, because the reversion would already have been vested at the grant of the lease. There are plenty of examples of 999-year leases granted in the 19th century for example.

Yes, it looks like you're quite right. Thanks for correcting me! I've confirmed it with several sources, from several different legal systems: > The rule is not concerned with the duration of interests. A lease for 999 years does not violate the rule; nor does an estate in fee simple, which may last for ever. The rule is satisfied if an interest must 'vest' within the per- petuity period, even though the interest may…

The interesting thing (to me at least) about the rule against perpetuities is that it never prevented (at least in England) the the one thing you would have thought it was actually aimed at - fee tail estates (ie interests in land which are essentially a series of life tenancies to heirs specified at the original grant) because those were specifically provided for by statute (although other ways to get out of entailed estates were devised).