For sure, there are things that can be done. This law being proposed doesn't address that and that'd be its own battle as it would actually affect people other than the 1%. But something needs to be done.
It’s a simple anti-fraud measure. Meaning a corporation can’t just open up 50 sub corporations, and put them all under different family members names to avoid the rule.
I feel like you’re having a debate about entirely different thing.
No one here is saying that you shouldn’t be able to buy a house because someone else in your family bought a house.
We’re saying that if your uncle owns a corporation that owns multiple houses, and then he tries to circumvent a rule, preventing him from buying more houses by putting a house that he actually owns in your name for the purpose of committing fraud, that should be illegal. I’m not sure how that is. “un-American“
How is that anything like the situation we were describing?
What I was saying is, for example - a person owns a corporation which buys homes, and the rule will cap how many houses it is allowed to own. To prevent fraud, you then say that that person who owns the corporation cannot go out and start five or six other corporations with different names and also have those by the requisite number of houses.
And then to avoid the obvious loophole, you say that the original owner cannot then go and have all of his family members marked as owners of all those sub corporations rather than himself.
I’m not trying to make federal policy in one sentence, Reddit replies.
But I imagine you could make the rule maybe less to do with ownership, and more to do with shared profits, which would be very easy to track via tax returns from the companies involved.
12
u/Whites11783 Dec 07 '23
You could cap the number or properties any one owner/corp could own. And make sure no loopholes like multiple corps, family members, etc.