Drones Reveal Widespread Tax Evasion In Argentina

Tailhook (98486) writes "The Argentine government has used drones to reveal 200 homes and 100 pools in an upper class area about ten miles south of Buenos Aires that had not been detailed on tax returns. Tax officials said the drones took pictures of luxury houses standing on lots registered as empty. The evasions found by the drones amounted to missing tax payments of more than $2 million and owners of the properties have been warned they now face large fines."

Comments

Someone's going to complain

[i kan reed]

But A. this isn't the US with a 4th amendment, and B. There's nothing invasive about doing standard surveying work automatically.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[MightyYar]

In the US, this would be "Google Maps Reveals Widespread Tax Evasion"

Re:Someone's going to complain

[tbuddy]

a) Their constitution is based on ours. b) It's not really standard surveying work when it is targeting a specific area to collect money from tax evaders with drones and it is most certainly invasive if they are comparing it against people's tax documents.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Tailhook]

But but but Drones! Government Drones!!!1

Nailing rich people though........ I bet this particular case of government drones gathering intelligence on citizens gets a pass. Because on Slashdot, the only thing worse than rich people are their corporations. This site came to mind pretty fast when I spotted this story.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Em Adespoton]

You're right -- it depends upon how it was done. If they were just surveying an area where there were rumours of expensive houses, and then cross-referenced that against actual claims, that should be fine. If they were taking the claims of all rich people with undeveloped land and visiting those areas to see if the land was actually undeveloped, that wouldn't be a survey, that'd be an investigation.

Of course, in either case, it'd be legal. The only way it wouldn't be was if they were intentionally targeting an individual in any way they could (like the US did with Al Capone).

Lesson: don't file fraudulent returns.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess its invasive to take a picture from a plane, then? They're just surveying the area, not peeking into people's windows.

There's a law called the open fields doctrine in the US that says, basically, if you can see the property from the road, even if there's a fence, then it's public.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you build a house in the US without a special permission and approved plans? What if you build a house without permissions and it is big enough that you could see it from air? Could you just call the 4th amendment in order to not need a permission to build a house?
I am from Argentina. We have a lot of rich people who never ask permission for anything, including deforestation for soybean planting, and never pay taxes. Big houses is just the tip of the iceberg, and we will use it as a mean to follow the money.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[i kan reed]

Yes, you can in the US. It might be illegal, but so is tax evasion. Pick a remote locality without much enforcement. Build there using under the table labor.

Then in a few years, die in an electrical fire thanks to illegally poor wiring.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[smooth wombat]

The general answer to all your questions is no. You can't build a house on any plot of land you feel like. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will correct me, but the basic route to building a house on a piece of land, as opposed to buying an already existing house, is:

1) Buy the land. This generally involves you and a broker but it could also be done through private parties (i.e. from you to me). In either case there is a record of who owns what, the amount they paid and, most importantly, a record with the local government of who now owns the land

This last step is crucial as it prevents an agent from selling the same piece of property to different people or someone building on someone else's land.

2) Find a home builder. Once you own the land you have to find someone to build your house unless you're going to do it yourself. Regardless, this involves filings with your local government to make sure the building meets the local requirements for water and sewer (whether on the land or through the public service), certain structural designs and so on. Since every municipality is different, some are more lenient than others but you still have to notify them you're going to build your house so they can determine how much tax you will pay on it (again, depending on the municipality. Some places don't charge tax on property, others do).

The 4th Amendment does not enter into this in any way. The 4th Amendment only comes into play once you have your property. The police can't walk in just to see if you're doing anything wrong.

To sum up, if you're building a house anywhere in the U.S. you have to file enough paperwork that everyone will know about it. If by chance you were able to build a house without anyone realizing it and were then found out, you'd have a lot of legal issues to take care of.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

Google Street View, Google Satellite View are all now being used by lazy local governments.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[hey!]

FYI, this came up many years ago in the US. Defendants challenged the admissibility of evidence from aerial observations. The courts pretty much held that since the police are allowed to fly helicopters and airplanes over your house, anything that they observe while doing so is admissible under the 4th Amendment.

The basic rule for criminal evidence is that the cops can make observations from anyplace they're allowed to be. If they're standing on a sidewalk and see a marijuana plant in your front window, that's probable cause. Same if they walk up to your front door. They can look around any non-fenced areas on your property too. They can't stand in the bushes and peek through your windows, unless they have some other business being there (hint: do not have a burglar alarm if you're growing weed anywhere someone can see it through a window).

So if the cops can see your mj plants (or pool) from the air or some unfenced part of your yard, you're toast.

The rules for adminsitrative searches (e.g. code enforcement or tax enforcement) are much more lenient than criminal searches. Administrative searches often don't require a warrant, or if they do the warrants are much easier to obtain.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[TWX]

a) Their constitution is based on ours. b) It's not really standard surveying work when it is targeting a specific area to collect money from tax evaders with drones and it is most certainly invasive if they are comparing it against people's tax documents.

It falls into rules governing being in plain sight. In the United States, cities and counties use Google Maps and other aerial surveillance to look for nonpermitted structures and other construction that hasn't properly been paid for. If I were to put up an awning or accessory structure over a certain size I could be hit with penalties from both a lack of permit and a lack of reporting the improvement for property-tax purposes. That's perfectly legal for them to do.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

And I can't help but think, good on them.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will complain and they got money (so they already got goods attorneys) and they will sue the state.

Buenos Aires province as always used bad techniques (some illegal like this one) to threat people and make them declare they proprieties and pay taxes. The error here is to make this action public. In the old days they use air photograph to see if there were something dirty but they send an inspector to knock on the door. And do the inspection. You can check if the propriety has a pool without entering it (and you will not get in without a court order) but you can see if it's empty or not, or if declared as a small house and it's really a castle.

Also the title of this article should be: "Drones discover that municipal (or state) inspector don't do their job" (or get paid to look away).
You can't build a big freaking house without nobody notice it.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[mark-t]

"and then some"?

What.... did they take stuff from other people too?

Re:Someone's going to complain

[brainboyz]

Actually, in many areas you don't need building permits or permission to do anything you'd like. It has to pass safety inspection in order for you to sell it, but you can build and live in your own house. Most areas want their cut in taxes and permit fees if you build, however.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[mwvdlee]

Wordprocessors are used by lazy typists and compilers are used by lazy programmers.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[aardvarkjoe]

Google Street View, Google Satellite View are all now being used by lazy local governments.

A rare example of governments using a cheap, effective method to do their jobs rather than finding an expensive and inefficient way to do it.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

>This site came to mind pretty fast when I spotted this story.

Your mind wanders faster than that of a Fox News bubblehead.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

But A. this isn't the US with a 4th amendment, and B. There's nothing invasive about doing standard surveying work automatically.

That's OK. There's nothing relevant about the 4th amendment either.

No, not even in the US.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[mwvdlee]

Yeah, why aren't they taking on all the poor people buying vacant lots and building houses with pools on them?

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

"and then some"?

What.... did they take stuff from other people too?

It's a figure of speech. Get out a little more.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to sound snarky, but is meant as a suggestion. You preempted a comment that hadn't happened yet, you brought in an argument that didn't need to happen (as you said yourself). There was no reason for your post in the context of this conversation.

Re: Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an exaggeration and lazy communication.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than walking around in your back yard, which they do too.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

In most other places, this would have been "government worker finds luxury homes on supposedly empty lots without the use of drones. Because it was only 10 miles out of the city limits, so it shouldn't have been a big stretch for someone to just drive out and have a look."

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Cyberdyne]

In the US, this would be "Google Maps Reveals Widespread Tax Evasion"

In the UK, even before Google got in there, the government was using spy satellites to check on things like farm subsidies: when a farm submits a claim saying there's a 100 acre patch empty (to claim "setaside" payments) or has a highly subsidised crop growing, it's quick and easy to check a satellite photo and know if it's really only 90 acres - or if only the strip nearest the road is as claimed, with a big patch of some more profitable crop hidden inside. Compared to the cost of sending someone there by car to inspect the whole field on foot, using satellites (which of course they had in orbit anyway, for more predictable purposes) apparently it saved a fortune.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

Its stale. I've got news for you Google Street View and Satellite images can be years old. If I were relying on it for up to date information then I'd be mistaken. My house on street view was taken in 2010. A lot has changed since then.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

They took future wages. 'then some'

Pedantic much?

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Maxo-Texas]

Yea, I kinda want a 20x30 rollup "roof" or "pool" that I can put out on poles or roll out on the ground.

Then put them away after google shows I've added a room or pool.

he he.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Wordprocessors are used by thorough typists and compilers are used by thorough programmers.

Unless you'd like the software in the ECU in your car to have been implemented without the use of a compiler, that is...

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Calydor]

Whoosh.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[UnknownSoldier]

/Oblg. *Ogg* the caveman shakes first* All those lazy bastards using the wheel ...

* No, NOT the /. troll Ogg ...

Re:Someone's going to complain

[rogoshen1]

No, I think in the US this *WILL BE*
"FBI, IRS, ATF, State DMV's, DHS, DEA, and ICE use drones to reveal criminal activities of 25% of the population, resulting in the remaining 75% being under even closer scrutiny."

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

> A lot has changed since then

I see what you did there

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

While there may be some changes houses aren't built/torn down and pools aren't dug/filled in that regularly, especially in the economic downturn. An assessor using street view/aerial (most of the imagery from such services is actually taken from aircraft) is probably pretty darn close 99% of the time. If they're wrong the homeowner can always complain to the assessor who can take it off the assessment.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Inzkeeper]

Its stale. I've got news for you Google Street View and Satellite images can be years old. If I were relying on it for up to date information then I'd be mistaken. My house on street view was taken in 2010. A lot has changed since then.

That may be true but...
This is a logical starting point:

1. The drone snaps pictures of undocumented development.
2. Now they send in an inspector to verify and, having done so, start the process of reassessing the property.
3. Send new taxation notice
4. PROFIT!!!

Re:Someone's going to complain

[JimSadler]

And many agencies pay finders' fees for recovery of due assets. Perhaps a survey by private drone could yield quite a few tax violators and provide a living for those that hunt them down. Consider them modern bounty hunters.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[aardvarkjoe]

Its stale. I've got news for you Google Street View and Satellite images can be years old. If I were relying on it for up to date information then I'd be mistaken. My house on street view was taken in 2010. A lot has changed since then.

How much is that more-up-to-date information worth to you?

Depending on what the government is using it for, using street view or maps images may or may not be effective. A blanket statement characterizing it as "lazy" doesn't make sense until you have determined whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[LWATCDR]

Is it really? You can probably buy satellite images pretty cheap today. Or you could just rent a plane and a pilot. If the area is large enough it would probably both faster and cheaper than using an RC quadcopter.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[tompaulco]

An assessor using street view/aerial (most of the imagery from such services is actually taken from aircraft) is probably pretty darn close 99% of the time.

Our assessors don't even get that fancy. They just use a standard calculator to calculate the maximum allowable increase in property value allowable by law and then that is what your house is worth this year.
If you wish to contest it, by all means pay $500 for an independent appraisal which might be thrown out by the judge or might be accepted and might even save you something less than the $500 you spent on the appraisal.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[mark-t]

I actually wasn't trying to be pedantic.... I genuinely did not see the point that was being made. If they imposed a debt above and beyond everything he owned, then yeah... I can see how that is "and then some", but when I read the sentence, I was quite thoroughly baffled as to how that could have been without them taking things from other people (presumably relatives or something).

Now if I *were* to be pedantic, I might have pointed out that since the uncle was in a position to be giving that advice in the first place, it is patently obvious that they did *NOT* take everything that he owned.... since he still had his own life, and the wisdom he acquired through the experience being discussed, arguing that both of these are certainly just as much things that he owns as any material possessions could be.

But I'm not trying to be pedantic, so while I've admittedly mentioned it here in passing, I don't intend to dispute the point.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[EvilSS]

a) Their constitution is based on ours. b) It's not really standard surveying work when it is targeting a specific area to collect money from tax evaders with drones and it is most certainly invasive if they are comparing it against people's tax documents.

You do know that state and county governments in the US have been using aerial photography to help validate tax records for decades now, right? Where do you think Google got all those aerial shots in the early days of Google Earth? The only news here is "...with a drone!!"

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many areas of the US that do not require extensive building permits or at least ones that enforced at the local level. The permit required may be as simple as you forking over $100 with a general description of what you are doing and being done with it. No inspections, or anything before, during or after. The state may have default requirements but many states do not have an enforcement division. Similar to federal vehicle emissions laws.
It is a federal offense to remove or disable emissions equipment on your vehicle regardless of age or use but many states or jurisdictions in the state never actually inspect it or only inspect cars less then 20 years old in populated areas. That does not mean those not getting inspected are free to rip out their catalytic convertors. I've never seen federal emissions police pulling over cars although I'm sure they are somewhere.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you feel you aren't paying enough property taxes, and or fines for failing to obtain building permits?

Most people would want fake grass so as to disguise the value additions they've made without reporting/obtaining building permits, rathe than the other way around.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I know right? Worst of all are the layabout engineers with their AutoCAD and Solidworks. Whatever is wrong with a good old drafting table and slide rule, nobody bothered to tell me.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[MickLinux]

nobody bothered to tell you? There's an app for that, you know.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

I don't know about you but any drones flying overhead become skeet practice. There's no need for any government to use this shit on their citizens. The root cause here is taxation and I get that but governments around the world need to get out of peoples' collective pockets. Property taxes are the worst kind of regressive tax because it taxes you on something that you paid taxes on to obtain. Sure, if a lot is being developed that the government doesn't know about, that's a bigger issue at least here in the US. Building codes etc. may be violated and it could be unsafe. If that's happening in Argentina then its very poor and lazy government workers who didn't catch that in the first place. Building a pool or a deck with money I'm taxed already when earning, then turning around and taxing me for the added valuation for that improvement amounts to theft. Because of that kind of mentality when my neighbor builds a $70,000 pool, deck, outdoor kitchen etc. The dumbshit taxing authorities say that improvement is only worth $20,000 (real case here) and tax him only based on that amount not what he spent. When the guy goes and sells his house goes for $100+K more than mine because of the improvement. That then causes the retarded taxing authority to say now that my house is worth $100K more too and will tax me on that valuation. That's called tax creep where the government raises your taxes based on what your neighbors do. How fair is that? Not at all.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

In the case of Argentina it sounds like they're flat out lazy. How can you not see a house built on a lot that was supposedly vacant? You have to plat the lot, take out permits presumably and then have inspections. Maybe in Argentina they don't have building codes? I doubt that but somebody isn't doing their job. In the US my google satellite view of my house shows a car I sold 7 years ago. Time to buy camo tenting and drape it over every square inch of my exposed yard area, or at least where I'd park a car. Lazy is when now during re-appraisals (which we go through annually here) means that they have to have an up to date photo of the property to assess "condition" We caught them last year using a 6 year old Google Street View image. That's lazy and I already pay well enough for these morons to just drive around and get up to date information, it's in the tax law for my state and we caught them not doing their job. Lazy fucks. These are the same retards who valued a $15million dollar estate (which was being sold for almost three times that) for $6million on the books. Fair? No. Lazy, yes.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

camo netting. Where's the nearest Army Surplus again?

Re:Someone's going to complain

[aardvarkjoe]

In the case of Argentina it sounds like they're flat out lazy. How can you not see a house built on a lot that was supposedly vacant? You have to plat the lot, take out permits presumably and then have inspections. Maybe in Argentina they don't have building codes? I doubt that but somebody isn't doing their job.

In the case of Argentina, they're not using Google Maps (etc.) They're going out and taking pictures of the property, getting timely evidence. That's what the whole article is about -- them using drones to do their job.

Lazy is when now during re-appraisals (which we go through annually here) means that they have to have an up to date photo of the property to assess "condition" We caught them last year using a 6 year old Google Street View image. That's lazy and I already pay well enough for these morons to just drive around and get up to date information, it's in the tax law for my state and we caught them not doing their job.

If they legally need a photo less than a year old, and they're instead grabbing photos off of Google, then yes, they're using Google inappropriately, and it's fair to call it lazy.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

True that. Argentina's dictatorship has proven to be completely incompetent at managing funds (although better than the 'murrican republicrats, obviously) so it makes sense to deny them taxes that would be misspent by morons.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[snsh]

Since the 1990's cities have had their own street-view like platforms. Both the data-collection and the UI were not nearly as refined as street-view is today. Cities would pay to have vans photograph the streets every couple of years. The vans had only 1 or 2 cameras, and the Windows software was crude and hard to use, but still saved a lot of time compared to dispatching an inspector to check for things like newly installed decks, carports, and sheds.

Re: Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really complaining they don't look for pools in poor people's "properties" (often illegally invaded)? Even if they found a pool the poor sob wouldn't pay for it.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[kelemvor4]

I don't know about you but any drones flying overhead become skeet practice.

Is prison really that attractive to you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

the opposite decision was reached in Washington state over a decade ago.

the city got itself a fancy IR scanner on it's police helicopter. While on flights, the extra heat of pot grow operations would stand out like a beacon, contributing to probable cause and sending a cruiser out to investigate. Super effective.

So effective that the city of Bellevue was taken to court and sued to stop using the IR scanner. They first had to obtain a search warrant for a specific address, activate the camera, then if a heat signature of a grow house showed up, use that to call the cruisers. Or, you know, if they had enough to get a warrant, they could skip the helicopter scan. Which they pretty much did. The camera, when active, was only for extra evidence while providing the usual overwatch while the ground raid was in progress.

Seems drug dealers got enough cash to hire (or already had as customers) lawyers good enough to claim and demonstrate that the use of an infrared scanner over a large area WAS a direct violation of the 4th.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

it'll be laughs until you get the tax bill and lein. as with all tax and government money-hoovering, burden of proof is not on them, but YOU. Sure you can spend a lot of money to defend yourself and prove that it was a fake pool or a prank roof, but until you do, you're on the hook.

Remember kids, you own nothing major in the US. Cars, real estate-all require constant rent payments (taxes) or the government takes it back.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[hey!]

The IR thing puts a somewhat different spin on matters, because it's a step towards seeing through walls. A case like this came in front of SCOTUS a few years ago and even Scalia balked at giving IR detection his blessing.

Last time I looked into this the courts were still working out where sensory enhancement/extension crosses over the line. If someone were being loaded into an ambulance and you overheard the conversation, no foul. But if you couldn't hear the conversation and used a parabolic mic, that would cross the line. But what if your cell phone camera happens to have a really good mic? At some point the extension of the normal sensory capabilities begins to intrude on normal "expectations of privacy".

Re:Someone's going to complain

[rtb61]

Just plain nuts. The road and footpath out the front that provides access to your property. The sewerage system that removes the shite you produce. The stormwater system that keeps your property from being flooded. Access for communications systems. Emergency services including police and fire brigade. Schools, apparently you need some education. Local taxes versus Federal 'income' taxes. Some sort of planning control to prevent neighbouring property being turned into a dump. I gather you want everyone else but you to pay for them because when you pay for them it is theft and when everyone else pays for them it is your right.

So local communities keeping your property viable and yes, you have to pay for it.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[mattack2]

Property taxes are the worst kind of regressive tax because it taxes you on something that you paid taxes on to obtain.

What do you mean? I didn't pay any sales tax when I bought my house, AFAIK. (If I did, I need to redo my income taxes and deduct that! It wasn't a new house, I've always wondered if they had to pay sales tax.)

I think a lot of taxes should go down, but a property tax seems like one of the more REASONABLE taxes. Owning property means you live there (or at least have an interest there, e.g. rental property), so the taxes go for local needs.

Re: Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes by building permits taxes on material income taxes for the revenue to pay for it. There's a lot of ways they get you hooks into you. Live in an apartment? Those all get passed onto you. Oh and a lot of cities now charge for emergency services above and beyond what they collect already. Don't forget utility taxes on everything as well as utility concessions

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Maxo-Texas]

You guys are missing the point.

They have a google photo showing you have a pool or addon and you show them there isn't a pool or addon.

Leaves them scratching their head.

Sure... it would cost you some time-- but ALL good pranks do.

Would drive them crazy after a while.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Richard_at_work]

Or just houses - shacks and the like. You think shanty towns have planning permission or generate property taxes...?

Re:Someone's going to complain

[xvan]

Last time I checked, google maps didn't have good images of zones presumed not populated. This last tax actualization was made after 15+ years, so Argentina's government doesn't give a shit about being portrayed as lazy.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Anonymous Coward]

In Argentina, this could have been "Google Maps" reveals tax invaders. I'll bet google maps shows these properties as well.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[GameboyRMH]

You can view the age of an image and see images from different times using the full Google Earth client app.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

And I pay taxes on that, taxes to change a fence or a fees for a sprinkler system. I pay sewer tax, I pay for schools and I pay for drainage and infrastructure.
I pay a commission tax on my Internet, one on my electricity, my gas and water. I also pay Federal and Local taxes for roads etc. Every single solitary thing I do in life is basically taxed. I'll also compare how much I give the fucking feds compared to you any day. My point was that if I put an "improvement" onto a property, that I payed tax on the laborers were taxed on the pay they received, what gives the government the right to then assess, annually, a value added tax on that? I'll tell you, they have no fucking right. Why? Because if I sell my house for more than I paid for it and don't reinvest it I'm supposed to pay a capital gains tax. You can't win, you're taxed to death in the US. SO, dumbass, Yes I do pay taxes on everything and its getting worse every stinking year and the last fucking thing I need is some more taxation or some fucking bureaucrat snooping around looking for some other fucking reason to extract more money out of my wallet.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

Sales taxes were impressed upon the building materials or were taxed against the business profits of the developer. You're paying for those hidden costs in the price you pay. When I close on a house I have to pay the taxes for assessed property valuation. It's not a sales tax, it's a property tax. I also live in a special "improvement district" with taxes for shit that I don't even use. When you sell your house, unless you reinvest in another property and have a property you then have capital gains to consider. You're caught coming or going, it doesn't matter. The best plan is to live under a bridge in a tent.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

Yeah that's how I caught the local assessment district, in the corner there was a faint (c) google with the year. They were violating state law, which didn't sit well with the arbitration board. Lazy civil servants.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[david_thornley]

I've got a slide rule app on my phone. Is there a good drafting table app? (Probably not real useful with the screen size, unfortunately.)

Re:Someone's going to complain

[david_thornley]

If they're grabbing photos off Google that are more than a year old, and using them as a lead for investigators who collect actual current evidence, that may be proper use. Consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[whitroth]

"Lazy local governments"? Odd choice of phraseology. Should that be "local governemts leveraging freely-available technological solutions to save tax dollars"?

                  mark

Re:Someone's going to complain

[AK Marc]

In either case there is a record of who owns what, the amount they paid and, most importantly, a record with the local government of who now owns the land

I've never told a government what I paid. I've bought land in two countries, and three states within the US.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[stoatwblr]

"How can you not see a house built on a lot that was supposedly vacant?"

Gated areas where officials simply can't go without good reason.

Having seen it from the air you can get a warrant to inspect on the ground, whereas asking for a warrant on suspicion that people were fibbing would probably be thrown out as a fishing expedition.

In all liklihood someone who works in the department noticed the development from a commercial flight and realised there was a lot more housing there than the maps said there was.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[Virtucon]

So why not fly around in a plane over the area? You don't need a drone. This is another dumb example of how a cheap toy ( $1000) device is being warranted as a savior. Nope, sorry this is malfeasance on the part of local officials.

Re:Someone's going to complain

[rtb61]

Of course if you want to pay less tax you need to revise administration of some functions of government. For example emergency services should all go from local to state funding and management, this of course eliminates management systems replicated hundreds of times, a huge savings. Schools should go from local to state funding and management, again management systems replicated hundreds of times eliminated, a huge savings. All hospitals and medical services, again huge savings. Even sewerage should go from local to state management and major sewerage farms could service many communities, taking gravity into account. Cut back local government, to local streets and footpaths, local parks, stormwater systems, community services like libraries and, community centres and of course planning and approvals. Their main role should be pursuing the state for greater provision of other services. Now you can just whine and whine and whine or you can be proactive. Want to save taxes then cut out repeated systems of management and do so real bureaucracy trimming. Savings in there could be as high as 50%, huge. Even federal tax savings, as management of provision of funding is cut back from monitoring thousands to just 50 again a huge savings. Of course just whining about it and pointing out to those who monitor this forum how much you absolutely hate and loath paying taxes, will work much better.

I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[hey!]

Only they were using aerial, then later satellite photos. We scanned the aerials, orthorectified them then registered them in a coordinate system for the city's GIS. They'd overlay a lot map and go plot by plot looking for pools, decks, and additions that weren't in the property tax database. These were mostly wealthy towns in Connecticut where this stuff added up to real money.

Now of course you can do that with Google Maps, if you don't mind waiting 1-3 years to catch people.

Just because you do *exactly the same thing* with a slightly different tool doesn't make it new. Back from those days one of the senior managers used to come into my office and say, "I just read about this patent where --" and I'd cut him off right there.

"This isn't going to be another one of those things where they take something people have been doing for ages with LORAN and substitute GPS, is it?" I ask.

"Well..."

"I don't want to hear about it. Whatever it is the patent is sure not to stand up to scrutiny, but I still don't want them holding treble damages over our head."

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you build underground and/or use camouflage tactics to maintain or obscure the current profile.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just pay your taxes.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[angel'o'sphere]

What surprises me is: how can a country "of the free" have a property tax on a swiming pool?
At least that is what I get from your and other posts.
The only simple explanation I see is, the tax is based on the 'value' of the areal, which might be higher if there is a pool.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[HornWumpus]

Especially strange considering that a pool adds about $0 to the resale value of a house.

They are a pain in the ass and/or expensive to maintain.

Sacramento has a beautiful river that often features drunk, naked college girls. What price can you put on that?

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Fwipp]

You get your home assessed for the purposes of determining the value of your property, including the structures you have on it. A pool increases the value, and hence, your property tax.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[hey!]

What surprises me is: how can a country "of the free" have a property tax on a swiming pool?
At least that is what I get from your and other posts.
The only simple explanation I see is, the tax is based on the 'value' of the areal, which might be higher if there is a pool.

Yes, you've got it right. They tax the value of the property, which is supposedly higher if you put in the pool; at the very least that would trigger a revaluation in some jurisdictions. The same would happen if you added on a porch or a new wing. There is no "porch" or "new wing" tax, just a tax on the value of the property.

I don't know what it is you got from my other posts. I don't make the law, I'm just reporting what it is, which I've learned by taking a couple of night classes in IT related law that I took to keep up with new developments that might affect my work. Most of this stuff isn't new, however. The "open fields doctrine" dates back to 1924. The ruling that surveillance from the air does not violate the 4th Amendment dates from 1989 (Florida v Riley).

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[BenSchuarmer]

Why do you hate our freedom?

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Chris Mattern]

The only simple explanation I see is, the tax is based on the 'value' of the areal, which might be higher if there is a pool.

Which would be exactly correct. Real estate taxes are levied on the appraised value of the real estate, which a pool would increase.

Note that this is even more clear-cut, because we're not just talking about a pool, but a piece of real estate documented to the taxman as a vacant lot with not just a pool, but an entire mansion, which, of course, raises the value of the property by quite a lot.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[hey!]

Especially strange considering that a pool adds about $0 to the resale value of a house.

That probably depends on the part of the country you're in, but you're probably right in most places.

There's another angle to consider, which is that in some places the property value for tax purposes is rarely updated. That means in those places many if not most properties are undervalued for tax purposes. And voters aren't keen on stepping up the pace of re-appraisals because a lot of them are paying taxes on valuations from ten years ago, sometimes longer. And if you get reappraised before your neighbors, you'll feel hard done by.

Ah, but you made and improvement to your property. Of course we have to update the appraisal. And even if that improvement hasn't added a nickel to the resale value of your home, you may find yourself paying ten or twenty percent more tax, even more depending on what the market is like in your area and how long it's been since your property value was updated.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[CopaceticOpus]

Orthorectified 'em? Nearly killed 'em!

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Darinbob]

Isn't the property tax most places based upon the value of the home? So adding a pool will increase the value of the home. Normally though there's a tax assessor that goes around and should be looking at every lot and assign a new assessed value, though in practice I think they just google if the prices in the neighborhood have gone up or down.

A lot of government in the US works by assuming most people are generally lawful, and they're not going to just start adding rooms onto the house without filing the paperwork first. For taxes they do some random audits on a small subset. This generally works, those breaking the rules aren't too many and don't get away with it for too long (often neighbors turn them in, they get very nosy when construction starts). But this all breaks down if you have wholesale cheating going on, such as Greeks with taxes awhile back, and perhaps these Argentinean neighborhoods.

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[Darinbob]

Depends upon where you are. When I was growing up in the hot central valley, a swimming pool absolutely added to the home's value (not the above ground type though).

Re:I had clients that did this in the 90s.

[HornWumpus]

In Sacramento (Better then Bakersfield/Frezno/Stockton/Lodi but still hot and shitty) they don't add any value and typically slow down the sale.

Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all know that it will make the world a better place. Eh hem.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[i kan reed]

It'll certainly make things a little easier on the non-tax cheats who have to pay more to cover these assholes.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Virtucon]

You haven't taken anything but you have deprived the powers that be of being able to tax you for something which you purchased with taxed funds. Property taxes to me are one of the evil problems we have. Considering the construction crews who built it payed income tax as well as the materials probably all had taxes on those including sales taxes. Governments these days aren't happy unless they squeeze every last penny out of you.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[WillAdams]

The township has a certain set of fixed costs which it has to meet every year.

Taxes are set so as to raise that amount, apportioned as decided by the lawmakers and voters.

People who fail to pay on unreported improvements aren't adhering to the agreed-upon social contract, placing a larger requirement for payments/burden on those who are.

If you don't like the taxes in an area, move, or participate in your local government to get things changed.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why you cheat is irrelevant. And property taxes, while universally hated, are legal.

The U.S. will never be the island-unto-yourself frontier utopia you keep romanticizing about.

--

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

The township has a certain set of fixed costs which it has to meet every year.

Stuff like street maintenance, right? Is a property's burden on the streets proportional to the property's value or the property's street frontage?

Cities and towns usually get this answer wrong, and that causes a lot of problems such as those we saw in the real estate crash.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[fleadope]

This is a partial answer, and misleading, at best. A significant portion of the value of a given property is due to the services provided by the governemt - not just streets, but education, law enforcement, fire protection, etc... The same size house in Mississippi is worth orders of magnitude less that the same building in San Francisco. The owner derives benefit proportional to that value, and therefore has the social burden of paying for that benefit.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

"evil"

Not sure that word means what you think it does...

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

The value of education isn't proportional to the property's value. Law enforcement probably is.

Fire protection should be billed to the property owner's insurance in order to provide the proper incentive to use fireproof building materials, and to clear away brush in areas prone to wildfires.

In California, we make a distinction between taxes and fees. For example, a fee is:

A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege

I would rather pay such fees than taxes, wouldn't you?

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[vux984]

Stuff like street maintenance, right? Is a property's burden on the streets proportional to the property's value or the property's street frontage?

So if you highrise apartment block with 500 families occupying a 'city block' vs a 10 homes occupying another city block. The 10 families in the 10 homes should each pay 50x the property taxes as the high rise tenants?

Because the highrise properties burden on the towns resources is less?! Sure maybe for snow clearing on that particular street. But water? garbage removal? schools? Libraries? Recreation centers? Parks? Sewers? Why is the home owners share of all that 50x as much exactly?

Cities and towns usually get this answer wrong, and that causes a lot of problems such as those we saw in the real estate crash

I disagree completely.

Condo stratas tend to divide costs pro-rated by each units square footage. Cities tend to divide costs by an assessment of value. Within a strata that works out pretty close to being the same thing -- larger (more valuable) units pay slightly more... but across a city a penthouse downtown is woth 20x a home in the suburbs even if the home is larger.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

The 10 families in the 10 homes should each pay 50x the property taxes as the high rise tenants?

The assessment for street maintenance on the property taxes for the 10 homes should each be 50 times that of an apartment unit.

But water?

Yes, water infrastructure costs less per unit in an apartment building than a single-family home. But this should be on everyone's water bills, not their taxes.

Garbage removal?

Yes, it's easier to haul away trash from a single dumpster than from trash barrels serving the same number of homes. But this should be on everyone's trash collection fees, not their taxes.

schools? Libraries? Recreation centers? Parks?

These things are probably about the same cost for condos as for single-family homes.

Sewers?

Yes, like water. Remember, the cost of sewers also depends on the amount of impermeable surface on each property.

Cities tend to divide costs by an assessment of value. Within a strata that works out pretty close to being the same thing

That's a pretty clumsy and inexact way to assess property taxes, and it encourages urban sprawl when the property's burden on infrastructure isn't properly reflected in property taxes.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[nephilimsd]

In addition to value being a multi-dependant variable, there is also an aspect of progressivism to property tax as a value of property. The ability for a person owning a million dollar home to shoulder higher proportional burden for maintaining society is greater than the ability for a person owning a $100,000 home, which in turn is likely to be higher than an average renter. Additionally, the owner has more vested interest in maintaining a local area without simply up and leaving, due to the increased effort required in selling the existing property and purchasing elsewhere. Finally, assuming that homeowners do not like to see blight growing in their area, and assuming this risk grows as value grows, it continues to make more sense to tax the value of the improvements on land than other, more regressive tax schemes.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not always so simple. Just recently NPR, or maybe Marketplace, covered how many towns do not have automatic property tax re-evaluations. Therefore some communities allow home owners to keep paying their decades old tax evaluation while over taxing those who buy houses more recently.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[vux984]

The assessment for street maintenance on the property taxes for the 10 homes should each be 50 times that of an apartment unit.

Based on what? Most of the maintenance costs are for the bridges overpasses, main thoroughfares, and other shared items. Not the roads in front of my house.

Yes, it's easier to haul away trash from a single dumpster than from trash barrels serving the same number of homes.

Slightly easier sure, but the highrise produces 50x as much trash. So instead of 10 trashcans once a week they need to haul away 5 dumpsters worth every day.

Yes, water infrastructure costs less per unit in an apartment building than a single-family home.

Not really. The infrastructure is shared, but its much more complicated due to the volume needed, and maintenance is much more expensive. In the suburbs you can put up a couple pylons and just dig a hole to do what needs doing. Downtown you'll need flag people to help redirect traffic, you may need coordinate access to buildings, or involve other utilities etc. There's literally a lot more concrete everywere so its not nearly as simple. And it goes without saying that the highrise block uses 50x as much.

But this should be on everyone's trash collection fees, not their taxes.
[re sewer, water, garbage, recyling...]

Why? What's the point? Why split them them up if its not metered and its a service by the city? In some places I've lived they are part of the taxes, in others they are private companies and billed separately... in others they are on a separate 'utility bill' from the city. But if they aren't metered (which in most cases they are pro-rated by property value.

The idea being that... bigger more expensive homes with more people and more bathrooms will use more water. That breaks down a bit when you've got smaller units down town that cost more, but

These things are probably about the same cost for condos as for single-family homes.

Right. Along with policing, fire departments etc. Clearly placing the burden based on roadside frontage is far far more clumsy and inexact.

and it encourages urban sprawl when the property's burden on infrastructure isn't properly reflected in property taxes.

And your proposal using frontage is categorically worse.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

the highrise produces 50x as much trash. So instead of 10 trashcans once a week they need to haul away 5 dumpsters worth every day.

Let's say a single dumpster handles the trash of 25 apartment units. So you'll need 20 dumpsters for the 500-unit apartment block. For 500 single-family homes, you'll need 500 trash barrels. Which do you think is easier to service, 20 dumpsters or 500 barrels?

In the suburbs you can put up a couple pylons and just dig a hole to do what needs doing. Downtown you'll need flag people to help redirect traffic, you may need coordinate access to buildings, or involve other utilities etc.

Despite all that, dense development is much more cost-effective in city services than single-family homes. For example, per unit, a mixed-use development produced a total of $3,370 in public revenue annually, while costing the local government about $1,400 per year in infrastructure maintenance, policing, fire response, and other general fund obligations. In comparison, the traditional suburban development...generated only half the revenue â" $1,620 per year â" and cost more to service â" $1,600.

So my question is, why should poor renters subsidize middle- and upper-class homeowners? By defending this kind of reverse welfare, you come off as being in favor of it.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

Yet it's the inner cities, where poor people live, that heavily subsidize the suburbs, where middle- and upper-class people live.

It's interesting how people rationalize this kind of reverse welfare by calling anything else "regressive."

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[vux984]

For 500 single-family homes, you'll need 500 trash barrels. Which do you think is easier to service, 20 dumpsters or 500 barrels?

I don't dispute that the apartment may be easier to service. I'm just pointing out that its nowhere near 50x as difficult to serve the homes despite them having 50x time 'frontage'. Hauling 3 dumpters a day from one building or collecting garbage from 10 blocks... sure the individual cans is going to be more work... but not THAT much more. If you want to charge them more, fine... but not 50x more.

Despite all that, dense development is much more cost-effective in city services than single-family homes.

I don't really disagree with you here. But its a question of scale. Your frontage proposal puts the ratio at the home owner paying 50x as much, when the real differential is MUCH MUCH less.

Addtionally your link doesn't factor in the fact that the 'urban developments' were mixed use -- 6 million feet of commerical space in the gulch. commerical space tends to be far more expensive than residential. So while it makes a very good case for infill development vs a suburb its not really comparing apple to apples with respect to our debate.

So my question is, why should poor renters subsidize middle- and upper-class homeowners

They aren't. Poor renters, and poor owners are in the least expensive housing, and pay the lowest property taxes.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[volmtech]

Too bad all those poor people can't vote. A nearby city is $20 million short on its budget. I guess they don't have enough poor people. My property tax is $400 a year, $200 for garbage pick-up and $200 for everything else. 1500 sq ft home on 13 acres, 350 sq ft apt building, 600 sq ft garage. No high speed internet, you can't have everything.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's by acre. Of course a high-rise is going to contribute more tax revenue than a single family home. Of course a business is going to contribute more tax revenue than someone's lawn.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

Your frontage proposal puts the ratio at the home owner paying 50x as much, when the real differential is MUCH MUCH less.

If a foot of street costs $10 per year to maintain, then how much does 500 feet of street cost per year to maintain? I'm saying it's $5,000, but you're saying it's less than that. Is this some kind of new math?

And remember, we're talking about making only "the assessment for street maintenance on the property taxes" proportional to street frontage, not the entire property tax bill.

Addtionally your link doesn't factor in the fact that the 'urban developments' were mixed use...its not really comparing apple to apples with respect to our debate.

Ok, then please locate a new, single-family residential mixed-use development so we can compare it with urban mixed-use.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Ichijo]

A nearby city is $20 million short on its budget. I guess they don't have enough poor people.

They have too many people who are living beyond their means.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[vux984]

If a foot of street costs $10 per year to maintain, then how much does 500 feet of street cost per year to maintain? I'm saying it's $5,000, but you're saying it's less than that. Is this some kind of new math?

The new math is the cost of bridges and commerical thoroughfares vastly dwarfs residential side roads.

Does it really matter if its $0.01 per foot per household or or $0.50 when the bridges and main roads cost $100 per household per year. The residential side streets are just low level noise.

So strictly speaking my contribution should be $101.00 per year... and a highrise dwellers should be $100.02. That's the 'new math'.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed-upon social contract

I don't recall agreeing to anything. Does anyone here?

Are you arguing that people born in Argentina have somehow pre-agreed to the "social contract" or that they somehow accept the terms and conditions provided that the moment they discover the contract they don't set themselves on fire in protest?

In fact, I doubt that such a contract even exists. Please provide a link (preferrably one with the signatures of the Argentine people on it).

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

social burden

I wish people would stop using "social" as an adjective to sugar-coat warped logic. Statists could do well from being more honest about their ideology. Those arguing against you (anarchists, both left and right), do not believe that government is some benevolent good but rather an unnecessary cancer, not dissimilar to an organised crime syndicate.

If the Mafia came to your door and demanded protection money wouldn't you be even slightly upset when you found that most of the town being subjegated by these thugs were defending them, explaining how it's your social responsibility to pay your share?

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Access to education surely has an effect on propertys value, as do access to other services (governmental or not). That's why properties in cities are typically valued higher than on the countryside. I guess fire protection might also, at least in places where it isn't universally guaranteed everywhere. I know shorter trips to hospital are appreciated a lot by, for example, parents whose kids have conditions that might need surprise hospital trips.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws and taxes of a City are not hard to find out about. You can choose to live elsewhere. Gravel your own driveway. Clear your own snow. Not pay for the curbs you don't have. Live w/ Rural water, or a well. Have an out house. You can choose then when you mow your yard. You can (in the USA) live in a state that pays teachers very little and has the associated low property taxes. Maybe not all "social contracts" are the same but at least here there is a lot of choice.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[AK Marc]

Where I am now, they move the tax rates up and down annually to collect for the budget. So, because you are paying $500 less on your taxes by cheating, you've "stolen" $500 from those around you who were taxed more to make up for the amount you cheated.

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[WillAdams]

http://constitutionus.com/

Re:Just what we need. More compliance!

[WillAdams]

http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov....

Drones are cost effective?

[magarity]

Maybe someone on a motorcycle could more cost effectively go around checking on empty vs developed lots? Sure, they might not see the pool out back, but the house might be hard to hide.

Re:Drones are cost effective?

[Spy Handler]

You can check a lot more houses faster with a drone. Like, look at an aeriel photograph vs. one taken from a car and see how many houses you can count.

Also like you said, with a drone you can see backyard pools.

Re:Drones are cost effective?

[DaHat]

*banging head on wall with everybody calling these things 'drones'*

Not just any aeriel photography... manned vs not.

This is simply a modern and more cost effective way of doing what has been done for ages.

It used to be you'd pay someone (for their time & fuel) to fly a manned helicopter or airplane over a given area and have to deal with possibly remote takeoff/landing locations as well as noise over your target... now you simply pay a guy with a van to park on a public street, launch a UAV and fly it over the target area.

Far easier & far cheaper.

Re:Drones are cost effective?

[Higaran]

I can buy an ok drone with a camera for around $1000 USD, send it 300 feet up in the air and easily see miles in every direction. You just do this a dozen times and you'll have most of a small town. It shouldn't take longer than a day to do, as long as you have enough spare or charged batteries.

Re:Drones are cost effective?

[jklovanc]

We are talking Argentina here. If the building is a couple miles from the property line on a private, gated road the motorcyclist may not see it. A 'lot' could be very large.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if drones are doing it vs satellite or photos from a plane with a human at the controls.

In Lee County, Florida(and I'm sure others) they take 20+ aerial photographs a year, from above, N, E,S, and West 'birds eye', AND hire people to look for violations, New Roof, Fence, pool, WHATEVER? from previous years? Is there a permit issued? If not, send in the tax collectors... They also go after people with lawns that are too long, etc.

Re:Bah

[tomhath]

I assume they do the same thing almost everywhere. The only difference is how the pictures are used. Enforcing building codes, checking for illegal crops, whatever. The fact that this locality used drones is not especially interesting, a guy in a small plane could probably have covered the same area faster and cheaper.

Being a south-american myself

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet most of these houses belongs to people somewhat related to government itself, and the thing will be forgotten as soon as possible.

Re:Being a south-american myself

[GameboyRMH]

Yep in these parts, most of the rich have government "connections."

Recently had a similar incident with illegally imported cars. Quickly forgotten about. People kept cars illegally discounted by a greater amount than an average Joe's annual salary around here.

My dad works for a guy who isn't *physically* hiding anything on his property, but has hidden all the money spent to build it in a hilarious shell game. And yes he has government "connections." And a sweet little guest house for his motorcycle.

Why not google

[Geoffrey.landis]

What, Argentina can't just click on google maps to find pools, they need drones?

Re:Why not google

[Anonymous Coward]

the images from google maps are at least 2 years old. That's at least 2 fiscal years worth of fraud and fines.

Re:Why not google

[jeffmflanagan]

While Google maps would catch some of the tax-evaders, drones catch the ones who built homes after the latest Google Maps data update for the region.

Re:Why not google

[angel'o'sphere]

Pools and ponds are regulary removed from public accessable air survilance photos, amoung other things like potential ancient ruins (covert by dirt).
You find no single german air survilance photo where a potential teutonic, roman or celtic site is hidden. That is all removed by automatic algorithms so 'grave robbers' or 'tomb raiders' can not dig around.

Re:Why not google

[Noah Haders]

well what's the reasoning for removing pools? to sideline rogue skinnydippers?

Re:Why not google

[ShanghaiBill]

While Google maps would catch some of the tax-evaders, drones catch the ones who built homes after the latest Google Maps data update for the region.

There are companies that sell more up-to-date satellite photos. Buying some already existing commercial photos would almost certainly be cheaper than buying and maintaining a drone, training the operators, etc.

Re:Why not google

[angel'o'sphere]

Ponds got removed because people might have expensive fish in it, Kois e.g.
Pools similar, indicating an 'expensive' house.
Facebook post: I'm in/on Hawaii ... thiefes steal your fish or break in your house (house with a pool used as indicator for more potential 'value')

Re:Why not google

[HornWumpus]

Don't I recall you having a grammarian among your personalities?

Re:Why not google

[angel'o'sphere]

Not that I'm aware off. Do I make indeed so many grammar errors?

Re:Why not google

[jklovanc]

According to this it would cost from $13-$16 per square mile for photos. An operator with a $5000 drone can out do that quite quickly. Then there is the issue of cloud cover.

Re:Why not google

[bugs2squash]

They do both, then when someone says "I did not register it yet, it was only built 2 days ago" you bring out the Google images.

Re:Why not google

[LWATCDR]

How do you figure? You could survey 312 square miles for the cost of the drone and that does not take in account the cost of the operator's time.

Re:Why not google

[jklovanc]

312 square miles is only 17 miles square. That is not much area and can be observed from a drone in less than a day. When you are surveying large areas year after year the costs add up quite quickly. The drone would pay for itself in the first year and every year after that it is just the operator time which would be much less than $13/square mile.

Re:Why not google

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes. Assuming you count spelling errors as a subset of grammar errors.

Re:Why not google

[angel'o'sphere]

In fact I do so, but my teachers usually disagreed :)

Re:Why not google

[Anonymous Coward]

What, Argentina can't just click on google maps to find pools, they need drones?

When was the Google Maps image taken?

With a drone you have a chain of evidence where they can say: "we took this video/photo on day X, which was after they filed their tax documents, and so they filed falsely".

How do you get that information from Google?

Re:Why not google

[stoatwblr]

Once it was spotted that there was a bunch of undeclared development going on by any means, the drone becomes the only cost-effective way of quantifying exactly how much is going on.

If a cop pulls over a car for something like fake/stolen license plates, the odds are pretty good that will just be the tip of the iceberg.

Likewise in situations like this, once it's realised that there's some illegal behaviour going on, it's fairly probable that _everyone_ is doing it, or the neighbours would be queuing up to complain about illegal development.

Which means that inspectors on the ground in the area will result in the neighbourhood grapevine being alerted, or corrupt local officials destroying evidence of collusion before they can be impounded.

Re:Why not google

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a drive-by??? $2M in lost taxes and how much did the drone infrastructure cost???

Re:Why not google

[hjf]

the images I see on google maps, from my city, are (C) 2014. GSV are dated june/14

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying I have to pay you more if I decide to install a pool with a deck in my own yard? What kind of BS is that?!

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying I have to pay you more if I decide to install a pool with a deck in my own yard? What kind of BS is that?!

That is the law (by-law) in every province of Canada. Add a stairway and door to access the basement from outdoors - extra taxtes because according to the government your property is now worth more for tax assessment purposes at least. Careful about building a dungeon for your playmate.

Re:Wait...

[AK Marc]

The law says that property tax rates are charged (mainly) on the value of the property. If your improvements increase that value, then you've agreed to pay them as part of the purchase of your property. Why are you trying to commit fraud?

its telling more about US policy

[nimbius]

although somewhat offtopic, the scope and depth of this investigation shouldnt be left outside the context of the US foreign policy of the past 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the fact that a south american country was once rocked out of socialist/communist sentiment by a US backed military coup from 1978 to 1983 is nothing new, but the pace at which its begun to return to self-determenance is rather intriguing. Under Nestor Kirchner's term as president, in 2003 the Argentine Congress revoked the longstanding amnesty laws, also called the "Pardon Laws." In 2005 the Argentine Supreme Court ruled these laws were unconstitutional. The government re-opened prosecution of war crimes committed largely against socialist/communist sympathizers in an effort to enforce a capitalist vote. Now, we have prosecution of tax evasion committed by the wealthy.

5 years of CIA terror in Argentina only staved off reform efforts and arguably a move 22 years later towards kirchner's leftist political policies of direct alignment with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro at the start of his term. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner as is exhibited by her drone policy was certainly a clear enough threat for the US to parade the Maletinazo scandal out with the help of the FBI in an attempt to disqualify her election, however to no real effect.

Re:its telling more about US policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Two corrections:

The military coup was in 1976, not 1978. So, we got almost 8 years of terror, not 5.

And to explain the current reforms using the Junta government as the only background is a oversimplification. After the military government we had a government (Presidente Alfonsin) that tried to reform the country just to fail because conservatives used a modern way of coup: the market coup. Afterwards we had a decade-long US-backed neocon government (Presidente Menem) that destroyed all vestige of Welfare State and curbed any local technology or industry development. THEN (after the crash during the De la Rua presidency, just a delayed effect of Menem's policies) you have the Kirchners' current decade-long government.

Just my 2 cents.

Drones! Drones! Drones!

[slimshady76]

Argentinian here, the AFIP (our local IRS) has been doing this for a long time, but using satellite or aerial photographs. The drones were used this time because the area in question was small. A lot of country clubs (as they are called here) are emerging with wealthy people moving into them, building expensive houses, while the land is still declared as vacant. In a related matter, we still lack a law regulating drones down here.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, what do these taxes fund in Argentina? What burden do the rich create on the government that they much pay for?

Or is this simply a case of "you got it, we want it"?

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny note, Argentina's AFIP (IRS) director, had a 82x (yes, 82 times) increment on his wealth since he started working for the government.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[slimshady76]

Just general purpose taxes. Now, regarding your question about why should rich people pay more taxes, I think it's self explanatory. A Tití Fernandez question as we call them here.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of collected taxes (40%) goes back to the social security/employment ministeries.

Then, if that money gets to the poor, that's a whole different story.
Probably a 10% of that really turns into paychecks.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[bugs2squash]

So double the dole and tax it 50% that should cure the problem and the poor will be self financing, get them off the backs of the rich.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[fche]

" I think it's self explanatory. " ... because that's where the money is ...

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bad explanation. I would still prefer something along the lines: Because they, as well as others living in a society benefit from the societys services. The rich benefit more, because the society protects more of their wealth than the poors. (without laws and enforcement I could steal million bucks from the rich dude while I could only steal 10 from a poor one. The rich are the ones police is protecting from property crime, not the poor). Now, if you argue the rich could pay for his own protection you are basically arguing for small dictatorships. It's the surronunding society that set up the framework for the rich to become rich in. It's like a game that has rules, and those rules include the option to become rich if you do certain things, but then again the rules state that if you are rich you pay more taxes. Don't want to pay more you either a) lose the money; for some reason i don't see this advertised much b) brake the rules, usually there is a punishment for breaking the rules c) try to change the rules so the rich won't pay; ultimately this leads to the poor changing the rules, or breaking the rules, including the ones protecting the rich mans property and health.

You can even define paying more in different ways. Does it mean they pay more in absolute value, or in propotional value? There are places where everyone pays a same percentage of their income. Then there are places where the big earners pay a bigger percentage. I don't know if any place has a fixed amout you have to pay (might be hard if you have no income at all) Then there are places where the rich actually pay less (percentage wise). Also, income isn't the only thing taxed, you can also tax property, or add a "value added", or tax by some environmental impact, or anything, to shape the behavioral paterns. If, for example, we think it's a bad thing how millions of plastic bags end up in the ocean we can add a tax on plastic bags to make them more expensive, and hopefully reduce the amount they are used (and, in an ideal world, use that revenue to clean up the rest from the ocean)

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? I had far bigger increment on my wealth since I started working. No wealth before, some wealth now. Lets say I had one wealth then and 100000 wealth now, so that's a 100000x increase.

Re:Drones! Drones! Drones!

[AK Marc]

The military benefits the rich only. As do most government services, prisons and the like. The real question should be why the rich refuse to pay their share.

Too bad drones can't reveal government corruption

[Rotten]

That's a drone i would love to see flying.

In Argentina we have drones watching general population private property for tax declarations.

We got camera domes on most corners, but nobody is monitoring them, and certainly not even police cars to dispatch to those locations.

We got a vice president who evaded taxes, declare nonexistant addresses, but nobody cares.

We had a commerce secretary -a real character, funny guy- he intimidated people -mafia like-, got taped and nothing happened.

We got a gunpoint robber, got caught on GoPro by the victim, he's not in jail, he's on the TV, he's a rockstar now.

We got some official car (senator) drivers that got caught trafficking cocaine....rofl, nothing happened.

We even got a NGO for human rights with more than 5000 bouncing checks, but it's not so NGO since it's heavly sponsored by the government, and those bouncing checks - for some reason - never got into the credit rating system (magic!)

We got a spike on meth precursors for 2 or 3 years, (10x efedrin imports from 6 tons to 60 tons) and the permits for that trace back to phone lines to the presidential building! yay! way to go Argentina, nothing happened besides 3 witnesses got killed -executed- and...yay! nothing happened!

We got no radars guarding our borders, the only smuggling small planes we know about, are those that crash land from time to time.

So, there's nothing new in a drone/plane/satellite catching tax evasion. I want the corruption spotting drone. That would make "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters".

Land Owners Are...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reported to be M$ executives.

Expectation of privacy

[istartedi]

Even in the US, this is justified and I have no problem with it. There is no expectation of privacy when you build a house. I'm on the tax rolls. I expect my neighbors to be on the tax rolls too. That's how it works. Civil disobedience? No. This isn't Rosa Parks sitting in the front of a bus. This is a bunch of rich people cheating. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[AK Marc]

Rosa Parks sat in the back of the bus, in the "black" section. Making references you don't understand undermines any other points you are trying to make.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[istartedi]

I got curious and did a little research. Rosa Parks did not sit in the back of the bus in the "black" section. She sat in the first row of the "colored" section. The row became illegal when the driver demanded that the "colored" section be made smaller. So. Neither of us are entirely correct, although I think my original statement is closer to the spirit of what she did.

Maybe you should have just corrected my sig.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[AK Marc]

"Colored" was the term for "Black" at the time. I slightly updated the term for the correct section. You used the incorrect section.

She was required by law to get up when the whites-only section was full. She sat in a legal seat, without conscious choice of defiance when she sat, making your statement the opposite of the spirit of what she did. She just refused to stand when the last white person got on. More a presence of apathy than a defiant choice made when she boarded the bus.

But if you are going to lie about me being "wrong" because I didn't use the correct archaic term, I can only presume you'll lie about the rest to keep your precious little ego intact. So feel free to explain how your incorrect statement (she didn't sit in the whites section at the front of the bus) is more correct than the factual correction offered, and continue to be a jackass to those who attempt to educate you and your ignorant ways.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[istartedi]

I don't care about my ego. If I did, I wouldn't have linked to Wikipedia and acknowledged the technical correctness of what you're saying. It's the spirit of what she did that matters more to me (and most people) than the technical correctness. You could have pointed it out more politely. It could have gone something like this:

"Actually, she simply refused to get up when the driver shrank the "colored" section; but I get what your'e saying".

Re:Expectation of privacy

[AK Marc]

But you were fucking wrong, and a fucking idiot about it.

You obviously care about your ego, or you wouldn't be complaining so hard about being corrected for being an ignorant fucking moron.

I got curious and did a little research

Smart people do research before posting ignorant falsehoods. The lazy idiots concerned about their ego, wait until corrected, then lash out at the person pointing out their error. Fuck you.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[istartedi]

Hey man, I don't know why you're so upset. Maybe you need a punching bag. Maybe somebody left a bag of poop on your door, or ran over your rose bushes. If so, glad to be your virtual punching bag. Looking back over this, I'll admit that I might have escalated things unnecessarily by saying "you should have just corrected my sig". You opened the door of pedantry though, and that pissed me off. I apologize for that little remark. I apologize for nothing else. I'm done with this. Chill out and have a nice day. The last word is yours.

Remember this is Argentina (aka Kleptocracy.gov)

[Chas]

Basically everyone who's not a government official in the country needs three things.

Food, water, air.

Everything else is a "luxury item" and the government's committed to taxing people until they can no longer afford anything but the basic three things.

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[mod prime]

It sounds like you guys have already done pretty good at spotting the corruption. Now you need anti-corruption missiles...I mean legal action.

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[WrongMonkey]

I don't see how drones would help since the it sounds like the corruption has already been reveal. The citizens just need to decide how they're going to deal with it.

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Nice idea, but . . .

The hard disks containing the evidence from the drones would crash.

Along with all the hard disks of any computers containing email referencing evidence from the drones.

And all the backup tapes would be "recycled".

And the person in charge would drop her pants, moon the government, invoke the 5th Amendment, and invite the government to kiss her hairy ass.

Oh, and she gets early retirement and a juicy taxpayer funded pension, too.

Re:Remember this is Argentina (aka Kleptocracy.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Water as in rain water, most suburban and all rural areas in Argentina still rely on wheels

so drones are useless because...

[kervin]

they don't solve all of your problems?

Because this is what your post is boiling down to as far as I can tell.

Re:so drones are useless because...

[Rotten]

There was a time, a long time ago, that irony and sarcasm were a day to day practice in Slashdot.

Concept of modern taxes = You are mind controlled

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mind controlled to think you should ever have to pay any taxes in any form.

You have been conditioned to accept giving your money to irresponsible entities that do not represent you one bit.

Enjoy your mind control.

Big Brother, 2014 edition

[mi]

Given the ever growing taxes in various countries (US included) I find it harder and harder to blame tax-evaders.

If it keeps going like this, modern Robin Hoods may start appearing shooting those drones from the sky the way Mr. Hood was sabotaging tax-collecting efforts of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Re:Big Brother, 2014 edition

[crunchygranola]

Given the ever growing taxes in various countries (US included) I find it harder and harder to blame tax-evaders....

The overall US tax burden (all taxes, all levels of government), as a fraction of the GDP has shown no growth over the last 33 years. It has been 35% of the GDP, with ups and downs, but oscillating around this fixed line.

Sorry, but no matter how many times you repeat the "ever growing taxes" lie, it does not become true.

Re:Big Brother, 2014 edition

[mi]

The overall US tax burden (all taxes, all levels of government), as a fraction of the GDP has shown

The link you offered — whatever its credibility — shows government spending as a percentage of GDP.

This is related to, but not at all the same as the tax burden of individuals.

Now, here is, what happened January 1, 2014 in the US:

• Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
• Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
• Capital Gains Tax went from 15% to 28%
• Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%

If that's not grow taxes, what is?

no matter how many times you repeat the "ever growing taxes" lie, it does not become true.

It is true no matter how many times you deny it. And next time, do your own homework, before you accuse someone else of not merely being mistaken, but of lying...

Re:Big Brother, 2014 edition

[mi]

Darn, sorry, hit "Post" instead of "Continue editing". If you aren't convinced yet, taxes are growing, here is another item: the share of Americans in the labor-force is lower in recent years than in Bush's era, the percentage collecting "disability" is record high, the official unemployment numbers remain stubbornly above Bush's, but the Federal revenue is the highest ever.

This can only mean one thing — those of us, who are still working, are paying the ever higher taxes...

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[LWATCDR]

And this is how dictators get power and military takeovers happen.
The current government is so bad that the people figure any change might be better.

I would say that you need some good people to run for office but if they did they might end up in jail or worse.

Don't worry I am sure that the current government will tell everyone that it is the fault of the British and start a new war soon.

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we are a third world, south american country, we are still far from getting our own local megalarge tech corporations to legally evade taxes settling offices in ireland or some other tax heaven. We already have lot's of inmigrants, not sure if they are "skilled".

So we are half way of 1st world.

Utilities

[phorm]

So how about building inspections, utilities hookups, etc? How are these houses getting connected if they're listed as vacant (and couldn't the city just cross-reference utilities/inspections otherwise)

Re:Utilities

[Hognoxious]

Bribes.

Re:Utilities

[Lman_ar]

Bribes.

Not really. It's a common practice here in Argentina to lie in taxes declarations. Most of the times, when filling out taxes, the land value is under appreciated to pay less taxes (many government officials lie blatantly in their statements, putting the price of 250m^2 appartment in the best parts of Buenos Aires at a fiscal value of ,let's say, $180.000 when the real market value is around $900.000). In the case of these gated communities we call countries, the owner of the land (which sells small properties inside his land to build houses) don't declare that his property, has been used to build something. This was news a few years ago when the provincial taxes organization (in the Buenos Aires province is called ARBA) used Google Earth to spot constructions on land declared as empty. About utilities and other stuff: For houses, i haven't ever heard of building inspections (my father built the house i live with his hands, without ever needing a blueprint or anything else). For natural gas connections, you need to have your in house gas connections (heating, cooking, etc) made by an authorized installer. And there's no regulation for electrical installations (still talking for houses, commercial constructions have special rules about all this). Utility companies never check on the government when installing. They only check they do is if you own or rent the house (by means of property title or rent contract).

Aerial photography for land management is old news

[Anonymous Coward]

The Automated comparison of temporal sequences of such images is also not new.

So they used drones, so what? Any kid can do that these days.

Third World Problems.

[Richy_T]

Round here, $2M is what politicians blow on nose candy of a Friday night.

Re:Remember this is Argentina (aka Kleptocracy.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically everyone who's not a government official in the country needs one thing.

air.

Everything else is a "luxury item" and the government's committed to taxing people until they can no longer afford anything but the basic one thing.

FTFY

What? no permits?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they get to build homes and connected them to the infrastructure without permits? Where I live they would tear that down.

Madonna has a song ready I'm sure

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't Fly Over Me, Argentina!"

Re:Too bad drones can't reveal government corrupti

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem with such a device is how to handle the sensor's overload. Nuclear detonation levels in most government sectors worldwide.

And of course who do you report to? more of the same? the media whose in bed with one candidate or party and only reports the corruption of the other side? Or foreign governments thru the UN who decide which candidate/party to back and comes down hardest on the other, or both while running a third party puppet?

Send it out on the net where vested interest Truth Squads do everything to refute it, or bury it with more of the same, but false, so you have no idea what's truth and what isn't?

The Neighbourhood

[ChunderDownunder]

Since it wasn't mentioned in the article, the neighbourhood in question is Nuevo Quilmes.

Google's satellite imagery indeed shows some very low density housing. I guess we're talking the mega-rich who moved out of Recoleta.

Re:Remember this is Argentina (aka Kleptocracy.gov

[Chas]

Basically everyone who's not a government official in the country needs one thing.

air.

Everything else is a "luxury item" and the government's committed to taxing people until they can no longer afford anything but the basic one thing.

FTFY

I stand ashamed, but corrected.

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a rural area and they have had planes fly over for years looking for this as well as possible building code violations. Put up a new barn and don't tell anyone, you'll get an inspection visit within a couple months. They use a C172,

Argentina is far from chaos...

[gwolf]

Believe me, they do have building codes, and strictly adhere to them.

My wife is an Argentinian. She is also an architect. We live in Mexico (which is also not as chaotic as some US-dwellers would think). And after four years living here, she still cannot believe how lacking our building codes are in several key aspects. Of course, they are veri strict regarding issues they never even think about (i.e. resistance against earthquakes or hurricanes, depending on the area of the country).

She lived in a smaller city, a province capital, ~330,000 inhabitants. Closed neighbourhoods are forbidden, and even though the market strongly pushes for them, not one has been built. In fact, the few that came close to it were forced open by the government. In larger/denser cities, the building height is perfectly respected, you can see a continuous line of buildings as they are exactly the same height. And the list could go on a lot.

Re:Argentina is far from chaos...

[Virtucon]

Wow, I can understand about earthquakes but still out of the $2mil in revenue they supposedly could get back I'm wondering out of what base? Like $200mil? 1%? Everybody lauds the new technology as catching scofflaws but in reality I'll bet people mostly go along with it and pay them no matter what.

good. fuck the tax man.

[Anonymous Coward]

property should be taxed on square feet of land. that is all. anything more is theft.

why drones?

[Mirar]

So they couldn't do this from satellite fotos from Google or Bing? Or just normal, you know, the photos taken anyway from flights for planning?
What is the benefit of drones, better pictures of the topless people at the pools? (Pay your taxes, or our drone photos will hit the internet!)

Very common in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

This same type of thing has been done by some local governments (typically counties or larger cities) in the U.S. for at least 10 years that I know of. However, they tend to use a small airplane rather than a drone. A GIS Department will have aerials done regularly (every 1-2 or 3 years depending on budgets) and a Tax department usually invests in a piece of software that compares the shape/ortho files from year to year to look for differences. The differences are tied to a parcel number and can be cross referenced against a building inspections/permit database so they can pull out any unexplained structures/pools/decks/additions.

You would be surprised at what is found every year: entire guest houses, 2000+ sqft log cabins, full second story additions, etc.