Slashdot Mirror
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."
But A. this isn't the US with a 4th amendment, and B. There's nothing invasive about doing standard surveying work automatically.
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."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
I bet most of these houses belongs to people somewhat related to government itself, and the thing will be forgotten as soon as possible.
What, Argentina can't just click on google maps to find pools, they need drones?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It'll certainly make things a little easier on the non-tax cheats who have to pay more to cover these assholes.
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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
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.
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.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
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".
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.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
"The problems in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking which created them" --Albert Einstein
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It sounds like you guys have already done pretty good at spotting the corruption. Now you need anti-corruption missiles...I mean legal action.
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.
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.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
they don't solve all of your problems?
Because this is what your post is boiling down to as far as I can tell.
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:
I would rather pay such fees than taxes, wouldn't you?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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)
Round here, $2M is what politicians blow on nose candy of a Friday night.
The assessment for street maintenance on the property taxes for the 10 homes should each be 50 times that of an apartment unit.
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.
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.
These things are probably about the same cost for condos as for single-family homes.
Yes, like water. Remember, the cost of sewers also depends on the amount of impermeable surface on each property.
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.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
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.
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:
If that's not grow taxes, what is?
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
"Don't Fly Over Me, Argentina!"
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.
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, then please locate a new, single-family residential mixed-use development so we can compare it with urban mixed-use.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
They have too many people who are living beyond their means.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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'.
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!)
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Learn to love Alaska
http://constitutionus.com/
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
http://www.biblioteca.jus.gov....
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.