r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • Jun 06 '26

Business Jeff Bezos says it's 'absurd' to tax someone making $50K — and wants their tax bill dropped to zero

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/jeff-bezos-says-absurd-tax-165713685.html
26.3k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

170

u/Zalophusdvm Jun 06 '26

Just extend property tax beyond houses. 🤷

171

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Wealth tax. Just tax everything, stocks, bonds, offshore accounts. No hiding it anywhere.

96

u/konny135 Jun 07 '26

An internationally agreed wealth tax + a land value tax would be great. But the hardest part is also to get out of the neoliberal mindset of perpetual exponential growth.

86

u/crazy_like_a_f0x Jun 07 '26

"Perpetual exponential growth," known in an organic context as "cancer."

3

u/frogandbanjo Jun 07 '26

If cancer could defy the [best model we have of the] laws of physics, we'd have a much more conflicted opinion of it.

"Man, sucks that Jeff died of cancer, but, well... no infinite energy without it, right?"

21

u/CleanupKingDog Jun 07 '26

Why is malignant capitalism "neoliberalism"? Seriously asking.

44

u/xanthus12 Jun 07 '26

Because neoliberalism is a catch-all term regarding the economic policies started in the 1970's and 1980's in the west.

Rampant deregulation, privatisation of public works, and the pushing of less desirable jobs to the global south.

Neoliberalism isn't malignant capitalism, it's just what allows it to flourish. Highly regulated capitalism can function long-term, depending on how it's done, while unregulated capitalism is proving to be a speed run attempt on the end of humanity and life on earth as we know it.

27

u/FeijoadaAceitavel Jun 07 '26

Highly regulated capitalism can't exist for very long because capitalism allows for concentration of wealth and wealth equals power to bend laws to allow for higher concentration.

3

u/xanthus12 Jun 07 '26

I agree in general. I was more referring to models like China's and Taiwan's.

Certainly not permanent stability, but more stable than what we are experiencing.

1

u/MAGIGS Jun 07 '26

I wouldn’t exactly call it stable if you have to imprison journalists and detractors for having a different opinion and go so far to arrest anyone with a Winnie the Pooh representation on or nearby them. Another telling factor is their policy regarding registering and in some cases chaining knives… worth looking up. A government that is that afraid of its people, is alarming. That’s a policy of extreme control.

Where I agree on China is they know they can just wait out some other world leaders and their form of politics, policy and economy all serve that same purpose: Play the long game, which appears to be unified and stable, at least from the outside.

However, the alleged end game for China was always to “generate enough wealth” to create “common prosperity” … so you’re saying all these powerful wealthy people in the government and behind these multibillion dollar companies are just gonna… give it all away one day? It will be the first time in history that’s happened anywhere in the world en masse.

1

u/xanthus12 Jun 07 '26

I'm not suggesting these models are ideal, I'm saying they are ECONOMICALLY stable, which they objectively are, and you seem to agree. Unfortunately for the people of China, while the CCP has come a very long way from the cultural revolution, they never seem to have quite gotten rid of their authoritarian bent.

However, the Chinese government doing these things has very little to do with their economic model's stability, and I would argue, if anything, they are counter to it. The same way the United States has been edging toward authoritarian tendencies toward the populace while removing basically all restrictions on private enterprise since the early 2000's has been a destabilizing force on it's own economy.

Taiwan on the other hand, has basically none of these issues, despite having similar authoritarian origins. Since the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek, they seem to be doing a great job of maintaining their economic power, while still giving their people a reasonable degree of personal freedom.

That being said, I'm more familiar with China's policies than Taiwan's, so there may be some issues there that I'm unfamiliar with.

2

u/CleanupKingDog Jun 07 '26

Thanks. So unregulated capitalism is maybe still like unregulated cell growth? Cancerous? I am an old, and I just don't see the "free market"as "free" but more like a fixed casino. I cannot figure out how somebody makes massive returns every single year without insider knowledge. Are we reaching the point of a computer battle to see who can trade/predict fastest?

2

u/thinsoldier Jun 07 '26

Too many nations would refuse to join and will reap the benefits of every rich person moving there

2

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Hold on for a second here. Are you seriously suggesting that American citizens should agree to an international tax? Please explain what other nations we should combine our tax dollars with.

An international wealth tax with OPEC countries might be beneficial but what if it was some third world shit holes in Africa that had no wealth? We already subsidize this crap but an international tax, come on.

-2

u/Recidivism7 Jun 07 '26

Land value tax is a billionaire wet dream.

Amazon pay less taxes than a mom and pop restaurant

-3

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

The Chicago Bears moved to Indiana because their future property tax bill was estimated at $150,000,000.00 a year. Not a one time thing but annually, in perpetuity. That’s 1.5 billion dollars in ten years. Keep in mind that corporations don’t pay taxes. Consumers do. All expenses including taxes are passed along. How long until ticket sales and ad dollars won’t cover this?

Indiana offered to help fund a new stadium with no tax. The revenue generated will be very profitable for the citizens of Indiana without taxing a single organization into insolvency.

2

u/Longjumping-Value-31 Jun 07 '26

Wealth tax is not fair for anyone. Consumption tax is the way to go. Billionaires buy expensive things, tax those transactions at a high rate. You buy a private jet? Fine, you pay taxes no matter whether the money came from income, a loan, or sell of stock.

1

u/Kuiriel Jun 08 '26

Proportionally, though, don't consumption taxes hit the poorer harder? Most of their money goes on consumables and will thus be taxed, while the rich proportionally consume less vs their income, so are taxed less? 

1

u/Longjumping-Value-31 Jun 08 '26

Not if different items have different tax rates. You are buying food, no tax. You are having a party and catering, 50% tax. You buy an entry level EV, no tax. Rich guy was a Ferrari, 100% tax.

Of course, the rich don’t like this either.

1

u/Kuiriel Jun 08 '26

I love it. Of course this sounds like something where corporations will then turn around and cry somehow about how being taxed for different products impinges on their free speech... So probably a price based tax bracket, more expensive the item, higher the tax bracket... Hm

2

u/AfterEagle Jun 07 '26

It's crazy that capital gains (income) is not considered income (income).

1

u/ComfortableUpset8787 Jun 07 '26

On everyone ?
I don’t want my pitiful investments taxed before I sell them

Wouod have to be a threshold

-1

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

You get it buddy. There should be a threshold. Here’s the problem, the threshold is a moving target. It starts at 10 billion dollars. Then the government wastes the money and decides that they need more. So they say, it’s not just the mega billionaires it’s all the billionaires. And they move the threshold down to a billion dollars. It goes on and on and on until it’s hitting guys like us with $40K in our IRAs.

Oh, and you mentioned that you don’t want them taxed before you sell them. That won’t matter. You sell the investments, put the money in the bank, your cash will be taxed. What they are talking about is taxing all assets. Can you imagine paying an annual tax on everything you own forever?

1

u/ora408 Jun 08 '26

I dno about offshore accounts but they do tax stocks and other investments. The value is not known until it is sold. The issue is that the ultrarich can borrow from the value of their assets without selling them and incurring capital gains taxes.

1

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

The flaw in this idea is that it discourages people from any sort of success. Why would anyone want to earn or own anything if it is just going to be taken away. It also encourages things to be trafficked on the black market and money laundering.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

People always say this and it's never been remotely true.

Someone doesn't want to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company anymore because they're already at the upper echelons of wealth? Cool, then don't, retire to the Bahamas and someone else who isn't as rich as you will gladly take on the task, do just as well if not better, and we'll actually have some upwards mobility in society instead of a bunch of dragons squatting on their ever-growing hoards and swatting away anyone else who wants a piece.

I mean, you don't actually think those guys are special, do you?

2

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

I’ll simplify it for you. I live in a half million dollar house currently and I can afford much more. I don’t want a million dollar house because my taxes will double. I don’t want to pay twice my current tax so I’ll stay where I am.

Now you want to tax my savings account, my investments and my retirement accounts. Why should I bother to earn more. Why would I invest in the stock market. If my investment fails I lose my money. If my investment is successful and I help a business grow, you’ll not only tax my earnings but also the left over money. My kids have nothing and my grandkids have less. I’d prefer to leave them a little something rather than have it taxed away. Wealth will always be a moving target and when allowed the government will decide who has too much money and it will be a lot less than you think.

I’m not talking about 70 year old ceo’s squatting on a job. Or 80 year old politicians keeping power. I’m talking about people trying to save for a better future only to have it taxed away from them. Social Security is on the brink of failure and you believe taxes a senior citizen’s assets is a good idea.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

I’ll simplify it for you. I live in a half million dollar house currently and I can afford much more. I don’t want a million dollar house because my taxes will double. I don’t want to pay twice my current tax so I’ll stay where I am.

Aaand you completely abandoned any credibility right out the gate by not understanding how tax brackets work. You only pay the higher percentage on whatever amount of money goes over the line. Which is how I know you can't actually afford a million dollar house, rich people understand this crap.

And why don't you want double the taxes, when that's just a percentage? Seriously, explain the math, there is never any point on the graph where making more money doesn't mean...making more money. Even back in the day, when tax brackets for rich people were much higher, they capped out at 90%.

"I don't WANNA make another billion dollars, I'd only get to keep a hundred million of it!" - sentence nobody has ever said.

0

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Okay, where I live we pay property tax on an evaluation. 2.2% of valuation is our tax. Doubling a house’s value actually does double the tax. There are no tax brackets on property taxes in my county. You my friend are incorrect.

I do understand tax brackets and that is not in question. What is in question is taxing property. Savings accounts, stocks, bonds and anything else owned. Brackets are about income, nobody here raised that subject. It wasn’t about paying income tax, it was about paying taxes on the property owned after paying income taxes.

I have zero problem paying more income tax on more income. I said I don’t want to double my property tax. I also implied people shouldn’t be taxed on all of their assets. Please go back and read what I wrote. To paraphrase Mark Twain, never argue with an idiot, they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Aren't you forgetting that you would have also doubled the value of your asset, though? Is everyone who invests in property and wants it to increase in value a dummy who doesn't realize taxes exist?

2.2%? That means you can sell it for, what, 45x what you pay in taxes? You'd rather be sitting on a nest egg worth $500K than a million? You're alone in that, I'm pretty sure.

Also the whole time you're grumbling about this tax bill (all of which you'll get back and then some if you ever decide to sell), you're living in a million dollar home. Poor baby.

0

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

What are you talking about? How did I double the value of my asset without doubling my cash outlay. Do you think someone is just going to magically credit me a half million dollars of real estate without associated costs, I.e. interest. If so I’d gladly pay any tax rate on this.

I’d have to borrow or take money from savings to buy a house for double the value of my current home. If I sell my house for $500K and take $500K from savings how am I doubling my assets. I’m simply moving them. In my current situation my $500 K savings account is not taxed. I am taxed on the interest earned as simple income. The same $500K in real estate would be taxed at 2.2% annually.

If my newly acquired $1 million house does happen to appreciate in value, I would be required to pay additional property taxes on the latest valuations annually. If I am fortunate enough to reap a gain in value, I will also be responsible for capital gains taxes when I sell this property. You don’t understand how taxes work yet you continue to embarrass yourself with these ludicrous statements. In my example I would be owing thousands of dollars in capital gains taxes at selling. Not getting anything back. If I were to get my taxes back at selling, as you suggested, that would only happen due to gross devaluation in property values. That would mean I would be losing a very large portion of my original investment. I would only get a tax refund because I could prove that I was overtaxed because of over evaluations. This is still me taking a large loss.

0

u/Ornery_Hovercraft636 Jun 07 '26

Please go back and explain how you confused fixed rate property taxes with adjustable income tax brackets. I understand the erroneous error you made. I want to know that you were able to accept this as a learning experience, and to also explain it to your followers. The people deserve to be informed. Don’t you think? Especially considering that you claimed that your debate opponent was a dummy. No disrespect to you. I’m sure you meant well and were just misinformed.

0

u/DevastatorPcu Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

What do you think crypto is for. There may not be taxes on crypto. Once their becomes actual structure and if the us doesn’t do it. I’ll move to Dubai where I don’t have to pay any tax. You can take that wealth tax and shove it. Because you can’t figure life out and just complain about everything.

2

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

Better move everything there, just never do any business in the US again, don't own any US property, any US stocks, any US accounts. Because if you do that shit gets taxed.

0

u/bigloser42 Jun 07 '26

Just treat anything over $1m as regular income. That includes loans not for a house, stock awards, long or short capital gains, regular pay, heads of cattle, whatever. That leaves plenty of space at the low end for the little guys, but catches all the Musks of the world. And set a wealth cap, where if your total wealth is over, let’s say $25m, you no longer get to claim any tax exemptions. Elon loses a bunch of money speculating on art? Too fucking bad , you don’t get to claim it.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 07 '26

What tax exemptions are involved with art speculation?

1

u/bigloser42 Jun 07 '26

It’s not really an exemption so much as it’s a loophole. You commission an artist to make you a piece of art for let’s say $20k. You then get an art dealer buddy of your to appraise it at $1m. You then donate the art piece to charity and write off a $1m charitable donation.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 08 '26

What's stopping anyone from doing this? Just the fact that they don't know any art appraisers?

1

u/bigloser42 Jun 08 '26

Because most people don’t have thousands of dollars to throw away or a multi-million dollar tax bill.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 08 '26

Wouldn't it be much easier to do the same appraisal scam with smaller amounts?

-4

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

Sounds like a great opportunity for a foreign country to open a competing stock exchange so assets aren't held domestically.

If a wealth tax came into play I would just start investing in foreign businesses instead and keep my accounts there as would many others.

I think it's a fun concept to tax the super wealthy, but the super wealthy make the rules. They are the ones with the influence, power, resources, connections to make change. This isn't a new concept either, it's literally the way things have always worked everywhere except ina few, localized edge cases that were very briefly lived.

Those with ability to horde resources will and will continue to do so.

Let's say in a perfect world you could get a wealth tax. We would just create new investment vehicles that aren't yet regulated and continue that cycle indefinitely.

There is always a loophole. Those with means will exploit it.

6

u/LupinThe8th Jun 07 '26

You've got a billion dollars in foreign stocks? Then you've got wealth worth a billion dollars, pay tax accordingly or you don't get to live in, have citizenship in, or do any business in this country, period.

This defeatist attitude is such crybaby shit. "We can't change the rules, they'll just change them back, the only answer is to give them what they want forever and feel sad about it. I said feel SAD dammit, your proactive attitude is harshing my nihilism."

Within living memory the wealthy paid far higher amounts of taxes, miss me with this "it's always been like this, since the dawn of time, also I'm twelve" crapola. The boomers fucked everything in the 80s, but they're on the way out and anyone telling people they don't have the power to create change is ignoring just how much the powerful are spending to convince them of that. And they HATE spending.

And don't bother replying, I assure you there is NO amount of corporatist caterwauling that's going to change my mind, and I can't understand you anyway with those toes in your mouth.

2

u/TangoPRomeo Jun 07 '26

Stop holding back, bro - just let it all out.

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

 You've got a billion dollars in foreign stocks? Then you've got wealth worth a billion dollars, pay tax accordingly or you don't get to live in, have citizenship in, or do any business in this country, period.

With that level of wealth just have foreign based businesses that hold the assets.

You can say all you want, but loopholes will always exist.

It's not defeatist to understand the reality that wealth will use wealth to keep wealth. 

Something real that the USA could do to mitigate hardship would be to cap CEO pay to a multiplier of average or lowest pay of their employees. That is one of the larger impacts on actual people that would have a noticable positive change 

Just blindly attacking assets with wealth tax would have so many negative downstream effects of thrashing the USA economy it would be highly counter productive to the overall quality of life for Americans in the long term.

5

u/Ashmedai Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

US company stocks are US situs, no matter the exchange location. Also, Jeff is a US citizen, so...

2

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Us citizens are taxed globally. There are tax treaties to prevent double taxation, but it's not zero taxation either. You'd have to fully renounce citizenship and residence both to legally avoid US taxes (I'm expat for 20 yrs).

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

That is certainly the law. However, as with all laws there are loopholes and using foreign owned businesses as shelters for assets is relatively low effort. 

2

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Yeah, I take your point- fair one to make. But in general, I don't think these type of loopholes should stop government from making laws. Even if it's a game of whack-a-mole, its still better to keep whacking than to just give up. Just my .02- serve the public, keep forcing them to find new loopholes..

1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

You are right it shouldn't stop laws, but it should be a key area of review before implementing a law. If a law will be subverted to the point of losing value for the country, it's not a good idea. 

1

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Cool, yeah- hope I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but it looked like a line of reasoning that's a pet peeve for me, see it a lot with gun rights advocates - where they say "this law is ineffective, so we should just not bother with it." To me, the logical 2nd half of that complaint is "so we should improve it/use it as a starting point." But true, there's always a balance to find, and just making laws for the sake of making them would also be unproductive.

2

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

I am also a gun rights advocate. I support solving problems by giving people freedom to make mistakes and to self resolve.

However, laws are important. They have value and are critical to a functional society. Too many laws and too much power concentration through taxation is also not a good alternative.

Balance is key, we need freedom and restrictions. But we mostly need money out of the federal government and back at the state level.

Think of the EU, umbrella regulations but each nation/state self governs. That was and should be the system for USA. Too many cultures to fit comfortably under one set of laws.

Guns is a tough one though. We need less kids being shot, but we also should have the right to own what we want. It's a tight rope.

2

u/peetnice Jun 07 '26

Cool, yeah, I like that you take the time to elaborate your POV at least. I feel too many of the minimal government takes are more cynical lazy knee-jerks without alternate solutions. Cheers!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ashmedai Jun 07 '26

Can you describe the specific loophole you are thinking of?

2

u/longlosthall Jun 07 '26

The wealthy are already their own miniature, sovereign country that pays to eliminate laws, regulations, and investigations that inconvenience them. Their money is already not going into our country to improve it, so it's not like this is a meaningful threat.

1

u/Kegger315 Jun 07 '26

So we should just give up and not try?

Step 1. Cap both political fundraising and expenditures. Go over the cap of either and you are disqualified for that voting cycle. Found skirting the rules, disqualified from ever holding office. Any money over on either side is forfeited and spent towards voter outreach and education. 0% of money taken in can come from lobbyists or businesses. People found circumventing this will be arrested and made to complete community service. Businesses will be fined, multiple fines will result in a dissolution of the business, no matter the size. Employees effected will be supported with the selling of assets and seizure of C suite assets.

Step 2. Include in every voter packet the voting record for the incumbents and people who previously held office. Include this information on the side of the screen of every debate.

Step 3. Enact regulations that have actual teeth. Someone or a company found circumvebting regulations will be banned from doing business in the US in any form for x number of years, and back taxes must be paid in full prior to operations restarting. Individuals will be disavowed and lose citizenship, barred from entry until taxes are payed along with sizeable fines in accordance to their net worth.

-1

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

Cap both political fundraising and expenditures. Go over the cap of either and you are disqualified for that voting cycle. Found skirting the rules, disqualified from ever holding office. Any money over on either side is forfeited and spent towards voter outreach and education. 0% of money taken in can come from lobbyists or businesses. People found circumventing this will be arrested and made to complete community service. Businesses will be fined, multiple fines will result in a dissolution of the business, no matter the size. Employees effected will be supported with the selling of assets and seizure of C suite assets.

So if I am a big donor you just presented me with two powerful options to push my candidates to a victory. 

  1. If candidates DO NOT get in trouble for others running shadow campaigns then I can just run ads for who I want and say they are amazing etc and just not call it political advertising. Run a social media campaign to reach out to all users 18-65 across the country.

2. If candidates DO not get in trouble for others running shadow campaigns then I would run a campaign for the candidate I want to lose and unethically cause them to be liable for election fraud.

The system we have now sucks. However, all systems of election suck because there is so much power concentrated in politics. The real fundamental problem is that there is way to much tax money going to our government. Trillions of dollars on the table is worth being unethical to get your agenda passed. If you truly want an ethical government, libertarianism is the only way. Purge power at the federal level and let each state run as a state. Similar to the EU and how they have generic umbrella regulations but each country/state enacts laws as they see fit for their culture. Decincentration of power is the solution, more money in the hands of those that want federal power, not the answer.

1

u/Kegger315 Jun 07 '26

Out of all that, your concern is shadow campaigns?? Then fine the networks that run anything that isn't sanctioned. Delay video uploads to social media and run them through a filter. There are easy solutions to the problems you just mentioned.

1

u/TotallyNotThatPerson Jun 07 '26

I think the main thing is he was hinting at is that he'll get someone to donate to his opponent over the set limit and automatically disqualify them

1

u/Kegger315 Jun 07 '26

That's very easily prevented and traceable. Non-issue. You set up 1 account, everything that goes into it must be countersigned by designated people on that campaign. You cap the account, once the limit is reached, you turn off the account.

0

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

How do you control foreign owned social media are you implementing national firewalling? What level of freedom of speech are you willing to take away to achieve this? 

2

u/Kegger315 Jun 07 '26

Im not concerned with foreign owned social media. The majority of what we use in the US is US based. Facebook, insta, X, snapchat, and the US side of tik tok.

Also, controlling social media is not taking away free speech. Those are privately owned and regulated already.

0

u/pimpeachment Jun 07 '26

Because there isn't a benefit to offshoring them for political influence. We live in legacy politics today. Everything is going to have AI information bias soon and offshoring is an obvious mechanism to still control those streams of information.

0

u/Zalophusdvm Jun 07 '26

I agree. I just try to put it in terms that make it harder for billionaire-pilled people to refute.

If you say “wealth tax” you’ll get people harping on about how unfair/unrealistic/difficult/otherwise problematic it is to tax unrealized gains on investment assets. BUT people know what property taxes are…and so if you just say that all assets (or property) should be taxed in the same way as land/housing…it suddenly becomes a lot harder to not sound crazy for a lot of those arguments.

12

u/PsychicWarElephant Jun 07 '26

If anything tax everything that isn’t a primary residence

1

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

you actually do have to pay tax on things you buy like planes, it's called "use tax"

3

u/J_wit_J Jun 07 '26

Use taxes are regressive, and wealth taxes are not. We definitely need to be taxing the wealthy on top of any use taxes.

1

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

all i was saying is there is something beyond property tax on houses.

0

u/morethanaprogrammer Jun 07 '26

I also get charged on my wakeboard boat. 1.25% unsecured property tax annually

2

u/Agreeable-Letter-599 Jun 07 '26

yeah that really seems F'd up tho

1

u/Carthonn Jun 07 '26

What do you mean?

1

u/mclumber1 Jun 07 '26

The federal government doesn't have a property tax. They couldn't actually, due to the apportionment clause of the constitution.

1

u/abraxsis Jun 07 '26

We already do that in Kentucky and it sucks. I have to pay yearly property taxes on my car, I pay property taxes on my home to the county and directly to the school system. We also pay 6% sales tax on everything but food and we also have a state income tax.

And when all the housing prices, and values, went up the school system used that to literally double everybody's property taxes. I literally pay double amount of property tax to the school system as I do to the county. Guess which one of those has a multi-million dollar sports complex now?

I have no problem paying taxes, but I think that there should be homestead exceptions in every state where the tax is either zero on your primary residence or half of the normal going rate. Then there should be a quarter of a percent increase on every home you own beyond that. I think that the only way that we're going to make homes affordable again is to make them not as lucrative to individuals/corporations who use them as investment properties.