Property tax is independent of corporate income tax. Moreover, putting income-generating assets in the hands of a corporation to avoid personal income tax is what happens today (the corporation is just incorporated overseas), so no change there.

> Lol, the opposite is actually true. A corporation is required to have a legal address, without which it simply doesn't exist

He's using the wrong word. It isn't that a corporation's address is ambiguous, it's that it's arbitrary. You can incorporate your business in whichever jurisdiction has the most favorable taxes. You can't file your personal taxes there unless you actually live and have citizenship there.

> In fact, a favourite tax-dodging trick is to be officially registered as living on a boat, or not spending more than a certain amount of time in any country.

Which is clearly illegal unless you actually do. And I don't think that works in the US since US personal income tax is collected from everyone with US citizenship regardless of residency.

Politically, it's very much not, at least not anymore. As we said, property is now a concept almost entirely linked to companies, on the scale we're talking about. Very few people directly own the personal corporate jets they fly around in (this is just an example, please don't nitpick -- you can replace it with pretty much any item of significant value you can think of, with very few exceptions).

> You can incorporate your business in whichever jurisdiction has the most favorable taxes. You can't file your personal taxes there unless you actually live and have citizenship there.

That's unfortunately not the case. The UK has non-dom arrangements for non-citizens spending significant time there; most countries will have something similar -- the only exception being the US, which can sort-of strong-arm its own citizens because of its exceptional power and reach. In most cases, the global elite can shop around for their preferred residency, Montecarlo being the pioneer in this sort of market.

> [living on a boat] is clearly illegal unless you actually do.

Unless you're famous enough that authorities can easily clock the time you spend here or there, determining where you live X days per year in this day and age is extremely difficult.

This is why a lot of famous people move to Montecarlo then have to eventually switch back: unlike your average industrialist, they're very easy to keep track of, being a small elite with entire industries dedicated to tracking their movements and publicise them. Why did they think of moving to Montecarlo in the first place? Because that's perfectly normal among the "regularly rich".

> And I don't think that works in the US

Yes, the US is an exception. Most other countries accomodate this exception in their legal code, because their interest is to attract wealthy US citizens to their shores. You cannot extend this norm to all countries, nor would it be likely to survive the day the US stopped to be the dominant superpower it currently is.

And property tax still has nothing to do with corporate income tax, so I don't know what you're talking about.

> Unless you're famous enough that authorities can easily clock the time you spend here or there, determining where you live X days per year in this day and age is extremely difficult.

Not difficult, just expensive. But this is not rocket science: Probably someone who makes more than $100,000 annually and claims to live on a boat, doesn't. So make the fine higher than the cost of the surveillance and go bust all the liars and make back your costs.

- Shopping for preferred residency is not what this is about -- if you actually live in Monte Carlo, it only stands to reason that you would be paying taxes in Monte Carlo.

- This exact time clocking actually happens everywhere all the time (e.g. take Florida residency as an example, or US tax residency for that matter)