Forcing oligarchs to keep their yachts, would be a much more severe sanction.
In those very rare moments the desire to own a yacht sets in, I remember the saying that the second happiest day for a millionaire is when he buys himself a super-duper yacht but, the happiest one, is that day he sells it.
With this in mind why should we advance the oligarchs such happiness? It could be much more effective to have a judge order him to keep the yacht and its crew in tip-top conditions for the next twenty years, and, if failing to do so, have to spend five years doing community service.
Warning! Let's not wake up to taxpayers having to pay unemployment benefits to many fired yacht-crews and pick up huge yacht-maintenance costs.
I warn so because though there must be tremendous buyer market in Russian oligarch yachts, few buyers, or none, will dare to show up. What's the future for this yachts: luxurious restaurants or tourist attractions like fancy Russian Faberge eggs floating museums?
Please, the more you feel enemies to your grandchildren’s way of life could be accumulating too much resources, would you not love for as much of these as possible to be frozen in unproductive assets, like fancy super-yachts?
So, is confiscating yachts a really potent way to fight a war and bring peace?
As also applies when taxing wealth it is important to consider if assets, like yachts, are to be sold, who are the buyers and what would they otherwise have done with that money. Would you, e.g., like an able entrepreneur to freeze his money/purchase-power in a luxurious yacht? And are we really sure those who will receive that money, e.g., the bureaucracy of turn, will give it a better use?
Warning! Just let not confiscations become somebody’s profitable business.
I say this because, when selling a confiscated asset, e.g., a Russian oligarch’s super-yacht, what’s really obtained, effectively confiscated, is the money somebody else has willingly put into that useless asset.
Posts
