Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Left with Nothing

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 287 posts

Re: Left with Nothing

#21

Post by dantheman »

brianmcconnell wrote: post #11

Queue up the Ayn Rand acolytes in 3...2...1 It's not a coincidence that this is happening to mostly elderly people who otherwise own their properties in the clear, people who are often burdened with serious health problems. There is a simple fix. Require the liens to be paid off when there is a change of ownership. The city knows what it is owed, and that it will get the money eventually. If the city needs the money…

Why would an Ayn Rand acolyte support the state taking the property of private individuals?

Re: Left with Nothing

#22

Post by auggierose »

Reading something like that makes me very angry. What would be the highest punishment against people who do something like that? Personally, I would not have any problem to dish out the highest one.

Re: Left with Nothing

#23

Post by mynameishere »

acchow wrote: post #10

Can someone point me to the laws and regulations that allow this? Someone who owns their home completely (with no mortgage) can lose the entirety of the home due to unpaid taxes? Even if the value of the home far exceeds the tax debt? This is mindboggling to me.

Well, it's generally been the case that the government could seize property due to failure to pay property taxes. The problem is that the government here is, bizarrely, selling the liens to "investors" rather than just collecting the taxes owed.

Re: Left with Nothing

#26

Post by brianmcconnell »

dantheman wrote: post #21
brianmcconnell wrote: post #11

Queue up the Ayn Rand acolytes in 3...2...1 It's not a coincidence that this is happening to mostly elderly people who otherwise own their properties in the clear, people who are often burdened with serious health problems. There is a simple fix. Require the liens to be paid off when there is a change of ownership. The city knows what it is owed, and that it will get the money eventually. If the city needs the money…

Why would an Ayn Rand acolyte support the state taking the property of private individuals?

I was referring to the generally sociopathic attitude they tend to adopt toward The Poor.

BTW, this is a privatized operation wherein predatory debt collectors buy the liens, foreclose the property, and then flip it at a huge profit. Just another example of government acting as stenographer for the financial industry.

Re: Left with Nothing

#27

Post by tvanantwerp »

brianmcconnell wrote: post #11

Queue up the Ayn Rand acolytes in 3...2...1 It's not a coincidence that this is happening to mostly elderly people who otherwise own their properties in the clear, people who are often burdened with serious health problems. There is a simple fix. Require the liens to be paid off when there is a change of ownership. The city knows what it is owed, and that it will get the money eventually. If the city needs the money…

I can't really see Ayn Rand supporting the seizure of property over unpaid taxes. I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, but it's pretty easy to figure out what she does or doesn't believe in from her writings. And taxes are definitely in the "I don't care for that" category.

Re: Left with Nothing

#28

Post by alternize »

the article's title makes it hard for me as a non-us citizen to understand what foreclosure means in this context.

what i got from the article is this: due to the financial situation of the owner, a small unpaid tax turns due to unfair practizes into a larger debt of like $5000, which then allowed a judge to enforce the sale of the house so that unpaid taxes could be paid off.

now if the house was sold for the mentioned 197'000, does that mean that the owner at least got the proceeds minus the debt? the title suggests that this would not be the case...

Re: Left with Nothing

#29

Post by rch »

mynameishere wrote: post #23
acchow wrote: post #10

Can someone point me to the laws and regulations that allow this? Someone who owns their home completely (with no mortgage) can lose the entirety of the home due to unpaid taxes? Even if the value of the home far exceeds the tax debt? This is mindboggling to me.

Well, it's generally been the case that the government could seize property due to failure to pay property taxes. The problem is that the government here is, bizarrely, selling the liens to "investors" rather than just collecting the taxes owed.

It has always seemed to me that property taxes are a completely incorrect idea; far more onerous than, for instance, the estate tax. Have there been any serious efforts to get rid of them?

Re: Left with Nothing

#30

Post by harrytuttle »

nobrains wrote: post #12

Islam has the most fair rules against Interest. The Quran says: Chapter 2 - Baqarah - Verse 275: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002... (Read the next 10 or so verses) and Chapter 3 - Verse 130: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/003... "O you who believe! Devour not usury (interest), doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah (God); that you may (really) prosper." Some more…

As an English atheist, possibly surprisingly, I think Islam is right regarding interest. Unfortunately wrapping it up in mumbo jumbo doesn't give it any credibility. Also it isn't really related to the article.
Post reply on HN