And this is what happens when you privatise the tax man.
Left with Nothing
101–110 of 287 posts
Re: Left with Nothing
#102The logical outcome of this kind of predatory practice should be that the "investor" (the purchaser of the liens) gets $5000 out of the $197,000 sale, and the debtor gets $192,000. And even that seem predatory, never mind getting all the equity and forcing the person out of their place of residence.
when someone gets your $197,000 house for $134, they can sell it for $71,000 and take $6000 in legal fees, interest etc, as documented in the article. The owner loses $130,000. Don't be surprised if the person buying the house for $71,000 is in on the game too.
This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire their own lawyer, or knowledge of the expanding and complicated laws).
Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable.
Re: Left with Nothing
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a (limited) Rand fan -- I think she inadvertently explored some interesting ideas, particularly about the limits and problems of wealth/power in The Fountainhead, lost on most of her acolytes though they seem to be -- and my suspicion is that Rand would be pretty much fine with this outcome if we could just get government actors out of the equation and have private parties taking homes from people. For an exampl…
> my suspicion is that Rand would be pretty much fine with this outcome if we could just get government actors out of the equation and have private parties taking homes from people. Absolute nonsense....I can't think of a single Rand writing that would support this notion in the slightest. One of her primary principles was that the desire for the unearned was a "sin" (or whatever equivalent word she used). Taking som…
"Earned" is a slippery concept that can take some funny turns depending on who's using it.
If someone who's halfway through paying their mortgage stops making payment, has the bank earned the equity the borrower has put in? You might argue they haven't, but this isn't absurd.
If nothing else, advocates for the lender -- and, in general, libertarian voluntarists -- would argue that if both parties have agreed on the conditions, execution of them is justly earned.
And if you want Rand cite for that, read the Roark/Rand courtroom soliloquy where it's explained why it's OK for him to blow up a building (sure, other people may have put in sweat and equity, but that's nothing compared to his contract).
Well, why not the same thing for an HOA? Nobody held a gun to your head to move into a property that's part of a private collective. If Roark can uphold his aesthetic conditions, surely an HOA can uphold whichever please them, and ask for their fees, and blow you out of your building if you don't comply.
Now, if you think that there's a flaw here -- perhaps that "as agreed" is not necessarily the same thing as "earned" -- I might agree with you. Perhaps Rand even says something to that effect elsewhere. But at the same time, the entire climax of her second most famous book turns on a different principle.
(Also -- I have my doubts that anybody has any true claim to have earned most of what they have. We all have a heck of a free ride as far as life and resources go.)
Re: Left with Nothing
#104Sorry but WTH?!! 134/197000 is 0.068%. And if this was not enough, I read this -
A 95-year-old church choir leader lost her family home to
a Maryland investor over a tax debt of $44.79 while she
was struggling with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home.
Re: Left with Nothing
#105The logical outcome of this kind of predatory practice should be that the "investor" (the purchaser of the liens) gets $5000 out of the $197,000 sale, and the debtor gets $192,000. And even that seem predatory, never mind getting all the equity and forcing the person out of their place of residence.
I have a hard time believing this story. If it actually is true, the local government in DC is beyond corrupt.
taxation without representation. DC barely has a local government. Its Congress who has jurisdiction. so yes, they are as corrupt as it gets. from wikipedia: "Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress "exclusive jurisdiction" over the city. The District did not have an elected local government until the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act. The Act devolved certain Congressional powers to an elected mayor, currently Vincent C. Gray, and the thirteen-member Council of the District of Columbia. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs.[160]"
Re: Left with Nothing
#106House of Fog shed light on this problem. it is tragedy.
I believe it was The House of Sand and Fog. And Ben Kingsley and Jennifer Connolly are amazing in it.
Re: Left with Nothing
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Higher rate income tax certainly does. Tax bands certainly provide a big disincentive for bothering to get a better job/raise. Inheritance tax is very unfair. If you are rich enough, you'll plan around it and avoid it. But if you're not rich enough, your kids will not only lose their parents, they'll be sent a bill from the government. Which at best is a tad insensitive. Add to that the fact that the thresholds for i…
>Tax bands certainly provide a big disincentive for bothering to get a better job/raise. You know that your entire income isn't taxed at the highest bracket's rate, right? So, for example, the highest bracket is 39.6% for income above $400k. If you make $410k, $10k is taxed at 39.6%, and the rest of your income is taxed at a lower rate.
Yes I do know that. It's still a big disincentive to bother earning more money.
Why bother trying harder if the government will take half of anything extra you make?
Re: Left with Nothing
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Property taxes are very progressive and we should absolutely have more of them (fair ones, not like the one in this article where you lose your home if you fail to pay some trivial sum). The reasons are best described in the article below, but in summary, we all pay to defend and enhance your property (by supporting the police, roads, local services, etc). It's fairer for property owners to take a larger share of thi…
Excellent reply, and your position is completely reasonable. I would submit, however, that there is more variability in how and where people choose to live than your views can completely accommodate.
Re: Left with Nothing
#109So, I generally disagree with libertarians (especially, the 25-year-old white male type who know nothing about the economy and have never met a poor person who tend to show up on HN) and one of those grating libertarian tropes is that government is essentially an extortionate body, insofar as it demands payment for non-refusable services and punishes those who do not pay. Now, in general, I would find this argument to be very silly.
However, this sort of behavior makes that "silly" libertarian smear appear to be, in fact, entirely spot-on. All of this, the extreme pursuit of small debts, the tacking-on of "legal fees" to skirt usury/extortion laws, and the transfer of debt to more vicious investors (who are more likely to engage in usury, extortion, et al) is textbook mob shit.
Re: Left with Nothing
#110Islam 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.
If you want to borrow money to buy a car for example from an Islamic Bank they 'buy' the car and the sell it to you in so many installments at a profit. Same as charging interest by wrapped in 'profit' which is allowed in the Koran. Pathetic and hypocritical and the first to lock you in if you can't pay.