This is why we hackers should all be helping Google get their self-driving cars on the road. It could save so many lives if people could have the option of living in their car.
Left with Nothing
131–140 of 287 posts
Re: Left with Nothing
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 c…
'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.' Exactly, and that's the difference. Nobody held a gun to you head to move into the HOA collective. You knew the terms and consented to them when you moved in. Conversely, you are held to the laws of the state by the force of, ultimately, guns.
Aaand, there it is. We now have the argument I predicted Rand would endorse given apparently in earnest.
Re: Left with Nothing
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubt that most low-ranking government employees believe they are doing good and I don't blame them. But it doesn't matter and it doesn't change the fact that they are involved in extracting money from people with a threat of force. If you can't convince people to finance something, whatever it is, and you still collect money from them, you are stealing.
Ah, maybe the difference is that I live in a democracy, where we vote for people who set budgets, and often vote directly on the taxes ourselves. So the only people threatened by force here are those who try to be free riders on the system that the people have jointly set up. It may be different where you are.
No difference. Why do US citizens have to pay for wars and killing a great number of innocent people in them, or Guantanamo, or NSA, or TSA... when the majority clearly opposes it? Democracy is a nice myth, which gives surfs a false feeling of satisfaction and control, obscuring the reality, which is that you are being robbed. "You can always leave", as has been noted before, is another myth: yes, spend 5-6 years on the paperwork and then leave to yet another democracy that's gonna steal from you.
Look, I understand you believe in the idea, but the harsh reality is that you are being tricked into obedience by your rulers/owners. My country is no different. The standards of living may be lower, but the fact remains: no government ever truly cares about its citizens. It's nice to think they do, though. But look at the incentives. There are none.
Re: Left with Nothing
#134This may not be the right place for this, but does anyone know who to contact about a similar instance? I have family members that experienced this and lost a house due to predatory lending practices, but there is little to no recourse or resources out there. If anyone has information about the Bank of America/Countrywide issues I would like to know about them.
Re: Left with Nothing
#135Can 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.
The local county government can put a lien on your real property for failing to pay your property taxes, in some places, even for not mowing your lawn (an exaggeration of property maint. codes). In Texas, investors can buy a "Tax Deed" at auction. The property owner has two years to buy the lien back, for a defined price, IIRC the taxes owed + 50% for each year. After the 2 yr repayment window, the purchaser of the t…
An example of a city that does put a lien on the property you're living in if you don't mow your lawn properly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Vista,_Arkansas
First-hand experience.
Re: Left with Nothing
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
I understand greed, and as much as I loathe it, I also understand the mindset that looks at money as a score, but I've never understood this mindset that is unable to recognize the "score" is not absolute, and taxation does not have a 1:1 impact. Progressive taxation renders the scale non-linear.
Given a hypothetical luxury good with a price of $500,000 under a current taxation regime, which do you think is more likely in a regime with, say, 50% higher taxes: That the luxury good ceases to be produced, or that its price is lowered to the point where a similar number of people as before could afford it?
Re: Left with Nothing
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); Yes, because a single corrupt or idiotic or assholic judge should be able to ruin lives left and right without regard for the law. > 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 i…
I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien. And yes, any system you make could be gamed, but you could make one that is harder to game than the current one.
> I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system.
Ah yes, the "Let that person solve it" school of fixing major social problems. It works really well right up until it fails really badly: George Washington was, for a while, effectively a dictator in that he could have been President-For-Life long before we came to associate that concept with bad outcomes; sadly, for every Washington who willingly resigns and refuses dictatorial powers, there are multiple leaders who exploit them to the fullest, possibly with good intentions to begin with, but that gets lost on the way to having a syphilitic strongman who eats the flesh of his enemies.
> We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien.
Small-claims courts are, by their very nature, both high-volume and self-limiting: A judge-dominated process is necessary because we can't afford a jury to sit on every case involving piddling small change, and the fact they are limited to piddling small change means the amount of damage a judge can do is extremely limited. It's a trade-off, not a broad social principle.
Re: Left with Nothing
#138This is why we hackers should all be helping Google get their self-driving cars on the road. It could save so many lives if people could have the option of living in their car.
The kind of people who would be able to afford Google cars are not going to be the kind of people who might end up having to live in them.
And if they were, the government would just make Google drive the car to an impound or something, probably, and they'd take that as well.
Re: Left with Nothing
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
'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.' Exactly, and that's the difference. Nobody held a gun to you head to move into the HOA collective. You knew the terms and consented to them when you moved in. Conversely, you are held to the laws of the state by the force of, ultimately, guns.
Aaand, there it is. We now have the argument I predicted Rand would endorse given apparently in earnest.
I'm not a randian, so I can't speak with complete accuracy to what she (or objectivists) would argue. Personally, I would question the morality of such a contract. There could be problems if the HOA changed the rules of the contract afterwards (because in that case it would be acting as a government).
Re: Left with Nothing
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, exploit…
The complexity of the laws is not a coincidence:
1. It gives more power to the government and less power to the people.
2. The majority of lawmakers are lawyers - complexity means them more job/business opportunities and significance in society.