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

221–230 of 287 posts

Re: Left with Nothing

#221

Post by rch »

dnautics wrote: post #179
rch wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm not as impassioned as I should be, but I just see this as a question of how best to provide common services. For instance, if I had 5 acres in the middle of nowhere, I might be expected to chip in to a fund to keep a fire on my land from spreading to adjacent BLM property. However, my acreage is likely to be taxed more or less based on the quality of the view, or another similarly cosmetic factor in land va…

>why not just calculate my share of the public fire suppression expenses based on area? remember: > there is no "rules scheme" you can construct that will be as progressive as you want . What you propose may be 'fair'[0], in the context of providing services*. But that is not the goal of progressivism, which is redistribution of wealth and creation of an more outcomes-equal society (a concept I'm personally not oppos…

I'm not actually opposed to progressive taxation either, by other means.

I can think of a few solutions* to your counterexample though, and that's the point. There's no reason to expect a solution to be fair in all cases, or perfectly fair in any. I'd only argue that there is often, or perhaps always, a more equitable and direct way to provide for common services than property taxes.

*I choose the BLM as a neighbor purposefully. The rich people in your example would almost certainly prefer to fund their own municipal utility than settle for the type of response I would expect the state or county to provide.

Re: Left with Nothing

#222

Post by staccatomeasure »

derleth wrote: post #137
staccatomeasure wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

You're argument that entrusting certain officials with making good publicly known decisions "works really well right up until it fails really badly" based off of a weird GW parable has me scratching my head.

And regarding small claims courts - the amount of damage a judge can do is directly related to how much a person is worth, just like fines for civil infractions. It can be nearly nothing or it can be life altering.

Anyway, the solution to this particular problem would be fine-limits (like in other states) and things like license-renewal restrictions (like you get for not paying a speeding ticket).

Edit: I suppose if people don't pay property taxes continually you have to sell the house to stop the tax revenue loss. Enforcing market-price restrictions might be difficult as lack of sale persists the problem. Maybe taking equity in the house at market price or something like that could work. Any way you look at it though $145 shouldn't be such a high-pri. Unpaid speeding tickets amount to more than that.

Re: Left with Nothing

#223

Post by pandaman »

eurleif wrote: post #94
bolder88 wrote: post #88

Earlier 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.

You know that the effective tax rate still raises?

For simplicity sake, consider that first 100K are taxed at 10% and next 100K at 20%. If you made 100K your effective tax had been 10% i.e. you owed 10K to the government, however if you made 200K, even though the first 100K is still taxed at the same rate, your effective rate is 15% because you now owe 30K out of 200K.

Re: Left with Nothing

#224

Post by cam_l »

bigfoot13442 wrote: post #100
nateabele wrote: post #24

Tell me again how government does such a wonderful job protecting the weakest & most vulnerable.

Yet another thing I would do if I was rich: buy up the unfortunate circumstances and forgive them. I understand how it would be hard for the government to implement a policy to do the same, but this situation is ridiculous.

you don't have to be rich!

http://rollingjubilee.org/

http://strikedebt.org/

http://www.occupyourhomes.org/

http://occupyforeclosure.org/

Re: Left with Nothing

#225

Post by _wp3r »

This story is not about a government department doing what it is charged with doing. This story is not about privitization of collections. This story is not about the well known DC corruption issue. This story is not about tax collection automation, ie removing the knock on the door. This story is not about people that buy tax liens, which as a side note do not know the circumstances of the lien.(barring collusion)

This story is about the fact that this man had no one. No one to make sure is ok. No one to ask if has been forgetting things lately. No neighbors that might have checked in on him. No family that was attentive enough to realise he may need help with the 10 giant boxes of mail by the door. No one that gave enough of a shit to just ask how he was doing.

When was the last time you checked in on that elderly lady that lives next door to make sure she is doing ok? When is the last time you did a little checking up on your elderly family? When was the last time you took the time to make sure the people around you are not getting to the point where they need help?

As a side note, please read the entire article.

Re: Left with Nothing

#226

Post by [deleted] »

helmut_hed wrote: post #152
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are tax liens different from other kinds? It's my impression that if e.g. a lender repossesses, they sell the house, pocket what you owe plus fees, and have to give you the rest back. It's strange to think it would be different for unpaid property taxes. Was Coleman truly "left with nothing" or did he get a portion of the sale proceeds?

[deleted]

Re: Left with Nothing

#227

Post by rdtsc »

theorique wrote: post #51
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…

Say what you like about Ayn Rand, but she was hardly a fan of out-of-control government/private collusion to seize individuals property in a manner completely out of proportion to the size of their debt.

That was the flaw in her reasoning that big business and govt can and will be somehow separate entities. They never are. They are effectively the same entity. Look at chiefs and heads of regulatory agencies, they are often ex or future CEO of industries those agencies are supposed to police. Look at many military industrial contractors they often hire ex-generals and so on. And all this in the land of "law and order". Imagine in other countries with less "law and order".

Re: Left with Nothing

#228

Post by pandaman »

nknighthb wrote: post #136
bolder88 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 like…

I don't look at money as a score. I look at my salary as the value of my labor. I sell my labor to maximize the value of my effort. I.e. I am looking to maximize my compensation and minimize my effort. It's pretty much how everything on the market works.

To answer your second question is impossible - we don't know the shape of supply and demand curves nor do we know the initial rate of taxes. E.g. if the original taxes had been 1% then it's just going to bump the price a little bit. If the original taxes had been 50% then it ceased to be produced.

But if you want to know the general relation of taxes and supply and demand consider how things are going to progress as you keep raising taxes. Do you seriously believe prices are going to fall as the taxes raise?

Re: Left with Nothing

#229

Post by _wp3r »

jnardiello wrote: post #167
Ellipsis753 wrote: post #153

I don't mean to be taking the wrong side here but I'd be interested to know why didn't he didn't pay the money (It seems he was given warning). If he couldn't pay then I'm surprised he didn't sell his TV/remorgage his house/borrow money/ask friends or family to help or something. Perhaps I'm naive and he really couldn't do anything about this but it would have been nice if the article had covered this. Yes this is aw…

Maybe he forgot. Maybe he couldn't. Life is hard and complex. Not everyone is smart and clever. The weak side, for a debt of $40 gets all his properties auctioned and report a loss comparable to life-long savings. Totally reasonable and fair. Agree with you, can't see anything wrong going on here too. (i'll state the obvious: i'm joking). It's not simply a case that here we talk about: - People with dementia or major…

--- Institutions try to understand why this person isn't paying

How does a city like NY or LA scale this, when 1 or 2 out of hundreds or thousands is this type of situation. This situation only happens because a city doesn't have the manpower to do a social viability check on every tax lien.

I agree on principle, but the monitoring of elderly is not the role of government, but of community, neighbors, and family.

Re: Left with Nothing

#230

Post by dnautics »

wisty wrote: post #196
dnautics wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming the property tax system is not a binary proposition. How do you assess its value? How does the state choose whom to go after? Did you even read the WaPo article? Do you not see how the existence of a property tax has come around to hurt exactly the most vulnerable population (and in this case, through no directed malice) I promise you, people living in Palisades (the richest part of DC) are not worried about p…

It's not the tax that's the problem. It's a law which lets them seize the land for a few dollars in unpaid tax. That's just a heinous law. What's the next step? Repossessing kidneys for small unpaid medical bills? Many countries have land taxes which work reasonably well. There can be some proscribed formula (based on a regression on nearby property). Or they can do valuations. There'll always be problems, but it's n…

1. >It's not the tax that's the problem. It's a law which lets them seize the land for a few dollars in unpaid tax.

What happens if they refuse to pay the tax, then? As an agent of the state, how do you make them pay? You might send them some letters with warnings. Of course then they might continue to shirk the law. You can ratchet up the tax, by charging interest. Ok, but that's a number. They still refuse to pay. How do you make them pay?

2. your logic is questionable:

>Property is a huge investment, driven by unsophisticated retail investors (who may be putting most of their life's savings into a single home), prone to stupid fluctuations, which can destroy the lives of normal people when it does something funny. Taxing it helps keep it a little rational (as the taxes will encourage people to avoid it when it starts heating up).

Having children is a huge investment, driven by unsophisticated people, prone to stupid fluctuations, which can destroy the lives of normal people when it does something funny. Taxing childbirth helps keep it a little rational (as the taxes will encourage people to avoid sex when it starts heating up)

Does that sound like reasonable public policy?

And aside from the policy ethics I strongly doubt your model that property taxation is a significant 'tempering agent'. If you're going to call the buyer an 'unsophisticated retail investor', it's unlikely to presume that they will have a 'sophisticated' concept of property taxation, either, especially when the government can change its parameters at will.

Finally, if you're going to argue that property taxation is supposed to be a detterent for people who you are codedly calling 'unsophisticated' (whether or accurate or not, that reads to me as 'poor people') to 'rash' purchases, well, thank you for demonstrating my point that it's tax with regressive outcomes.

If you can show me a citation indicating that property tax keeps housing prices 'rational', I'd give it a second thought.

Post reply on HN