Left with Nothing • Hacker News Board

Re: Left with Nothing

#241

Post by nknighthb » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 2:54 AM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #228

nknighthb wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tax…

I think if you cut everyone's income of fiat currency by half, the effect is not that everyone is 50% poorer. I think if you cut everyone's disposable income of fiat currency by half, the effect is not that they can afford 50% fewer luxury goods. And I don't think any of the uber-wealthy sit around and think "You know, I was going to make an extra billion in the market, but since I'd have to give up 20% to capital gains, I'll just stick all my money in a non-interest-bearing account instead.".

Re: Left with Nothing

#242

Post by pdonis » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #219

pdonis wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical of the "lien holder gets the equity" claim because it doesn't work that way outside of DC or in foreclosure generally I'm not sure I understand. Foreclosure means the lien holder takes title to the property, and the current owner, the one who owes the debt that the lien holder was unable to collect, loses title. Then the lien holder, who now has title to the property, sells it for whatever the market wi…

That's not how foreclosures work. In most states, foreclosure is a judicially supervised sale in which the lien holder does not take title, but instead is entitled to part of the proceeds of the sale. Multiple lien holders may collect in case of say home equity loans, but at the end the original owner is entitled to whatever is left after satisfying the liens. In some rare cases, with underwater mortgages, the lender…

That's not how foreclosures work.

I do see plenty of web references that describe foreclosures the way you do, but they all talk specifically about foreclosures when the lien is a mortgage. Does the same process apply when the lien is a tax lien? What information I can find suggests it doesn't--or at least, there seems to be a lot of wiggle room.

Re: Left with Nothing

#243

Post by theorique » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:04 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #227

theorique wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

For sure. Good point about the contractors hiring generals. There are lots of different revolving doors in different industries.

If you work at a major investment bank, why would you speak out against government regulation of your industry when you might need a bailout some year in the future?

If you work at a government regulator (e.g. the SEC), why would you regulate the industry too hard when they are going to be your biggest source of consulting fees after you leave your government employment?

For example, Bernie Madoff's brother was a director of SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) for two years.

Re: Left with Nothing

#244

Post by ycombobreaker » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:10 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #180

sliverstorm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property tax is primarily a disincentive to buy lots of land you can't do anything with and sit on it (metaphorically). That's a good thing- it means the incentives will push land into the hands of people who are actually going to do something with it (making it worth paying the property tax)

> Property tax is primarily a disincentive to buy lots of land you can't do anything with and sit on it... No. Property tax is primarily a means for localities to raise revenue. If what you were saying were true, then developed land, including primary residences, would have no associated property taxes. It'd be exempt.

Regardless of the intent, property taxes do serve both purposes. Developed land must provide a return above and beyond the property tax rate in order to be profitable. That includes primary residences, where the return is... not easy to measure in dollars.

Re: Left with Nothing

#245

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:15 AM UTC

nthj wrote: post #239

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…

Texas laws regarding property and property taxes seem rather un-Texan.

Don't let anybody fool you. There are a lot of goofy things going on around here.

Re: Left with Nothing

#246

Post by 616c » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:17 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #191

I'm all for making money, but this seems predatory and downright evil. Under no circumstances should someone be able to foreclose on a property because they hold a lien for less than 1/1000th of the value of the property, then take all of the equity. According to the article, this is only allowed in a small handful of jurisdictions - most require the proceeds above the amount owed to be passed along to the owner. It'…

I will expand on that comment. DC is a mess because its municipal government is very much restricted, and the final say is in the hands of Congress.

If you think lobbying is the problem, check out the license plate: Taxation without Representation. This is an ironic snipe at the state of affairs for the district. [0] I encourage to read, as those in DC know damn well it is Congress stonewalling on many issues. The Congress still has the right, even after 1973, to overrule decisions made by the municipal government, which did not exist prior to that date! [1]

So, thank your elected officials. When people complain about their misfeasance, ineptitude, and inability to run just about anything, DC is a prime example of how they are incapable to run a city, even by delegation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_ri... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_dc#Government

Re: Left with Nothing

#247

Post by thedufer » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:19 AM UTC

cantrevealname wrote: post #184

nowarninglabel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what happened at all. Try reading again. >The Maryland company that took Coleman’s house sold it for $71,000 two months after evicting him. The company was owned by Steven Berman, who was convicted in 2008 in the Maryland bid-rigging case. He declined to comment. The law firm for Berman’s company said it was willing to reduce Coleman’s bill to $3,500 but could not reach him.

> No, that's not what happened at all. What part are you saying I still don't understand? The point I was trying to make is that Mr. Coleman does get some money from the sale, although unjustly much less than the house is worth. But the reporter is obscuring this simple fact.

> Not only did he lose his $197,000 house, but he also was stripped of the equity because tax lien purchasers are entitled to everything, trumping even mortgage companies.

That's not "obscuring this simple fact", that's stating clearly and unambiguously that your "fact" isn't true. The person you initially responded to was creating an example, based on how liens usually work. The reason the profit margins are so high in this case is that it doesn't work that way.

Re: Left with Nothing

#248

Post by westicle » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:27 AM UTC

djvu9 wrote: post #213

Not sure if you guys have noticed this "In 2006, he forgot to pay a $134 tax bill, prompting the city to place a lien on the home and add $183 in interest and penalties. His son paid the $317 bill in 2009, records show, but that wasn’t enough." His son did pay the tax later. I don't know how penalties/government fees are made and justified.

The writing is horribly obfuscated. What it means to say is that the original bill was $134. Presumably he received dozens of notices and warnings that it needed to be paid, before it was sold as a lien.

The lien holder would then have sent notices and warnings that the debt needed to be paid. Eventually after no response, it filed foreclosure proceedings in the court (at some significant cost). At that point, the son decided to pay the original tax bill, however the holder of the lien presumably wanted its legal costs paid before it would surrender the lien.

What happened next was very unjust. But would make more sense if the article was clear on the timeline of events.

Re: Left with Nothing

#249

Post by wpietri » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:47 AM UTC

snitko wrote: post #133

wpietri wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I certainly grant that things are not perfect here.

Regarding your particular questions, in May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the Iraq war was justified, so the majority clearly didn't oppose it. Most now believe it was a mistake. Only 41% of citizens agree with the president's plan to close Guantanamo. A majority of Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. I think the majority of Americans are wrong on all of these things, but they are undeniably popular opinions.

I, personally, am not being robbed. I am also not being tricked into obedience. Your insistence to the contrary, entirely ignorant of my actual situation, is arrogant foolishness. I've lived on four continents, and I'm quite happy with what I have here.

Could it be better? Sure. Is it at risk from powerful interests? Definitely, especially at the federal level. But I also see many causes for hope.

Re: Left with Nothing

#250

Post by brightsize » Mon, Sep 09, 2013, 3:59 AM UTC

asmithmd1 wrote: post #64

bolder88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just go the whole hog and tax all property. eg you buy a laptop, you have to pay the government a tax each year to keep it. Why just apply it to houses? May as well just prohibit people from owning property. Personally, I think such taxes are a massive disincentive for people to do well. As soon as you have enough money to buy a house, you are penalised for it. Luckily in the UK, we don't have property tax, a…

In Massachusetts they do: "All personal property situated in the commonwealth is subject to tax, unless specifically exempt by law" http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-finance-la...

True. When I lived there in the 80s, I remember getting fairly hefty annual bills for excise tax on my car. I don't know if they still do that or what classes of property were routinely taxed at the time.