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

161–170 of 287 posts

Re: Left with Nothing

#161

Post by Lewisham »

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…

It says in the article that he was struggling with dementia. One highly possible reason is that he simply forgot.

Re: Left with Nothing

#162

Post by choult »

hemancuso wrote: post #155

How is there not a huge angry thread about this not being appropriate for hacker news. Seriously guys. Flag this.

It's at the top of HN because it's been upvoted by HNers. How is it irrelevant if the masses say it should be up there?

Re: Left with Nothing

#163

Post by kylebgorman »

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…

In TFA, it's mentioned that he has dementia.

Re: Left with Nothing

#164

Post by rayiner »

afterburner wrote: post #31

The 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'm very skeptical of that part of the article and its a little disappointing to me that HN is so ready to take it at face value. It could be true, but it could be a journalist mangling the story like they do for any technically complicated topic.

Re: Left with Nothing

#165

Post by [deleted] »

dnautics wrote: post #125
wwweston wrote: post #103

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

Re: Left with Nothing

#166

Post by cantrevealname »

jamieb wrote: post #86
afterburner wrote: post #31

The 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.

Your two-sentence summary is better than the entire article in understanding what's going on.

I read the whole article, and I somehow missed that sentence buried in the middle of the story. So Mr. Coleman wasn't "left with nothing" but presumably received something like $65,000 (i.e., $71,000 minus $6,000 or whatever the final legal bill was). Nowhere does the article say exactly what he received in the end.

The way the tax sale works sounds quite unjust and corrupt -- we don't need the reporter to make it even more evil ("left with nothing") by obscuring key facts.

Re: Left with Nothing

#167

Post by jnardiello »

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 problems - Lonely - Most of the times, old enough to be completely invisible

And the state, private contractors and greedy individuals use them to refill their bank accounts. And it's perfectly legal. And some people, as you are doing now, simply try to justify it.

I'll tell you what is fair here: - He doesn't pay - Warnings should be issued - He should be given a greater amount to pay (i guess 100x the original amount should be enough) - He still doesn't pay - Insitutions try to understand why this person isn't paying - Take appropriate actions according to the situation. If the lack is anyhow justified (eg. person incapable of self-support) simply drop it and warn social services. Otherwise proceed to court.

Seems a lot more reasonable. But ehi, this would mean lot of effort. Why not just raping and looting the weaks. Keep up with the great job!

Re: Left with Nothing

#168

Post by gradstudent »

As an external observer I find it ridiculous that the recovery of small amount of debt -- to the government no less! -- involves foreclosing on someone's home.

WTF is wrong with you America?

Re: Left with Nothing

#169

Post by rch »

rwmj wrote: post #149
dnautics wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Property taxes are very progressive and we should absolutely have more of them. The naivete, here, is of course, that the wealthy don't have more resources to protect themselves against property taxes or reduce their burden, or deal with enforcement, or mitigate corruption by the state. In reality though, there is no "rules scheme" you can construct that will be as progressive as you want . You'll tack on more rules…

Property is harder to hide than other forms of wealth. You can hide your money in an offshore bank account. It's pretty hard to hide land. If there's a piece of land, someone should be paying the land tax on it (if whoever owns it is hiding, the people can grab it back). So land tax is fair and progressive (the more land you own, the more tax you pay).

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 value. Why not just calculate my share of the public fire suppression expenses based on area? Assuming, of course, that sufficiently many of my neighbors feel compelled to intervene in cases of wildfire.

Re: Left with Nothing

#170

Post by jnardiello »

rayiner wrote: post #158

The article doesn't come out and say it, but the impetus for tax sales is that foreclosure proceedings are pretty onerous and take forever. At the same time, property taxes are the primary source of revenue for the local government and must be collected. So it doesn't seem ridiculous at face value to sell the debt to private investors and let them do the collection while being able to recoup the fees involved in fore…

Which still seems totally fine and fair, right? Great, keep up with the great job!
Post reply on HN