271–280 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Law is ripe for disruption. We need something like IBM's Watson to fight the complexity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is for the district to carry the burden of foreclosing, which costs taxpayers money (foreclosures are involved to protect homeowners) or alternatively just forgiving the tax debts of Alzheimer's patients. These foreclosure don't just happen one day. They happen after six months of warnings, letters, phone calls, etc.
The burden? Excuse me? That's their job. I'm sorry there is a cost associated with doing your job . If you're prepared to outsource that job and have the private sector do it extremely poorly and with no regulation, thereby effectively raping people of their wealth over a pittance, you should be prepared to pay the consequence for that.
Tax enforcement schemes are conceived, enacted, and executed by governments because they have a monopoly over the taxing power. If private profiteers are allowed to exploit local citizens, it is strictly because the entity holding that power has deliberately chosen to set up an enforcement scheme that arms those predators with everything they need to conduct their exploitation. The vultures, despicable as they are, w…
i don't get why the law is so coarse - why a lien worth less than the value of the house can be used to forclose the house?! I understand if the value of the lien/debt is equal or greater than the value of the house. Otherwise, it's just like the article claims - highway robbery.
Earlier 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…
Administrative hearings are used in a wide range of situations in the U.S. For example, when applying for federal benefits or under compensation programs. They're not a panacea. As organizations, they tend to become biased towards one side or the other. Good luck getting the Department of Labor to rule your way as an employer. One of the values of lawyers is that they force decision makers to justify their decisions to a sophisticated party, which reduces the tendency towards systematic bias or alternatively arbitrary action.
In the context of foreclosures generally, lawyers protect the lenders' interests. Foreclosure is already heavily stacked against the lender. The homeowner has months or sometimes years and numerous second chances to come up with the delinquent payments. Do we need to make the system even more biased by getting rid of the rules and letting a judge decide based on who has the most heartbreaking reason for not paying what they owe?
Incidentally, this situation also clearly demonstrates why the "loser pays legal expenses" rule is a bad one. When the loser pays, the biggest entity in the litigation has no incentive to reign in its legal expenses. Imagine applying "loser pays" to banks in foreclosure proceedings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden? Excuse me? That's their job. I'm sorry there is a cost associated with doing your job . If you're prepared to outsource that job and have the private sector do it extremely poorly and with no regulation, thereby effectively raping people of their wealth over a pittance, you should be prepared to pay the consequence for that.
I'm not defending the DC process. I don't like outsourcing basic government functions like tax collection. My point is that the article is very one sided. It can cost the District a lot of money to do these foreclosures themselves, because the foreclosure process is time consuming and extremely friendly to the homeowner. Those costs can outweigh the taxes owed. Should a taxpayer just be able to get away with not payi…
Yes. How much do we spend every year on the disabled, seniors, and veterans between benefits, support systems, etc? What is the marginal cost to extend that support to wiping away under $1000 in property taxes?
How much public support will they require after they evicted from their homes over several hundred dollars and have no where to go? We're just shifting the burden. That's my problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ga…
JFYI - if you take every US billionaire's (all 400+ of them) money (about 1.9T) and split it among everyone in the US (300M) you get about 6300 dollars per person. It's not a lot of money. Might pay your rent and utilities for a year. And then it's gone. It's not their income, it's their whole net worth. So I'd stop fantasizing about money of uber-rich. There is not that much and it does not matter. What matters is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collection of taxes being private, and the fairness of the rules are two entirely different things. "Randian/Thatcherite dream"...as if they want people to lose their houses. You are very misinformed on Objectivist principles.
The principles emphasize process over outcome. So it's not that they want people to lose their homes, but if things happen the 'right' way and that's the outcome, so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 c…
It's pretty logically and mathematically definitive, only in present society with bankers gone wild could it be terribly questionable who owns what. Common sense is usually sufficient.
> 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).
Honestly, it's been ages since I've read that book so I can't comment intelligently. That sounds pretty crazy, but I have a feeling you're taking a negative interpretation, although I may be wrong. I tend to find Rand's larger principles correct, if not practical, while I differ on some of the smaller ones (Food Safety / restaurant inspections come to mind).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is a fair one, and the answer for the majority of people seems to be: because you get to keep the other half.
Well, that is a little consolation for you, true, the government lets you keep a little bit to keep you from rebelling and keep you placid. However, I feel that I'm already paying the government FAR more money than I should be, so I'm simply not bothered about trying to make them more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Fine, you feel you're not being robbed. I know quite a few people from the US who feel that taxes are theft. Granted you agree they have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, how do you justify the fact that if they don't pay taxes, they will go to prison (not right away, but eventually, if they decide to resist, even if peacefully) or have their property alienated? Democracy isn't the answer, because they do…
But if people want to enjoy the benefits of living in a city, state, and country, to participate in an economy, those benefits come with obligations. Sure, they may not want to pay for things. But if they can't get others to agree that the government should not do those things, or at least should run them on a cost-recovery basis, then it's too bad.
They certainly have the freedom to move to someplace without effective government. E.g., Waziristan or Somalia. They will be much freer there. Of course, warlords will be free to rob or kill them, so it may not be entirely to their tastes, but then, we aren't guaranteed perfect choices, just the opportunity to make better ones.