How to screw over the little people

[bush_cheney2004]

Except when they aren't. Thats the rub.

Any fool who loses a home over $500 deserves it.

It may be deliberate and lengthy, but if a mistake is made, and the homeowner knows nothing about it, not even notified until the lien buyer comes calling, and no simple recourse can be made, thats the problem I am talking about.

Not a realistic scenario...involves registered mail, redemption period, even judges in some jurisdictions. Takes years.

I am aware millions pay w/o problems. I am merely talking about the ones who, through no fault of their own are left to fend for themselves w/o means to do so.

Boo hoo....did they forget that they own a home and have to pay property taxes each year? C'mon...........

[Argus]

I didn't say you "deserve" to lose your house, or anything of the like. Nor did I make any moral assertions about what "should" happen or what is "ok". I made a simple statement of facts.

Here's a fact for you. Not everyone understands these myriad regulations. This is particularly so of the elderly. Therefore it behooves us as a society to ensure that these requirements are thoroughly understood by citizens before we do something drastic like, say, execute them for jaywalking or something. We shouldn't just shoot them out of hand without first explaining that if they step off the sidewalk when the light is red they'll become a public enemy and liable to anything we want to do to them.

[Argus]

As has already been pointed out, you're comparing a crime and sentence with a consequence for not civilly doing what one is required by law to do. But even at that, it's not the result, ie: death, but the intent that differentiates first-degree murder from second-degree murder, manslaughter, etc., so how do you propose that fits in with delinquent property taxes?

If the delinquent property owner has no intent to not pay taxes then they don't deserve to lose their house. Furthermore if they have the intent to pay but can't at this time, they still should not be punished as severely as these laws punish them. If a property must be seized for back taxes then it should be sold at market value, and after taxes and expenses are deducted, the remaining funds should be handed over to the former homeowner. Anything else is pure theft.

[Argus]

Or perhaps it amounts to reimbursement for the time and effort involved in selling the property?

Don't be ludicrous. You don't deserve the proceeds of a $200,000 house in order to sell it for $500 back taxes.

These massive profits are why the tax liens are actively purchased by investors and get-rich quick people. None of whom, btw, have any interest in making it easy for the homeowner to pay off his back taxes and get back his house.

[Argus]

Well, pay the tax!

Are you operating under the illusion that everyone is equally intelligent, and equally understands regulations and financial notices?

You do realize, don't you, that a significant percentage of the population is functionally illiterate? That this is even higher among seniors? That seniors can be forgetful and misplace things? Is it a just reward for some old woman who misplaces the mail to have her house seized for a small amount of back taxes?

You think this is civilized?

And by the way, can I take note of the number of people who think of themselves as conservative who apparently don't give two figs about the notion of private property? Apparently it's your property unless you absent mindedly violate some municipal ordinance, then it's the state's.

And you conservative minded folks are all just fine with that.

[Argus]

It may be deliberate and lengthy, but if a mistake is made, and the homeowner knows nothing about it, not even notified until the lien buyer comes calling, and no simple recourse can be made, thats the problem I am talking about.

It is not always that deliberate, and is not very lengthy. The time to tax lien redemption is as low as six months in some places. 1-2 years seems about average.

[guyser]

Any fool who loses a home over $500 deserves it.

Except when they have no idea it has been long overdue.

Not a realistic scenario...involves registered mail, redemption period, even judges in some jurisdictions. Takes years.

Not realistic until it is realistic and occurs.

or...

Except when ...no reg'd mail (govts are notorious for not having to use that method)redepmtion period is useless if the homeowner is not aware nor recd notice of o/s debt.

Boo hoo....did they forget that they own a home and have to pay property taxes each year? C'mon...........

Cannot forget something you dont even know exists.Think multiple lots on same parcel .

[cybercoma]

And by the way, can I take note of the number of people who think of themselves as conservative who apparently don't give two figs about the notion of private property? Apparently it's your property unless you absent mindedly violate some municipal ordinance, then it's the state's.

And you conservative minded folks are all just fine with that.

I was going to mention this, but you beat me to it. It's the same with the food truck thread. It's astonishing the number of so-called conservatives that want to stifle free-enterprise and dissuade small-business entrepreneurship, rather than ensuring health regs are enforced. This creates a paradox for partisan hacks that just parrot party lines. On the one hand, bureaucracy is needed to ensure safety and allow free enterprise; however, they don't want bigger government or to actually pay for safety inspectors, so it's just easier to say these small businesses should be banned.

[bush_cheney2004]

Except when they have no idea it has been long overdue.

Yea..like a library book...pay the fine!

Not realistic until it is realistic and occurs.

or...

Again....too bad. Tax jurisdictions and policies are not designed to aid scofflaws.

Except when ...no reg'd mail (govts are notorious for not having to use that method)redepmtion period is useless if the homeowner is not aware nor recd notice of o/s debt.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Home ownership imposes explicit obligations that are well defined and communicated.

Cannot forget something you dont even know exists.Think multiple lots on same parcel .

Think multiple lots of stupid. How would municipalities manage if everyone could "forget" they owed property taxes. For most homeowners with a mortgage, the taxes are paid from escrow and are well documented in statements. Also, most counties notify the registered property owner(s) of the assessed value and tax each year in addition to a payment notice.

[guyser]

Sadly the world is not black and white. Municipalities are prone to mistakes, and those mistakes can be hidden until the lien holder is at the front door.

Yea..like a library book...pay the fine!

And if you did not check out a book? What fine? Why?

Again....too bad. Tax jurisdictions and policies are not designed to aid scofflaws.

Scofflaw....how does one become one if he has no idea it is due , let alone in arrears?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Not relevant.

Home ownership imposes explicit obligations that are well defined and communicated.

Except when they are not.

Thats the gist, the muni's can and do make mistakes and it appears the solution is for the H/O to pay lots of dough to fix someone elses mistake.

All I am saying is there should be options where the Muni is at fault.

Think multiple lots of stupid.

I said that before, but hey, Muni employees are what they are.

How would municipalities manage if everyone could "forget" they owed property taxes.

I dont know . How would they? Since no one is suggesting anything so goofy, you tell us.

For most homeowners with a mortgage, the taxes are paid from escrow and are well documented in statements. Also, most counties notify the registered property owner(s) of the assessed value and tax each year in addition to a payment notice.

Gosh thanks!

Once again, when the H/O is caught totally unaware due to the Muni's error, it si the H/O who carries the burden ($$) and there should be a recovery process favouring the H/O

No more no less.

Edited July 17, 2012 by guyser

[Wilber]

Or perhaps it amounts to reimbursement for the time and effort involved in selling the property? Someone is getting paid to handle it, and since it's "the state," that means the taxpayers' are paying for it. Furthermore, property taxes cover such expenses as education, road maintenance, law enforcement, fire and paramedics, etc. Should we just put all of those things on hold while property owners take their time coming up with his/her taxes?

There's more than one side to this issue, and the state doesn't collect taxes in order to party and live the good life. Other property owners, who do pay their taxes, shouldn't have to go without these services, or accept a lower level of services, because some do not pay what they are legally required to pay. Home owners voluntarily become home owners. It's their choice, and with that choice comes legal obligations - and consequences.

Of course the owner should have to pay whatever expenses the state incures in recovering its revenue but if the state can't keep track of its expenses why would you expect them to keep track of your taxes. No one is arguing that one shouldn't give unto Caesar what which belongs to Caesar, it is the part that doesn't which is in question.

[Guest American Woman]

Sadly the world is not black and white. Municipalities are prone to mistakes, and those mistakes can be hidden until the lien holder is at the front door.

Do you have proof of instances where this has happened?

I can't imagine homeowners not realizing that they have to pay taxes - in which case foreclosure/lien procedures would happen pretty quickly in the over all picture of their home ownership, since the homeowner would never have paid taxes. But then I can't imagine the homeowner not getting any of the notices sent - from the city or the county or the bank - because I'm assuming that these people didn't pay cash for their homes, but rather took out a mortgage. Furthermore, people speak of losing $200,000 houses, but I have to wonder how much they still owe on said house. I can't imagine anyone who's not aware enough to know about RE taxes having had that kind of cash to pay for a house - and if they didn't pay taxes, they wouldn't have had enough time to pay much of the principle down on a mortgage.

Basically their biggest loss would be the down payment, but I'd be interested in knowing what their monthly payments were on the mortgage since house payments are generally less than rent on such a house would be. In other words, I'd be interested in knowing how much they'd paid through the years compared to someone who paid rent for a similar house - and has nothing to show for it in the end.

I just don't think it's as black and white as people are making it out to be, and again, I can't imagine (barring dementia) home owners not realizing their responsibility re: RE taxes. RE taxes are necessary to keep the city running, and other citizens shouldn't have to have inferior services from the city because some people don't pay their taxes.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course the owner should have to pay whatever expenses the state incures in recovering its revenue but if the state can't keep track of its expenses why would you expect them to keep track of your taxes.

I'm not understanding the "state can't keep track of its expenses" part - could you elaborate? What isn't the state keeping track of?

[Wilber]

I'm not understanding the "state can't keep track of its expenses" part - could you elaborate? What isn't the state keeping track of?

Meaning the state should be keeping track of the expenses incurred in recovering its tax revenue and charge the owner accordingly. There could still be a substancial financial penalty to the owner plus it might be some time before he receives whatever is left over after the state takes its cut from the sale. That should be incentive enough to pay your taxes if you have a large amount of equity in the property.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Once again, when the H/O is caught totally unaware due to the Muni's error, it si the H/O who carries the burden ($$) and there should be a recovery process favouring the H/O

Go tell that to a judge when the "muni" is sued. That is the "recovery process", but then you already knew that.

[kraychik]

Go tell that to a judge when the "muni" is sued. That is the "recovery process", but then you already knew that.

Guyser knows a lot of things, including the "fact" that all executives of all organisations, without exception, have operational involvement and management duties with their respective organisations. He "knows" this, because, well, he just does.

[punked]

Guyser knows a lot of things, including the "fact" that all executives of all organisations, without exception, have operational involvement and management duties with their respective organisations. He "knows" this, because, well, he just does.

HAHAHAHAHA this is rich coming from the everything that has happened in America over the past 4 years is the presidents fault crowd. I agree he is the head of the country he should take the blame just like those who hold the role of CEO should own up to what their companies does while they are there.

You flip floppers are to much.

[kraychik]

HAHAHAHAHA this is rich coming from the everything that has happened in America over the past 4 years is the presidents fault crowd. I agree he is the head of the country he should take the blame just like those who hold the role of CEO should own up to what their companies does while they are there.

You flip floppers are to much.

Typically, when replying to someone in a discussion forum, you address things they've said. In your case, it tends to be an irrelevant stream-of-consciousness.

[punked]

Typically, when replying to someone in a discussion forum, you address things they've said. In your case, it tends to be an irrelevant stream-of-consciousness.

Yep I know you. Never mind the substance just pretend the post isn't there.

[guyser]

Do you have proof of instances where this has happened?

There are some but I want to reiterate my issue is the lack of an easy correction made from the city or Muni's end.

I just don't think it's as black and white as people are making it out to be, and again, I can't imagine (barring dementia) home owners not realizing their responsibility re: RE taxes. RE taxes are necessary to keep the city running, and other citizens shouldn't have to have inferior services from the city because some people don't pay their taxes.

I agree the issue is not black/white. As you elude to, people can have mental issues that prevent them from making sound choices.(and I know the city cant babysit everyone either) But there are some, and admittedly the cases of abuse from the city and muni are extremely low ,who are without family members or legal guardians or simply having someone looking out for them

The problem is small, I do not deny, and cities are not having inferior services stemming from tax deadbeats.

I have learned subsequently that many jurisdictions allow for some period to pass before they can move on the tax lien (not a tax deed, they are immediate)so that lessens someones position if they can get help in a timely manner.

I also agree that cities need revenue, and this is an easy and cheap way to enforce,all good, but again, when the mistake is made, it suddenly becomes not so easy

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-big-wall-street-banks-have-found-a-new-way-to-strangle-the-american-people-predatory-property-tax-collection

Here is a pretty bad one.

A cautionary tale comes to us from Baltimore and reminds us all to read the fine print. Back in 2005 a homeowner in Park Heights planned to build a pool on two lots she had purchased in 1997, but the city required her to consolidate the two parcels of land before she could be approved for a permit to build a pool. So she filed the paperwork for consolidating the lots and eventually received a permit for the pool, which was completed in 2005. But then, two years later, she found a notice taped to the tree that the property was soon to be foreclosed upon. A call to the city told her that the property had been sold at auction a year previously because of unpaid taxes—even though she was sure that she had paid the taxes. Now another company had a tax lien against her for $43,000.

More digging into the drama revealed that the city never consolidated the two lots (even though they did approve the pool permit, which required the two lots to be consolidated). Their rationale? That there was $435 outstanding on the property taxes at the time and so the paperwork didn't go through. The homeowner says she has the canceled checks proving she had paid all of her taxes and the city has it wrong, but she hasn't made any headway with getting someone from the city to listen to her. So now, because of that disputed $435 the land was auctioned off and a private company has a lien against her for $43K.

ETA: I also have discovere there are some jurisdictions that while they allow the lien and sale, the excess funds over above the lien itself and the costs associated w the buyer of same goes back to the homeowner. Better.

Edited July 18, 2012 by guyser

[August1991]

Are you operating under the illusion that everyone is equally intelligent, and equally understands regulations and financial notices?

That's not the question, Argus.

In a civilized society, citizens pay taxes.

As John Lennon once said, Imagine.

[cybercoma]

Of course it's the question. If someone misses their taxes for whatever reason, it is an excessive punishment to confiscate every last bit of equity they have in their home.

[August1991]

Of course it's the question. If someone misses their taxes for whatever reason, it is an excessive punishment to confiscate every last bit of equity they have in their home.

I disagree.

A civilized State must have the power to confiscate, and this power must be visible.

[cybercoma]

I disagree.

A civilized State must have the power to confiscate, and this power must be visible.

BS.

A civilized state does not take more than it's owed. A civilized state protects private property rights.

[eyeball]

A civilized State must have the power to confiscate, and this power must be visible.

Well sure, but why does it have to be so friken mean, and why are so many friken people cheered by the thought that it is?

It's just bizarre.