D.C. gun control, a reason why?

[Dadtodabone]

Could the program disclosed in this investigative report be one of the reasons that Washington, D.C. doesn't want it's citizens armed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... h-nothing/

[JALLEN]

Every state has a system for collecting unpaid, delinquent taxes, usually fairly flexible. I'm not familiar with all, but selling the liens to private investors, under some rational system of safeguards, is a way for government to pay ITS bills despite irresponsible tax payers.

California doesn't use private investors. Taxes on real property can go 5 years before a sale is held. Penalties are 1% late charge the day of delinquency, then 1% per month until paid. Collection rate is very good, although some use it as expensive financing. Lenders advance taxes to avoid getting wiped out if need be. Failure to pay taxes prior to delinquency is an event of default under most mortgages and leases if the tenant is responsible for taxes.

No matter where one lives, if you own real estate, taxes must be paid, preferably on time. If you own a property worth $100,000 and it is free and clear, there is no excuse to lose it over a lousy few hundred dollars. Take out a loan, for crying out loud. Meet your obligations! Be a good citizen! As long as there are ample notices and warnings and a period within which to reinstate, failing to do so is irresponsible, not the government's fault.

[philip964]

But see an Africa American has gone from being a free and clear land owner to a dependent on the State. Isn't that what the Government in Washington wants. Sounds to me it is working perfectly.

[bdickens]

Once you can get yourself to understand that the operative word is "control" and not "gun," it all becomes very clear.

[chasfm11]

Every state has a system for collecting unpaid, delinquent taxes, usually fairly flexible. I'm not familiar with all, but selling the liens to private investors, under some rational system of safeguards, is a way for government to pay ITS bills despite irresponsible tax payers.

California doesn't use private investors. Taxes on real property can go 5 years before a sale is held. Penalties are 1% late charge the day of delinquency, then 1% per month until paid. Collection rate is very good, although some use it as expensive financing. Lenders advance taxes to avoid getting wiped out if need be. Failure to pay taxes prior to delinquency is an event of default under most mortgages and leases if the tenant is responsible for taxes.

No matter where one lives, if you own real estate, taxes must be paid, preferably on time. If you own a property worth $100,000 and it is free and clear, there is no excuse to lose it over a lousy few hundred dollars. Take out a loan, for crying out loud. Meet your obligations! Be a good citizen! As long as there are ample notices and warnings and a period within which to reinstate, failing to do so is irresponsible, not the government's fault.

The examples in the article appear to be those in our society who are the most vulnerable. Taking the home of a person in a hospice dying of cancer, while legal, seems to be irrational if you follow the reasons for having government safety net programs in the first place.

I've always believed that the toughest laws were aimed at the governmentally uncooperative. If a bank were going after a homeowner because of a loan debt situation with the same numbers as the first subject story in the article, the politicians would all be outraged with that bank. I'm sure that all of the legal "Ts" were crossed and the "Is" dotted but it seems to be that social services needs to get involved in some of these lower end cases. Foreclosing over a small tax bill with someone who has dementia seems, at least to me, to be incredibly cruel. What will become of that person now? Will they end up on the public's dime for $10Ks over a a few hundred dollar tax bill?

[JALLEN]

The examples in the article appear to be those in our society who are the most vulnerable. Taking the home of a person in a hospice dying of cancer, while legal, seems to be irrational if you follow the reasons for having government safety net programs in the first place.

I've always believed that the toughest laws were aimed at the governmentally uncooperative. If a bank were going after a homeowner because of a loan debt situation with the same numbers as the first subject story in the article, the politicians would all be outraged with that bank. I'm sure that all of the legal "Ts" were crossed and the "Is" dotted but it seems to be that social services needs to get involved in some of these lower end cases. Foreclosing over a small tax bill with someone who has dementia seems, at least to me, to be incredibly cruel. What will become of that person now? Will they end up on the public's dime for $10Ks over a a few hundred dollar tax bill?

I have been involved over the years in several such cases where some "disadvantaged" person suffered because of their carelessness, inability, poor decision making, etc. I don't know where the idea comes from that the laws ought only apply to the willfully non compliant or defiant.

One of these cases, the "Black Widow" case, involved a black widow who had co-signed a note for her grandson to buy a car. Grandson defaulted, court proceedings were instituted, defaults entered and judgment obtained. The widow had scrubbed floors at a local military base to pay for the duplex one unit of which she occupied as her home. The mortgage had been paid down over the years to a trivial amount.

At the sheriffs sale, a county employee, who had seen the sale notice on the public bulletin board as required, bid $600 or so for the duplex, then worth about $23,000. He laid low for the year for reinstatement to pass, then got his deed from the Sheriff and claimed to be the owner. That was litigated up and down the courts of California for a number of years, she being represented by a public interest lawyer of some sort. The title insurer which had issued a title policy to the Sheriff sale buyer when he got his deed spent a fortune on that claim, and finally kicked in policy limits to get out, even though it was 100% totally perfectly legal. The black widow was asleep at the switch, the buyer at the sale, the Sheriff and the courts had been exactly proper in that proceeding.

I suppose this is one of those instances where "tough cases make bad law."

These kinds of developments render the law impotent, uncertain and promote a disregard for responsibility in the population.

[chasfm11]

The examples in the article appear to be those in our society who are the most vulnerable. Taking the home of a person in a hospice dying of cancer, while legal, seems to be irrational if you follow the reasons for having government safety net programs in the first place.

I've always believed that the toughest laws were aimed at the governmentally uncooperative. If a bank were going after a homeowner because of a loan debt situation with the same numbers as the first subject story in the article, the politicians would all be outraged with that bank. I'm sure that all of the legal "Ts" were crossed and the "Is" dotted but it seems to be that social services needs to get involved in some of these lower end cases. Foreclosing over a small tax bill with someone who has dementia seems, at least to me, to be incredibly cruel. What will become of that person now? Will they end up on the public's dime for $10Ks over a a few hundred dollar tax bill?

I have been involved over the years in several such cases where some "disadvantaged" person suffered because of their carelessness, inability, poor decision making, etc. I don't know where the idea comes from that the laws ought only apply to the willfully non compliant or defiant.

One of these cases, the "Black Widow" case, involved a black widow who had co-signed a note for her grandson to buy a car. Grandson defaulted, court proceedings were instituted, defaults entered and judgment obtained. The widow had scrubbed floors at a local military base to pay for the duplex one unit of which she occupied as her home. The mortgage had been paid down over the years to a trivial amount.

At the sheriffs sale, a county employee, who had seen the sale notice on the public bulletin board as required, bid $600 or so for the duplex, then worth about $23,000. He laid low for the year for reinstatement to pass, then got his deed from the Sheriff and claimed to be the owner. That was litigated up and down the courts of California for a number of years, she being represented by a public interest lawyer of some sort. The title insurer which had issued a title policy to the Sheriff sale buyer when he got his deed spent a fortune on that claim, and finally kicked in policy limits to get out, even though it was 100% totally perfectly legal. The black widow was asleep at the switch, the buyer at the sale, the Sheriff and the courts had been exactly proper in that proceeding.

I suppose this is one of those instances where "tough cases make bad law."

These kinds of developments render the law impotent, uncertain and promote a disregard for responsibility in the population.

...to a point. Each of us needs to take responsibility for ourselves. Those without that capability themselves need to depend on others. If you will indulge me a little thread drift, I'd like to make a point, however.

Dementia and Alzheimers affect many seniors. In many of those cases, the person does not realize their limited capabilities. Some businesses and even religious organizations prey upon them. My grandmother had dementia and had sent money to a religious group - who then started barraging her with mail, seeking more and more donations and containing admonitions that she not tell her family about "all the good you are doing". By the time my father figured out what was happening, they had gotten her to donate $1,000s from her very meager resources. If you asked her, she did not realize that it was the same group, day after day, that she was giving to. My Dad quickly put a stop to it and took control of her finances. Some times, often because of governmental regulations, that isn't as simple as it sounds. My mother had to go to court to have both of her parents declared incompetent before she could. And yes, I do realize that sometimes it is the family members who prey upon people like that.

My point is that it should not be the government who preys on them. I understand that "preys" is a pejorative term but as in your example of the Black Widow, I have a problem with governmental employees taking advantage of a situation like that. We seem to have a government that limits my freedoms 6 ways to Sunday but will not stop what I believe to be a conflict of interest with those involved in governmental mechanics who become beneficiaries of such situations due to their inside knowledge of the process or the personal circumstances of someone involved.

In the OP, $137 worth of tax debt snowballed in $5,000 of charges. Really? I realize that the article doesn't indicate that time involved but if the goal is to collect the original tax, this doesn't seem like the most humane way to go about it. There were public outcries when Sammy, the corner loan shark, tried similar tactics

For me, here is the bottom line. A lot of able bodied people are not paying their taxes. The governmental employee delinquency rates are very high. The student loan defaults are even higher. Why is it, then, that we unleash the full power of the government against the most vulnerable among our population over very minor amounts of money? If we want to play "survival of the fittest", I'm OK with that. But that completely undermines every entitlement program that the government runs, most of which were instituted to help the least among us. And it needs to be equal enforcement for all, not just those who are easily taken advantage of and least likely to put up a fuss. Secretary Geithner and Representative Rangle should be receiving the same treatment as Bennie Coleman. A tax debt is a tax debt, right?

And back to the original point of the thread. Yes, I do believe that the intent is exactly the same between tax collection and the attempt to completely remove guns from the population. The government wants to create vulnerability. Period. It will only be stopped from that quest when we (if we) find a way to limit its control.

[bayouhazard]

Once you can get yourself to understand that the operative word is "control" and not "gun," it all becomes very clear.

It's a guidebook to the past 20+ years of Federal law.

[cb1000rider]

. Being delinquent on your tax bill for any reason is not a excuse for not having your property seized by a taxing authority. Yes, this gentleman's story is sad but it is the law. In Texas if your property is sold in a public auction, you have up to 6 months after the sale to make it right. If the investor puts any money in the property and you make things right in that period, you get your property back in its improved state. Maybe Washington has a law similar to that. I don't know.

A few things:
1) In my experience, attempting to collect debts without any penalty for non-payment results in a very poor collection rate. There has to be some stick, otherwise people could indefinitely ignore the bill.

2) There is a redemption period in Texas. If the property is redeemed, the investor is paid back his/her original investment plus a more than reasonable interest rate. If the investor improved the property in that period, it's a known risk that most choose not to take... Most wait out the redemption period.