Posted on 06/29/2016 9:47:32 AM PDT by MichCapCon
For a paltry $7.80, I’d say that the prior irresponsibility (is there really a responsibility to pay unjust taxes? sorry, but the question is herein raised) and alleged freeloading (was she availing of state social services? which would be a different issue and not one that socialistic politicians would frown on) is mitigated to the point where foreclosure is far too excessive and a violation of the due process clause to boot.
No one owns property. They just pay huge deposit fees (sardonicly called buying), to the previous renter. Then they pay yearly rents to the true owner. If you don’t pay your rent then you get evicted and the true owner then rents it out again.
I agree! That freeloader not paying $7.70 means everyone else must now pony up for this massive financial shortfall. The school district will no doubt have to make serious cuts. I wouldn’t be surprised if the High School marching band will have to do without a tuba this year. /sarcasm.
I think the outrage here is the bureaucracy spending taxpayer dollars on collection efforts, court costs, etc. for a $7.70 late fee. How about this: If the unpaid taxes are within 95% of the property value (i.e. foreclosure is necessary to secure the the amount owed - and nothing more) then move forward.
And you just want everyone to have freebies. Great. You pay her way if you like her so much. Leave me out of it. You are clearly a welfare lover.
Where is the issue of “freebies” raised herein? It isn’t.
Foreclosure in response to a mere $7.80 and the woman’s hardship (read the article again) is a blatant violation of the Due Process Clause.
Idiot! She didn’t pay the next two years either. I know you feel for the slug. Why didn’t you bail her out?
Documents received from the FOIA request show that Hillsdale County sent delinquent tax notices in 2014, postmarked June 1 and Sept. 1, to Baker’s home address in Jackson. The notices said she owed $7.70. If she paid after Aug. 31, the fee would go up to $9.16. The second notice stated the fee would go up to $24.39 if the bill were paid after Nov. 30. …Now why were these notices not forwarded to her other address?
This is precisely why it’s nearly impossible to foreclose on a property, why it’s impossible to evict a squatter. Because of sob stories like this, reactionary laws are written to protect the delinquent owner, and as a result situations like what I now face are all too common.
My crazy neighbor, who thinks he’s Jesus Christ, and yells at the top of his lungs “you are all going to die, the government is planing to bomb us all with nuclear weapons!”, when he isn’t playing “Christian” rock music at the maximum level of his stereo, all day and night, he hasn’t payed his mortgage or condo fees for over a year (much less property taxes I’m sure). He’s received multiple eviction/foreclosure notices but nothing ever happens. Nothing. And it’s all because of the rediculous legal requirements now in place because of sob stories like this idiot woman who couldn’t bring herself to pay $7 in late fees.
With all that said, property taxes as a concept are an abhorrent injustice to any landowner. One never truly owns a property with such modern day fiefdom in place. This cannot be debated, if one is paying money to another entity even the government by definition, one does not truly own the property! The one receiving the money owns the property! Such legalized thievery needs to stop I don’t care about the fact such moneies are used to fund public schools. Public schools are godless enterprises set up to fatten teachers unions anyway, such injustice cannot be abided. It’s un-American in every sense.
< /rant >
That’s effing theft. The thief should be horsewhipped.
Pure Michigan
The only thing she owed was $7
Like I said, fck good people, collect the bad ones. That county can stay stuck on stupid, hello IsIs
Originally she owed $7. But since she didn’t pay either her 2014 or 2015 taxes, the amount was much higher. Or do you say that she didn’t owe those taxes, either?
Appreciate the thoughtful reply. Hope my prior snark doesn’t suggest disrespect.
The proposal I suggested attempts to limit Government’s ability to seize private property to the extent that the value of the asset doesn’t dwarf the unpaid sum. The proposal has failings, it would likely invite abuse by taxpayers. Just the first idea to come to mind to limit loss of private property for such a small sum, a late fee at that.
I suspect the bureaucracy could have chosen other options for the $7.70. Small claims court would likely have led to a lien on the property or possibly could have led to other collection efforts (garnish wages, maybe send the sheriff to grab a loose chicken on the property and sell it auction). Snark again, sorry.
As a taxpayer, I’m non-plussed by the idea of others being able to escape writing checks that I do. My cynical side is screaming that someone wanted the property or wanted to exercise some muscle on a personal level.
Another example of why I utterly oppose property taxes as being destructive of property rights. No one ever really OWNS their property in one of these jurisdictions.
At least the British are right up front about it and they call property tax by its more honest name so the peons all know who is in charge: RENT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.