Posted on 04/16/2014 6:57:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was stupid in the first place. But then what do you expect from bureaucrats?
An ancestor being transported doesn’t necessarily mean they were petty criminals, debtors and the like. High-born individuals who had become a thorn in the side of the current political powers that be sometimes found themselves bound for America against their will. Skilled tradesmen often had the cost of passage paid by their future employer. Primogeniture laws meant that children other than first born sons did not inherit, and so many sons of merchants and such, even minor nobility, would enter into indenture, but they generally knew where they were going and knew they weren’t going to be too badly mistreated, unlike the aforementioned petty criminals and debtors.
Toward the end of the headrights system that supported all the indentured servants being transported, they’d degenerated into actual kidnapping to feed the need for labor. The lack of unsettled frontier land east of the Blue Ridge eventually put an end to it along about the 1680’s. No land for headrights after the term of indenture had been served, no payoff for individuals paying cost of transport, so it collapsed. Then came chattel slavery.
My understanding was the money being collected was Social Security type payments to the deceased that family members cashed. If so, minorities and women will be hit the hardest.
I read the same thing recently and I'm searching for the article, but haven't found it yet.
I'm pretty sure I read it here on FR.
If there was fraud in continuing to collect Social Security payments to a deceased parent on the part of the individual(s) being levied then it makes sense and is legal.
Otherwise, it’s not. My parent’s debts are not mine in any sense of the word. Their obligations are settled with the estate, law requires the publication of a notice for settlement of debts within a set time limitation. Then, it’s done. Their obligations pass with them once the estate is settled.
“My parent’s debts are not mine in any sense of the word. “
No but the estate is responsible for them and the money from the estate has to cover them. So if there was say, Medicaid fraud, the government can come after the money.
So if a parent liquidates and then enters a Medicaid facility because they are broke, the government can later come after that money. It would be interesting to see the scenarios under which refunds were seized.
Another good reason to never have a refund.
My concern is intentionally shifting elderly onto Medicaid precisely because seizure of assets is permitted to cover cost of coverage under a program designed for individuals who are impoverished and presumably have no assets.
That is a different matter from coming after heirs long after an estate has been settled, for debts or overpayment. The heirs never were responsible, the estate was. Once settled, there no longer is an estate against which to levy.
It’s lawlessness.
“I read yesterday they have suspended this. Doesn’t make it less odious, but that is a good thing.”
Yeah, after garnishing bank accounts of numerous citizens. What happens to the monies seized thus far?
“No but the estate is responsible for them and the money from the estate has to cover them. So if there was say, Medicaid fraud, the government can come after the money.”
After the estate has been conveyed to heirs? There is no estate after that. Am I wrong?
President Bush vetoed the bill but it was overridden twice. First in May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R 2419 2007 U.S. Farm Bill Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.
Then again June 18, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124 2007 U.S. Farm Bill. re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419. Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.
Under President George W. Bush Vetoes. Source
They have not totally suspended this practice. They will still do this if the debt was in the last 10 years.
In 2008, the House and Senate were led by dems. This appears to have been inserted in the bill in a sleazy way.
You can bet that Bush didn’t read it and neither did anyone else. LOL
Mine have been dead for a long time. They had no estate. Mom was smart, when it was her turn, she took herself off the titles to the trailer she and my brother owned, before applying for Hospice, as she was Medicare, it covered better.
He has nothing now. Drunk.
As I said on another thread, long term intent of this rule is set a precedent to allow reparations to descendants of slaves.
Social Security stops trying to collect on old debts by seizing tax refunds
“a single sentence in the 2008 Farm Bill,”
Many things wrong here.
1. They have no right to do what they did, even it it’s in a law.
2. A bill that is about everything under the sun is an abuse of legislative power. A bill must be on one subject, and one subject only.
This is why tax collectors were so hated in the Bible. They took the share for the king and often inflated it to get a cut themselves.
But the child of an American parent who was overpaid when the child was a toddler is responsible for the actions of the parents and has to pay back the overpayment?
-PJ
It depends on whether the heirs were complicit in some type of fraud.
Will welfare escapees be forced to repay the giverment ??
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.