Supreme Court Rules in Property Takeover Case

A very good explaination.
There should be a very stringent process to "seize" a persons property.

There are many alternatives to taking a citizen's property.

No, they don't. When it comes down to it individuals posess two things, property and freedom.

To collect on a valid debt, they can take your property or they can take your freedom and make you some form of indentured servant.

So taking some form of property is the only real alternative.

Are you suggesting that they should take a different type of property before taking someone's home? Sounds reasonable enough except then you're allowing the government to decide what they take which could be even worse.

Then the county can take property in excess of $100k for just a few hundred dollars of unpaid taxes.

You're ignoring the fact that the property is only being forfeited after the person has been given a reasonable opertunity to pay that debt/

That means that all those other reasonable options like borrowing money against the value of the property are available to the property owner. The property owner gets to decide how the debt is paid, unless they are unwilling or unable to do so.

The punishment far exceeds the 'crime', wouldn't you agree?

If the punishment far exceeds the crime, why isn't the property owner not paying their debt to avoid that result?

I agree that forcing the forfiture of property must be a last resort. The property owner needs to be given an opertunity to pay those debts in another way within a reasonable period of time. But if they don't pay them, the state does need to have the power to collect that debt.

In this particular case the Supreme Court ruled that the state did not give Mr. Jones a reasonable oportunity to pay the assessed taxes before confiscating his home, and ruled that the taking was unlawful, and after reading the opinion through more throughly and getting a better understanding of the situation, I believe agree with their reasoning.

Do you own your property or do you lease if from the government?

If part of your definition of owning property is that it cannot have it taken from you to pay your debts, then I agree that by that definition no one owns property in the United States or probably in any country for that matter.

The fourth ammendment protects us against unreasonable property seizures. It is not an absolute protection against seizure.

Property rights of individuals are a fundamental pillar of a free society. A working society requires responsibility on the part of the government and the people. A society has to be able to force the payment of legitimate debts. The individual needs to have the responsibility to pay those debts has to be given the choice of how those debts are paid. However, when the individual is given the opportunity to pay those debts and does not, the government has to force the issue.

To protect the rights of the people it's important to try and limit the government's flexibility in what they sieze to things related to the debt, such as the property on which the taxes were assessed.

I do agree that it is possible for exessive taxation to create a situation where the government is making payment of those taxes impossible and is effectively stealing property from the people.

I don't accept your premise. It certainly is not the "only" solution available, nor is your assertion that the only alternative is anarchy.

My premise isn't that it's the only solution, or the best solution, or that it should be used before until after genuine attempts to avoid using it are attempted first. My premise that it has to be within the power of the government, or you don't really have a government.

In less restrictive governmnets personal property rights are stronger and the government's ability to take property are more restricted, however you really can't have a government that doesn't have the ability to take property at all.

Which, if I read it correctly, was Heyworth's point, (and that of the SCOTUS).

The state could have done much more than send a couple of certified letters and post a newspaper item. SCOTUS didn't suggest that the state peruse the taxpayer database, but, I'm speculating, was an option available to them.

"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."

If the punishment far exceeds the crime, why isn't the property owner not paying their debt to avoid that result?

I quit reading after that line since your words prove that you believe we OWE the government our property and freedom.

It is unfathomable to me that you cannot come up with any alternative to property confiscation for a relatively minor 'debt'.

If we contract for work and services and you don't pay, I can put a lien on your property but I cannot take your property. Why should the county or state confiscate property when individuals cannot?

Calling you a statist is an insult to fascists so I won't do that.

Now having read more of your thoughts, your view of property, rights, and liberty seem pretty twisted.

"The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 3, today that Arkansas state officials were wrong to take away the home of a Little Rock man for nonpayment of real estate taxes."

Now, if only the supreme court would rule that there could be no punishment for defying the IRS. lol

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

" Now, if only the supreme court would rule that there could be no punishment for defying the IRS. lol "

They also need to rule that it's wrong to take property for private developers as well.

Are you under the impression that when delinquency force a foreclosure that the government keeps the entire proceeds of the sale of that property even if it exceeds the debt they are owed? That isn't what happens. The government gets what they are owed including reasonable fees to cover the costs of collecting the debt.

Lien holders on the property would get paid the debts owed to them from any remaining proceeds of the sale. The property owner would get whatever money is left over, since it is their money. However, in most cases people who fail to pay their taxes don't have enough equity to pay off the taxes, and the lien holder gets screwed. This is why for many mortgages the lender will require that taxes be paid into escrow and then the lender will pay the taxes themselves from that escrow to make sure they are being paid.

I quit reading after that line since your words prove that you believe we OWE the government our property and freedom.

It's obvious that you didn't read very far or at least understand what I'm saying, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

It is unfathomable to me that you cannot come up with any alternative to property confiscation for a relatively minor 'debt'.

I can think of many alternatives. What you don't seem to understand is it needs to be the property owner that considers the alternatives and selects how to pay the debt, not the government.

Giving the government greater control does not increase your individual freedoms. The power to seize property is a government power that can easily be abused. You cannot restrict the government's power by telling it to get more involved in people's lives and have the government select which property (money in the bank, investments, automobiles, other real estate) to take and sell to cover a debt.

Instead you try and restrict what property the government can take from someone. You try and restrict the seizure to something directly related to the debt and something reasonably within that government's authority. For unpaid real estate taxes, that means the most reasonable thing to restrict the government to seizing is that real estate.

If a government has the power to tax, it must have the power to collect those taxes.

Paying those taxes is the responsibility of the taxpayer, and it is they who determine which of their assets are used to pay the debt as part of that responsibility.

The government's authority to seize property, in situations where individuals fail in their responsibilities, needs to be defined as narrowly as possible.

There need to be reasonable restrictions on the government to ensure that the property owner has a reasonable opportunity to pay their debt before the government is forced to confiscate property.

The government should only be allowed to collect the debts they are owed including reasonable expenses for collecting those debts through such confiscations. Any remaining funds must be returned to the property owner after liens on that property have been satisfied.

There need to be reasonable restrictions on seizing property. However, as you add restrictions, you create additional hurdles and bureaucracy. Government bureaucracy is never free. It will result in a greater burden on those who's property must be seized, or on those who loaned them money and had a lien on the property, or on the rest of the taxpayers.

Why do you think that real estate sold at tax auction goes at well under market rates? It's because of all the governmental bureaucracy and the likelihood that like Ms. Flowers you will spend several years or more in court trying to get possession of the property you have purchased.

What you are asking for isn't additional freedom, it's additional government intervention. If you want freedom for intervention of a bloated government you have to be willing to accept your responsibilities.

If you can't fathom my opinion on this, explain what you think is a better alternative, but don't forget to consider what the consequences of that alternative might be.

Your attitude bothers me. We don't 'owe' the government.

Property taxes are not "debts".

Property taxes are not an even exchange of payment for services.

Vacant land that receives no government service gets taxed.

Propety taxes pay for schools even when a landowner does not patronize the school.

Property taxes may rise suddenly due to development in adjacent or nearby lots that increase the tax value of area. Long time property owners are sometimes forced out of long-held homes due to development and subsequent tax increases. That is wrong.

Confiscation of property for delinquent/non payment of taxes is a price that far outwieghs the 'misdeed'.

Liens on property are better alternative.

And if refusal of payment become extensive, then the government has lost the support and consent of the populace to be governed. If that's the case, the people aren't criminals but the government has become illegitimate.

Your arguments appears to have more to do with disagreeing with the level of taxation and with how the tax burden is distributed upon the citizens, rather that if taxes are real debts that are owed.

I'm a believer in small government, however even a small government needs to be able to fund it's limited functions. It needs to be able to levy some form of tax and it needs to be able to collect those taxes.

I will agree with you that burdening citizens with a large and wasteful government is unfair, and that our tax system is unfair in many ways. However, people's opinions on what government services are necessary and how the burden of paying for them should be distributed varies greatly. You cannot allow individuals to pick and choose what taxes they will pay, and if someone doesn't pay their share, the burden to pay that share falls to the rest.

Liens on property are better alternative.

I don't think you understand what a lien is. Not only from this statement, but from this comment in your previous reply.

If we contract for work and services and you don't pay, I can put a lien on your property but I cannot take your property. Why should the county or state confiscate property when individuals cannot?

A lien is a formal way of saying that the debt is secured by that property. It is a claim of rights to that property or to a portion of the proceeds from the sale of that property.

Property tax assessments are a lien on the property.

If you default on the debt, the lien holder can assert their rights to collect that debt by forcing foreclosure on that property.

You're comment that a private lien holder cannot force the foreclosure of a property to collect a debt is simply wrong.

If you don't pay your mortgage, the bank can and will take your house. You may be able to seek some level of protection through bankruptcy court to get more time or to get a portion of your debt canceled, but your assertion that only the government can force the forfeiture of your property to pay your debts is incorrect.

I get the feeling you've been fortunate enough to have never gotten yourself in a really bad financial situation or know someone well who has.

And if refusal of payment become extensive, then the government has lost the support and consent of the populace to be governed.

So if individuals don't pay their taxes, it's the fault of the government? I suppose it's fair that the rest of the taxpayers will get stuck with paying that person's share as well as their own?

So I suppose that if someone loses their job and isn't able to pay their mortgage, that's the fault of the lender and they shouldn't be able to collect on their debt?

If that's the case, the people aren't criminals but the government has become illegitimate.

That could be the case. However, we live under a democratically elected representative form of government. So rather than not paying their taxes, why don't they work to change their government? Why don't they push for smaller government and elect representatives that will cut back on spending and reduce the burden the government places on it's people?

The reason is because there are too many people who want their government to provide all those services, but they what other people to pay for them. They look at the government as owing them something but they don't accept their responsibilities as part of that society.

One of the most fundamental issues that democracy faces is that it must be coupled with accountability and personal responsibility to be effective.

Let's say there is a fictitious government that is illegitimate and doesn't represent the interests of it's people. The people justifiably revolt and successfully overthrow that government.

Now what would you have them do? Do they form a new government? If they do, should that government be able to collect taxes or are they supposed to provide what limited services they can based on donations from the people?

What do you do with people who don't contribute? Do you cut them off from services provided by the government? How do you keep them from taking advantage of publicly paid for resources like roads and emergency services?

What about defense of the community? What is their obligation there? What do you do if they don't live up to that obligation?

People need to be given a chance to pay their debts. People need an opportunity to live up to their responsibilities. Due to human nature, it's better to give people several chances if possible. However, after the opportunities have been made available and the warnings have been made, people need to live up to their responsibilities and be held accountable.

My wife has only been back to work for less than a month after being laid off and our of work for 18 months.

We've kept from living beyond our means for a long time, and saved up, and purchased a larger new home six months before she was laid off. The mortgage is twice what we had at our previous little starter home, but it was still well within our means with both of us working. However, that 18 months ate through most of our savings and built up a lot of debt. We were getting very close to having to sell our dream home because we simply couldn't afford it on my income alone.

Now she has a new job that pays considerably less, but we will be able to pay the bills and pay down the debt as long as we spend responsibly. Finances were starting to look better.

However, on Friday the company I work for laid off over 10% of it's people. I still have my job, but I've got a lot less faith that I'll have it three months from now.

My point is that I'm not talking about things that only effect other people, but not me. There's a good chance that I'm going to have to sell my house to pay my debts. However, they are my debts and my responsibility. If I can't afford this home, I'll sell it and adjust my standard of living to what I can afford.

I definitely don't want to pay higher taxes and higher interest rates to pay for the results of other people who don't want to take responsibility for their debts.

Here Here,,,Well Said...
The War of Northern Aggression caused a lot of good men to commit "treason".