Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on May 25, 2023, 12:54:06 PM
-
SCOTUS spanks Hennepin County, MN, for auctioning a home for delinquent taxes and then pocketing the difference.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/94-year-old-grandmother-big-win-supreme-court
This is a big BIG win. This kind of crap has gotten all too common, taxing authorities grossly overstepping their bounds and then telling taxpayers, "Tough, we're the government. Whatcha gonna do about it, Scooter?" Maybe now we can use this as precedent for dealing with the malevolent bastardization of civil asset forfeiture.
Brad
-
Awesome! And yes, now do CAF abuses.
-
It boggles my mind anyone would think otherwise.
But apparently there are those in government who do otherwise this case would have been unnecessary
-
She's 94. I wonder if she will live long enough to see her money.
-
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Sounds like a good ruling. Should have stopped at a much lower level, but now there is an SC decision.
-
She's 94. I wonder if she will live long enough to see her money.
The one who plants trees, knowing he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.
-
Awesome! And yes, now do CAF abuses.
ALL civil asset forfeiture is abuse. It's nothing but theft under color of law.
I went to Steve Lehto's YouTube channel to send him a link to this, and he has already done a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6twiAmVyI
-
ALL civil asset forfeiture is abuse. It's nothing but theft under color of law.
Asset forfeiture after conviction for a crime directly involving said asset is fine.
-
The one who plants trees, knowing he will never sit in their shade, has at least started to understand the meaning of life.
I get that concept but I still bet that the sorry rat bastages that stole her money will find every way imaginable to delay giving it back to her.
-
Asset forfeiture after conviction for a crime directly involving said asset is fine.
I agree, but that's not civil asset forfeiture.
-
gawd that case makes me so angry.
same thing with the civil asset stuff.
for every one case we win, a few thousand hard working people become very poor people
-
Marvin Heemeyer may not have been the hero we wanted but sometimes he might be the hero we need.
:rofl:
-
gawd that case makes me so angry.
same thing with the civil asset stuff.
for every one case we win, a few thousand hard working people become very poor people
The problem is, at best she gets back her $25,000. With appeals all the way to SCOTUS I bet typical legal fees would be at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive. Nobody having to pay for that would bother, even if they could afford it, just because of simple rational economics. It takes a legal charity to challenge it.
What we need is enough teeth in the laws to allow folks to collect punitive damages so that they stand to get enough to pay for the litigation.
-
The problem is, at best she gets back her $25,000. With appeals all the way to SCOTUS I bet typical legal fees would be at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive. Nobody having to pay for that would bother, even if they could afford it, just because of simple rational economics. It takes a legal charity to challenge it.
What we need is enough teeth in the laws to allow folks to collect punitive damages so that they stand to get enough to pay for the litigation.
Triple damages plus court costs.
-
Triple damages plus court costs.
And damages are first collected from the offending official's personal assets before the agency responsible covers the balance with taxpayer money.
-
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf
Sounds like a good ruling. Should have stopped at a much lower level, but now there is an SC decision.
That is the infuriating part. How incompetent and/or thuggish are these lower courts? Even to a layperson, this seems to be an obvious decision for any court, let alone the SC.
-
Asset forfeiture after conviction for a crime directly involving said asset is fine.
Why is that fine?
Isn't jail time or a fine the punishment for a crime? What's the point of opening the door even a little bit to the .gov jacking your *expletive deleted*it?
-
Why is that fine?
Isn't jail time or a fine the punishment for a crime? What's the point of opening the door even a little bit to the .gov jacking your *expletive deleted*it?
Funny that the word "fine" keeps getting used in this exchange ... isn't a fine pretty much the same thing as government jacking your *expletive deleted*it, just commoditized?
I remember when I was a little kid our neighbors had their door kicked in. I don't remember all the specifics, but the guy who did it was fined. It made sense to me that there would be a fine to provide money so that the door could get fixed.
Then I learned that the fine went to the government, not to the victim, and that no restitution had been ordered.
-
Why is that fine?
Isn't jail time or a fine the punishment for a crime? What's the point of opening the door even a little bit to the .gov jacking your *expletive deleted*it?
Laws and statutes should establish penalties which ought to be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime, and they shouldn't be open ended. If a person commits a crime and the law says there's a $5000 fine, .gov shouldn't be able to take the person's $30,000 car as well.
-
ALL civil asset forfeiture is abuse. It's nothing but theft under color of law.
I went to Steve Lehto's YouTube channel to send him a link to this, and he has already done a video on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ6twiAmVyI
There were multiple cases of a St. Louis suburb (Jennings?) where the mayor, police chief, and possibly others, were using the older RICO laws to charge people and take their property. The problem was that there were very rarely any subsequent prosecutions. :facepalm:
-
And damages are first collected from the offending official's personal assets before the agency responsible covers the balance with taxpayer money.
Like.
I'm tired of never knowing what individual living breathing person actually made the decisions or signed the documents. Feathers are easy to come by in many pillows and older ski jackets, but I'm not sure where you can get tar quickly.
Terry, 230RN
-
Thinking about it a little more, I just wonder what the actual value of the seized-and-sold condo was. It makes me wonder if the local government just did a quick sale to recoup the taxes owed and figured anything above that was gravy . . . $15k in back taxes & penalties seems like an awful lot for a condo worth only $40k. Maybe there were some additional shenanigans in play not addressed in the story, and somebody got a $100k (or more) condo for $40k.
-
Thinking about it a little more, I just wonder what the actual value of the seized-and-sold condo was. It makes me wonder if the local government just did a quick sale to recoup the taxes owed and figured anything above that was gravy . . . $15k in back taxes & penalties seems like an awful lot for a condo worth only $40k. Maybe there were some additional shenanigans in play not addressed in the story, and somebody got a $100k (or more) condo for $40k.
That’s the usual play. There are people that specialize in buying tax lien sales as an investment strategy. Most likely that condo would normally sell for $80-150k depending on condition and local market. That taxing agency literally doesn’t care what it sells for so long as they get their tax delinquencies. Which is why they usually go for 1/4-1/2 the normal price.
-
I think we need to back up one more step and examine the presupposition that the government can seize your real estate if you don't give them the amount of money they arbitrarily decided you owe. It's not like you signed a mortgage note with the County and put the place up as collateral. The local .gov just decided that this year you have to give them X amount or they can have your land.
Setting aside the whole taxation is theft issue; I understand that we need taxes of some amount to fund a government. But why do we think going into debt (and unilateral debt at that. You didn't agree to the taxes, and can't opt out of the services if they suck. You just have to give them what they want) justifies seizure of what is most American's largest single asset? Like: "You didn't pay us the amount we decided we need to groom your neighbor's children, so we're taking half your life's savings, even though you actually owe the value of a mid priced used car."
-
Personally I think that property taxes are the single most offensive form of taxes. All taxes are offensive of course, but the notion that you have to pay a tribute to the government for the right to call property yours is even more offensive than having to tell the government how much money you made (and from which sources) so they can scarf some of it.
The least offensive tax directly paid by the individual is retail sales tax.
The absolute least offensive tax are import tariffs because those are only indirectly paid by individuals as an imputed part of purchase costs on a portion of whatever goods you buy. They have their own problems in terms of trade, and may not be a good option as a result, but that’s a separate issue.
-
You're both right. Any tax that indemnifies is inherently wrong.
-
...
-
Personally I think that property taxes are the single most offensive form of taxes. All taxes are offensive of course, but the notion that you have to pay a tribute to the government for the right to call property yours is even more offensive than having to tell the government how much money you made (and from which sources) so they can scarf some of it.
The least offensive tax directly paid by the individual is retail sales tax.
The absolute least offensive tax are import tariffs because those are only indirectly paid by individuals as an imputed part of purchase costs on a portion of whatever goods you buy. They have their own problems in terms of trade, and may not be a good option as a result, but that’s a separate issue.
All taxes have a negative effect at some level. Government was always termed as a necessary evil for a reason. I tend to like the sales tax more than others since it doesn't tax someone for just saving money. And everyone pays it no matter where they live, what they own, or how much they make.
I would agree that your property shouldn't be seized over failure to pay. A lien on the property would make more sense. Once the lien's are more than the property value, then maybe sieze it.
If there is any perceived benefit to property taxes, it is just that someone can't just sit on property and do nothing with it without cost. It encourages industrious use of the property even if only a little. On one side, a rich guy can't just sit on a ton of property without cost. On the other side, a poor widow might lose her property because she can't afford to keep up with the taxes. It probably made more sense back when it was only the property owners voting.
-
All taxes have a negative effect at some level. Government was always termed as a necessary evil for a reason. I tend to like the sales tax more than others since it doesn't tax someone for just saving money. And everyone pays it no matter where they live, what they own, or how much they make.
I would agree that your property shouldn't be seized over failure to pay. A lien on the property would make more sense. Once the lien's are more than the property value, then maybe sieze it.
If there is any perceived benefit to property taxes, it is just that someone can't just sit on property and do nothing with it without cost. It encourages industrious use of the property even if only a little. On one side, a rich guy can't just sit on a ton of property without cost. On the other side, a poor widow might lose her property because she can't afford to keep up with the taxes. It probably made more sense back when it was only the property owners voting.
One problem I see with property taxes, is the disparate amount of tax collected on a person's primary residence. Ignoring the residences of people like Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Bill Gates and other multi-billionaires, a relatively modest upgrade to a home can mean a SIGNIFICANT bump in taxes . . . with no bump in services! If you pay more property tax on your home, you're NOT going to get better police, fire, or EMS coverage, your kids' school won't be better than your neighbor's, potholes in your street won't be fixed faster, etc.
OK, so I'm being Captain Obvious about this, but it's something I've found irksome about taxation since I was a child and was only being personally hit with sales tax on the little stuff I could buy - I was perceptive enough to see MORE taxes in my future.
-
BREAKING: New U.S. Supreme Court Decision Supports NYSRPA v. BRUEN and Gun Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnIhWFsJuM
This guy does a little more detailed breakdown of this decision. Sounds like they are taking a view of all the Bill of Rights similar to the Bruen decision.
-
I think Steve Lehto covered this decision recently.
-
I believe he did. I thought this guy made a good point about the way the SC viewed the case. It might bode well for future Bill of Rights cases.
-
Ok.... so I'm not watching the video... what is this case?
-
It's Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner.
He is talking about Tyler vs. Hennepin County.