jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If a person cannot pay taxes on his house, and the house is seized, the municipality cannot sell it for more than the amount owed in taxes. That can be a sticky situation because they have to decide who will buy a valuable property for a low price. Locally, the properties are sold to local charities and non-profits for the amount of tax due. They renovate them and sell them to first-time buyers or low-income people. In other localities, different rules apply, and developers can buy properties for low prices, refurbish them, and sell them for a lot more.

There is a bill in NY that would put a one-year moratorium on the foreclosure of such properties while lawmakers decide what to do.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

And your point is...?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Point? Since when do I need a point to post here? 🤣

I guess "the point" is that some municipalities are going to have to change the way they are doing business. They can no longer make a profit from people who cannot pay their taxes. The profit incentive could make them too quick to seize property. Up until now, each locality could decide how to handle tax defaults. Now, it will be the same throughout the state or the entire country. This was a recent U.S Supreme Court ruling.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

Good point.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I think a better approach would be for the delinquent property to be sold, the taxes paid from the proceeds, and the balance returned to the defaulting owner.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

This was the result of the recent court decision to which Jerry referred. A home was sold for a lot more than the back taxes that were due. The taxing authority kept the overage for themselves. The court ruled that that was in violation of the 4th amendment (and possibly others - I'm relying on unreliable memory) and said the excess must be returned to the original owner.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, that seems like a good idea. After all, the guy lost his house. This would be some compensation. However, in many cases, they don't even know who owns the property. We have a local situation like that. The owner died, so who owns the property now?

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

That could be dealt with sort of like the way they deal with abandoned bank accounts. They could list it on the internet, with a process to submit a claim. If no one claims it after a period of time (say, 5 years), it could revert to the municipality, or the state.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

usnret Loc: Woodhull Il

And along come the squatters!

cbabcock

I think that is what the actual ruling is.

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

And that begs the question of why the government is allowed to take our property for taxes in the first place.
If a person truly cannot pay the taxes they shouldn't be punished for it IMO.

Ed

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

So what enforcement action do you propose? If there were none then no one would pay any taxes. Then the government would collapse and anarchy would ensue. Therefore there has to be some enforcement mechanism. What would you suggest? If it can't be property confiscation then what form should it take?

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

Have a heart! The idea that no one would pay is a bit off the wall.

You investigate the peoples situation and if they truly can't pay then give 'em a break. If they are just trying to game the system, take the property. Maybe even levy fines.

The government is unlikely to collapse.

Ed

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

So anyone with a "good enough" excuse would be off the hook. Is that about right? After that it is just a matter of deciding if a person's excuse is "good enough." Who decides that? This leads to unequal application of the law which leads to corruption, which is part of the problem we have today.

Aside from that, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that tax foreclosures take months at least; in many cases they take years. During that time the property owner is given many, many opportunities to pay the past-due tax or make arrangements to eventually pay it.

You changed your original premise from everyone to only those who are truly unable to pay. Under your original premise no one would have to pay, so no one would. Not so "off the wall." Under your revised premise excuses would abound, and most of them would be either very creative or very convincing, if not both. People would be looking for any excuse at all that would be deemed "good enough." This is a natural result of the fact that no one likes to pay taxes and will do whatever they can to avoid them.

"Have a heart" you say. I do have a heart but I also have a practical side that says we all pay our fair share.