3 ms·

Less than $10 from miscalculating interest owed and the subsequent bills do not show any outstanding balance? That's atrocious. They seize the property and kee

Less than $10 from miscalculating interest owed and the subsequent bills do not show any outstanding balance? That's atrocious. They seize the property and keep the entire proceeds of the auction. That's outlandish. It goes on to say in the article that the properties often go on to speculators who rent them or leave them empty.

Miner49er 7y ago
Fair enough, that's a case of were it messed up because the guy was trying to pay his taxes and made an honest mistake. But I don't think the whole law is bad because of a couple of mistakes. There should probably be a system to stop seizures from happening over honest mistakes, but the law itself seems like a good idea. We don't get rid of murder laws because sometimes we convict the wrong people, for example.
- JAlexoid 7y ago
  Yes it is. The law is bad, because it allows officials to increase their own income, by taking someone's property. That's the case with asset forfeiture(there have been many cases where police have literally used that legal tool to have a better salary), fines on poor people(reason literally covered a case about it today) and other methods. I say this from experience - American police are all shitbags working to enforce the law, not to "Serve and Protect". That Serve and Protect dissipates really fast, when you're mugged... and materializes really fast when a citation is possible.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rwmurrayVT 7y ago
  If you owe 1,000 USD is there ever a situation where you should forfeit an asset, have it liquidated, and then regain none of the proceeds over what you owe? It says in the article they found that they were received over 40 USD for every 1 USD owed in taxes. It's not a couple of mistakes. It's blatantly doing the bare minimum to ensure that you can pad a budget deficit via forfeiture. Sure, if someone has an asset that they aren't paying taxes on you can put a lien against it or maybe even take it in forfeiture. You absolutely can't keep the entirety of the proceeds from a sale above what's owed and maybe the funds for running an auction. In the end I think they have a fair legal case for recourse. There's no criminal violation and a civil violation isn't enough for complete asset forfeiture.

Miner49er 7y ago

Fair enough, that's a case of were it messed up because the guy was trying to pay his taxes and made an honest mistake. But I don't think the whole law is bad because of a couple of mistakes. There should probably be a system to stop seizures from happening over honest mistakes, but the law itself seems like a good idea. We don't get rid of murder laws because sometimes we convict the wrong people, for example.

JAlexoid 7y ago
Yes it is. The law is bad, because it allows officials to increase their own income, by taking someone's property. That's the case with asset forfeiture(there have been many cases where police have literally used that legal tool to have a better salary), fines on poor people(reason literally covered a case about it today) and other methods. I say this from experience - American police are all shitbags working to enforce the law, not to "Serve and Protect". That Serve and Protect dissipates really fast, when you're mugged... and materializes really fast when a citation is possible.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rwmurrayVT 7y ago
If you owe 1,000 USD is there ever a situation where you should forfeit an asset, have it liquidated, and then regain none of the proceeds over what you owe? It says in the article they found that they were received over 40 USD for every 1 USD owed in taxes. It's not a couple of mistakes. It's blatantly doing the bare minimum to ensure that you can pad a budget deficit via forfeiture. Sure, if someone has an asset that they aren't paying taxes on you can put a lien against it or maybe even take it in forfeiture. You absolutely can't keep the entirety of the proceeds from a sale above what's owed and maybe the funds for running an auction. In the end I think they have a fair legal case for recourse. There's no criminal violation and a civil violation isn't enough for complete asset forfeiture.