I still don't understand why the state needs to act (by confiscating the house) regardless of the amount. As long as it gets its money plus interest, what is t

I still don't understand why the state needs to act (by confiscating the house) regardless of the amount. As long as it gets its money plus interest, what is the harm to the state by waiting? Sure, there will be a delay in payment, but if the interest rate is high enough that would be a benefit, for the same reason that it's better for credit card companies if the balance isn't paid off right away. I really don't see the problem with waiting. Either it's paid off with interest and the state is made whole, or they don't pay and they sell the house once it becomes a reasonable amount (and the balance is paid off with interest). Either way the state gets its money (plus interest). I'm not against raising revenue, but I don't think all ways of raising revenue are automatically good. For example you could also raise revenue by taking someones car if they don't have a current sticker on or get a parking ticket. Taking homes like this confiscates an almost random amount from people with no consideration of their means or the amount other people are paying. You could be confiscating most of the savings of a middle class couple near retirement for example, and by doing so make them contribute 100x what their wealthy neighbor does to government revenues. If there is no problem with collecting in a way where everyone pays the same and the state is reimbursed for any additional costs, they should do that. If they need more revenue, they should raise property tax, not play games where a few people pay 1000x more because a mail didn't reach them (and if you read the article, it seems like some counties were deliberately doing the absolute minimum notifying people so they could hit the jackpot).