4 ms·

Usury in MA (with contract) is 20%. https://www.findlaw.com/state/massachusetts-law/massachusetts-interest-rates-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/massac

by fargle 5y ago

Usury in MA (with contract) is 20%. https://www.findlaw.com/state/massachusetts-law/massachusetts-interest-rates-laws.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/massachusetts-law/massachusett... Plenty of CC's charge 19.5% for this reason. > it would be entirely reasonable to prohibit the sale of the asset until the death of the elderly owner and have the taxing authority made whole with a transfer at that point. Why should we allow anyone to do that? just pay their taxes like everyone else. This isn't even a case of someone that couldn't do it! Education and a less callous handling would be nice, but you can't legislate your way out of this - if you don't have a eviction hammer, nobody will pay taxes. I agree about empathy, which you might be surprised to find, I have actually a lot of. But there's nothing immoral with any of the actors, the article is slanted and overstating a position. I'd be great with a municipally funded outreach program (or even loans?) to help seniors.

cafard 5y ago
Nobody will pay taxes? If this were an article about a citizen killed or gravely injured at a traffic stop, would you argue that without violent enforcement nobody will stop at red lights?
- fargle 5y ago
  > would you argue that without violent enforcement nobody will stop at red lights? No, I would not. What the hell are you even talking about violence? If you could argue that you were "ill" "confused" "old", etc. and then they could not use repossession and eviction as an ultimate penalty for collecting taxes owed, then what do you think would happen? EVERYONE would be very soon become "confused" and you would lose the ability to collect property tax. To argue this is immoral is simply basically to argue that taxation itself is immoral.