3 ms·

I think the argument is that if $40k in taxes are owed and the county sells the property for $60k, should they get to keep the extra $20k?

highwaylights 4y ago
That's a pretty shocking conflict of interest if true.
flerchin 4y ago
Exactly that. She owed $2300, and they seized and sold for $40k. She says she's due the rest, and as of right now, the county has just kept the $37.7k.
izzydata 4y ago
The thought that any other result could occur is insane because the owner could in theory sell the property themselves to pay for the tax debt. Forcing that decision upon you shouldn't result in stolen equity.
- criddell 4y ago
  Say I do $500 worth of work for you and you pay me by giving me an old watch you had kicking around. If I discover that it’s actually a valuable watch and sell it, should I have to return to you the excess over $500? Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it’s the only argument that makes sense to me.
  - Clamchop 4y ago
    I think giving versus taking materially changes the ethics of the scenario. If someone gives you something as payment, no strings attached and no misrepresentation, then it's a fair play. They gave you a watch as payment, they didn't ask you to sell it and pay back the difference. The debt is settled even if the watch isn't worth enough, because it was the payment, whatever its value ends up being. If you took the watch to repay a debt, then yeah, it's unethical not to pay back the difference. Thinking about it in the converse helps: if you took the watch and it wasn't worth enough to pay back the debt, you would probably insist they're still on the hook for the rest. Cuts both ways.
    - criddell 4y ago
      > Cuts both ways. I think for property tax cases like this, once you forfeit the property the debts are cancelled.
  - medvezhenok 4y ago
    Similar questions have been litigated before, and the answer is not unequivocally no, contrary to what you might expect. It depends on whether you knew that what you were buying was worth more and whether you bought/got it with intent to deceive the other person about its true value (which is a hard thing to determine in the moment)
TheAdamist 4y ago
Theres been more egregious cases of being under a dollar short on taxes, and the cities profiting to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which makes for weaponized taking of only profitable properties and not ones that taxes are so far behind theres no equity left.
josephcsible 4y ago
If the only consequence for burglary were that the government forcibly took back what you stole and returned it to its rightful owner, then I'd say that's basically making burglary legal too.

highwaylights 4y ago

That's a pretty shocking conflict of interest if true.

flerchin 4y ago

Exactly that. She owed $2300, and they seized and sold for $40k. She says she's due the rest, and as of right now, the county has just kept the $37.7k.

izzydata 4y ago

The thought that any other result could occur is insane because the owner could in theory sell the property themselves to pay for the tax debt. Forcing that decision upon you shouldn't result in stolen equity.

criddell 4y ago
Say I do $500 worth of work for you and you pay me by giving me an old watch you had kicking around. If I discover that it’s actually a valuable watch and sell it, should I have to return to you the excess over $500? Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it’s the only argument that makes sense to me.
- Clamchop 4y ago
  I think giving versus taking materially changes the ethics of the scenario. If someone gives you something as payment, no strings attached and no misrepresentation, then it's a fair play. They gave you a watch as payment, they didn't ask you to sell it and pay back the difference. The debt is settled even if the watch isn't worth enough, because it was the payment, whatever its value ends up being. If you took the watch to repay a debt, then yeah, it's unethical not to pay back the difference. Thinking about it in the converse helps: if you took the watch and it wasn't worth enough to pay back the debt, you would probably insist they're still on the hook for the rest. Cuts both ways.
  - criddell 4y ago
    > Cuts both ways. I think for property tax cases like this, once you forfeit the property the debts are cancelled.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  Similar questions have been litigated before, and the answer is not unequivocally no, contrary to what you might expect. It depends on whether you knew that what you were buying was worth more and whether you bought/got it with intent to deceive the other person about its true value (which is a hard thing to determine in the moment)

TheAdamist 4y ago

Theres been more egregious cases of being under a dollar short on taxes, and the cities profiting to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which makes for weaponized taking of only profitable properties and not ones that taxes are so far behind theres no equity left.

josephcsible 4y ago

If the only consequence for burglary were that the government forcibly took back what you stole and returned it to its rightful owner, then I'd say that's basically making burglary legal too.