3 ms·
Good points and agree. But I think when you get into "at best he'd owe $848" then you don't provide proper disincentive to prevent the behavior of ignoring tax
by larrys 13y ago
Good points and agree. But I think when you get into "at best he'd owe $848" then you don't provide proper disincentive to prevent the behavior of ignoring tax bills and other notices.
As an aside as someone who has gone through significant pain trying to collect money from people that owe varying amounts (over the years) it's a process that given a bigger stick (not "ordinary" penalties) would go a long way.
Noting also that this played out over many years. He didn't just miss a payment of $134 and boom someone profits $5000 or $197,000.
- alistairSH 13y ago"Noting also that this played out over many years." Not so. The article states the liens can be sold after a year and foreclosure initiated after an additional 6 months. In several of the cases listed, the original home owner was in hospice care or otherwise unavailable. I don't disagree that the city needs a way to recoup unpaid taxes. But, there has to be a better way than this.
- Malician 13y agoNo reasonable person would intentionally give up their house, paid off, for a tax bill of $134, many years or not. The number of people this is happening to and (one third of them over a bill less than $1,000) suggest that something about the process is screwed up.
- muzz 13y agoThe owner had dementia, so may not have been able to make reasonable decisions.