The Myth of Property Ownership: Woman Sees Her Home Confiscated Over a Water Bill
-
http://www.alternet.org/story/147118/woman_loses_home_over_a_%24362_water_bill_--_the_sneaky_way_investors_exploit_poor_homeowners[^] This is in response to Christian. At one point, he and I were discussing (I can't find the thread) about property rights, and how banks cannot lawfully or legally claim another piece of property (land, car, etc), at all, whatsoever, unless a loan has been lended to the party, in which it has not been paid back. In concept, we both agree here. HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off. Secondly, this goes along with two of Jefferson's quotes: "My reading of history convinces me that bad government comes from too much government." "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. We once had a thriving middle class, as opposed to very popular belief to the pundits of this forum. Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation, and creating busts through deflation, therefore having us work extra jobs that back in the 1800s the middle class didn't need. You'd also need to prove to me pretty clearly that the middle class was not
-
From [^], [quote] Cities and towns in New Jersey and 27 other states sell tax debts to investors to raise cash and help plug budget deficits. Some of the debts are packaged into bonds and sold. Tax-lien buyers also get the right to collect penalties imposed on delinquent taxpayers by governments, and have first priority to take possession of properties when the owners don’t pay their taxes. [/quote] What is the legal process for your local authorities taking such action, and considering the quote above uses these words "and have first priority to take possession of properties when the owners don’t pay their taxes" suggests that the personal possessions such as televisions and the alike non-essentials are overlooked in favour of seizing the home. Why is that permitted to happen? In civilized countries (UK for example) the building itself and cooking/bedroom contents are essential whereas televisions, non-business computers and the like are not and non-essentials can be seized by a court appointed bailiff only after the local authority has failed to collect monies and presented and won a court a case, and only after the bailiff has given the debtor a timescale to payments of all costs. So what are the legal processes in the United States?
I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional. Amendment 5: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This is the only way that they can take the property: They can only take it if the property has not been fully paid for (mortages, etc), or the government may take it with a fair hearing, if the property is intended for public use. This whole thing is an outrage. There are those, including myself, that believe that the reason why property tax exists in the first place is because a property owner doesn't fully own the land, he just has the deed, not allodial title to the land. Theoretically, the state owns the land, and "property tax" is a form of rent. This is based on a fee simple system. I basically believe that this is why this is allowed to happen, though it's an flat out outrage.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional. Amendment 5: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This is the only way that they can take the property: They can only take it if the property has not been fully paid for (mortages, etc), or the government may take it with a fair hearing, if the property is intended for public use. This whole thing is an outrage. There are those, including myself, that believe that the reason why property tax exists in the first place is because a property owner doesn't fully own the land, he just has the deed, not allodial title to the land. Theoretically, the state owns the land, and "property tax" is a form of rent. This is based on a fee simple system. I basically believe that this is why this is allowed to happen, though it's an flat out outrage.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
"property tax"
Presumably what you call Property Tax is akin to what we in the UK call "Council Tax" (Previously "The General Rates"). This is levied on all housing property irrespective if you own or rent, and businesses have their own version. This, together with the central Government's Grant, enables the local authority to perform its functioning and statutory duties. [edit] Water in the UK is either billed by meter reading or by the rateable value of the property. And is not processed by local authorities, but, essentially, the same rules apply. [/edit] And as explained above, councils have to make copious attempts to collect such Council Tax before they perform any legal proceeding in a court of law for non-payment. And statutory procedures exist during and after such a court hearing.
josda1000 wrote:
I wouldn't know the legal process
Would it not serve your interests to find out?
modified on Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:16 PM
-
josda1000 wrote:
"property tax"
Presumably what you call Property Tax is akin to what we in the UK call "Council Tax" (Previously "The General Rates"). This is levied on all housing property irrespective if you own or rent, and businesses have their own version. This, together with the central Government's Grant, enables the local authority to perform its functioning and statutory duties. [edit] Water in the UK is either billed by meter reading or by the rateable value of the property. And is not processed by local authorities, but, essentially, the same rules apply. [/edit] And as explained above, councils have to make copious attempts to collect such Council Tax before they perform any legal proceeding in a court of law for non-payment. And statutory procedures exist during and after such a court hearing.
josda1000 wrote:
I wouldn't know the legal process
Would it not serve your interests to find out?
modified on Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:16 PM
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Presumably what you call Property Tax is akin to what we in the UK call "Council Tax" (Previously "The General Rates"). This is levied on all housing property irrespective if you own or rent, and businesses have their own version.
It seems close. But property tax always lands upon the owner. So if you own a house, you pay the tax. Businesses owning apartment buildings pay the tax on the property here, because the renters do not own it. People owning condominiums pay the taxes there, because you're not renting the place, you own it (you buy and sell the condo). It lays flat on the concept of ownership.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would it not serve your interests to find out?
Of course, I'd agree with that. There's a lot going on though, and I try to keep up with about five million issues to talk about on the show. There's only so much I can research in a day, and I try to stick to the Constitutional side of issues. The inner workings of how the courts deal with it per case is usually too far for me to research.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Presumably what you call Property Tax is akin to what we in the UK call "Council Tax" (Previously "The General Rates"). This is levied on all housing property irrespective if you own or rent, and businesses have their own version.
It seems close. But property tax always lands upon the owner. So if you own a house, you pay the tax. Businesses owning apartment buildings pay the tax on the property here, because the renters do not own it. People owning condominiums pay the taxes there, because you're not renting the place, you own it (you buy and sell the condo). It lays flat on the concept of ownership.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would it not serve your interests to find out?
Of course, I'd agree with that. There's a lot going on though, and I try to keep up with about five million issues to talk about on the show. There's only so much I can research in a day, and I try to stick to the Constitutional side of issues. The inner workings of how the courts deal with it per case is usually too far for me to research.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
The inner workings of how the courts deal with it per case is usually too far for me to research.
Is the procedures not nationwide? or do your individual States/Districts/Towns/etc decide their own rules? You run a talk show?
Yes it's a local cable access show. And the way I understand it, state governments deal with property taxes. Property taxes are a direct tax, which would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to assess, though that hasn't, IMO, inhibited it from doing anything unconstitutional before.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I have to ask - how many people don't pay their utility bills? This is rare in the UK, paprtly because of how it is controlled e.g. meters that use pre paid cards.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
how many people don't pay their utility bills?
lol How the hell would I know?! lol
Trollslayer wrote:
This is rare in the UK
Yeah this is pretty much unheard of here as well, though I wouldn't put it past the state of New York.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional. Amendment 5: No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. This is the only way that they can take the property: They can only take it if the property has not been fully paid for (mortages, etc), or the government may take it with a fair hearing, if the property is intended for public use. This whole thing is an outrage. There are those, including myself, that believe that the reason why property tax exists in the first place is because a property owner doesn't fully own the land, he just has the deed, not allodial title to the land. Theoretically, the state owns the land, and "property tax" is a form of rent. This is based on a fee simple system. I basically believe that this is why this is allowed to happen, though it's an flat out outrage.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Yes it's a local cable access show. And the way I understand it, state governments deal with property taxes. Property taxes are a direct tax, which would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to assess, though that hasn't, IMO, inhibited it from doing anything unconstitutional before.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
http://www.alternet.org/story/147118/woman_loses_home_over_a_%24362_water_bill_--_the_sneaky_way_investors_exploit_poor_homeowners[^] This is in response to Christian. At one point, he and I were discussing (I can't find the thread) about property rights, and how banks cannot lawfully or legally claim another piece of property (land, car, etc), at all, whatsoever, unless a loan has been lended to the party, in which it has not been paid back. In concept, we both agree here. HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off. Secondly, this goes along with two of Jefferson's quotes: "My reading of history convinces me that bad government comes from too much government." "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. We once had a thriving middle class, as opposed to very popular belief to the pundits of this forum. Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation, and creating busts through deflation, therefore having us work extra jobs that back in the 1800s the middle class didn't need. You'd also need to prove to me pretty clearly that the middle class was not
josda1000 wrote:
Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation
Not to laugh at this or anything, but are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed? That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues? Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
-
http://www.alternet.org/story/147118/woman_loses_home_over_a_%24362_water_bill_--_the_sneaky_way_investors_exploit_poor_homeowners[^] This is in response to Christian. At one point, he and I were discussing (I can't find the thread) about property rights, and how banks cannot lawfully or legally claim another piece of property (land, car, etc), at all, whatsoever, unless a loan has been lended to the party, in which it has not been paid back. In concept, we both agree here. HOWEVER, in the situation posted in the link, a lady did not pay a water bill to the government in the amount of 362 dollars (the property was bought and paid for in full by this time, they'd owned it for 30+ years). The government decided to, instead of collecting the amount owed, hand over the piece of land to banks and investors. This is theft, outright. I believe we may all agree on the concept here, but I would like people to sound off. Secondly, this goes along with two of Jefferson's quotes: "My reading of history convinces me that bad government comes from too much government." "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." As to the second quote, let's be clear here: There's no way, in our new "socialist/fascist" society, that we'd be homeless. If that were true, then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work for the corporations, IMO, and it'd be impolitic to do so. But the overriding principle of that quote is clear: inflation and deflation, what is now called the business cycle, is created to deprive wealth from the middle class. We once had a thriving middle class, as opposed to very popular belief to the pundits of this forum. Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation, and creating busts through deflation, therefore having us work extra jobs that back in the 1800s the middle class didn't need. You'd also need to prove to me pretty clearly that the middle class was not
It's rather sad, you and people like you are standing on your soapbox over this issue. I don't see one offering to help pay the debt that cost her the house. But I do find it rather amusing that this privatization of what would otherwise be a government concern is being used to rail against 'big government' and some how supposedly supporting a fascist state. If anything this just goes to show the assholes who have money don't really give a shit about how they get it, they just want a return on investment.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes it's a local cable access show
Is that a case of "Alex Jones - Eat your heart out" or serious "proper" journalism.
My tagline at the beginning of the show tells you that it's a libertarian opinion show. I find articles to talk about, and give the libertarian opinion on the subject. It is not a news show, it's about lies the media tells you, and mostly about the Federal Reserve, and I show diagrams to represent what I'm talking about as well. It's not an Alex Jones style either, because he seems to be more about entertaining and fearmongering. I am serious pretty much the whole show.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
Since the Fed was created, it has deprived the dollar of ~95% of its value through inflation
Not to laugh at this or anything, but are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed? That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues? Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It's rather sad, you and people like you are standing on your soapbox over this issue. I don't see one offering to help pay the debt that cost her the house. But I do find it rather amusing that this privatization of what would otherwise be a government concern is being used to rail against 'big government' and some how supposedly supporting a fascist state. If anything this just goes to show the assholes who have money don't really give a shit about how they get it, they just want a return on investment.
Distind wrote:
If anything this just goes to show the assholes who have money don't really give a sh*t about how they get it, they just want a return on investment.
Sadly this is an example of greed trumping morality. Its common across the country for people to be able to pay the back taxes on a property then if the bank(or person) who paid them doesn't get paid by the bank gets the property clear and free before the bank. So properties can be bought quite easily this way. I won't do this, but others have. Some people find that if it's legal, when it comes to making money, it's morally okay. This is a common inconsistency along with the notion that if it isn't me everything is okay.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
josda1000 wrote:
I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional.
classic stuff
-
There's a difference between legality, legal processes and lawfulness. I suggest you look into it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Distind wrote:
are you aware there was inflation and deflation long before the fed?
Yes. I hope you've been reading the debates with Ian and Christian. And as a matter of fact, between 1789 and 1913, the dollar gained 13% in value, just because it was gold/silver, compared to the other currencies of the world. Yes, there is some inflation when using gold. But it's so minuscule that it gains value compared to paper.
Distind wrote:
That the instability in currency caused major economic and social issues?
This is mostly a joke, but when talking about bank runs, this is only because of the fractional reserve idea.
Distind wrote:
Or that the Fed has done a fair job of managing consistency compared to the 'invisible reach around of the market'?
Yeah. And it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral. But this is a matter of perception.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
reach around of the market
josda1000 wrote:
it should be illegal, because it's at the very least immoral
Man you're on a roll today! Fat Boy will the joke if no one else does
-
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
True. It binds legislation processes with common law. But all I'm saying is that it is, along with common law, the supreme law of the land. Legal processes can change from state to state, and I wish to not bog down in such mundane issues unless completely necessary. Common law doesn't change at all from state to state, but legal processes can.
And my only point was that comments like 'I wouldn't know the legal process, but I do know that it is wholly unconstitutional.' you do yourself a disservice.