The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Duke of Gloucester]

Everything you say is true, Pape. However, as has been said before, the unlicenced plates cost him a $50 fine. He lost his house by refusing to pay said fine. The two issues are separate although the difficulty people have in distinguishing between these two issues may contribute to the disrespect for the law that you talk about.

Your test of one's own reaction to the law being applied is a good one but you need to add how you would feel if someone else did the deed in question and was not punished. If I look at the two issues separately and use your own tests of jurisdiction, application and outcome this is what I see: the local authorities do have jurisdiction over how you use your property because, as a society, we need to make sure that people behave as good neighbours. Preventing someone from keeping their own car on their own drive because it is not licensed is, in my view, over the top but it is not fundamentally unjust. There does not seem to be any problem with application in this case and the outcome - a $50 fine is not disproportionate.

For the second issue, the authorities certainly have the jurisdiction to collect unpaid fines, again no problem with application but as far as outcome is concerned their are some problems with the outcome. Clearly the authorities hae an obligation to persue those who refuse to pay otherwise those who have paid up will feel resentful and others fined in the future will also ignore demands. This, too, will increase disrespect for the law. I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

So I would advise your Citizen B to find another law to challenge. On a personal level it is difficult to feel sorry for the person involved. He could easily avoid losing his house by paying what he owes.

[Tribesman]

I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

Well thats where it gets funny , it is not the only way to recover the debt , the idiot could just pay the debt , bu failing that it is the most effective .
However as some have mentioned the option of garnishing his income that is an interesting option , highly practical and effective , yet not in this case because of the laws regarding garnishing of income in this idiots case ...he is exempt from such measures under laws to protect him .

[Duke of Gloucester]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset. In that case garnishing his income and leaving him unable to pay basic bills may not be such a good idea. However the fact that he was able to place money in escrow suggests he does have a decent income or other assets. Of course, as you say, the best way to avoid losing the house and pay the fine is for him to stop being a fool and pay up.

[PBI]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?

As for the argument that he should be able to do whatever he wants on his own land, that doesn't fly with me because the fine was for what he did with his vehicle, not his house. Vehicle ownership is not a right (God-given or otherwise), it is a privilige and if you want to do it you have to play by the rules or face the consequences. To be clear, the way the law works in the UK is that if you have a car you do not intend to drive you need to go down to the Post Office and fill in a free form, to get a SORN for the vehicle. Then, you can do whatever you want with it, you don't need licence plates, an MOT, car tax or anything else, you can leave to rust in your garden for all the authorities care.

If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?

[Xiahou]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?

You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless...

If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?

That was not the issue. It is a zoning law that is supposed to prevent people from accumulating junk cars on their property. He wasn't fined because he might be driving an unlicensed vehicle, he was fined because he had a vehicle on his property that couldn't be driven as it was unlicensed. To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

[Andres]

To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

They are not seizing his home because his car didn't have a license plate...

The home seizure and the fine are not directly related to each other.

Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:

1) he got fined $50 because his car didn't have a license plate. Apparently, that's what the law in question says: no license plate = get fined.

He could have a) paid the fine ; b) gone to court because he believes he did not break the law ; c) go to court because he believes the law in question is in violation with another law (e.g. he could have contested the law in itself e.g. because it violates his constitutional/human rights (at least, that's what he could have done in Belgium, but I assume the same possibility exists in the US).

He chose not to go to court ergo he is considered to accept the fine.

So, due to his own free choice, the only possiblity left is a) pay the fine.

2) he does not pay the fine (reminder: a fine which he has never contested during any of the procedures whatsoever, ergo he accepted that he has to pay the fine! He had all the possiblities and every right to contest the fine or the law itself, yet he did not. Like it or not, but this means that he has accepted the fine.): the government is obliged to take whatever measure possible to collect the fine and the additional expenses it has to make in order to collect said fine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously? No asset seizure in life followed by major revenue boost with nobody hurt by it. Of course he would have his entire life to pay the fine and the government would get its precious money over time.

What do you think? I don't have as much of a problem with asset seizure in death for refusing to pay a fine, I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket. I question the sensibility of both the man who wouldn't pay it and the government who would depth charge the man. When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

[Tribesman]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset.

No the issue is that in this case his income is exempt from garnishment under federal law , perhaps the dickhead tried to hide behind that but din't think it through and therefore the result is as it is .
I seen that happen in westminster when this crazy bitch from south Armagh was certain she could break the law because she was immune from the law but didn't understand the law .
As a side note that crazy fenian bitch who is godmother to one of my kids is next month being guest of honour at #10...but it don't mean she got away with it and she was punished in accordance with the laws as she should have been .
Now I could digress and link the reason why she is having a reception with the prime minister of Britain and the reason why Tubics income is exempt from garnishment but I don't think that is needed....unless of course some people are too thick to understand why under Federal law Tubics income is safe from garnishment .

Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:

Good idea especialy when a post like this is made.

You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless...

a pure example of someomne who doesn't undertand law and how to screw the law over if you want to .
Then again someone who thinks the difference between contempt of court and wilfully fleeing justice with the intent to avoid punishment is just a mere technicality that plays on legal details and is irrelevant is clearly incorrect .
But hey Xiahou keep on posting , you are funny when you try to be serious .

[Andres]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously?

Maybe that possiblity doesn't exist? Or maybe it's a bad idea from the point of view from the debt collector.

What if the man applies for a loan with a mortgage, later on in his life and at the time of his dead, the value of the house is lower then said loan with mortgage?

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Note that if the man lives for another 20 years, the amount due after his dead will be much higher than it is now (I assume that if the government has to wait, they will at least get some interest?)

Also, it seems like he can pay, maybe seizuring his house is just putting pressure on him, forcing him to use the money he apparently has to pay the debt to avoid the selling of his house?

And there's also the problem of debt expiration.

I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket.

I refuse to see why a man would ruin his own life because he doesn't want to pay a $50 fine after he stubbornly refused to contest said fine when he had the chance to do so.

When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

If that is indeed his condition, than you should blame his brother who, instead of helping him out and share the burden of taking care of their parents, called the police over some van that annoyed their mother.

But considering the fact that he was able to take care of two elders, do their groceries, cooking, cleaning and paying all his other bills and debts, I think it's reasonable to seriously doubt that this man was not capable of paying or contesting the fine.