Outrageous!

Today, on the Sean Hannity show, he and his guest were discussing the fact that a woman, who had had two strokes, was behind in her property taxes. Actually, she was about 6 years behind...a time period sufficient to get the county to attempt to collect. Now that's fair. They were owed between $11,000 and $12,000. In addition, they were owed penalties and administrative costs: also reasonable (especially given the fact that she had had the opportunity to plead hardship earlier on).

So what's the problem?

They sold her house for ~$185,000...she received none of that money--none of the equity that had been added over the years to her house.

Sean was talking to a guest: Steven Levy, a legislator (as he repeated numerous times). Sean was taking the position (which I thought was more than reasonable), that people who default on their taxes should pay the back taxes, should pay the penalties, should even pay any administrative costs involved in the collection of the back taxes and penalties...but anything else, over and above that cost, was theft.

And what position did Steven, the legislator of 15 years, take?

Well, one has to discourage speculators (huh?!?) and one has to apply the law equally (equally apply an unfair law?) and that the media had focused on this one (so it isn't unfair unless it hurts at least two people?) unusual and sensational story.

Steven, the legislator, kept ducking Sean's questions of how this was fair to a woman who had had two strokes; why, just because she hadn't made it down to the legislature to beg her hardship case, did she deserve to lose the entire equity of her house and not just the back taxes, penalties and costs associated with collecting that money? Steven answered, "well, you see, we have to discourage speculators and make there be a real cost associated with not paying your taxes, otherwise people just won't pay them." (He repeated this ad nauseum.)

Hey Steve, one question for you:

Aren't the penalties the way you penalize people for not paying their taxes?