Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 7th, 2021, 7:45 am
Scott wrote:Worst case, I think the town would auction the land if the taxes aren't paid in a very very long time, and then it would be up to the new private owners to evict any non-paying tenets or squatters, which is not easy or quick to do.
Just to clarify this point: If I refuse to pay that surcharge on my land in Manchester CT, with the result that it's sold out from under me and I then become a squatter on the land I once owned and the new owners start eviction proceedings against me, what happens if I refuse to leave? Will armed police eventually come and force me to leave? If this only happens after a very very long time does it not count as armed robbery?
Presumably, what would happen would depend in large on what the new land owners want to happen. If you weren't dirt poor, they would probably prefer you squat illegally as long as possible so they could sue for more once you finally do leave. Alternatively, if the landowner wanted you out and wanted minimal conflict and property destruction, they would probably just change the locks on you when you are fetching your groceries or something.
Your question, I think, is when a private landowner evicts a non-paying tenet who absolutely refuses to leave, is it (sometimes) violent robbery? I don't know. Presumably, the most violent it would legally get is if the squatters was arrested for trespassing, but could that be construed as violent robbery; I don't know. If the squatters aren't already wanted by the police for some other crime, or otherwise illegally carrying pot or something, my best guess is that the evicting cops would probably offer the squatter a ride to the homeless shelter or something. I have no idea what would happen, how it would play out, and whether in the most exceptional of imaginable cases it could be reasonably construed as violent robbery.
Likewise, you could ask me what happens if you refuse to pay credit card debt and get sued in civil court and lose the title to your house? Is that armed robbery? I don't know. Likewise, you could ask me what happens if you refuse to pay your mortgage and the bank forecloses and you lose your house. Is that armed robbery? I don't know.
If you rent a room in my house, and then stop paying and I kick you out at gun point, is that armed robbery? I don't know.
If you don't pay the car loan on a car, and the cops come up and force you out of the car, is that violent robbery? I don't know.
Presumably, it would likely depend on the many very specific details of the individual cases.
The countless complexities involved in those kind of small-scale, local, and arguably consensual
interactions, which tend to be non-violent, except in very exceptional or highly theoretical situations, are outside of the scope of this forum topic and more importantly outside the scope of my one tiny human brain.
A related topic to address those complex gray areas is this topic: Time and Consent
I am sure many would call armed repo men taking their stuff robbers, but if and to what degree that's a valid accusation in any given very specific circumstance, I don't know.
Nonetheless, I would draw an important distinction between (1) criminally enforced debts, such as those that lead to one going to debtors' prison, meaning it is criminally illegal not to pay the debt, versus (2) the kind of civil proceedings to which have been referred above involving one losing the deed to one's house. If someone is fined for prostitution, for instance, I think it's very different if (1) one can go to jail simply for not paying that fine in itself versus (2) if the fine is only civilly enforceable (i.e. treated more like credit card debt).
Philosophically, I would define taxation as necessarily being criminally enforced not merely civilly enforced (i.e. treated more like unpaid credit card debt).
In this forum topic, for philosophical simplicity, I am isolating my comments to taxation by big non-local governments.