Government theft of home equity rooted in FEUDALISM, finance expert says

 Finance expert Dan Eastman believes the government’s theft of home equity is rooted in feudalism.

He put forward this argument during an appearance on “Brannon Howse Live,” telling the “Worldview Report” host that the practice has its roots in feudal Europe between the ninth and 15th centuries. Under this system, a person of authority gives “strong allies” what is called “muscle territory.” In turn, these allies return the favor by means of loyalty and service to the authority figure – in this case, feudal lords.

“They were paying rent upstairs and agreeing that if the kingdom is invaded, they’d help fight and kick out the ‘bad guys,'” Eastman told Howse. He continued that this practice evolved into the theory that the government owns the land where a house sits, thus the homeowner is mandated to pay property taxes.  

“And if you don’t pay it, the government is to take the house and kick you out. They’ll sell the property, put it in the public fisc and you’re gone. In most states, when you don’t pay property taxes, there’s a sheriff sale and they sell your house out plus the taxes and expenses and you get to keep what’s left.”

Eastman cited the Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota case – which was recently heard by the Supreme Court – as an example of this. Ninety-four-year-old Geraldine Tyler used to own a one-bedroom condominium unit, but the county sold her property after she fell behind on paying the real estate taxes on it. The county sold Tyler’s property for $40,000, deducted her $15,000 arrears and kept the balance.

Tyler challenged this in court, arguing that it was unfair and unconstitutional. Her lawyers argued that the move violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. They also argued that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on the seizure of private property for public use without just compensation.

Howse pointed out that 12 other states – Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and South Dakota – follow a similar practice. He continued: “[In] Nebraska, for example, the lien is sold to investors hoping the homeowner doesn’t pay the back taxes by a due date – at which time the property belongs to them.”

Eastman calls on SCOTUS to clarify bad public policies

According to the New American, two lower courts sided with the county before the high court agreed to hear Tyler’s case. Tyler now lives in an assisted living facility as she qualified under Title 19 requirements. Title 19 is a joint federal and state welfare program that covers the costs of nursing home and assisted living care for individuals who meet certain income and asset requirements.

“If the state is coming in, taking her house and all her money away, she ends up on Title 19 – which is basically paid for by the taxpayers,” Eastman said. “You got one government that takes the money, puts it in the public fund and pays for a new dump truck – and you get other taxpayers to pay support to this woman in her elder dotage.”

Thus, the financial expert called on the Supreme Court to make this clear. Aside from being an example of bad public policy, he mentioned that states have different rules on how to make this possible. Eastman explained: “If you’re going to move to one of these states and you weren’t aware of that and fell on hard times, they can wipe you out.”

Eastman also tackled the concept of eminent domain, pointing out to Howse that the government can simply appropriate one’s residence if it wants to build a highway. The poor homeowner is not allowed to negotiate a settlement in this case, he added.