Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Just because your name appears on a mutation record doesn’t mean you legally own the property. The Supreme Court has clarified that mutation entries are only for revenue and tax purposes and not proof of ownership or inheritance rights. In simple terms, mutation helps the government know who to...

thefynprint's profile picture

Thefynprint

6,531 subscribers

12,094 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Supreme Court Clarifies Hindu Property Law | #AngadiChandrannaVsShankar In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that once a Joint Hindu Family property is formally partitioned, the shares allotted to each co-parcener cease to be joint family property and become that individual’s self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell or transfer 📍 Key takeaways: •Partition dissolves joint status, each share becomes self-acquired. • There’s no presumption that property is joint simply because a family is Hindu or joint. • Claiming ancestral status requires proof of joint family nucleus funds in acquiring the property. This is a crucial precedent for property rights, estate planning and family settlements under Hindu law. #HinduLaw #SupremeCourt #PropertyRights #LegalUpdate #RealEstateLaw #PartitionLaw To get your will made and registered, book a call with thefynprint team here:
2:32

Supreme Court Clarifies Hindu Property Law | #AngadiChandrannaVsShankar In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that once a Joint Hindu Family property is formally partitioned, the shares allotted to each co-parcener cease to be joint family property and become that individual’s self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell or transfer 📍 Key takeaways: •Partition dissolves joint status, each share becomes self-acquired. • There’s no presumption that property is joint simply because a family is Hindu or joint. • Claiming ancestral status requires proof of joint family nucleus funds in acquiring the property. This is a crucial precedent for property rights, estate planning and family settlements under Hindu law. #HinduLaw #SupremeCourt #PropertyRights #LegalUpdate #RealEstateLaw #PartitionLaw To get your will made and registered, book a call with thefynprint team here:

thefynprint

11,301 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Nominee ≠ Legal Heir. And this misunderstanding has cost Indian families years of litigation and emotional trauma. See, a nomination only allows someone to receive the asset from the bank or insurer. It does NOT decide who legally owns it. Only a will determines: • Who ultimately owns the money • How assets are distributed • And who can legally challenge or defend that distribution In case there is no will, then succession laws apply, not your nomination. If you’ve nominated someone for your fixed deposits, mutual funds and more, and think your estate planning is “done”, then this reel is for you. 📌 Save this 📌 Share with your family 📌 Get your will made and registered with thefynprint TODAY. #EstatePlanningIndia #NominationVsWill #WillPlanning #InheritanceLaws #PersonalFinanceIndia #LegalAwareness #FamilyWealth #SuccessionPlanning #IndianLaw
1:33

Nominee ≠ Legal Heir. And this misunderstanding has cost Indian families years of litigation and emotional trauma. See, a nomination only allows someone to receive the asset from the bank or insurer. It does NOT decide who legally owns it. Only a will determines: • Who ultimately owns the money • How assets are distributed • And who can legally challenge or defend that distribution In case there is no will, then succession laws apply, not your nomination. If you’ve nominated someone for your fixed deposits, mutual funds and more, and think your estate planning is “done”, then this reel is for you. 📌 Save this 📌 Share with your family 📌 Get your will made and registered with thefynprint TODAY. #EstatePlanningIndia #NominationVsWill #WillPlanning #InheritanceLaws #PersonalFinanceIndia #LegalAwareness #FamilyWealth #SuccessionPlanning #IndianLaw

Thefynprint

17,968 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast
2:35

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Most of the women in this country still believe that they have a right over the husband’s and in-laws’ house. This is the biggest MYTH. The matrimonial house is either the husband’s property or the in-laws’ property, and the wife has ABSOLUTELY ZERO ownership rights over that property merely because she got married. Yes, if she is residing there, it may be considered a shared household for the purpose of living and shelter. But that does not make her the owner of the property. Women in our country cry for the husband’s & in-laws’ property but rarely talk about respecting those relationships enough to deserve any voluntary share or ownership. Rather, when asked why they are not equally vocal about claiming their father’s or brother’s property, they suddenly become silent. Rights over someone else’s property cannot be claimed selectively. The law is based on ownership, not entitlement.
1:17

Most of the women in this country still believe that they have a right over the husband’s and in-laws’ house. This is the biggest MYTH. The matrimonial house is either the husband’s property or the in-laws’ property, and the wife has ABSOLUTELY ZERO ownership rights over that property merely because she got married. Yes, if she is residing there, it may be considered a shared household for the purpose of living and shelter. But that does not make her the owner of the property. Women in our country cry for the husband’s & in-laws’ property but rarely talk about respecting those relationships enough to deserve any voluntary share or ownership. Rather, when asked why they are not equally vocal about claiming their father’s or brother’s property, they suddenly become silent. Rights over someone else’s property cannot be claimed selectively. The law is based on ownership, not entitlement.

The Forgotten ‘Man’ 👨‍⚖️

15,619 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce

You do not own anything. YOU are the product❗️ How to take back your birth rights and stop being a product for the European dynasty. Law and banking are both practices of the Druids. “The land patent, not a deed, is the only true evidence of absolute land ownership that cannot be seized for debt or taxes. Modern mortgage systems like MERS have broken chains of title by trading mortgages like stocks without recording transfers, making it impossible for banks to prove ownership. Land patents bypass electronic records entirely by tracing ownership to sovereign grants, removing property from government jurisdiction and preventing it from being used as financial collateral.”
25:13

You do not own anything. YOU are the product❗️ How to take back your birth rights and stop being a product for the European dynasty. Law and banking are both practices of the Druids. “The land patent, not a deed, is the only true evidence of absolute land ownership that cannot be seized for debt or taxes. Modern mortgage systems like MERS have broken chains of title by trading mortgages like stocks without recording transfers, making it impossible for banks to prove ownership. Land patents bypass electronic records entirely by tracing ownership to sovereign grants, removing property from government jurisdiction and preventing it from being used as financial collateral.”

🜌🜈🜓

18,823 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 Attention, #BlackAmerican Community! 🚨 A transfer to a death deed is an important step for ensuring your loved ones are taken care of after you’re gone. This legal document allows property to be transferred directly to beneficiaries without going through probate, making the process smoother and more efficient. Key Points: - What is it? A deed that transfers ownership of property upon death. - Benefits: Avoids probate, saves time, and reduces costs. - Who can do it? Homeowners looking to secure their family’s future. Take action now to protect your legacy! 🏡💖 Have you considered a transfer to a death deed for your property? #KushNation🔴🔱⚫️
4:13

🚨 Attention, #BlackAmerican Community! 🚨 A transfer to a death deed is an important step for ensuring your loved ones are taken care of after you’re gone. This legal document allows property to be transferred directly to beneficiaries without going through probate, making the process smoother and more efficient. Key Points: - What is it? A deed that transfers ownership of property upon death. - Benefits: Avoids probate, saves time, and reduces costs. - Who can do it? Homeowners looking to secure their family’s future. Take action now to protect your legacy! 🏡💖 Have you considered a transfer to a death deed for your property? #KushNation🔴🔱⚫️

MF KUSH 🔴🔱⚫️

113,053 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

In America there is something called ‘Adverse possession’ Someone can legally take the property rights of your home or property in as little as 5 years in some states “The day that I learned somebody can gain property rights or ownership of a property through a process called adverse possession after meeting a certain amount of years and requirements, and they can claim ownership of land that they've just been living on, that might have been one of the scariest things I've ever realized as a law student.” This is real To successfully claim adverse possession, the occupant typically must prove their use of the property was: - Actual, meaning they physically occupied or used the land (e.g., living on it, farming it, maintaining it) - Open and notorious: Visible and obvious to anyone (including the true owner), not hidden. A Exclusive: Not shared with the public or the true owner. - Continuous: Uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Ownership can be claimed and transferred in as short as 5 years in some states like California, with additional requirements like paying taxes - Commonly 10–20 years in many states. - Up to 30 years in a few places. So essentially some squatter could legitimately claim someones second property or home they don’t visit
1:11

In America there is something called ‘Adverse possession’ Someone can legally take the property rights of your home or property in as little as 5 years in some states “The day that I learned somebody can gain property rights or ownership of a property through a process called adverse possession after meeting a certain amount of years and requirements, and they can claim ownership of land that they've just been living on, that might have been one of the scariest things I've ever realized as a law student.” This is real To successfully claim adverse possession, the occupant typically must prove their use of the property was: - Actual, meaning they physically occupied or used the land (e.g., living on it, farming it, maintaining it) - Open and notorious: Visible and obvious to anyone (including the true owner), not hidden. A Exclusive: Not shared with the public or the true owner. - Continuous: Uninterrupted for the full statutory period. Ownership can be claimed and transferred in as short as 5 years in some states like California, with additional requirements like paying taxes - Commonly 10–20 years in many states. - Up to 30 years in a few places. So essentially some squatter could legitimately claim someones second property or home they don’t visit

Wall Street Apes

88,264 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

Drake doesn’t own his music” That’s false. • Pre-2018: UMG owns the bulk of the masters, but Drake still owns publishing and retains contractual/master interests. That’s real ownership, not zero. • Post-2018: Drake owns or co-owns his masters. UMG acts as a licensed distributor, not an absolute owner. That’s why Drake’s company has legal standing in court to claim streaming and licensing harm. If he “didn’t own his music,” he wouldn’t. “Contractual / master interests” — plain English It means Drake has legally enforceable rights tied to the master recordings, even if he does not own 100% of them outright. Let’s break it down clearly. ⸻ 1️⃣ “Master interests” This refers to any ownership stake or control connected to the sound recordings (the masters). You do not need to own 100% of a master to have a master interest. Examples of master interests: •Partial ownership (co-ownership) •Beneficial ownership (economic interest) •Reversionary ownership (ownership that returns after a term) •Approval or veto rights over certain uses •A defined share of licensing revenue So when we say Drake has master interests, it means: 👉 he has real, recognized rights in the recordings themselves, not just a paycheck. ⸻ 2️⃣ “Contractual interests” This means those rights exist because of contracts, even if the copyright registration lists another owner. Contracts can grant an artist: •Guaranteed revenue participation tied to the master •Audit rights •Control over licensing, sync, or exclusivity •Restrictions on how recordings are exploited •Rights that expand or revert over time In other words: •UMG may appear as the owner on paper •But Drake’s contracts limit what UMG can do and guarantee Drake’s stake That’s still ownership in the legal sense, even if it’s not exclusive. ⸻ 3️⃣ Why this matters legally (and in court) Courts don’t ask: “Who owns 100%?” They ask: “Who has ownership standing?” If Drake had: •only artist royalties, no ownership •no contractual master rights He could not claim economic harm tied to streaming or licensing. The fact that his company can assert harm means: ✅ he holds master-level contractual interests, not just royalties. ⸻ 4️⃣ Simple analogy (no music jargon) Think of real estate: •UMG = owns most of the building •Drake = owns a legally protected share + has rights over how it’s used UMG can’t act like Drake isn’t an owner just because they own more square footage. ⸻ ✅ Final, clean definition “Contractual/master interests” means: Drake has legally enforceable rights and economic ownership tied directly to the master recordings, even if he does not own 100% of them outright. That’s why saying “Drake owns nothing pre-2018” is incorrect.
6:55

Drake doesn’t own his music” That’s false. • Pre-2018: UMG owns the bulk of the masters, but Drake still owns publishing and retains contractual/master interests. That’s real ownership, not zero. • Post-2018: Drake owns or co-owns his masters. UMG acts as a licensed distributor, not an absolute owner. That’s why Drake’s company has legal standing in court to claim streaming and licensing harm. If he “didn’t own his music,” he wouldn’t. “Contractual / master interests” — plain English It means Drake has legally enforceable rights tied to the master recordings, even if he does not own 100% of them outright. Let’s break it down clearly. ⸻ 1️⃣ “Master interests” This refers to any ownership stake or control connected to the sound recordings (the masters). You do not need to own 100% of a master to have a master interest. Examples of master interests: •Partial ownership (co-ownership) •Beneficial ownership (economic interest) •Reversionary ownership (ownership that returns after a term) •Approval or veto rights over certain uses •A defined share of licensing revenue So when we say Drake has master interests, it means: 👉 he has real, recognized rights in the recordings themselves, not just a paycheck. ⸻ 2️⃣ “Contractual interests” This means those rights exist because of contracts, even if the copyright registration lists another owner. Contracts can grant an artist: •Guaranteed revenue participation tied to the master •Audit rights •Control over licensing, sync, or exclusivity •Restrictions on how recordings are exploited •Rights that expand or revert over time In other words: •UMG may appear as the owner on paper •But Drake’s contracts limit what UMG can do and guarantee Drake’s stake That’s still ownership in the legal sense, even if it’s not exclusive. ⸻ 3️⃣ Why this matters legally (and in court) Courts don’t ask: “Who owns 100%?” They ask: “Who has ownership standing?” If Drake had: •only artist royalties, no ownership •no contractual master rights He could not claim economic harm tied to streaming or licensing. The fact that his company can assert harm means: ✅ he holds master-level contractual interests, not just royalties. ⸻ 4️⃣ Simple analogy (no music jargon) Think of real estate: •UMG = owns most of the building •Drake = owns a legally protected share + has rights over how it’s used UMG can’t act like Drake isn’t an owner just because they own more square footage. ⸻ ✅ Final, clean definition “Contractual/master interests” means: Drake has legally enforceable rights and economic ownership tied directly to the master recordings, even if he does not own 100% of them outright. That’s why saying “Drake owns nothing pre-2018” is incorrect.

stevonaj🧊

76,940 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The State is not God. In the compulsory income and property tax, the State claims ownership over the first fruits of people’s work and property, thereby making them wards in custody of the State. Meaning: Before people support their own life and their family, they must make a forced contribution to the State. Man is not a dependent of the State. Man is not created by the State. Man is not sustained by the State. Man does not have his salvation or rights from the State. God has not given government the rights over innocent people’s life, liberty, or property. Therefore, no institution or person shall violate these rights over-against an innocent person. Property and income belong first to individuals, not to the State.
1:39

The State is not God. In the compulsory income and property tax, the State claims ownership over the first fruits of people’s work and property, thereby making them wards in custody of the State. Meaning: Before people support their own life and their family, they must make a forced contribution to the State. Man is not a dependent of the State. Man is not created by the State. Man is not sustained by the State. Man does not have his salvation or rights from the State. God has not given government the rights over innocent people’s life, liberty, or property. Therefore, no institution or person shall violate these rights over-against an innocent person. Property and income belong first to individuals, not to the State.

Dusty Deevers

119,225 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

What another AMAZING “coincidence” California had just passed new tax laws, if your home burns down and you don’t rebuild within 2 years (impossible in California) you lose your tax basis. Your property taxes SKYROCKET to the new values of the property “Think about a home that was purchased many years ago for $5 million. Let's say they were paying $65,000 a year in property taxes. Property goes up a lot over time, especially in these areas. Maybe the value today is $30 million. They go to rebuild it. If it was not, if they couldn't transfer the tax basis, you're looking at like $400,000 a year that they would have to pay” “In 2020, California voters approved a bill that basically said that if your house burns down in a fire, you can transfer the tax basis of that property to something that you buy or something that you build. But you only have two years to do it.” So some of the most expensive homes and properties the entire world now will get reassessed to pay maximum property tax values….
0:59

What another AMAZING “coincidence” California had just passed new tax laws, if your home burns down and you don’t rebuild within 2 years (impossible in California) you lose your tax basis. Your property taxes SKYROCKET to the new values of the property “Think about a home that was purchased many years ago for $5 million. Let's say they were paying $65,000 a year in property taxes. Property goes up a lot over time, especially in these areas. Maybe the value today is $30 million. They go to rebuild it. If it was not, if they couldn't transfer the tax basis, you're looking at like $400,000 a year that they would have to pay” “In 2020, California voters approved a bill that basically said that if your house burns down in a fire, you can transfer the tax basis of that property to something that you buy or something that you build. But you only have two years to do it.” So some of the most expensive homes and properties the entire world now will get reassessed to pay maximum property tax values….

Wall Street Apes

3,035,751 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Property tax bills are due today. Imagine if Ottawa forced Alberta to collect a big federal tax hike on provincial letterhead. That's how municipalities are treated with the Province's 57% property tax increase over four years. It's time to keep property taxes local, with clear accountability and transparency. Imagine if Justin Trudeau ordered Danielle Smith to collect a massive federal tax increase through Alberta's tax bill. She'd be furious. That’s exactly what’s happening today to Alberta’s cities, with today’s deadline to pay your property tax bill. Not many of you may know, but now upwards of half of your property taxes go to the provincial government, and not the town, city, or municipality you live in. The biggest increase on your property tax bill didn't come from City Hall. It came from the Provincial government. The Province imposed a 21 percent increase on your property tax bill, the largest property tax increase in Calgary's history. Over the past four years, it has increased the education property tax by 57 percent. By comparison, our Council held the municipal property tax increase to just 1.8 percent. That funds police, firefighters, roads, transit, parks, snow clearing, recreation centres, and the infrastructure that keeps Calgary moving. Because of the Province's education property tax equalization formula, Calgary homeowners are paying about twice the increase faced by Edmonton homeowners. Don't take my word for it. Here's how the Premier herself describes where a large share of your property tax goes. "If we're going to rail against equalization at the federal level, then we can't keep doing the same thing to our municipalities..." The Premier is right. If we're going to oppose equalization at the federal level, we shouldn't be doing the same thing to Alberta's municipalities. Property taxes are local taxes. They should stay local. The Province should fund provincial priorities through its other revenue sources, and municipalities should collect property taxes for local services. Thank you for supporting the City services that keep Calgary safe, moving, and growing.
2:35

Property tax bills are due today. Imagine if Ottawa forced Alberta to collect a big federal tax hike on provincial letterhead. That's how municipalities are treated with the Province's 57% property tax increase over four years. It's time to keep property taxes local, with clear accountability and transparency. Imagine if Justin Trudeau ordered Danielle Smith to collect a massive federal tax increase through Alberta's tax bill. She'd be furious. That’s exactly what’s happening today to Alberta’s cities, with today’s deadline to pay your property tax bill. Not many of you may know, but now upwards of half of your property taxes go to the provincial government, and not the town, city, or municipality you live in. The biggest increase on your property tax bill didn't come from City Hall. It came from the Provincial government. The Province imposed a 21 percent increase on your property tax bill, the largest property tax increase in Calgary's history. Over the past four years, it has increased the education property tax by 57 percent. By comparison, our Council held the municipal property tax increase to just 1.8 percent. That funds police, firefighters, roads, transit, parks, snow clearing, recreation centres, and the infrastructure that keeps Calgary moving. Because of the Province's education property tax equalization formula, Calgary homeowners are paying about twice the increase faced by Edmonton homeowners. Don't take my word for it. Here's how the Premier herself describes where a large share of your property tax goes. "If we're going to rail against equalization at the federal level, then we can't keep doing the same thing to our municipalities..." The Premier is right. If we're going to oppose equalization at the federal level, we shouldn't be doing the same thing to Alberta's municipalities. Property taxes are local taxes. They should stay local. The Province should fund provincial priorities through its other revenue sources, and municipalities should collect property taxes for local services. Thank you for supporting the City services that keep Calgary safe, moving, and growing.

Jeromy (Pathfinder) Farkas

70,144 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that could completely change how the government collects on delinquent property taxes. In most cases, the government will take your home if you are late on property taxes, sell it at a cash auction, and only pay you the difference in the auction price and what you owed. But the fifth amendment says the government cannot take your property without “just compensation.” The plaintiff argued “just compensation” means the full market value, not the decreased cash auction price. Unfortunately, it seemed like the court only cared about the burden on the government and not about our constitutional rights. They often said it would be too difficult and unreasonable for the government to sell homes on the open market to get a fair market price. But the real question is, why are they taking people’s homes in the first place? Any other debt collector would sue in court, go after wages, or take personal property. Why does the government treat delinquent property taxes any different?
3:22

Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that could completely change how the government collects on delinquent property taxes. In most cases, the government will take your home if you are late on property taxes, sell it at a cash auction, and only pay you the difference in the auction price and what you owed. But the fifth amendment says the government cannot take your property without “just compensation.” The plaintiff argued “just compensation” means the full market value, not the decreased cash auction price. Unfortunately, it seemed like the court only cared about the burden on the government and not about our constitutional rights. They often said it would be too difficult and unreasonable for the government to sell homes on the open market to get a fair market price. But the real question is, why are they taking people’s homes in the first place? Any other debt collector would sue in court, go after wages, or take personal property. Why does the government treat delinquent property taxes any different?

Anna Matson

47,169 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni says undocumented foreign nationals who leave or are deported from South Africa will not be compensated by the government for any property they leave behind, but any property they legally own remains protected by South African law and can be sold or otherwise disposed of through legal channels.
2:01

Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni says undocumented foreign nationals who leave or are deported from South Africa will not be compensated by the government for any property they leave behind, but any property they legally own remains protected by South African law and can be sold or otherwise disposed of through legal channels.

MDN NEWS

91,412 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

🚨 SHOCKING TRUTH: Just a Registry isn’t enough to make you the legal owner! 🚨 The Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that simply having the property papers in your name does not automatically grant you legal ownership. Your registry is incomplete without these 5 mandatory steps!
0:49

🚨 SHOCKING TRUTH: Just a Registry isn’t enough to make you the legal owner! 🚨 The Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that simply having the property papers in your name does not automatically grant you legal ownership. Your registry is incomplete without these 5 mandatory steps!

MOHINI WEALTH (NRI)

210,208 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Must watch! BC real estate lawyer, Tom Isaac, on the Cowichan ruling "What people don't seem to understand is the private land ownership, whether you like it or not... It is a cornerstone of Western economic prosperity." "You don't have a Western economy if you don't have private property ownership." "That is indefeasible by a democratically elected public government." "So this is a big, big deal for anyone, whether you're an indigenous government or a non indigenous government trying to attract capital to your land." "You want the concept of private property ownership upheld." Breakthrough Nation with Karen Restoule Karen Restoule David Eby Cassels
2:27

Must watch! BC real estate lawyer, Tom Isaac, on the Cowichan ruling "What people don't seem to understand is the private land ownership, whether you like it or not... It is a cornerstone of Western economic prosperity." "You don't have a Western economy if you don't have private property ownership." "That is indefeasible by a democratically elected public government." "So this is a big, big deal for anyone, whether you're an indigenous government or a non indigenous government trying to attract capital to your land." "You want the concept of private property ownership upheld." Breakthrough Nation with Karen Restoule Karen Restoule David Eby Cassels

cbcwatcher

26,017 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨 Texas Rep Brian Harrison exposing Texas politicians spent the day secretly working to increase property taxes on a bill that was meant to cut property taxes “Update from the floor. We are debating right now the Senate's property tax relief bill, SB10 right now. But let me tell you what they're debating right now. They're not debating whether or not to eliminate your property taxes. They're not debating whether to give you a big property tax cut. They're not even debating whether to give you a small property tax cut. The fact of the matter is Senate Bill 10 is a bill that will allow for the automatic increase in your property tax bills. So under this bill, your property taxes will not I'm going down at all. In fact, not one single Texan's property tax bill will go down. They're all going up. Total betrayal” This bill was meant to limit property taxes but once it went to the floor, politicians negotiated how they could actually INCREASE instead of decrease property taxes…. Insane
0:38

🚨 Texas Rep Brian Harrison exposing Texas politicians spent the day secretly working to increase property taxes on a bill that was meant to cut property taxes “Update from the floor. We are debating right now the Senate's property tax relief bill, SB10 right now. But let me tell you what they're debating right now. They're not debating whether or not to eliminate your property taxes. They're not debating whether to give you a big property tax cut. They're not even debating whether to give you a small property tax cut. The fact of the matter is Senate Bill 10 is a bill that will allow for the automatic increase in your property tax bills. So under this bill, your property taxes will not I'm going down at all. In fact, not one single Texan's property tax bill will go down. They're all going up. Total betrayal” This bill was meant to limit property taxes but once it went to the floor, politicians negotiated how they could actually INCREASE instead of decrease property taxes…. Insane

Wall Street Apes

44,697 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

WHAT WILL THE BLUE STATES THINK OF NEXT? In Virginia, every year there is a tax that has to be paid on your car - or camper - even if you own these items outright. This is called a personal property tax. Her bill this year is $2,104.45 not including tags or license. Keep voting Democrat, Virginia and you will get more of the same.
1:45

WHAT WILL THE BLUE STATES THINK OF NEXT? In Virginia, every year there is a tax that has to be paid on your car - or camper - even if you own these items outright. This is called a personal property tax. Her bill this year is $2,104.45 not including tags or license. Keep voting Democrat, Virginia and you will get more of the same.

BelannF

78,079 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

HUGE! The Supreme Court will hear a property tax case that could change, or even prevent, local governments from foreclosing your home for back taxes. If won, governments will have to pay you the FULL value of your home minus what’s owed.
18:41

HUGE! The Supreme Court will hear a property tax case that could change, or even prevent, local governments from foreclosing your home for back taxes. If won, governments will have to pay you the FULL value of your home minus what’s owed.

Anna Matson

293,415 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Our budget framework provides much-needed relief to the middle class. It will ensure: ✅ 94% of Marylanders get a tax cut or see no change in their income taxes ✅ There will be no increase to the sales tax or state property tax ✅ We can strengthen and diversify our economy
1:03

Our budget framework provides much-needed relief to the middle class. It will ensure: ✅ 94% of Marylanders get a tax cut or see no change in their income taxes ✅ There will be no increase to the sales tax or state property tax ✅ We can strengthen and diversify our economy

Governor Wes Moore

11,743 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce