if someone has a tax lien does this mean they spent too much money. they would not have tax if they did not earn money is that correct? in which case it means they spent more than they should? because if they did not earn very much the tax would not be that much and therefore would not be a problem in paying it is that correct? is it possible to conclude that anyone who has a tax lien has spent above their means because if they were poor then they would not have to pay tax in the first place. in short they are not on the bread line other wise they would not pay tax but rather they are spending more than they should through greed not thorugh necessity or poverty. is that correct?
I have a few theories of my own on this. Imo, sales tax liens the company may not have their products or services priced correctly or they are not experienced in business. Property tax liens may just be temporary cash flow problem or become part of a business strategy. (They could earn more than the penalties). Federal tax liens, I'm not sure but the IRS is very flexible, you'd probably have to annoy the IRS for them to do that.
Here locally in Cali, at the last election for sheriff one of the candidates had had tax liens on his boat pretty much every year since 2002 (sad but true). It was less than $200/year, so I'd say in his case it was simply a matter of being sloppy.
with all the voluntary mortgage defaults happening now, i would expect more and more property tax liens on residential real estate. if your home is hundreds of thousands underwater,and you know you'll eventually be foreclosed on because you stopped paying the mortgage, then there's no point in paying the home's property taxes either.