Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

walleyes n whitetails Said:

Tackle Joe Said:
Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets"

Schools funded "fully and properly?"  Tell me where that is happening in western ND right now?  The state has a cap on the annual oil impact funding right now, and that cap hasn't been changed in many years.  Schools are packed here in western ND, and need funding.  The state did kick in some grants in the past weeks to help, but schools out west  will still struggle next year. 

Show me something that will tell me how schools will get funded if measure 2 passes.

exactly, it's not being done now.  so all the more reason to pass measure 2 so that it becomes law that it will have to be done.  then if it isn't the legal system will ensure that it does.  For gods sakes people we have a multi billion dollar surplus in this state that is growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis.  yet the state taxes the living crap out of property owners.  it's azzinine.

 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Source?

a write up in the Williston Herald.

I can't find it on their website. Have a link by chance?

J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Horsager Said:
 
walleyes n whitetails Said:
  I have no idea what has gone on in fargo.  But i can tell you williston would love to be able just build new schools right now.

The teachers and administrators would love a new school or the residents who'll actually be paying for it?

I'm guessing anyone who has or knows the kids and teachers that are using mobile units parked outside the school as classrooms would like a new school that can support the population of students. 

I think this one is apples and oranges Horsager. Also, last I checked school board members are voted into their seats. Not that it helps anyone in Fargo do anything about it there are people to be held accountable. 

To the OP I stand firmly on the Vote NO side of the line. I would rather know specifically what funds will replace the loss of property taxes rather than roll the dice and see how it plays out. Hopefully this will kickstart the legislature to address our property taxes. 

you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

Post Hoc.... 

J

greenhead's picture
greenhead
Offline
Joined: 7/19/02

Eyexer, I can't find it either on their website either. I did a seach on property tax. I am curious as well so please post a link to the article. I also would like to hear your response to fireangels question. As that is my biggest concern and why I will be voting No.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

I think you are incorrect, the system IS working.  Those communities have decided to NOT build new schools, at least partially because of the effect it would have on property taxes.  So they don't care if their kids are going to school in a mobile home.  This passes, I can just about imagine that every school district will start dreaming about how to get "state" monies to build a new classroom, why not...it won't be reflected in their local taxes!

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

walleyes n whitetails Said:

Tackle Joe Said:
Absolutely false and completely misleading. The only thing the legislators are required to do is set a formula that fully and properly replaces property tax. How do you think k-12 is funded now? Whether it be in Minot or Page ND - they have a formula devised by the legislators that funds it "fully and properly" according to existing state requirements. Not a single legislator has been involved with the local school districts "budgets"

Schools funded "fully and properly?"  Tell me where that is happening in western ND right now?  The state has a cap on the annual oil impact funding right now, and that cap hasn't been changed in many years.  Schools are packed here in western ND, and need funding.  The state did kick in some grants in the past weeks to help, but schools out west  will still struggle next year. 

Show me something that will tell me how schools will get funded if measure 2 passes.

The state is to fund k-12 on average to 70% (2009 forward). This is up from 35%. This is from the general fund. That doesn't go away after measure 2 passes. Measure 2 requires the other 30% (current property tax amount) to be replace from the general fund as well. The measure requires payment to K-12 and local government legal obligations - in that order - to be paid for properly and fully before any other spending can occur. This is why everyone involved in the "special interests" is going bezerk - as the Measure Constitutionally requires the payment - fully and properly first. The legislatures only task is developing the "formula". Look at your current property tax bill - that breaks down everything regarding your tax bill - it's the "formula" designed by the legislature. The "mills" are what has been determined by the state to fund fully and properly - for that "legal obligation".  The mill is a legal obligation. Regarding your question - the state has a funding formula for k-12 in place - which includes the mills from the "local" tax - again that property tax goes away and must be replaced. Passage of Measure 2 doesn't change that k-12 formula - it simply replaces the 30% - nor does it restrict the legislature from improving the formula - nor does it restrict the state from any additional funding if they choose. However, Measure 2 requires it be fully and properly funded followed by local legal obligations (town, city county, township)  before any spending for special interest - that's the real issue. Actually paying your taxes and receiving the services you actually pay for - not special interest. Does this help? See www.yesm2.com and read the ABC's. That's the measures guts right there - and yes - it's that easy.

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

I think you are incorrect, the system IS working.  Those communities have decided to NOT build new schools, at least partially because of the effect it would have on property taxes.  So they don't care if their kids are going to school in a mobile home.  This passes, I can just about imagine that every school district will start dreaming about how to get "state" monies to build a new classroom, why not...it won't be reflected in their local taxes!

The state has standards and requirements that MUST be met for both classroom size and buildings - if the classes get bigger - the state formula for k-12 is to adjust for that increase. Building wise - if the buildings don't meet code - the state would be required to fund it's repair. Here as well - there is a formula in place. Now, will you get the 5000 seat football stadium you "want"? Probably not, But that could still be paid for locally with bonding - like it's done already. Now, say you have a town with no school - and the growth of your town now requires a school - the state would pay for it....and if the town wants a ton of extras - they can bond for them via vote of the people.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Allen... Simple minds? I for one dont care if I have to pay that money in another form other than one that holds my property hostage. Us supporters find that to be a rather simple concept. This isn't about not wanting to pay our share. It's about how and y we pay that share.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

Allen Said:
This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Allen, much of the land owners are former ND citizens with farms being rented via family or neighbors and are producing all kinds of other taxes. This is just another  "red-herring" that the opposition pushes. Even if it were as bad as you're painting it out to be - You're going to vote no because 16% of the people will benefit too? You're going to be selfish enough to vote against the 84% of the current abused property tax paying citizens because someone owns land in ND? There is no legitimate reason to vote against Measure 2 if you take the time and really see what this is about - owning your property free and clear - forever - or until you decide to move - not the government. The state has more than enough to pay for this - and it will only stimulate the economy as well. Those most vocal against it are either misunderstanding the measure - or they are current special interests. The state of PA just announced last week they are moving to eliminate property tax for everyone - for the very same reasons Measure 2 supporters have been proclaiming for years (yes, this has taken years to get this far). Go to www.yesm2.com  and get the info - make you're own decision - but at least get both sides.

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

walleyes n whitetails Said:
Vote No!

If you vote no for only one reason do it for the public schools.  Property tax is where they get most of their money.  If they lose that, grab your popcorn and watch education go down the toilet.

Just Say No!

As an elementary school teacher myself, and with 5 of my 7 kids in school, I appreciate your concern.  However, it is - with all due respect - unfounded.  70% of funding for education currently comes from the state's general fund.  There was not one person, that I know of, that griped when they raised the funding from 35% (if memory serves me correctly) to 70% from the general fund.  There was nobody crying about a "loss of local control" or that education would be in the toilet.  Not to mention the fact that they did it without adding a single day to the legislature.  Why did it not add any days to the legislature?  Because they had a formula in place already that determined the amount of funding schools get.  They simply had to change the numbers in the existing formula to provide the funding.

Measure 2 Constitutionally mandates that they fund K-12 education first.  Not to mention the fact that local school boards will have "sole discretion" over how the funds are spent.  No strings attached from the state legislature.  Now that is true local control!  And ALL the political subdivisions will enjoy the same as they too will have "sole discretion" (i.e. no strings attached) over how their funding is spent. 

I am appalled at the number of people that are buying into the scare tactics that there will be poor education or that we will no longer have police, fire, etc.  This is simply not true.  The measure mandates that all the legal obligations of the political subdivisions be funded.  Do you really think that a legislature, that just witnessed the people of ND vote to abolish property taxes, is going to TRY to tell these same people that they will not fund police, fire, etc.?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE! 

The measure simply changes the resource of where the funds come from.  There are not just three taxes (i.e. income, sales, and property) that provide revenue to this state.  I will double check, but if my memory serves me correctly, there are 12!  We are then scared into believing that we have to "make up the revenue" somewhere else?  This also is not true, as has already been pointed out on this thread.  There is no need for a tax shift.  The truth is that the ultimate tax shift already takes place in the form of property tax exemptions.  One group or person is exempted from paying property tax while everyone else pays more.

As for the out-of-staters issue... that doesn't even factor in for me.  Why?  Because I believe property rights are a fundamental right.  It's not a right that's just for North Dakotans.  It's an individual fundamental right for all.  And certainly, I think it silly to continue to have my home/property held hostage by the property tax simply because I want out-of-staters to be held hostage as well.  No offense, but to me it's really a ridiculous argument. 

The question is sometimes asked, "How many people have lost their homes due to property tax?"  The true answer to this question is, "All of them."  So long as there is a property tax, there is no true home ownership.  It's just that most people continue to pay the rent (i.e. property tax) to ensure they are not evicted.  But the reality is that ALL of us have lost our homes.  Even those that enjoy property tax exemptions are not true home owners.  After all, who granted the exemption?  That's right, the true owner... the government.

The other common argument is "loss of local control".  This too is a myth.  There is no local control.  Pretty much the only two things local about the property taxes are the fact that they are collected locally and that the local sheriff shows up to evict those that do not pay.  Otherwise the state pretty much mandates how these things are done.  Ask any township where taxes were "too low", and you'll find out the state told them to raise them.  In a nutshell, look at the percentages in terms of property valuations across the state (ex. 32% increase on crop land statewide) and I will ask, "How's that 'local control' working out for ya?"

My family has had the unfortunate experience of losing property for inability to pay.  During the early 90's my father became very ill and my mother became the primary bread-winner.  It was a difficult time in our lives, and my Dad lost property during this time period.  Thankfully, our farm was saved on two occasions from going to tax sale.  Two sets of my great-grandparents lost their farms during the depression for inability to pay.  That's how heartless, unfair, unjust, immoral, and un-American the property tax is.

When this comes up for a vote on June 12, 2012, I will do the only common sense thing there is to do.  I will vote "YES" on Measure 2 to abolish the worst tax on the face of the planet, and restore a fundamental right to the people that own property in the state of North Dakota.  In so doing we will also:
   - Give true "local control" to local governments.
   - Give true "local control" to local school boards.
   - Force the legislature to prioritize spending (K-12, local governments, and special interests last).
   - Provide incentive for businesses to come to North Dakota which will provide jobs/incentive for younger NDtans to stay in the state.
   - As non-oil related jobs are produced in ND, this will provide economic stability if/when the oil field ever slows down or busts.
   - Etc.

For Restoring True Property Rights,
Justin

-Justin

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Tackle Joe Said:

Allen Said:
This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Allen, much of the land owners are former ND citizens with farms being rented via family or neighbors and are producing all kinds of other taxes. This is just another  "red-herring" that the opposition pushes. Even if it were as bad as you're painting it out to be - You're going to vote no because 16% of the people will benefit too? You're going to be selfish enough to vote against the 84% of the current abused property tax paying citizens because someone owns land in ND? There is no legitimate reason to vote against Measure 2 if you take the time and really see what this is about - owning your property free and clear - forever - or until you decide to move - not the government. The state has more than enough to pay for this - and it will only stimulate the economy as well. Those most vocal against it are either misunderstanding the measure - or they are current special interests. The state of PA just announced last week they are moving to eliminate property tax for everyone - for the very same reasons Measure 2 supporters have been proclaiming for years (yes, this has taken years to get this far). Go to www.yesm2.com  and get the info - make you're own decision - but at least get both sides.

Source?

J

Rooster22's picture
Rooster22
Offline
Joined: 7/27/09

Measure 2 is an ABSOLUTLY HORRIBLE IDEA.  The money to makeup what is lost in property taxes isnt going to just pop out of thin air.  Had they spent any time researching HOW this was going to be made up I may consider it.  But the legislator has a hard enough time doing their job as lt is.  now lets give them this.....theyll be in sesion 563 days a year.....

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Rooster... Did u even read any of the above posts about your unfounded fears?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

I plan on flipping a coin. If it were an election between two individuals, I would choose the one with the biggest head.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

I dont like the idea of some Colorado jackwagon buying up a few sections of ND farm land, and not paying anything to our bottom line, then posting his land and charging to hunt it. All the more incentive for this type of land buy up, we however are going to be there with our game wardens, firemen, sheriffs dept, snow removal, road grading, etc and we can foot that bill for him too.

Lower the tax, or only eliminate it on ND residents, something like that. But to end it wouldnt be prudent.

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

BringingTheRain Said:
I plan on flipping a coin. If it were an election between two individuals, I would choose the one with the biggest head.

Or the coin flip thing would work too.

Neat

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

johnr Said:
I dont like the idea of some Colorado jackwagon buying up a few sections of ND farm land, and not paying anything to our bottom line, then posting his land and charging to hunt it. All the more incentive for this type of land buy up, we however are going to be there with our game wardens, firemen, sheriffs dept, snow removal, road grading, etc and we can foot that bill for him too.

Lower the tax, or only eliminate it on ND residents, something like that. But to end it wouldnt be prudent.

Really?!  No offense, but WOW!  This is quite the thinking!  You would think that land owned by out-of-staters is overrun by illegalities that would make it necessary for game wardens to constantly spend their time there.  And furthermore, these properties must be on fire all the time.  After all, it appears the fire department spends ALOT of time there.  And snow removal... I was not aware that they removed all the snow from these properties.  I always thought that snow was removed from roads that the GENERAL PUBLIC (primarily NDtans) travel.  Same for the road grading.

Really, people, let's think about this just a tad bit more.  :o)

By the way, in my opinion, if M2 passes it will create a dominoe effect nation-wide and North Dakota will not be the only one without property taxes.  The important thing is that we become the first!!!  :o)

For Restoration of True Property Rights,
Justin

-Justin

greenhead's picture
greenhead
Offline
Joined: 7/19/02

Justin, I am pretty sure John meant  that the non resident landowner will not pay didly for taxes but still benefit  from all the survices that currently come from property taxes such as clean roads, fire department if he has a fire, ambulance if he gets hurt, game warden when he needs one etc. Doesn't surprise me that you would see it differently though.    

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

dakota1977 Said:
Really?!  No offense, but WOW!  This is quite the thinking!  You would think that land owned by out-of-staters is overrun by illegalities that would make it necessary for game wardens to constantly spend their time there.  And furthermore, these properties must be on fire all the time.  After all, it appears the fire department spends ALOT of time there.  And snow removal... I was not aware that they removed all the snow from these properties.  I always thought that snow was removed from roads that the GENERAL PUBLIC (primarily NDtans) travel.  Same for the road grading.

Really, people, let's think about this just a tad bit more.  :o)   

By the way, in my opinion, if M2 passes it will create a dominoe effect nation-wide and North Dakota will not be the only one without property taxes.  The important thing is that we become the first!!!  :o)

For Restoration of True Property Rights,
Justin

Respect your opinion Justin and would ask you to do as you recomend, I highlighted it for you.

This has more disadvantages than advantages.
I give you California as an example of tax ideas gone wrong.

Vote NO on measure 2

Neat

priariechuck's picture
priariechuck
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

 

greenhead Said:
Justin, I am pretty sure John meant  that the non resident landowner will not pay didly for taxes but still benefit  from all the survices that currently come from property taxes such as clean roads, fire department if he has a fire, ambulance if he gets hurt, game warden when he needs one etc. Doesn't surprise me that you would see it differently though.    

And yet this isn't true. The landowner is still paying income tax for every dollar his property earns him and is paying sales tax every time he does something to the property (put up fences, plant crops, etc)

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

I'll make you a deal dakota....  You personally make up the $162 million that will be lost from non-resident property owners and have to be made up for by increased sales, income, or other taxes by those of us who live here and really care about this state and I'll vote YES too.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

I am more confused than ever on this subject.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:
I now will be voting yes on this measure.  I just read that the state intends to increase property taxes another 7.5% or so.  They are also planning on increasing land taxes another 32% I believe.  The legislature obviously has no intentions of reducing property taxes.  Everybody I talk to that has made up their minds is voting for this measure.  I am now educating those that are undecided.  When I explain the issue and how our taxes are going to be raised again, the individuals I talk with become angry.  I believe by Nov. this measure will pass easily.  I didn't think this two months ago.  And this will not effect the amount of money the local schools will receive one iota.  nor will it effect what local and county governments will receive.  all it does is change the source of the funding.  the state is receving 4-5 million $ per day from the oil revenues.  they have chosen to not spend that money on infrastructure in western ND.  they say they are but there is absolutely nothing happening over here.  So I will be sticking up a huge "Vote yes on measure 2" sign on my property which is right on U.S. 85.  I have had it with the state government. 

Source?

a write up in the Williston Herald.

I can't find it on their website. Have a link by chance?

It was in one of the editorials or the letters. 

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

gonefshn Said:
I'll make you a deal dakota....  You personally make up the $162 million that will be lost from non-resident property owners and have to be made up for by increased sales, income, or other taxes by those of us who live here and really care about this state and I'll vote YES too.

  Not to pick on Dakota, but I am personally voting no so my total tax bill doesn't GO UP as a result of this measure. 

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

greenhead Said:
Eyexer, I can't find it either on their website either. I did a seach on property tax. I am curious as well so please post a link to the article. I also would like to hear your response to fireangels question. As that is my biggest concern and why I will be voting No.

I should have clarified my statement.  I'm tired of their money grabbing.  they are running the state as a "for profit" corporation.  that is not the role of government.  let me ask you a question.  how much money should the state be allowed to bankroll before it is considered hoarding?

 

greenhead's picture
greenhead
Offline
Joined: 7/19/02

 I see your point somewhat prairie chuck but your statement is not totally true either. The non resident most likely isn't the one paying the sales taxes on the crops he puts in, the local renter is. He also comes up with a ton of ways to make it appear like he didn't make money so he uses it as a tax write off. Read an article the other day about the many ways people use the tax codes loopholes to get breaks they don't deserve. Plus my real point was I beleive Justin took John statements way out of text to try to solidfy his own beliefs.       

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Tackle Joe Said:

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
you just brought up a very interesting point.  there are schools using portables right now.  so obviously the system in place does not work.  all the more reasons to vote yes on this measure.  at least it can't be any worse than it is now. 

I think you are incorrect, the system IS working.  Those communities have decided to NOT build new schools, at least partially because of the effect it would have on property taxes.  So they don't care if their kids are going to school in a mobile home.  This passes, I can just about imagine that every school district will start dreaming about how to get "state" monies to build a new classroom, why not...it won't be reflected in their local taxes!

The state has standards and requirements that MUST be met for both classroom size and buildings - if the classes get bigger - the state formula for k-12 is to adjust for that increase. Building wise - if the buildings don't meet code - the state would be required to fund it's repair. Here as well - there is a formula in place. Now, will you get the 5000 seat football stadium you "want"? Probably not, But that could still be paid for locally with bonding - like it's done already. Now, say you have a town with no school - and the growth of your town now requires a school - the state would pay for it....and if the town wants a ton of extras - they can bond for them via vote of the people.

quit making it sound so damn easy!  Oh that's right it actually is.

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

Allen Said:
This measure is one of simple minds creating simple ideas.  The bottom line in all of this is that the property owners who don't live in ND won't have to pay a dime for the infrastructure supporting that property if this measure passes.  The number I read one time suggested that about 15% of all property in ND is owned by NR's.  Feel free to give them a free pass to buy up more of ND if you wish, but I am voting no because I don't particularly want an increase in my sales, income, or XXXX taxes to the tune of 15%. 

It takes a pretty good set of blinders to not recognize that the way you cut spending is to sit down and figure out which oxen needs to be gored.  That's the real answer, figure out whose pet projects need to go away first.

Does it really matter if I pay $10k a year in taxes to support ND if it is in the form of property taxes, income taxes, or sales taxes?  I guess what a person calls it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

Allen, much of the land owners are former ND citizens with farms being rented via family or neighbors and are producing all kinds of other taxes. This is just another  "red-herring" that the opposition pushes. Even if it were as bad as you're painting it out to be - You're going to vote no because 16% of the people will benefit too? You're going to be selfish enough to vote against the 84% of the current abused property tax paying citizens because someone owns land in ND? There is no legitimate reason to vote against Measure 2 if you take the time and really see what this is about - owning your property free and clear - forever - or until you decide to move - not the government. The state has more than enough to pay for this - and it will only stimulate the economy as well. Those most vocal against it are either misunderstanding the measure - or they are current special interests. The state of PA just announced last week they are moving to eliminate property tax for everyone - for the very same reasons Measure 2 supporters have been proclaiming for years (yes, this has taken years to get this far). Go to www.yesm2.com  and get the info - make you're own decision - but at least get both sides.

Source?

do you have a source for the 15% figure?

 

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

greenhead Said:
Justin, I am pretty sure John meant  that the non resident landowner will not pay didly for taxes but still benefit  from all the survices that currently come from property taxes such as clean roads, fire department if he has a fire, ambulance if he gets hurt, game warden when he needs one etc. Doesn't surprise me that you would see it differently though.    

No, I understand what he's saying.  My point is that those things wouldn't happen enough to be reason to vote against the measure.  Besides, just because they're from out of state, does that mean they shouldn't be taken care of in terms of accidents, etc.?  Does that mean that people passing through from other states that are involved in a vehicle accident should not be taken care of in terms of police, fire, etc.?  After all, they're not NDtans and haven't contributed to the services they would be receiving.

I see no way, under the circumstances described, that the out-of-stater is the only beneficiary of road maintenance.  If roads are maintained, it is because they are public roads.  Which means the GENERAL PUBLIC uses/benefits from them.  By the way, isn't this what the gas tax is for?  :o) 

The condition exists already of these things being used by people that contribute little/nothing in terms of the money that goes to provide those services.  Again, it does not occur enough at all to be a reason not to vote for the measure.  Truth be told, current out-of-state property owners have probably spent FAR more in taxes than they have benefitted from these services.

No, the percentage of land owned by out-of-staters is not anywhere near enough of a reason for me to want my home/property to continue to be held hostage. 

-Justin

-Justin

Pages