Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
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
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
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
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
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

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

 

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.

You are talking about this question?

Yet you want to give them [state government] all of the financial power throughout the state, to decide the funding for every school and for every town or city.

The state doesn't have "all of the financial power." The only thing the state can do is devise a formula. What kind of formula? One that "fully and properly funds" all the services that the state currently requires local governments to provide: fire, police, courts, etc. What is "fully and properly" for Fargo will be different than for Harvey. Just like the funding for schools in Williston is equitable (Note: not equal, equitable) to the funding in GF.

 
Once the legislature devises this formula--one that is equitable for all local governments, large or small--the legislature cannot say how those funds are used. Spending these funds is at "the sole discretion of the local political subdivisions."

The only ones who are saying this can't be done are the elected leaders who have been screwing this up for the last 40 years. These are the people who have doubled and tripled our property tax in the last 5-10 yrs, who have increased state spending 135%, who give property tax exemptions to all their special friends and now they say "oh, and we can't come up with a formula, we'll just tell local governments how much they can/can't spend." They've spent your money and then they tell you "tax yourself more because this is the best we can do."


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

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.

like I've stated numerous times the legislature can come up with a "fee" for non resident owners of land. there are loop holes in every law, they'll find one.

 

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

eyeexer, I will agree with you on one thing, the state has a nice bank roll and could definately look at lowering property taxes. I don't think abolishing it all together is the correct fix. My gut feeling tells me if this bill is defeated the legislature takes it as an eye opening and does something to lower property taxes the next session. That is why I am so curious in your article that you mentioned. Please post a link to the article so i can interpret it myself and not rely on perhaps a biased opinion.     

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

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.

at 5 million a day in oil revenues to the state it'll take 32 days

 

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

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.

I think that has already been covered in previous posts.  There is no need to "make up" the lost revenue by increasing sales, income, or other taxes.  Thanks for your willingness to vote "YES".  I'll hold ya to it.  ;o)

-Justin

-Justin

ndbwhunter's picture
ndbwhunter
Offline
Joined: 2/23/05

 Dakota1977.

Thanks for the insight! I've been on the fence with this topic, but I think I'm starting to fall to the YES side!

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

on the subject of non landowner taxes and how to make it up... i agree w/ eye for once or twice... a non resident landowner fee imposed on the income tax form should work if you insist on penalizing them for being non resident landowners in order for you to back measure 2 based on principal.  however, i am one who doesn't think that is necessary.  first, we have a pretty big surplus to make up that money.  2nd, i think we might see that gap filled w/ economic development if this measure passes.  and finally... i am not willing to give up the moral principles that have me supporting this measure just because it means i might have to dip into my pocket more.  if i follow some of you correctly... you agree w/ the principles behind the measure but won't support it because it means you will have to pay more out of your pocket?  so principles be damned... its money that matters?  strange.

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

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

 

eyexer Said:

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?

Sure. I can validate Allen's figure, you can go ahead and keep throwing numbers out there without any sourcing other than an alleged Editorial or Letter to the Editor that someone else wrote.

This is all over but here's the figure on Teri's blog right from Cory Fong:

http://northdakota.areavoices.com/2011/12/24/todays-ask-your-government-67/

J

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

in response to iluvssnd's post....

ummmm.... well..... did you read the respone in that letter?  first of all it says 15% of agricultural land is owned by non residents.  not 15% of all property in ND.  but, secondly and most importantly the land is assessed w/ a value of $165,000,000 however... THE TAX COLLECTED ON THAT LAND WOULD BE ROUGHLY $26,400,000.  that is a far cry from the 165 million that others have quoted we as residents would have to make up.  using eye's example above... it wouldn't take a month for the oil revenues to make up that amount... it would take less than a week.  so, now we are all arguing about something, that in principle, looks really good.  however, some of you are willing to throw that principle out the window because of a measely $26,000,000.  $26,000,000 divided by the roughly 700,000 people in this state comes to a whopping $37/person.... you realize you guys want to toss that principle out the window for half a days work for someone making minimum wage and for an hour or two of work for a lot of folks?  and frankly... you probably wouldn't have to make that money up anyway... we will probably see increased economic development to cover that measely non resident property tax fee.  the way i see it... that link you just provided discredited the only argument left for those who oppose this measure.  thanks for the post!

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

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

My biggest problems with this are:

1.  $162 million from non-residents will need to be made up by us who live in this state.  Even if it's oil taxes it's money we residents could use with other needs or income or other tax reductions.  So, no matter how you word it, that $162 million is less for us residents.

2.  Increased costs:  Right now our Legislature only meets once every 2 years and is limited to 80 days.  They have trouble staying within that time period now.  Add all the work with funding out ALL levels of government and down the road it will require longer time for politicians in Bismarck and more than likely annual instead of biannual budgets.  And, if doing annual budgets, it means more state workers as well as they'll have to do this work more often.  Additionally, it would mean our county, school, and every other level of government would be traveling and spending time in Bismarck to "lobby" for extra or even for their base level of funding.  Adding even more time and travel costs.  People say this doesn't have to happen, but unless your head is in the sand any practical person who thinks it out will realize this will happen.

3.  Tax Shifting:  Our government still is going to need $XXX number of dollars to run.  This proposal doesn't SAVE anything.  It just replaces one tax type with another.

4.  Less money oversight:  Right now when a city, county, or school need more money they have to get LOCAL approval.  Locals complain and make this extremely difficult.  It's not easy to see examples of this.  Look at all the projects done at your local level that if it came directly from the local entity people would flip.  That doesn't happen when the money appears to be from someone else or a far away place.  Those welcome to "my town" look nice.  But if your local government had to pay the $80,000 apiece would they still be there? (that's just one example).

5.  Political games:  Lets face it.  If all the money is in Bismarck, you can't tell me that "extra" funds for that school, water project, or other such things won't be based on who's in what position, who's owed this or that political favor, and what not.  This already happens and would only get worse.

To me the measure should have been that when property values go up all mill levys go down so the increase is revenue neutral for us taxpayers.  Then if these entities need more money they'd have to come to us taxpayers and get our permission instead of automatically getting more money.  To me that'd make way more sense and is the reason so many people complain in the first place.  But as I see this measure the only winner are non-residents at our expense.

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

read the link above and my response gone... the valuation of out of state property is 165 million... the property tax collected is only 26 million.  big difference.  and your concerns w/ 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been addressed by a few others many times over in this thread alone already and the other one w/ a link posted above.  read em and get back to us.  but, i will try sum it up... 2.  no need for the legislature to meet more often.  3.  nobody says it will save anyone any money.  4.  currently there is very little local oversight on how your property taxes can be spent or raised.... every increase and justification for th increase has to be approved by the state as it stands now.  5.  all of the money is already in bismarck and most of it is already allocated via formulas.  the political games from special projects or moneys that isn't already allocated via formulas has been ongoing for decades and nobody is claiming this measure will change that. 

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

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

 

espringers Said:
in response to iluvssnd's post....

ummmm.... well..... did you read the respone in that letter?  first of all it says 15% of agricultural land is owned by non residents.  not 15% of all property in ND.  but, secondly and most importantly the land is assessed w/ a value of $165,000,000 however... THE TAX COLLECTED ON THAT LAND WOULD BE ROUGHLY $26,400,000.  that is a far cry from the 165 million that others have quoted we as residents would have to make up.  using eye's example above... it wouldn't take a month for the oil revenues to make up that amount... it would take less than a week. 

Yup, and that's specifically talking about agricultural land. $26.4 million in revenue. I never said 165, eye wanted to know where the 15% number came from so I obliged. 

so, now we are all arguing about something, that in principle, looks really good.  however, some of you are willing to throw that principle out the window because of a measely $26,000,000.  $26,000,000 divided by the roughly 700,000 people in this state comes to a whopping $37/person.... you realize you guys want to toss that principle out the window for half a days work for someone making minimum wage and for an hour or two of work for a lot of folks?  and frankly... you probably wouldn't have to make that money up anyway... we will probably see increased economic development to cover that measely non resident property tax fee.  the way i see it... that link you just provided discredited the only argument left for those who oppose this measure.  thanks for the post!

That isn't the only argument. There are many arguments which, as you mentioned, are available on the other thread where we beat this dead horse before. I am not trying hard to sway anybody one way or another espringers, I just get really sick of people spewing information that they heard second-hand and not knowing if it is indeed true.  Everyone should make up their own minds on this matter and spreading half-truths (whether for or against) isn't helping anyone. 

J

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

I will respectfully disagree. These guys have responded ad naseum to every argument that has been brought up. But, u either aren't reading the responses or u are choosing to blatantly disregard them. There aren't any concerns left that haven't been answered/addressed or can't be.

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

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

 Here's a link showing the $126.8 million total in non-resident property taxes:

  • Residential: 7.7 million
  • Agricultural: 29.2 million
  • Commercial: 89.9 million

Top of 2nd page.




http://fmwfchamber.com/pdf/Public%20Affairs/Q%20n%20A%20about%20Constitutional%20Measure%202_2012.pdf

J

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
I think the property taxes should be reduced significantly, however not gotten rid of. They could also be eliminated for people who are retired who are no longer paying income taxes.

John reading your post I agree with you almost all of the time.  However, retired people still pay income tax.  I know I pay a good chunk of income tax.
I agree they should not eliminate the income tax.  There are some businesses that have so many write offs that they don't pay much income tax, and often none.  That will leave the guy who works for a salary and has no tax shelters paying the bill through higher income taxes.  I think this bill is a very bad idea.  I think many who pay little income tax are drooling over this bill.

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

 

espringers Said:
I will respectfully disagree. These guys have responded ad naseum to every argument that has been brought up. But, u either aren't reading the responses or u are choosing to blatantly disregard them. There aren't any concerns left that haven't been answered/addressed or can't be.

I've seen a lot of both sides spewing talking points from empower the taxpayer and keep it local nd. You are on of the few in this argument who is actually taking a look and thinking about the measure. I've said in the past threads on this that I don't oppose eliminating the property tax but I don't like this bill because it basically says nothing more than "the legislature has to fund everything that property taxes currently fund, they can figure it out"  I don't like voting on half a bill is what I'm saying. You've made some excellent points and provided examples of how the funding could be replaced, why couldn't the authors of the bill do the same? 

J

elvis1's picture
elvis1
Offline
Joined: 10/11/07

Depending on the State Legislature to come up with a formula to fund all the services required doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

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

Well... I take back my posts bout the 26 million, etc. I only looked at the ag figures. My bad.

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

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

greenhead Said:
eyeexer, I will agree with you on one thing, the state has a nice bank roll and could definately look at lowering property taxes. I don't think abolishing it all together is the correct fix. My gut feeling tells me if this bill is defeated the legislature takes it as an eye opening and does something to lower property taxes the next session. That is why I am so curious in your article that you mentioned. Please post a link to the article so i can interpret it myself and not rely on perhaps a biased opinion.     

I'll look for it in a bit.  the fact that this measure is on the ballot should be enough to stimulate the legislators to be talking about drastic property tax cuts.  but not a word from a single one of them let alone the governor.  they will be making a huge mistake not addressing this very seriously before nov.  If they don't this measure will pass. I now firmly believe it.  I didn't think so a few months ago.  But now every person I talk to that understands it is voting for it.  The rest haven't decided.  And as I stated earlier those undecideds I talked with were pretty amazed after I discussed the measure with them.  Anybody that thinks this measure won't pass better take notice.  Right now I think there's a better chance to pass than not to pass.  so the legislature can ignore this at their peril.

 

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

espringers Said:
in response to iluvssnd's post....

ummmm.... well..... did you read the respone in that letter?  first of all it says 15% of agricultural land is owned by non residents.  not 15% of all property in ND.  but, secondly and most importantly the land is assessed w/ a value of $165,000,000 however... THE TAX COLLECTED ON THAT LAND WOULD BE ROUGHLY $26,400,000.  that is a far cry from the 165 million that others have quoted we as residents would have to make up.  using eye's example above... it wouldn't take a month for the oil revenues to make up that amount... it would take less than a week.  so, now we are all arguing about something, that in principle, looks really good.  however, some of you are willing to throw that principle out the window because of a measely $26,000,000.  $26,000,000 divided by the roughly 700,000 people in this state comes to a whopping $37/person.... you realize you guys want to toss that principle out the window for half a days work for someone making minimum wage and for an hour or two of work for a lot of folks?  and frankly... you probably wouldn't have to make that money up anyway... we will probably see increased economic development to cover that measely non resident property tax fee.  the way i see it... that link you just provided discredited the only argument left for those who oppose this measure.  thanks for the post!

damn you beat me to it.  and ag land is the lowest taxed property in the state. 

 

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

gonefshn Said:
My biggest problems with this are:

1.  $162 million from non-residents will need to be made up by us who live in this state.  Even if it's oil taxes it's money we residents could use with other needs or income or other tax reductions.  So, no matter how you word it, that $162 million is less for us residents.

2.  Increased costs:  Right now our Legislature only meets once every 2 years and is limited to 80 days.  They have trouble staying within that time period now.  Add all the work with funding out ALL levels of government and down the road it will require longer time for politicians in Bismarck and more than likely annual instead of biannual budgets.  And, if doing annual budgets, it means more state workers as well as they'll have to do this work more often.  Additionally, it would mean our county, school, and every other level of government would be traveling and spending time in Bismarck to "lobby" for extra or even for their base level of funding.  Adding even more time and travel costs.  People say this doesn't have to happen, but unless your head is in the sand any practical person who thinks it out will realize this will happen.

3.  Tax Shifting:  Our government still is going to need $XXX number of dollars to run.  This proposal doesn't SAVE anything.  It just replaces one tax type with another.

4.  Less money oversight:  Right now when a city, county, or school need more money they have to get LOCAL approval.  Locals complain and make this extremely difficult.  It's not easy to see examples of this.  Look at all the projects done at your local level that if it came directly from the local entity people would flip.  That doesn't happen when the money appears to be from someone else or a far away place.  Those welcome to "my town" look nice.  But if your local government had to pay the $80,000 apiece would they still be there? (that's just one example).

5.  Political games:  Lets face it.  If all the money is in Bismarck, you can't tell me that "extra" funds for that school, water project, or other such things won't be based on who's in what position, who's owed this or that political favor, and what not.  This already happens and would only get worse.

To me the measure should have been that when property values go up all mill levys go down so the increase is revenue neutral for us taxpayers.  Then if these entities need more money they'd have to come to us taxpayers and get our permission instead of automatically getting more money.  To me that'd make way more sense and is the reason so many people complain in the first place.  But as I see this measure the only winner are non-residents at our expense.

were going to have to start an annual budget process probably because of the energy impact alone. 

 

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

eyexer Said:

espringers Said:
in response to iluvssnd's post....

ummmm.... well..... did you read the respone in that letter?  first of all it says 15% of agricultural land is owned by non residents.  not 15% of all property in ND.  but, secondly and most importantly the land is assessed w/ a value of $165,000,000 however... THE TAX COLLECTED ON THAT LAND WOULD BE ROUGHLY $26,400,000.  that is a far cry from the 165 million that others have quoted we as residents would have to make up.  using eye's example above... it wouldn't take a month for the oil revenues to make up that amount... it would take less than a week.  so, now we are all arguing about something, that in principle, looks really good.  however, some of you are willing to throw that principle out the window because of a measely $26,000,000.  $26,000,000 divided by the roughly 700,000 people in this state comes to a whopping $37/person.... you realize you guys want to toss that principle out the window for half a days work for someone making minimum wage and for an hour or two of work for a lot of folks?  and frankly... you probably wouldn't have to make that money up anyway... we will probably see increased economic development to cover that measely non resident property tax fee.  the way i see it... that link you just provided discredited the only argument left for those who oppose this measure.  thanks for the post!

damn you beat me to it.  and ag land is the lowest taxed property in the state. 

Let's not forget the WalMarts and other corporations who own very valuable pieces of property here in ND.  I don't think anyone has ever said it is strictly an "ag land" issue.

Or is there something in this bill that allows corporations to still be taxed on their "property"?

“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

Oops, someone else beat me to it.

“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

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

I am voting YES as well - I know alot of people and havent heard one yet say they are voting no....

I hope it passes - all the fear mongering over the situation is certainly getting old...

I doubt the sky will fall this year, or in ten years....

Patience Suchka.......

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

On the subject of corporations and property taxes... Darn right this would apply to them too. Y shouldn't it? That's what will spur the economic development some of us keep referring to.

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

marauder29's picture
marauder29
Offline
Joined: 5/24/02

 Please, tell me again how this bill decreases the amount of waste that currently exists? 

How does this bill address the fundamental causes of overspending by passing it? 

Why would you support this bill? What does it do? 

Are we making progress by passing this bill, if do how? 

How do you measure it's success? What is the measurable outcome? A reduction in individual tax responsibility? 

By what presidence has the abolishment of property taxes worked... People, there is a big difference between reforming taxes and abolishing taxes. Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean you take your ball and go home...

marauder29's picture
marauder29
Offline
Joined: 5/24/02

 Check out this video on YouTube:

Sent from my iPhone

Good video... It's great that at least we are talking about an issue that matters... Not the buffet rule or birth control but an actual issue that matters. 

I know where I stand on the issue but I'm glad people aren't just agreeing with someone because it's coll! 

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

 Great video Marauder, I embedded it for you. I think former Governor Schaefer said it pretty well IMO


J

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

marauder29 Said:
 Please, tell me again how this bill decreases the amount of waste that currently exists? 

How does this bill address the fundamental causes of overspending by passing it? 

Why would you support this bill? What does it do? 

Are we making progress by passing this bill, if do how? 

How do you measure it's success? What is the measurable outcome? A reduction in individual tax responsibility? 

By what presidence has the abolishment of property taxes worked... People, there is a big difference between reforming taxes and abolishing taxes. Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean you take your ball and go home...

there in lies the problem.  there is no action being talked about or undertaken to reform the horrendous amount of property tax being laid upon the property owners of this state.  If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Measure 2 would fall to the way side.  But our dimwit legislators chose to just ride it out and it's going to bite them in the azz.  I was all for property tax reform.  but when it passes you can blame the inactivity of the legislature.  nothing more nothing less

 

marauder29's picture
marauder29
Offline
Joined: 5/24/02

 Yup... We hired them, right. 

Not long ago people wouldn't even take the time to vote and now people in our communities are actively having discourse over how to vote... Either way, that's progress even in light of a failure of leadership... At all levels. 

But the test will come well after this issue is decided... It isn't whether or not we can find honest political leaders but do we have the will to keep them honest by not compromising our values for their pork. Easy to say, hard to do. 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

I

John reading your post I agree with you almost all of the time.  However, retired people still pay income tax.  I know I pay a good chunk of income tax.

You should pay income taxes you lived off everyone elses all your working years and now your retirement years.

Plainsman Said:

I

.  That will leave the guy who works for a salary and has no tax shelters paying the bill through higher income taxes. 

No shelters for the salayred man? You need to talk to a good CPA there are plenty of plans to help with tax liablity after retirement.  Of coruse if you have done no planing before your retirement that is your problem not the governments.

Property tax should be done away with in all states.

 

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

 Dude, mauser- if you and plainsman have a bone to pick then do it elsewhere. Quit muddying up our useful threads on this site with your banter!

Respectfully,

Everyone else on the site.

J

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

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.

Please source where these out of state interests - many which are former ND citizens who now lease their Ag land to family or neighbors - aren't paying any taxes? Do you guys not get the sheer amount of special interests IN STATE that aren't currently paying property tax - do you have ANY clue? You're going to worry about 16% of out-state when 84% are now suffering? Seriously - this is your argument?

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

eyexer Said:

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?

ND State Tax Commissioner.

flyfish101's picture
flyfish101
Offline
Joined: 1/3/11

Just received a tax  notice yesterday on my cold storage building in Mandan.Guess what, its going up 20% next year.You would think that they would have gotten the message, but I think this is another poke in the eye. Vote yes on measure 2 or this insanity will never end.

whispertube

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Why is it no one supporting this measure ver posts the actual wording of this measure and inparticular the portion that will effect how it is implemented?

Here it is from the other discussion along with a couple question related directly to it's wording.

 
This is the crux of what will be added to our constitution as a resullt of this measure.

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships,school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with the authority to level property taxes must be replaced with revenues from state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institution taxes, and other state resources.

2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institution tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded thru state revenue sources before 2012. The state can not condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner, and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditure of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided.

3.The legislative assembly shall direct a share of sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, insurance premium taxes, alcoholic beverage taxes, mineral leasing fees and gaming taxes and any oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues and financial institution taxes not allocated to elelmentary and secondary schools to counties cities and other political subdvisions according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly to fully and properly fund the legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. The allocation of the amount determined by the legislative assembly must be provided to the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. How counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions choose to allocate the expenditures of this revenue is at the sole discretion of the governing bodies of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions.

What politician will step up and be the one to propose raising any taxes to offset the property tax revenue. They WILL blow thru this states surplus from oil and gas production and extraction taxes prior to implementing any new additional "taxes" on the people who vote. This WILL turn into a east/west, rural/urban battle in the legislative assembly.

There WILL be a battle as to what these "oil and gas production and extraction taxes" will be spent on. ie... Infrastructure in oil country or flood protection in Fargo. 5% for "conservation funding" 5% for this 5% for that ect...........

And once again I ask, how will the people of say Bottineau county hold accountable the representatives from say the states urban districts for the votes they cast as to what is to be allocated to Bottineau county.

Someone, anyone please explain to me how each of these budget proposals will not have to be looked at individually to determine what is actually "legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. ". to be paid from the "formula devised by the legislative assembly. Who determines what these legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions are for each entity??

Someone please tell me how if the The state can not condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner, and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditure of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided. These school boards will not simply submit whatever they wish and the state has to fund it?

Someone please explain to me how this all will occur without the legislature having to meet every year and possibly for a MUCH longer if not perpetual time period.

Espringers, I am not saying a better system can not be devised, I am saying this is not it.
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

The measure states the legislature MUST pay all "legally imposed obligations"

First off espringers who will determine what is a "legally defined obligation"?

How much say will the  local entities have in that determination? 

 If this measure passes and my township meets and votes to pave the gravel roads leading from the paved county road to our driveways is that a "legally imposed obligation"?????

If not, what say does the local entity have in determining what is?????????

How will the state legislature determine that they are only funding legally imposed obligation for every entitiy that used to rely on property taxes at the local level ?

The ONLY way the state legislature and the people of ND can be assured that an entity that is applying for these state allocated funds is only applying for what is determined to be a "legally imposed obligation" will be by examining each and every budgetary requestor proposal.

SOMEONE explains to me how else this oversight could be accomplished?

SOMEONE explain to me how this can be done in the time alloted to the legislative session?

This measure WILL eventually lead to the legislature going to year round every year sessions sooner than later . How else will they deal with scenarios that may arise that need special funding or imediate action or ensure fraudulent proposals (intentional or not) is not being requested  

You will no longer have part time legislators, but rather full time politicians spending our states funds and justifying why they need to be there year round. .

If THAT does not scare the crap right out of you, take a look at any other state that has that happening and then tell me what kind of a budgetary surplus they have managed to maintain.

Now throw in the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" that will pit rural against urban and east against west in developing political factions adn coalitions and this is a wreck waiting to ruin what is arguably on of the more effective, efficient state legislative processes in this country.

So for you supporting this measure explain to us in a clear consise and beleivable manner why what was posted above will not happen sooner than later if this measure were to pass?

I wonder what percentage of the  people that are appalled that their property taxes may go up are the same people that do not bother to vote when it comes to electing the people that determine their property taxes?
 
Even here in ND, what is the percentage of people that do not bother to vote???


.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

From the actual wording of the measure.

The allocation of the amount determined by the legislative assembly must be provided to the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions

given the underlined wording, explain to me how the local entitiy is not resigned to simply accepting what the legislative assembly "determines"?

The legislature determines the formula, likely will determine what is a "legally imposed obligation" and will determine what "allocation amount" will be provided and yet there are those that claim this will NOT remove local control!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone show the the wording in this measure to give these entities any recourse if they do not agree with teh legislatures actions????

Espringers in the discussion of another measure some asked how it would not take away the state legislature abilities, how does this measure not take away the local entiies abilities?

Can you show me where it is spelled out it will not?

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships,school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with the authority to level property taxes must be replaced with revenues from state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institution taxes, and other state resources.

Do the entities listed in the above section that will fall under the governance of this measures wording have the power to impose any of the alternative funding sources listed?

If any ofthe entities listed within this measure try to impose other revenue sources, could not someone take them to court and argue this measure's wording clearly lists only what MUST BE used replace the property tax as  listed at the end of this section?

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

gst Said:
Why is it no one supporting this measure ver posts the actual wording of this measure and inparticular the portion that will effect how it is implemented?

Here it is from the other discussion along with a couple question related directly to it's wording.

 
This is the crux of what will be added to our constitution as a resullt of this measure.

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships,school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with the authority to level property taxes must be replaced with revenues from state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institution taxes, and other state resources.

2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institution tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded thru state revenue sources before 2012. The state can not condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner, and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditure of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided.

3.The legislative assembly shall direct a share of sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, insurance premium taxes, alcoholic beverage taxes, mineral leasing fees and gaming taxes and any oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues and financial institution taxes not allocated to elelmentary and secondary schools to counties cities and other political subdvisions according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly to fully and properly fund the legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. The allocation of the amount determined by the legislative assembly must be provided to the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. How counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions choose to allocate the expenditures of this revenue is at the sole discretion of the governing bodies of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions.

What politician will step up and be the one to propose raising any taxes to offset the property tax revenue. They WILL blow thru this states surplus from oil and gas production and extraction taxes prior to implementing any new additional "taxes" on the people who vote. This WILL turn into a east/west, rural/urban battle in the legislative assembly.

There WILL be a battle as to what these "oil and gas production and extraction taxes" will be spent on. ie... Infrastructure in oil country or flood protection in Fargo. 5% for "conservation funding" 5% for this 5% for that ect...........

And once again I ask, how will the people of say Bottineau county hold accountable the representatives from say the states urban districts for the votes they cast as to what is to be allocated to Bottineau county.

Someone, anyone please explain to me how each of these budget proposals will not have to be looked at individually to determine what is actually "legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions. ". to be paid from the "formula devised by the legislative assembly. Who determines what these legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions are for each entity??

Someone please tell me how if the The state can not condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner, and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditure of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided. These school boards will not simply submit whatever they wish and the state has to fund it?

Someone please explain to me how this all will occur without the legislature having to meet every year and possibly for a MUCH longer if not perpetual time period.

Espringers, I am not saying a better system can not be devised, I am saying this is not it.
 

Your answers are IN THE MEASURE. The measure SETS a policy. That is NOW LAW. You can't tax property - it must replace the legal obligations currently funded via property tax - fully and properly.  "Legal obligations" are DEFINED in Section 7 of the ND Constitution followed by ND CENTURY CODE's 11, 40, 58. The legislature sets the formula - just as they've set EVERY formula in the state. Take your pick. K-12 funding is a formula used across the state, yet it's different to each school district as each district is different. The actual property tax system is a combination of formulas. How do you think they came up with "mills" and the taxable values - who determined you can have "x" mills for "x" service? The state legislature. They most certainly will not be going 24/7. These formulas are to fully and properly fund the requirements - how do we know what fully and properly is? Properly is also defined currently. Think building codes. When the state builds a building, a road, funds schools ect - they have "specifications" that are in existence that must be met to qualify as proper according to the regulations/codes. That would qualify and currently qualifies as "proper". In order to fully fund - they have to pay the costs that it takes to meet the proper requirements. Currently - the Legislature is in control of all of these conditions - they can change them right now - or after measure 2 passes - it doesn't matter. It's all a big red-herring. They can do what they want - and are right now - the only difference - is if measure 2 passes - they can't do it holding your home hostage. Who really owns your home if all they do is constantly "leverage" your supposed 'property' for special interests? This is what it comes down to - and yes it's this simple. Measure 2 grants you complete ownership after the bank is paid for - Period end of story. Everything eles is irrelevant and complete bogus arguments against it. They can change the mills tomorrow, the evaluation process and formula and on and on and on ALREADY. Measure two doesn't change this power - but it eliminates their ability to hold your home hostage. Support Measure 2

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

gst Said:
From the actual wording of the measure.

The allocation of the amount determined by the legislative assembly must be provided to the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions

given the underlined wording, explain to me how the local entitiy is not resigned to simply accepting what the legislative assembly "determines"?

The legislature determines the formula, likely will determine what is a "legally imposed obligation" and will determine what "allocation amount" will be provided and yet there are those that claim this will NOT remove local control!!!!!!!!!

Can anyone show the the wording in this measure to give these entities any recourse if they do not agree with teh legislatures actions????

Espringers in the discussion of another measure some asked how it would not take away the state legislature abilities, how does this measure not take away the local entiies abilities?

Can you show me where it is spelled out it will not?

1. Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of counties, cities, townships,school districts, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, and other political subdivisions with the authority to level property taxes must be replaced with revenues from state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institution taxes, and other state resources.

Do the entities listed in the above section that will fall under the governance of this measures wording have the power to impose any of the alternative funding sources listed?

The LEGISLATURE currently controls what the LOCALS can levy already! How do you think they've "tweaked" the property tax in the past - over 135 times in the last 30 years?  Do you think the 'locals' did that? Property tax is also just ONE "local" tax allowed to be levied by the "locals". Who do you think invented the current property tax formula - the 'locals'? If there is so much 'local' control - whey did Governor Dalrymple threaten the state would step in if measure 2 didn't pass and the 'locals' didn't do something about it. Are you kidding me? The local control is PERMISSION granted - to a degree with some "flexibility" - do you think the locals can just do what they want regarding property tax? They can't - they get 2.5 mills for snow removal - PERIOD. Who determines that - the locals? No way - the STATE. What if they need more? They have to get it from 'other' sources - Measure 2 doesn't change this at all.

Pages