Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
riverview's picture
riverview
Offline
Joined: 12/25/08

any mill raise i have ever seen was voted on by the people pauing the extra mills.

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.


You can't aim a duck to death.

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

imho,   the measure is too vague so I will probably vote no but will do some additional research

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

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

Tackle Joe, thanks for answering the "legally imposed obligations" question.  It will be interesting to see if all "legally imposed obligations" are already defined in our century code for all the entities listed in this measure for each and every situation that arises each year to be funded out of this "windfall" of revenues the people spending the monies are not responsible for generating.   .

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation that the state now must fund under this measure??? .

What has not been addressed as I'v seen is while currently all the entities have the ability to levy mills or property taxes to fund what they need for the portion of the  legally imposed obligationsunder a formula set within the state statutes that they now regulate, do ANY of them have the power to impose the various revenue generating methods specifically defined in this measure that MUST repalce the property tax?  .

If not how will they replace the ability to generate funds as they currently have up to an amount allowed as they have under the current system?

In other words what revenue sources can say a soil conservation district or township impose to generate this portion that can no longer be generated tied to property?

Yes there is a formula developed by the state legislature and yes there are legally imposed obligtions defined in the NDCC

But it is the portion of thisformula that is currently controled by the local entity under this measure that many beleive will be lost to the state legislature as well under the wording of this measure.

Joe if his measure passes, how will the legislaure determine that the funding requests each of these entities are submitting are ONLY for legally imposed obligaions without examining each and every one of these proposals?

How will this be accomplished under our current legislative time frame that is set by law in our constitution of no more than 80 days every biennium?

There are bills that are not properly addressed each session simply because of this time frame, and now the responsibility of checks and balances that each of the entities currently maintained locally will be transfered to the state legislature as well?

Everyone already knows how these deals operate, ask for twice what you really need so when they fund half you get what you actually need.

So when all these requests for funding start to come in what is the time frame for the legislature to determine where the funds will come from?

Because make no mistake as this measure is worded that the state MUST fund all these legaly imposed obligations, they will blow thru any oil and gas revnues out there. There are some pretty smart directlyconnected people that claim you could put every dime of these oil and gas extraction taxes back into the counties they came from and still not get to even on infrastructure. Then the funding must come from other sources as listed, new taxes.

When the legislature only meets every other year how will they determine two years down the road what funding level will be needed?  Given the time frame needed to implement any new tax (income, sales, finacial ec... that are dependant upon usage rather than a known formula) and the time frame to determine what revenuesit will create, how will this be an effective efficient system? 
 
Joe as the legislature becomes more and more in control of the process, how will this not end up pitting rural against urban interests, east against west in where the dollars are generated and how they are being spent in regards to the oil and gas extraction taxes?

Explain to us how this all will get accomplished along with all the other legislative responsibilities within the 80 day every other year time frame our legislature currently operates under. .

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

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

If the NR property owners are still an issue for you, what about the hundreds of millions (and more) of dollars that are exempt for people, businesses, etc. in the state?  One figure I saw recently (I am trying to locate the source) is that between the four major cities (Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, and Minot) there are over $800 MILLION of exemptions IN BUSINESSES ALONE!

So, people want to talk about how problematic it is to have people "not pay" for the "services" (i.e. fire, police, etc.) the rest of us pay, think about all the exemptions that are taking place in the state now that cause everyone else to pay more.

As has been mentioned, they've tried to "fix" this tax over 130 times in the last 20+ years.  We have the opportunity of a lifetime... we can abolish the property tax and restore true property rights to the people, or we can sit here another 20+ years from now and 260+ changes later and still be wondering why property tax hasn't been "fixed".  There is only one way to "fix" this tax, and that is to ABOLISH IT NOW!

Vote "YES" on Measure 2 on June 12, 2012!!!

For Restoration of the Fundamental Right to Own Property,
Justin

P.S.  It was mentioned that the governor and the legislature have sat on their hands to "ride out" this issue.  I heard Dalrymple on with Joel Heidtkamp a while back.  Joel asked him if he and the legislature were going to come out with a proposal before June 12th to try and win over some of the people that may vote for Measure 2.  Our beloved governor ARROGANTLY as all heck said, "No". 

They are NOT listening!  Well, perhaps on the morning of June 13th, the message will have been sent LOUD and CLEAR... we're sick and tired of you treading on us and we're simply not going to take it anymore.  Do the freaking job we sent you to Bismarck to do, or pack your freaking bags and go home, and we'll elect people that will.  The government is supposed to PROTECT our rights, not tread on them through such things as an abusive, unfair, unjust, and immoral thing such as the property tax.  They were given the opportunity to take care of this in the legislature.  They chose not to.  Shame on them. 

 

-Justin

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

cynical... by vague i assume you mean the part about fully and properly and legally imposed obligations... please see tackle joe's responses to gst above. 

and in response to marauder about a dozen or mores posts back... you ask what this will do?  well it might not reduce individual income tax responsibility.  but, it will definitely prevent the government from taking your home from you.  doesn't it bother you that you have to pay rent to the government to own your home.  i was doing some math... 20% of my current mortgage payment goes towards property tax.  if i wasn't paying an interest rate of 6% and my refinance was done, it would be more like 25%.   

lets say gramps farm has a tough go of it.  bank has the note on the land.  farm and surrounding acreage is paid for clear.  lake takes over land or some other  health issue comes up.  gramps can't afford the bank payments on the land.  bank takes land.  now pop has no income other than his SS payment so he can't qualify for a loan.  assuming a modest home w/ acreage that is way overvalued he pays somewhere around $250/month just to property taxes.  if he can't afford it, he will lose the farm house that he has lived his whole live on... paid taxes his entire life of every sort imaginable while he worked his land.  hell... if he wasn't lucky enough to have kids... he paid for his neighbors kids to go to school for 60 years.  now since he has fallen on tough times, we take his home... does that seem "fair" to you?  i don't care if we have to pay an extra $1 or an extra $1,000,000,000 as residents to cover the loss of non resident property tax... its worth it to me on principle alone.  i shouldn't have to continue paying the state to send someone else's kids to school just so i can continue to live in the home i own.  throw the rest of the arguments out the window... this principle alone is enough for me to vote "YES" 10 times if i could. 

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

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.


You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

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

riverview... even though the only mill raises you've ever seen were voted on by the people paying them, my understanding is that those mill raises still had to be approved by the state.  if the raise was voted on by the people paying it, the raise will pretty much automatically be approved.  however, if it is a county commission, city commission, park board or school board vote, they are much more scrutinized and are still subject to state approval. 

i'll say it again... there are hundreds of different ways to raise revenue in this state w/o using a tax on my home.  and there are just as many easy ways to create or tweak formula's to spend that money.  this is absolutely not brain surgery.  and i am starting to think some of you guys are arguing just to hear yourself argue because you have made up your mind and don't want to admit that maybe there is another way to look at it. 

imho... there is no more conservative principle in the world than the principle of fundamental property rights and the right to own my property without paying the government a monthly rental check.  no amount of extra money i would ever have to pay or no amount of extra effort that might be required by our legislators will change my mind on this issue.  since i first started to understand how property taxes work back in high school, i have always looked at the tax on a person's home w/ skepticism... and as i grew up and was able to examine that issue w/ and even more informed mind, i became convinced my initial feelings/inclinations were correct... and i feel that way today MORE THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY LIFE!

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

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

espringers I do ot think anyone beleives the property tax issue should not be addressed in some manner and we HAVE to hold those we voted into office accountable for the actions they take regarding it.

And if anyonedoes not vote you have no business complaining.

But why create something worse out of spite????

Hey show me a way to not have to pay property taxes without creating a governmental monster that will eventually consume all as how many other states have ended up in with year round professional politicians governing them and I'd be right beside you advocating for it. Even it it means paying some sort of a higher consumption or usage tax created and maintained by local representation.

THIS MEASURE IS NOT THAT SOLUTION.

NO ONE has explained in a straight forward logical manner why this measure will NOT eventually (sooner than later)  require the legislature to go to year round every years sessions to accomplish exactly what is spelled out in this measure whjile maintaining a fiscal responsibility to ND citizens .

Name me one state with a fiscal surplus that has this manner of fulltime  legislative representatiion and I will name you 10 that are broke and asking the Federal govt for the funding to do what should be state and local responsibilities.

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

espringers Said:
imho... there is no more conservative principle in the world than the principle of fundamental property rights and the right to own my property without paying the government a monthly rental check.  no amount of extra money i would ever have to pay or no amount of extra effort that might be required by our legislators will change my mind on this issue.  since i first started to understand how property taxes work back in high school, i have always looked at the tax on a person's home w/ skepticism... and as i grew up and was able to examine that issue w/ and even more informed mind, i became convinced my initial feelings/inclinations were correct... and i feel that way today MORE THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY LIFE!

I feel the EXACT same way.  This was fundamental to this country at one point.  Where, how, and what point exactly we lost our way, I am not certain.  What I do know, is NDtans have an opportunity to restore the fundamental right to own property.  And no doubt, if we succeed, other states WILL follow.  I have no doubt about it.

I would never support giving up my freedom of speech, right to a trial by jury, right to bear arms, etc.  Why on earth should I give up or not support regaining property rights?!  You can dress it up as "local control".  You can tell me it's a "necessary evil".  You can tell me about all the wonderful "services" it funds.  You can tell me the sky is falling and there's bogeymen under my bed.  But at the end of the day, it is as simple as this... property tax is a violation of our fundamental right to own property, and so long as we have it, we will NEVER be owners of the property we THINK is ours!

We have fallen FAR from the likes of people like Patrick Henry who declared, "Give me Liberty or give me death!"  Without property rights, there is not true Liberty.

Vote "YES" on Measure 2 on June 12, 2012!!!

-Justin

-Justin

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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe, thanks for answering the "legally imposed obligations" question.  It will be interesting to see if all "legally imposed obligations" are already defined in our century code for all the entities listed in this measure for each and every situation that arises each year to be funded out of this "windfall" of revenues the people spending the monies are not responsible for generating.   .

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation that the state now must fund under this measure??? .

What has not been addressed as I'v seen is while currently all the entities have the ability to levy mills or property taxes to fund what they need for the portion of the  legally imposed obligationsunder a formula set within the state statutes that they now regulate, do ANY of them have the power to impose the various revenue generating methods specifically defined in this measure that MUST repalce the property tax?  .

If not how will they replace the ability to generate funds as they currently have up to an amount allowed as they have under the current system?

In other words what revenue sources can say a soil conservation district or township impose to generate this portion that can no longer be generated tied to property?

Yes there is a formula developed by the state legislature and yes there are legally imposed obligtions defined in the NDCC

But it is the portion of thisformula that is currently controled by the local entity under this measure that many beleive will be lost to the state legislature as well under the wording of this measure.

Joe if his measure passes, how will the legislaure determine that the funding requests each of these entities are submitting are ONLY for legally imposed obligaions without examining each and every one of these proposals?

How will this be accomplished under our current legislative time frame that is set by law in our constitution of no more than 80 days every biennium?

There are bills that are not properly addressed each session simply because of this time frame, and now the responsibility of checks and balances that each of the entities currently maintained locally will be transfered to the state legislature as well?

Everyone already knows how these deals operate, ask for twice what you really need so when they fund half you get what you actually need.

So when all these requests for funding start to come in what is the time frame for the legislature to determine where the funds will come from?

Because make no mistake as this measure is worded that the state MUST fund all these legaly imposed obligations, they will blow thru any oil and gas revnues out there. There are some pretty smart directlyconnected people that claim you could put every dime of these oil and gas extraction taxes back into the counties they came from and still not get to even on infrastructure. Then the funding must come from other sources as listed, new taxes.

When the legislature only meets every other year how will they determine two years down the road what funding level will be needed?  Given the time frame needed to implement any new tax (income, sales, finacial ec... that are dependant upon usage rather than a known formula) and the time frame to determine what revenuesit will create, how will this be an effective efficient system? 
 
Joe as the legislature becomes more and more in control of the process, how will this not end up pitting rural against urban interests, east against west in where the dollars are generated and how they are being spent in regards to the oil and gas extraction taxes?

Explain to us how this all will get accomplished along with all the other legislative responsibilities within the 80 day every other year time frame our legislature currently operates under. .

How is K-12 being funded now from the general fund? The legislature devises the formula - what that details are is up to them. If it was paid via property tax before M2 passes, it's paid for after. We can talk all day long about the exact formula. Bottom line, you own your home - you are very well informed regarding your points of view and your concerns are not falling on deaf ears - the legislature can change anything they want at any time regardless if M2 passes or not currently regarding everything you just mentioned. They can change mills, evaluations, k-12 funding etc. I'd encourage ideas on how to address these concerns - so they aren't concerns - when the measure passes. The legislature has a full year after the passage to put one forward - as the measure requires 2012 funding (from pt) for the first year after passage.

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

gst Said:
espringers I do ot think anyone beleives the property tax issue should not be addressed in some manner and we HAVE to hold those we voted into office accountable for the actions they take regarding it.

And if anyonedoes not vote you have no business complaining.

But why create something worse out of spite????

Hey show me a way to not have to pay property taxes without creating a governmental monster that will eventually consume all as how many other states have ended up in with year round professional politicians governing them and I'd be right beside you advocating for it. Even it it means paying some sort of a higher consumption or usage tax created and maintained by local representation.

THIS MEASURE IS NOT THAT SOLUTION.

NO ONE has explained in a straight forward logical manner why this measure will NOT eventually (sooner than later)  require the legislature to go to year round every years sessions to accomplish exactly what is spelled out in this measure whjile maintaining a fiscal responsibility to ND citizens .

Name me one state with a fiscal surplus that has this manner of fulltime  legislative representatiion and I will name you 10 that are broke and asking the Federal govt for the funding to do what should be state and local responsibilities.

yes... someone has explained it... a few times in this thread alone... please actually read the whole thread and specifically tackle joe's (wish i would've thought of a cooler name for myself).   he explained it a couple of times.  maybe you ought to reread those posts. 

and for me anyway... there is no amount of "fixing" the current system that would make me want to vote no.  this isn't about wasteful spending or incompetent legislatures... its about the principle of having to continue to pay the government to live in the home i own.  take money from me any way you want... hell take my entire paycheck... but, don't take my house or my land!  that is what this is about.  and the idea that government can not and will not be able to come up w/ money or figure out how to spend the same without being able to take my home if i don't pay up is ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous.  i am not going to take the time writing up a couple of pages of examples again.  you've read em.  and you continue to ignore them because you don't agree with the end result of the argument.  that's fine w/ me tho. 

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

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

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

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

wstnodak Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

Well - don't worry - they will be circling Pennsylvania as well then - as they just decided they are going to eliminate property tax there as well - they have R's and D's supporting it - and it's gaining steam there as well. Michigan is also looking into it - furthermore - you have to sell them the land first, so i'm not sure what the concerns are - as with folks like you out there - I'm guessing not many landowners will necessarily sell.

fconcolor's picture
fconcolor
Offline
Joined: 3/27/07

Tackle Joe Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

How are non residents replacing the funds if property tax goes?  They do not live here so they are not paying sales tax.  They do not work here so they are not paying into our income tax.  How exactly are they replacing funds.  You can wax on about the BS that their renter is buying seed, equipment......But it is still their renter.... A ND RESIDENT!

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

fconcolor Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

How are non residents replacing the funds if property tax goes?  They do not live here so they are not paying sales tax.  They do not work here so they are not paying into our income tax.  How exactly are they replacing funds.  You can wax on about the BS that their renter is buying seed, equipment......But it is still their renter.... A ND RESIDENT!

Ok, if you own ag land (much land of NR are former residents with ag) you are renting the land, someone is paying the inputs, paying sales tax. If the land draws profits - you pay a state income tax. Say you are a apartment building owner NR. You have to pay staff, pay repair men, etc on the "local" providers of these services - you are employing the locals. Does this help?

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

Well - don't worry - they will be circling Pennsylvania as well then - as they just decided they are going to eliminate property tax there as well - they have R's and D's supporting it - and it's gaining steam there as well. Michigan is also looking into it - furthermore - you have to sell them the land first, so i'm not sure what the concerns are - as with folks like you out there - I'm guessing not many landowners will necessarily sell.

Alright tackle, here is a hypothetical for you.  Lets say propertey tax is eliminated in every state in the union like it seems you would be in favor of.  Then what?  Where is that money made up?  You break it down to the state level and we are in the same situation.  The problem I see is that everyone says, "well we are oil rich and can just use that money".  I disagree with that mentality.  As a matter of fact I disagree with the measure as a whole.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

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

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

Well - don't worry - they will be circling Pennsylvania as well then - as they just decided they are going to eliminate property tax there as well - they have R's and D's supporting it - and it's gaining steam there as well. Michigan is also looking into it - furthermore - you have to sell them the land first, so i'm not sure what the concerns are - as with folks like you out there - I'm guessing not many landowners will necessarily sell.

Alright tackle, here is a hypothetical for you.  Lets say propertey tax is eliminated in every state in the union like it seems you would be in favor of.  Then what?  Where is that money made up?  You break it down to the state level and we are in the same situation.  The problem I see is that everyone says, "well we are oil rich and can just use that money".  I disagree with that mentality.  As a matter of fact I disagree with the measure as a whole.

So are you saying you are happy with the current property tax system? The same system the legislature has attempted to fix over 135 time in 30 years? The one everyone - pro or con - says is broken? Are you happy knowing in Fargo alone, there is over $1.66 billion in value exemption? Are you happy with trying to sell your recently purchased home - but then down the street the "new home" recently built has a 2 year $75,000.00 or more tax abatement? Who's home are they going to buy? You, the one who's been paying your property theft tax faithfully in full - or the new "contractors" new home where there is the discount you're stuck with paying? Anyone who's against this measure suffers from Stockholm Syndrome IMO (chuckle). It's your home or it's not your home - everything else is irrelevant. It's time to put people before special interests and government jobs or "whims".

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

AMEN to that, Tackle Joe!

-Justin

-Justin

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

Tackl Joe, do you even fish?

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

greenhead Said:
Tackl Joe, do you even fish?

lol... does it matter?  maybe the dude is a left tackle, or maybe the dude plays linebacker and does a lot of tackling... or better yet... maybe he doesn't like guys named Joe and thinks we should tackle all of them. 

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

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

espringers,
 
Perhaps you could please simply "quote" where that has been specifically addressed and proven wrong.

Can you answer this question below?

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave and maintain all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation as defined in the NDCC and constitution that the state now must fund under the wording of this measure??? .

Hey I fully understand the "right " to own your property arguement and fully support it. And as has beeen said the property tax issue HAS to be addressed. But without some clear factual answers to concerns more so than a simple "dismissal" or lawsuits why should we buy into this measure being the answer??? 

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

Could someonedirectly answer this question that is emboldened.

What has not been addressed as I'v seen is while currently all the entities have the ability to levy mills or property taxes to fund what they need for the portion of the legally imposed obligationsunder a formula set within the state statutes that they now regulate, do ANY of them have the power to impose the various revenue generating methods specifically defined in this measure that MUST repalce the property tax? .

If not how will they replace the ability to generate funds as they currently have up to an amount allowed as they have under the current system?

In other words what revenue sources can say a soil conservation district or township impose to generate this portion that can no longer be generated tied to property?

Yes there is a formula developed by the state legislature and yes there are legally imposed obligtions defined in the NDCC

But it is the portion of thisformula that is currently controled by the local entity under this measure that many beleive will be lost to the state legislature as well under the wording of this measure.

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

 

dakota1977 Said:


P.S.  It was mentioned that the governor and the legislature have sat on their hands to "ride out" this issue.  I heard Dalrymple on with Joel Heidtkamp a while back.  Joel asked him if he and the legislature were going to come out with a proposal before June 12th to try and win over some of the people that may vote for Measure 2.  Our beloved governor ARROGANTLY as all heck said, "No". 

I think it would be arrogant of our governor or legislators to try and come out with a proposal in the midst of this measure being put on ballot. I'm not saying something shouldn't have been done prior but once this thing got enough signatures to make it on the ballot the only thing that they should do IMO is wait and see what the out come is.

If the public votes yes and it passes then they need to start working on how they will fully and properly fund....etc

If the public votes no then I think we can expect that our elected officials will use this as a wake up call and start doing something about property taxes. I would certainly hope that if the measure doesn't pass that all of us on here talking about it will be contacting our legislators letting them know that just because measure 2 didn't pass we still expect some restructuring to occur. 

I think it would be more arrogant to be proposing a new system in the midst of this measure being on ballot.  Do you honestly think doing nothing is more arrogant?

J

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

I am just curious as he is a new member yesterday for this thread. My gut tells me once the Measure 2 argument is done we never hear from again until he has another agenda to push.

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

.

Roundhouse's picture
Roundhouse
Offline
Joined: 7/3/10

Tackle Joe Said:

fconcolor Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

How are non residents replacing the funds if property tax goes?  They do not live here so they are not paying sales tax.  They do not work here so they are not paying into our income tax.  How exactly are they replacing funds.  You can wax on about the BS that their renter is buying seed, equipment......But it is still their renter.... A ND RESIDENT!

Ok, if you own ag land (much land of NR are former residents with ag) you are renting the land, someone is paying the inputs, paying sales tax. If the land draws profits - you pay a state income tax. Say you are a apartment building owner NR. You have to pay staff, pay repair men, etc on the "local" providers of these services - you are employing the locals. Does this help?

I am on the fence with this one.  To give you a little input regarding a non-resident.  My father is a non-resident.   He owns 2 quarters.  Of that 300 acres are tillable.  He rents the land to my cousin.  My cousin farms 40 quarters.  Of that 2 are my fathers.  I don't know what input costs are per acre, but if it was $100 per acre then you are at 30k per year for input costs.  Sales tax off of that is 5%.  Which is $1500 per year.  My father also owns a four plex that is about 5 years old.  He manages it his own.  So employees nobody.  I talked to him yesterday and he told me his expenses were a little over $2400 for repairs and maintenance on that last year.  So 5% of that is $120 in sales tax.  Since he is not a resident of ND he pays no income tax to the state of north dakota.  Obviously he wants me to vote yes on the measure.  Some of you guys keep saying charge non-residents a fee.  A fee is basically a disguised tax.  How do you charge it?  If they file no state income tax somebody whould have to be in charge of that.

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

greenhead Said:
Tackl Joe, do you even fish?

Grew-up fishing on my own in my boat with a 3.5 1935 Evinrude at age 10. Spent almost every waking moment on the lakes - as I grew up in lake country in MN. So yeah - i've we a line or two.

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

Roundhouse Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

fconcolor Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

How are non residents replacing the funds if property tax goes?  They do not live here so they are not paying sales tax.  They do not work here so they are not paying into our income tax.  How exactly are they replacing funds.  You can wax on about the BS that their renter is buying seed, equipment......But it is still their renter.... A ND RESIDENT!

Ok, if you own ag land (much land of NR are former residents with ag) you are renting the land, someone is paying the inputs, paying sales tax. If the land draws profits - you pay a state income tax. Say you are a apartment building owner NR. You have to pay staff, pay repair men, etc on the "local" providers of these services - you are employing the locals. Does this help?

I am on the fence with this one.  To give you a little input regarding a non-resident.  My father is a non-resident.   He owns 2 quarters.  Of that 300 acres are tillable.  He rents the land to my cousin.  My cousin farms 40 quarters.  Of that 2 are my fathers.  I don't know what input costs are per acre, but if it was $100 per acre then you are at 30k per year for input costs.  Sales tax off of that is 5%.  Which is $1500 per year.  My father also owns a four plex that is about 5 years old.  He manages it his own.  So employees nobody.  I talked to him yesterday and he told me his expenses were a little over $2400 for repairs and maintenance on that last year.  So 5% of that is $120 in sales tax.  Since he is not a resident of ND he pays no income tax to the state of north dakota.  Obviously he wants me to vote yes on the measure.  Some of you guys keep saying charge non-residents a fee.  A fee is basically a disguised tax.  How do you charge it?  If they file no state income tax somebody whould have to be in charge of that.

If you earn an income from activity in ND - you must pay a ND income tax - Period.  You can't change rules for NR owners to the best of my knowledge  - as that's in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. That's why it's there - to protect against things like this between states.

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

gst Said:
espringers,
 
Perhaps you could please simply "quote" where that has been specifically addressed and proven wrong.

Can you answer this question below?

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave and maintain all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation as defined in the NDCC and constitution that the state now must fund under the wording of this measure??? .

Hey I fully understand the "right " to own your property arguement and fully support it. And as has beeen said the property tax issue HAS to be addressed. But without some clear factual answers to concerns more so than a simple "dismissal" or lawsuits why should we buy into this measure being the answer??? 

The legislature develops the formula - if it's currently funded via property tax it gets replaced. You are splitting hairs - it's just another red-herring. This is about stopping the current abuse of citizens through property tax - you're either going to support owning your home free and clear - which is local control - or you're not. None of the questions you pose cannot be addressed after passage of the measure. Again, tomorrow, even without M2 - the legislature could decide it's required to fund all you paving concerns. You need to get past these arguments - are you really telling me you are more concerned with paving township roads then owning your own home?

Roundhouse's picture
Roundhouse
Offline
Joined: 7/3/10

Tackle Joe Said:

Roundhouse Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

fconcolor Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

How about thinking about it like this. If the replacement is via all other sources (not just oil - see the ABC's of the measure at yesm2.com) and a good portion of the NR owners regards either business or farmland - these NR are already paying other taxes. When the pt goes away - they are still paying taxes that are directly replacing the funds. Again, you're going to vote against the other 84% because of 16% - seriously?

How are non residents replacing the funds if property tax goes?  They do not live here so they are not paying sales tax.  They do not work here so they are not paying into our income tax.  How exactly are they replacing funds.  You can wax on about the BS that their renter is buying seed, equipment......But it is still their renter.... A ND RESIDENT!

Ok, if you own ag land (much land of NR are former residents with ag) you are renting the land, someone is paying the inputs, paying sales tax. If the land draws profits - you pay a state income tax. Say you are a apartment building owner NR. You have to pay staff, pay repair men, etc on the "local" providers of these services - you are employing the locals. Does this help?

I am on the fence with this one.  To give you a little input regarding a non-resident.  My father is a non-resident.   He owns 2 quarters.  Of that 300 acres are tillable.  He rents the land to my cousin.  My cousin farms 40 quarters.  Of that 2 are my fathers.  I don't know what input costs are per acre, but if it was $100 per acre then you are at 30k per year for input costs.  Sales tax off of that is 5%.  Which is $1500 per year.  My father also owns a four plex that is about 5 years old.  He manages it his own.  So employees nobody.  I talked to him yesterday and he told me his expenses were a little over $2400 for repairs and maintenance on that last year.  So 5% of that is $120 in sales tax.  Since he is not a resident of ND he pays no income tax to the state of north dakota.  Obviously he wants me to vote yes on the measure.  Some of you guys keep saying charge non-residents a fee.  A fee is basically a disguised tax.  How do you charge it?  If they file no state income tax somebody whould have to be in charge of that.

If you earn an income from activity in ND - you must pay a ND income tax - Period.  You can't change rules for NR owners to the best of my knowledge  - as that's in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. That's why it's there - to protect against things like this between states.

Not true.  I just looked at his taxes.  I will say one of the big firms in ND files his taxes.
He is retired and isn't drawing social security.  there are plenty of exemptions as to why you don't have to file.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
espringers,
 
Perhaps you could please simply "quote" where that has been specifically addressed and proven wrong.

Can you answer this question below?

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave and maintain all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation as defined in the NDCC and constitution that the state now must fund under the wording of this measure??? .

Hey I fully understand the "right " to own your property arguement and fully support it. And as has beeen said the property tax issue HAS to be addressed. But without some clear factual answers to concerns more so than a simple "dismissal" or lawsuits why should we buy into this measure being the answer??? 

The legislature develops the formula - if it's currently funded via property tax it gets replaced. You are splitting hairs - it's just another red-herring. This is about stopping the current abuse of citizens through property tax - you're either going to support owning your home free and clear - which is local control - or you're not. None of the questions you pose cannot be addressed after passage of the measure. Again, tomorrow, even without M2 - the legislature could decide it's required to fund all you paving concerns. You need to get past these arguments - are you really telling me you are more concerned with paving township roads then owning your own home?

So joe are you now telling us you are going to rely on the same legislature to "address" these concerns that you just got done condemning for NOT addressing concerns????????

It is not a "red herring", If this is indeed the case which it most certainly seems so from the wording of this measure how many dollars more do you beleive will be submitted as "legally imposed obligations" to the state legislature to fund?????

Call this "splitting hairs", I call it setting this state up to be broke like every other state. 

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

It's always refreshing to see gst and I can find common ground on some things.

Tackle Joe, since you are so against property taxes, perhaps you can also join me in a fight against home heating bills, electricity, rural water memberships, etc, etc.  All of which are needed to make a house inhabitable.  For certainly without any of the above the city/county/state will condemn the property, I know...I've seen it done to a neighbor in GF!  And let's not forget yard and sidewalk maintenance if we are living in town, try and not cut your grass or shovel the snow and see what happens. 

“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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
espringers,
 
Perhaps you could please simply "quote" where that has been specifically addressed and proven wrong.

Can you answer this question below?

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave and maintain all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation as defined in the NDCC and constitution that the state now must fund under the wording of this measure??? .

Hey I fully understand the "right " to own your property arguement and fully support it. And as has beeen said the property tax issue HAS to be addressed. But without some clear factual answers to concerns more so than a simple "dismissal" or lawsuits why should we buy into this measure being the answer??? 

The legislature develops the formula - if it's currently funded via property tax it gets replaced. You are splitting hairs - it's just another red-herring. This is about stopping the current abuse of citizens through property tax - you're either going to support owning your home free and clear - which is local control - or you're not. None of the questions you pose cannot be addressed after passage of the measure. Again, tomorrow, even without M2 - the legislature could decide it's required to fund all you paving concerns. You need to get past these arguments - are you really telling me you are more concerned with paving township roads then owning your own home?

So joe are you now telling us you are going to rely on the same legislature to "address" these concerns that you just got done condemning for NOT addressing concerns????????

It is not a "red herring", If this is indeed the case which it most certainly seems so from the wording of this measure how many dollars more do you beleive will be submitted as "legally imposed obligations" to the state legislature to fund?????

Call this "splitting hairs", I call it setting this state up to be broke like every other state. 

If you can't get past your home being secure - i can't help you. What - the sun won't rise the next day? Yes - the very same legislators that are screwing you with the property tax are no longer going to be able to screw you with property tax. They are actually going to have to fund legitimate government services - they aren't going to be able to support the "good ole boys" network on the backs of your home. The state is not going to go broke - or those legislators will be running for their lives. I don't have much faith in them - but they're not stupid.

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

Allen Said:
It's always refreshing to see gst and I can find common ground on some things.

Tackle Joe, since you are so against property taxes, perhaps you can also join me in a fight against home heating bills, electricity, rural water memberships, etc, etc.  All of which are needed to make a house inhabitable.  For certainly without any of the above the city/county/state will condemn the property, I know...I've seen it done to a neighbor in GF!  And let's not forget yard and sidewalk maintenance if we are living in town, try and not cut your grass or shovel the snow and see what happens. 

Allen - I"m against the backs of property tax payers funding special interests. You're arguments are based on absolutely no comprehension of this apparently. Seriously - paying for heating and electrical services is the same as property tax going to special interests?  Good grief.

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

Allen Said:
It's always refreshing to see gst and I can find common ground on some things.

like I said,if you were sitting at the "shack" up here at the "crik" in Antler having a beer it would likely be more than you might think!

Heck last nite at the G&Fadvisory meeting I even found some common ground with the G&F fellas about deer depradation!!!!!

I would have liked to have found some common ground with the USF&WS fella there about perpetual easements but didn;t get a chance!!!!!

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

Well - don't worry - they will be circling Pennsylvania as well then - as they just decided they are going to eliminate property tax there as well - they have R's and D's supporting it - and it's gaining steam there as well. Michigan is also looking into it - furthermore - you have to sell them the land first, so i'm not sure what the concerns are - as with folks like you out there - I'm guessing not many landowners will necessarily sell.

Alright tackle, here is a hypothetical for you.  Lets say propertey tax is eliminated in every state in the union like it seems you would be in favor of.  Then what?  Where is that money made up?  You break it down to the state level and we are in the same situation.  The problem I see is that everyone says, "well we are oil rich and can just use that money".  I disagree with that mentality.  As a matter of fact I disagree with the measure as a whole.

So are you saying you are happy with the current property tax system? The same system the legislature has attempted to fix over 135 time in 30 years? The one everyone - pro or con - says is broken? Are you happy knowing in Fargo alone, there is over $1.66 billion in value exemption? Are you happy with trying to sell your recently purchased home - but then down the street the "new home" recently built has a 2 year $75,000.00 or more tax abatement? Who's home are they going to buy? You, the one who's been paying your property theft tax faithfully in full - or the new "contractors" new home where there is the discount you're stuck with paying? Anyone who's against this measure suffers from Stockholm Syndrome IMO (chuckle). It's your home or it's not your home - everything else is irrelevant. It's time to put people before special interests and government jobs or "whims".

I don't remember saying I was happy with the current property tax scheme.  However, getting rid of it completely is NOT the answer as far as I'm concerned.  Doing that will expose too many negative ramifications.  Does it need to be fixed, yes.  Getting rid of it is not a fix, it's a knee-jerk reaction that will hurt ND in the long run.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

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

Property tax CANNOT be fixed!  I think that has been illustrated repeatedly in this thread.  Not to mention that the last umpteen years/decades of "changes" and "fixes" have proven this to be the case!!!

At the end of the day, do you want to own your home/property, or don't you?

END THE MESS!!!  Vote "YES" on Measure 2!!!  Then 10 years from now when ND is still prospering, and its people enjoy Liberty in their homes, we can look back with pride in the fact that ND had the guts to step out and set a standard for others to follow! 

-Justin

Measure 2 is for YOU!  Vote "YES" to ABOLISH PROPERTY TAX!!!

-Justin

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

dakota1977 Said:
Property tax CANNOT be fixed!  I think that has been illustrated repeatedly in this thread.  Not to mention that the last umpteen years/decades of "changes" and "fixes" have proven this to be the case!!!

At the end of the day, do you want to own your home/property, or don't you?

END THE MESS!!!  Vote "YES" on Measure 2!!!  Then 10 years from now when ND is still prospering, and its people enjoy Liberty in their homes, we can look back with pride in the fact that ND had the guts to step out and set a standard for others to follow! 

-Justin

Measure 2 is for YOU!  Vote "YES" to ABOLISH PROPERTY TAX!!!

Hahaha

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

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

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

wstnodak Said:

StevePike Said:
 The NR property owners is still an issue for me. Even if it is "only"  $126.8 million that has to be paid by residents (according to a formula developed by the same people responsible for this Measure being initiated). The residents of the state are paying for it all. That seems even less fair than having to pay property tax or risk losing your property.

You should be worried.  I can see the deep pocketed out of staters circling ND like a bunch of sharks watching this play out with a very keen interest.  That along with many other reasons mentioned here is why you should vote NO on this BS.

Well - don't worry - they will be circling Pennsylvania as well then - as they just decided they are going to eliminate property tax there as well - they have R's and D's supporting it - and it's gaining steam there as well. Michigan is also looking into it - furthermore - you have to sell them the land first, so i'm not sure what the concerns are - as with folks like you out there - I'm guessing not many landowners will necessarily sell.

Alright tackle, here is a hypothetical for you.  Lets say propertey tax is eliminated in every state in the union like it seems you would be in favor of.  Then what?  Where is that money made up?  You break it down to the state level and we are in the same situation.  The problem I see is that everyone says, "well we are oil rich and can just use that money".  I disagree with that mentality.  As a matter of fact I disagree with the measure as a whole.

So are you saying you are happy with the current property tax system? The same system the legislature has attempted to fix over 135 time in 30 years? The one everyone - pro or con - says is broken? Are you happy knowing in Fargo alone, there is over $1.66 billion in value exemption? Are you happy with trying to sell your recently purchased home - but then down the street the "new home" recently built has a 2 year $75,000.00 or more tax abatement? Who's home are they going to buy? You, the one who's been paying your property theft tax faithfully in full - or the new "contractors" new home where there is the discount you're stuck with paying? Anyone who's against this measure suffers from Stockholm Syndrome IMO (chuckle). It's your home or it's not your home - everything else is irrelevant. It's time to put people before special interests and government jobs or "whims".

I don't remember saying I was happy with the current property tax scheme.  However, getting rid of it completely is NOT the answer as far as I'm concerned.  Doing that will expose too many negative ramifications.  Does it need to be fixed, yes.  Getting rid of it is not a fix, it's a knee-jerk reaction that will hurt ND in the long run.

Knee-jerk reaction? That's one of the same arguments they used when we got rid of the personal property tax in 1969. Just like ALL the other straw-men arguments they use today - that were indeed bogus or red-herrings. Guess what - we're still here. Just like we'll still be here on June 13 after passage of M2. Knee-jerk reaction? After 135 attempts to stop the abuse in 30 years? - this is not even close to a knee-jerk reaction. This is called..."about time". They've had their "chance" - but have bowed to special interests instead. Those days are over and again - it's about time. Yes on M2!

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

Justin, please beleive me in that I support your position on actually owning your own property fully.

But can you please answer one thing, do you beleive the concerns shared over this measure are worth having factual answers given to?

And no disrespect intended towards anyone, but saying the same legislature that has not fixed the concerns regarding property tax in the first place will fix concerns with this measure simply does not cut it for me.

I am not sharp enough to have the right answers, but I do not beleive this measure is it.

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

Joe, the use of words like "red herring" and "straw man" do not contribute much to the discussion of concernsover this measure other than to indicate a dismissal of them.

What is being sought here are answers and as I said claiming the same legislature that could not get it right in "135 attempts over 30 years" will "deal" with concerns or issues is not a very reassuring  "answer".

I don;t like when Washington says lets just pass a law and we will fix it later, why should I accept that here in ND.

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

greenhead Said:
I am just curious as he is a new member yesterday for this thread. My gut tells me once the Measure 2 argument is done we never hear from again until he has another agenda to push.

The title of the post is thoughts on M2. I came across in on the site. I've been here many times before - but never posted. So - take it for what it's worth.

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

gst Said:

Joe, the use of words like "red herring" and "straw man" do not contribute much to the discussion of concernsover this measure other than to indicate a dismissal of them.

What is being sought here are answers and as I said claiming the same legislature that could not get it right in "135 attempts over 30 years" will "deal" with concerns or issues is not a very reassuring  "answer".

I don;t like when Washington says lets just pass a law and we will fix it later, why should I accept that here in ND.

What answers? - bottom line is this. You pay property tax or you don't. That's it. The measure is a constitutional amendment. It's that way on purpose. The ND Constitution is policy. It sets the rules for which the state governments must conform to. The measure essentially states - you cant tax PROPERTY. Period. It could have ended there IMO. Look at the U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment. It's not even a sentence. Where are all the "definitions" needed there? Or the 1st Amendment - how many definitions are there again to define that? Next, the amendment says you must replace the property tax funds with other sources, pay k-12 and local legal obligations first - before any other spending (special interests) can occur. The legislature is given the responsibility to create the replacement revenue formula. That' s it. However, the red-herring arguments are all involved the bogus "wording" or meanings - like fully and properly and legal obligations - when in fact - these are all well known and found in NDCC and Article 7 of the ND constitution. Is this measure perfect - find me anything that is - but it's close. Look who's screaming the loudest against this and follow the money - it's special interests that are going to lose their share of the existing property tax scam - that's why it really comes down to one thing and only on thing. Do you want to own your home or don't you? That's it. See the measure wording for yourself at www.yesm2.com and check the other doc's - it's solely about stopping property tax abuse - get on board and support it!

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

gst Said:

Allen Said:
It's always refreshing to see gst and I can find common ground on some things.

like I said,if you were sitting at the "shack" up here at the "crik" in Antler having a beer it would likely be more than you might think!

Heck last nite at the G&Fadvisory meeting I even found some common ground with the G&F fellas about deer depradation!!!!!

I would have liked to have found some common ground with the USF&WS fella there about perpetual easements but didn;t get a chance!!!!!

Some day in the future we're gonna have to make that beer in Antler happen.

Also with you on USFWS easements, I hate the perpetuity (or even the 99 year ones).  Too many people out there then buy the land not understanding easements and are in quite a shock when they discover they can't do "as they damn well please" with the land they just overpaid on.

Tackle Joe Said:
Allen - I"m against the backs of property tax payers funding special interests. You're arguments are based on absolutely no comprehension of this apparently. Seriously - paying for heating and electrical services is the same as property tax going to special interests?  Good grief.

Oh, I get it.  I just don't think you are being very realistic with your own understanding of the future should this measure pass.  And while I may at times use outlandish things to prove a point, you take away a couple of those things I listed and you also lose your "property".  Maybe it's just safer to not own anything if you can't prepare for the future knowing full and well that paying property taxes were in existence long before we bought the property?  I'm rarely ever in favor of major game-changing rules because you are apt to create winners and losers based on the new rules.  In this example I see the residents of ND as the loser overall.  The winners will be the NR property owners and a few residents who own far more property than their income can support under the current rules.  All the rest of us lose, period.

“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

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

gst Said:
Justin, please beleive me in that I support your position on actually owning your own property fully.

But can you please answer one thing, do you beleive the concerns shared over this measure are worth having factual answers given to?

And no disrespect intended towards anyone, but saying the same legislature that has not fixed the concerns regarding property tax in the first place will fix concerns with this measure simply does not cut it for me.

I am not sharp enough to have the right answers, but I do not beleive this measure is it.

I think that some of us approach this differently.  For example, I approach it from a property rights (i.e. fundamental rights) issue.  It's obvious that many people do not hold such a thing in as high a regard as I do.  And since I do approach it from that standpoint, everything else is secondary to me (i.e. economics, etc.).

Do I believe other's concerns deserve factual answers.  Yes, I do.  Are those answers always going to satisfy?  Probably not.  However, some people keep expressing the same concerns that have already been addressed on the thread.

Do I have all the answers?  Nope.  But I do know this.  We should be "secure in our homes" (as the U.S. Constitution puts it).  I do not lose any sleep at all over this Measure passing and the legislature being responsible for the formula, etc.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, I own my home and am secure in it (as will all NDtans).  Life will go on and the sky will not fall.  However, if opponents to this measure get their way, we will NOT be secure in our homes and we STILL face all the uncertainties that go along with this tax and the legislature. 

Furthermore, do people really believe the legislature is going to want to further alienate an electorate that just abolished property tax in ND by screwing around with these things?  NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!!  The message will ring in their ears loud and clear for years to come to take care of business "or else". 

Again, this is not "fixable".  The only fix is to ABOLISH IT NOW!

-Justin

-Justin

riverview's picture
riverview
Offline
Joined: 12/25/08

I have read all the posts on here and find it kind off weird how owning your own home without a fear of loosing it. Kind of gordon kahlish??
i own and live on 44 acres with no specials and my taxes  are cheap.
my lot in devils lake is expensive but it is all specials for sewer and water
in a previous post sombody stated 250 a month in taxes for a old farmhouse does anybody on here pay 3000 a year without specials in tax???????
the people for measure 2 have mentioned all the tax breaks business in the big citys get. I thought they did this to draw business to north dakota
Remember before oil when we were trying to attract business and you could drive around out west for days and not see anybody.
This is going to benifit some of the big land owners alot more than me How much is a farmer owning 20000 acres going to save??? I see this just costing me money in the long run.

seems kind of odd to come up with something like this and leave it up to somebody else to come up with the answers to cover the funds lost
I say vote no

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

riverview Said:
I have read all the posts on here and find it kind off weird how owning your own home without a fear of loosing it. Kind of gordon kahlish??
i own and live on 44 acres with no specials and my taxes  are cheap.
my lot in devils lake is expensive but it is all specials for sewer and water
in a previous post sombody stated 250 a month in taxes for a old farmhouse does anybody on here pay 3000 a year without specials in tax???????
the people for measure 2 have mentioned all the tax breaks business in the big citys get. I thought they did this to draw business to north dakota
Remember before oil when we were trying to attract business and you could drive around out west for days and not see anybody.
This is going to benifit some of the big land owners alot more than me How much is a farmer owning 20000 acres going to save??? I see this just costing me money in the long run.

seems kind of odd to come up with something like this and leave it up to somebody else to come up with the answers to cover the funds lost
I say vote no

I say support your fellow ND citizens and vote yes - the "tax break" loopholes will now be for everyone and expand potential growth economically in all areas. Are you not familiar with the new property tax increase coming? You may not pay as much as others in pt now - but don't worry - you will - this is your chance to get out from under it before it happens. Get on board and vote yes!

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

Wanna make up for some of the lost revenue? Try enforcing the registrations on some of the out of state vehicles from eople living and working on the roads, some of which have been here years. They may have become a majority in western ND by now, that's a heck of a sales tax bill if it got enforced. Sorry I got through all 8 pages and hadn't heard that one yet. Actually my opinion might have changed a few times after getting through all that. I think if people had any faith left that government could do the right thing when it came to replacing lost tax $ a lot more would be in favor of M2. Good God i just used "faith" and "government" in the same sentence, i'll flag myself.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

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

Allen Said:

gst Said:

Allen Said:
It's always refreshing to see gst and I can find common ground on some things.

like I said,if you were sitting at the "shack" up here at the "crik" in Antler having a beer it would likely be more than you might think!

Heck last nite at the G&Fadvisory meeting I even found some common ground with the G&F fellas about deer depradation!!!!!

I would have liked to have found some common ground with the USF&WS fella there about perpetual easements but didn;t get a chance!!!!!

Some day in the future we're gonna have to make that beer in Antler happen.

Also with you on USFWS easements, I hate the perpetuity (or even the 99 year ones).  Too many people out there then buy the land not understanding easements and are in quite a shock when they discover they can't do "as they damn well please" with the land they just overpaid on.

Tackle Joe Said:
Allen - I"m against the backs of property tax payers funding special interests. You're arguments are based on absolutely no comprehension of this apparently. Seriously - paying for heating and electrical services is the same as property tax going to special interests?  Good grief.

Oh, I get it.  I just don't think you are being very realistic with your own understanding of the future should this measure pass.  And while I may at times use outlandish things to prove a point, you take away a couple of those things I listed and you also lose your "property".  Maybe it's just safer to not own anything if you can't prepare for the future knowing full and well that paying property taxes were in existence long before we bought the property?  I'm rarely ever in favor of major game-changing rules because you are apt to create winners and losers based on the new rules.  In this example I see the residents of ND as the loser overall.  The winners will be the NR property owners and a few residents who own far more property than their income can support under the current rules.  All the rest of us lose, period.

Allen, good luck to you then. Forget the 84% of the locals who are currently being abused by special interests. The problem with your 16% argument - is we know almost nothing about them -  how long have there existing abatements been or cost you already? How much is Ag land still in the parents name retired in AZ but farmed by Jr? Your argument are just sad. But that's ok. Regardless - you have your right to vote either way - that's how it works. Regardless of the outcome - Measure 2 puts people first and special interests and wasteful government second.

Pages