Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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. 

Pages