Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

I

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

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

Plainsman Said:

I

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

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

Property tax should be done away with in all states.

 

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

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

Respectfully,

Everyone else on the site.

J

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

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

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

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

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

Source?

do you have a source for the 15% figure?

ND State Tax Commissioner.

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

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

whispertube

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


.

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

From the actual wording of the measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gst Said:
From the actual wording of the measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
GREENHORN
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?

Pages