Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tackle Joe's picture
Tackle Joe
Offline
Joined: 4/16/12

For all in question of whether or not to support Measure 2.

Q. How many people actually lose there home to property tax?

A. Everyone - they just havent been forced onto the street yet because they are paying the  rent.

 


eewoniuk's picture
eewoniuk
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/21/02

Measure 2, on the track, just not the right track.  Hope it doesnt pass this year and they can come back next year with something more improved.  No need to get rid of them completely but they do need to significantly reduce them.  I have some friends PT that has almost tripled in the last few years, no specials

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

Allen, I'm looking at a proposed formula restructuring to be applied after measure 2 passes. Good news, the abused Western part of the state receives "back pay" for all the trouble the east has provided for decades with tax abuse. The east is just fine as well. Projected overall budget surplus for 2013 with property tax eliminated - and replaced with "other sources" = $765 + Million. That's over 3/4 of a billion in surplus. Get on board - as stated - this isn't that difficult - it's about real home ownership. The schools are funded fully and properly as are the current replaced legal obligations. This will work. YesM2!

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

eewoniuk Said:
Measure 2, on the track, just not the right track.  Hope it doesnt pass this year and they can come back next year with something more improved.  No need to get rid of them completely but they do need to significantly reduce them.  I have some friends PT that has almost tripled in the last few years, no specials

Get on board - They can't come back with anything more improved - they've tried 135+ times - it's about special interests - the only option IS elimination. See my above post. Please support M2!

eewoniuk's picture
eewoniuk
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/21/02

What happens when the oil is gone and we dont have a surplus, where will the extra money come from?

Tackle Joe Said:

eewoniuk Said:
Measure 2, on the track, just not the right track.  Hope it doesnt pass this year and they can come back next year with something more improved.  No need to get rid of them completely but they do need to significantly reduce them.  I have some friends PT that has almost tripled in the last few years, no specials

Get on board - They can't come back with anything more improved - they've tried 135+ times - it's about special interests - the only option IS elimination. See my above post. Please support M2!

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

Quick question for Justin, tackle Joe and espringers. What happens if you don't pay your income tax? I am sure the government would never go after your home and kick you out on the street because it is free and clear. Obviously because you own your home it is yours and not an asset they can resale for your tax liability?

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:
Allen, I'm looking at a proposed formula restructuring to be applied after measure 2 passes. Good news, the abused Western part of the state receives "back pay" for all the trouble the east has provided for decades with tax abuse. The east is just fine as well. 

Please post that proposed formula (or a link to it)

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

 

fconcolor Said:
Quick question for Justin, tackle Joe and espringers. What happens if you don't pay your income tax?  

Or whatever tax/method they use to replace Property Tax.

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

Can't take your home. It exempt from siezure up to a certain value.

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

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:
Allen, I'm looking at a proposed formula restructuring to be applied after measure 2 passes. Good news, the abused Western part of the state receives "back pay" for all the trouble the east has provided for decades with tax abuse. The east is just fine as well. 

Please post that proposed formula (or a link to it)

No post available yet  - it will be public soon enough.

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

StevePike Said:
 

fconcolor Said:
Quick question for Justin, tackle Joe and espringers. What happens if you don't pay your income tax?  

Or whatever tax/method they use to replace Property Tax.

Mr. Pike - there is no increase in other taxes required. Even the opponents (Ed Schafer) has stated this numerous times - including yesterday on 970 WDAY radio.

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

eewoniuk Said:

What happens when the oil is gone and we dont have a surplus, where will the extra money come from?

Tackle Joe Said:

eewoniuk Said:
Measure 2, on the track, just not the right track.  Hope it doesnt pass this year and they can come back next year with something more improved.  No need to get rid of them completely but they do need to significantly reduce them.  I have some friends PT that has almost tripled in the last few years, no specials

Get on board - They can't come back with anything more improved - they've tried 135+ times - it's about special interests - the only option IS elimination. See my above post. Please support M2!

Without a property tax burden - the business climate is going to be one of the best investments in the country. New business opportunities abound. This will allow for real economic development vs. government sponsored/cronyism that cost the taxpayers via the current property tax (theft) system. The economy will be diversified so we are not so dependent on oil and gas. This is the exact same argument the anti-measure 2 supporters have been using for decades to stimulate the economy. Property Tax giveaways. However, those are limited to their 'buddies'. Now you wonder why they are against it when everyone benefits? Talk about total hypocrisy. That should say it all right there.

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

Are you not familiar with the new property tax increase coming? 

Source?

You can't aim a duck to death.

hoopscoach's picture
hoopscoach
Offline
Joined: 11/14/07

I do not like to have my taxes raised anymore than any other person out there.  However, if this passes and the local governments loose this income, where are they going to get their money from?  It will be paid by us citizens one way or the other.  We will pay an outrageous amount for things like garbage removal and street repairs.  The government is not going to take a hit on this, we will end up paying for it one way or the other.  Minnesota has this and it does not work very well.  The state legislature will have to become a full-time job, instead of what it is now and anyone that needs money will have to hire the best lobbyist they can afford and wait in line for the legislature to pay out.  Schools usually get their state aid in July so that they can operate for the next school year.  I heard in Minnesota schools are promised money in July but may not receive it until March.  How are they supposed to operate.  I don't like this measure.

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:
Without a property tax burden - the business climate is going to be one of the best investments in the country. New business opportunities abound. This will allow for real economic development vs. government sponsored/cronyism that cost the taxpayers via the current property tax (theft) system. The economy will be diversified so we are not so dependent on oil and gas. This is the exact same argument the anti-measure 2 supporters have been using for decades to stimulate the economy. Property Tax giveaways. However, those are limited to their 'buddies'. Now you wonder why they are against it when everyone benefits? Talk about total hypocrisy. That should say it all right there.

The "investment opportunities" is a concern. Not only will we lose the 16.7% of revenue from NR property owners but it is a huge incentive for out of state entities to purchase property here. 

The property tax giveaway is shifting to out of state ownership of property vs "buddies". Or maybe there is some out of state influence in this measure?  Since you won't post the formula yet, can you at least say if it includes a method of collecting revenue from NR?

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

hoopscoach Said:
I do not like to have my taxes raised anymore than any other person out there.  However, if this passes and the local governments loose this income, where are they going to get their money from?  It will be paid by us citizens one way or the other.  We will pay an outrageous amount for things like garbage removal and street repairs.  The government is not going to take a hit on this, we will end up paying for it one way or the other.  Minnesota has this and it does not work very well.  The state legislature will have to become a full-time job, instead of what it is now and anyone that needs money will have to hire the best lobbyist they can afford and wait in line for the legislature to pay out.  Schools usually get their state aid in July so that they can operate for the next school year.  I heard in Minnesota schools are promised money in July but may not receive it until March.  How are they supposed to operate.  I don't like this measure


You haven't read the measure. Please read the ABC's at www.yesm2.com and corresponding information available. Watch the vid's they're great. ND is not MN. You're are spouting nothing but red-herring arguments as all the legislature is required to do is create the formula. K-12 funding is a formula. How many legislators, commissioners and the like are running around doing the "budgets" for K-12? NONE.  Why? Because there is a formula for funding all k-12. Please view the website if you are serious about the information and wanting to get the proper prospective.

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

For some reason I can't quote. I am referring to tackle Joe post# 161

You are talking in so many circles you are making my head spin. Now there will be no other shift in the tax burden? Earlier on this thread you posted the language for the proposed measure where they could make up the short fall through sales tax, luxury tax, lottery, income tax.....I will look for it if you want me to find it.

What is your dog in this fight other than most north dakotans? It seems to me that most of the people that will benefit from this measure are vast land owners, nonresident land owners, or landlords who have numerous rental properties. I understand where Justin is coming from with his property rights but let's be honest here, what's the beef? How does it benefit you directly? For me it would be a difference of about $2000.

You are fooling yourself if you think there will be no tax shift if this passes. You know the only two sure things in life is death and taxes.

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:
Without a property tax burden - the business climate is going to be one of the best investments in the country. New business opportunities abound. This will allow for real economic development vs. government sponsored/cronyism that cost the taxpayers via the current property tax (theft) system. The economy will be diversified so we are not so dependent on oil and gas. This is the exact same argument the anti-measure 2 supporters have been using for decades to stimulate the economy. Property Tax giveaways. However, those are limited to their 'buddies'. Now you wonder why they are against it when everyone benefits? Talk about total hypocrisy. That should say it all right there.

The "investment opportunities" is a concern. Not only will we lose the 16.7% of revenue from NR property owners but it is a huge incentive for out of state entities to purchase property here. 

The property tax giveaway is shifting to out of state ownership of property vs "buddies". Or maybe there is some out of state influence in this measure?  Since you won't post the formula yet, can you at least say if it includes a method of collecting revenue from NR?

Mr. Pike - again - the 16% means almost nothing. It's a number that the opponents use that tells us absolutely NOTHING of the supposed NR owners. It's just another "ploy" by the opponents. I'm being truthful. Again, you can't treat a NR land owner any different than a ND land owner - that's a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause (and that's technically the only purpose of it). This measure is for, by and of the citizens of ND. There are no Walmarts, Target Corp or any other major players or "out-state" corporate raiders behind this.

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

Are you not familiar with the new property tax increase coming? 

Source?

State Tax Department - this was big news a few weeks ago - evaluations on average going up on Ag land 32% I believe - looking for source now. Plus, the Farmers home exemptions on there property is going away if the legislature has there way. See? Property Tax is nothing but a screw job?


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

 

espringers Said:
Can't take your home. It exempt from siezure up to a certain value.
fconcolor's picture
fconcolor
Offline
Joined: 3/27/07

Espringers here is the info direct from the IRS

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108341,00.html

They can levy and take your home.

Tackle Joe. Haven't heard from you in a while. I see on your empower the tax payer they proudly boast that no state in the us has abolished property tax but England and Iceland have no property tax. Did you know that they have a vat (value added tax) of 15 and 26% respectively. So if nd abolished property tax and jumped sales tax like iceland and England did where will be all the economic growth be? I can assure you people on the red river valley would run over to Minnesota to avoid sale tax. A lot of it's but I would definitely not like to be a guinea pig here.

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

fconcolor Said:
Espringers here is the info direct from the IRS

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108341,00.html

They can levy and take your home.

Tackle Joe. Haven't heard from you in a while. I see on your empower the tax payer they proudly boast that no state in the us has abolished property tax but England and Iceland have no property tax. Did you know that they have a vat (value added tax) of 15 and 26% respectively. So if nd abolished property tax and jumped sales tax like iceland and England did where will be all the economic growth be? I can assure you people on the red river valley would run over to Minnesota to avoid sale tax. A lot of it's but I would definitely not like to be a guinea pig here.

the point - is to show property tax has been eliminated in places. England is not ND last time I checked. Nor do we currently have the welfare state England does - although the pinheads on both sides of the isle are doing their best to get it here. Please come up with a real argument.

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

I went to the web site and it is as laughable as the supporters posting on here.
How much land do you have to own to pay 1000 dollars a month on taxes.
Alot of people are going to vote for this thinking they are going to save money when in the long run it is going to cost us more in the end
Local control?? i am on the township board and the board decides how to spend our budget. I dont know about the school board funds( never been involved)
the township i live in is loosing infrastructure because of a lack of funds.
How is going to give the townships more money to work with?
does anybody on here pay 1000 a month on property taxes?
I believe there is a hidden agenda to all of this
Last year every township got money from from oil revinues
our township got almost a third of our budget and we are getting more this summer. this is the first free money our twp has gotten in the 6 years i have been involved

PerchMan's picture
PerchMan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/5/02

 Does anybody know what the "Pet Projects", or money being spent for special interest projects are?  People talk about the wasting of tax dollars on some of these projects but I have not heard what any of them are.  

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

tackle joe, I will run these by you one last time one at a time and please answer themdirectly with ot the claims of "red herrings" or "strawmen".

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??? .

Joe if this is the case how long do you think it will take before these entities realize it, the oil and gas revenues are gone and taxes of some sort have to be raised because the state MUST fully and properly fund these legally imposed obligaions?

Where are the checks and balances in the wording of this measure?

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

riverview Said:
I went to the web site and it is as laughable as the supporters posting on here.
How much land do you have to own to pay 1000 dollars a month on taxes.
Alot of people are going to vote for this thinking they are going to save money when in the long run it is going to cost us more in the end
Local control?? i am on the township board and the board decides how to spend our budget. I dont know about the school board funds( never been involved)
the township i live in is loosing infrastructure because of a lack of funds.
How is going to give the townships more money to work with?
does anybody on here pay 1000 a month on property taxes?
I believe there is a hidden agenda to all of this
Last year every township got money from from oil revinues
our township got almost a third of our budget and we are getting more this summer. this is the first free money our twp has gotten in the 6 years i have been involved

What's laughable exactly? Do tell. Owning your property is laughable? The current bill at my residence for a very modest twin home is almost $3000.00. It ends June 12. Do the math my good sir. That's roughly $3000.00 per year for the rest of my life - and that is just being kind and not adding to the actual increase i would have seen in the future - as that number will most surely rise. In just 10 years - that's $30,000.00 I have. If I want to improve my property with my hard earned money - to increase it's value and improve my life - I won't get penalized on top of the investment money I've already put in. Special interests - you need to ask what special interests? Ever heard of economic development corps? Ever hear of TIF, Renasance Zones, Abatements, PT Forgiveness, Tax Exempt? You're really a township commissioner?
StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

 

Tackle Joe Said:
Mr. Pike - again - the 16% means almost nothing. It's a number that the opponents use that tells us absolutely NOTHING of the supposed NR owners. It's just another "ploy" by the opponents. I'm being truthful. Again, you can't treat a NR land owner any different than a ND land owner - that's a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause (and that's technically the only purpose of it). This measure is for, by and of the citizens of ND. There are no Walmarts, Target Corp or any other major players or "out-state" corporate raiders behind this.

The 16.7% means $126.8 million, I don't think of that as "almost nothing". If this measure passes, that percentage will likely increase. I am not sure what else you want to know about them that is relevant.

And since you cannot treat a NR land owner different than a local landowner, there is no method to have them also pay for the benefits they receive, correct? They reap 
the benefits off the backs of ND citizens. 

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

Joe, 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

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

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?

Joe how will the legislture implement the checks and balances needed in approving roughly 2700 different enities budget proposals as well as dealing with every other legislative responsibility in 80 days?

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

In just 10 years - that's $30,000.00 I have. 

Only if you are not a ND resident. If you are a ND resident, you will be paying that money, or a portion of it, in other way (via a formula to be figured out later by those same people who aren't trusted enough to budget spending our money).

Or does your proposed formula you discussed earlier add no additional burden to ND residents? If so, I am very interested in seeing it.

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

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

yes I paid $3500 last year, I live in the country. no specials whatsoever.  and it'll go up another 15% this next year.  I've had it with raping and pillaging

 

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:
Mr. Pike - again - the 16% means almost nothing. It's a number that the opponents use that tells us absolutely NOTHING of the supposed NR owners. It's just another "ploy" by the opponents. I'm being truthful. Again, you can't treat a NR land owner any different than a ND land owner - that's a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause (and that's technically the only purpose of it). This measure is for, by and of the citizens of ND. There are no Walmarts, Target Corp or any other major players or "out-state" corporate raiders behind this.

The 16.7% means $126.8 million, I don't think of that as "almost nothing". If this measure passes, that percentage will likely increase. I am not sure what else you want to know about them that is relevant.

And since you cannot treat a NR land owner different than a local landowner, there is no method to have them also pay for the benefits they receive, correct? They reap 
the benefits off the backs of ND citizens. 

Mr Pike - it is important to know what they are claiming with this number. Again, what part of this are you missing? If they are a business, or a former resident renting land to their family or neighbors - the land owners are paying other taxes and aiding the economy. They may also be employing people that may not have had the opportunity if not for this NR landowner - that's the point. Is that helping - I stated this earlier - are you really going to vote no because unspecified landowners account for 16%?

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

In just 10 years - that's $30,000.00 I have. 

Only if you are not a ND resident. If you are a ND resident, you will be paying that money, or a portion of it, in other way (via a formula to be figured out later by those same people who aren't trusted enough to budget spending our money).

Or does your proposed formula you discussed earlier add no additional burden to ND residents? If so, I am very interested in seeing it.

With all due respect - have you not understood anything I've pointed out? If you're a non-resident land owner - and you have a business, are renting farmland, are using it for game farm etc...if you make an income - you have to pay an income tax to ND. Hello? Plus you are employing people - thus adding to the economy - hello? NO NEW taxes are required to implement Measure 2 - Even the anti-measure 2 folks have admitted this. Is this not sinking in?

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

gst Said:
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?

Joe how will the legislture implement the checks and balances needed in approving roughly 2700 different enities budget proposals as well as dealing with every other legislative responsibility in 80 days?

How is it currently done for k-12? There budgets are different every year. Come on, this is about owning your property free and clear with the ability to improve the citizens stake in the state - and it's paid for. There will be a formula - where are you getting the idea you're going to be going to the state to review your budgets? Someone help me here.

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

 

 

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 authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions 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 institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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 institutions taxes not allocated to elementary and secondary schools to counties, cities, and other political subdivisions 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 direction of the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships, and other political subdivisions.

The current "formula" will have to be redone, and a new one "revised" by the legislature.

Tackle Joe, I find it odd you suddenly beleive in the same legislatures ability to get this right that you have lambasted for not getting it right in how many attempts in how many years?

And remember it is SPELLED OUT CLEARLY  in the wording of this measure this formula MUST "fully and properly fund the legaly imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions"

So Joe as I read this our township can vote to pave all our roads and the legislature will HAVE TO pay for it as a legally imposed obligation.

I wonder if Fargo will have any new "legally imposed obligations" if this measure passes, Bismarck, Williston, Stanley, Goodrich ect..........

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

gst Said:
Joe, 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

If it is currently tied to property tax - it's funded via the formula. Remember, this is just one tax going away - locals still have the ability to bond, special, sale tax option, fees etc. The measure doesn't change any of these other existing or potential revenue sources.

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:
With all due respect - have you not understood anything I've pointed out? If you're a non-resident land owner - and you have a business, are renting farmland, are using it for game farm etc...if you make an income - you have to pay an income tax to ND. Hello? Plus you are employing people - thus adding to the economy - hello? NO NEW taxes are required to implement Measure 2 - Even the anti-measure 2 folks have admitted this. Is this not sinking in?

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

What you are failing to understand is the $126.8 million will be taken out. All the other things you mention are already being paid so it cannot be used to offset the lost revenue. I found the below quote on a site that is contrary to what you stated above.

“Relative to the measure to repeal property taxes, if it is enacted, nonresident owners of surface property would be relieved of their tax obligations. Some of the burden may indeed be shifted onto resident property owners (or resident taxpayers in general) in the form of additional sales or income taxes. Nonresident owners of mineral interests – whether or not they are being produced – would likely not be affected by the measure.” 

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

If you would just post your formula, it might show what I am not understanding from your posts.

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
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?

Joe how will the legislture implement the checks and balances needed in approving roughly 2700 different enities budget proposals as well as dealing with every other legislative responsibility in 80 days?

How is it currently done for k-12? There budgets are different every year. Come on, this is about owning your property free and clear with the ability to improve the citizens stake in the state - and it's paid for. There will be a formula - where are you getting the idea you're going to be going to the state to review your budgets? Someone help me here.

Joe we'll get to the school deal in a minute, it clearly states in the measure the legislature will only fund what are "legaly imposed obligations" . How will the legislature and the people of ND know that each and every budget proposal request to be funded by the legislature contains ONLY legaly imposed obligations" as defined by state law?

 The only way a proper checks and balances can be held is by examining ach budget proposal. If these budget proposals are not submitted to the state legislature how will the people of ND know what is being funded meets the criteria set forth?

In otherwords, how will the residents of Antler know that the residents of Fargo are receiving state funding for what is deemed proper thru state law if the budget proposl set forth by Fargo is not examined by the state legislature? 
 
And vice versa!

Joe are you suggesting the state legislature basically just sign a blank check to each of these entities without examining the budgetary proposals simply because there exists a "formula"???????

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

gst Said:

 

 

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 authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions 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 institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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 institutions taxes not allocated to elementary and secondary schools to counties, cities, and other political subdivisions 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 direction of the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships, and other political subdivisions.

The current "formula" will have to be redone, and a new one "revised" by the legislature.

Tackle Joe, I find it odd you suddenly beleive in the same legislatures ability to get this right that you have lambasted for not getting it right in how many attempts in how many years?

And remember it is SPELLED OUT CLEARLY  in the wording of this measure this formula MUST "fully and properly fund the legaly imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions"

So Joe as I read this our township can vote to pave all our roads and the legislature will HAVE TO pay for it as a legally imposed obligation.

I wonder if Fargo will have any new "legally imposed obligations" if this measure passes, Bismarck, Williston, Stanley, Goodrich ect..........

Yes and NO-  but this backs them big time into the corner to do the right thing. They'll actually have to fund the legal obligations. Can they change the legal obligations? They're the legislature. They can change them whether the Measure passes or not. This is about ending property tax - the sun will come out on the 13th - the legislature will do the right thing - or they'll be run out of the state.

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

2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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.

Joe please explain the emboldened part of the wording of this measure.

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

gst Said:
2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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.

Joe please explain the emboldened part of the wording of this measure.

The current amount not funded by the state currently for k-12 (this is the pt portion) will be sent to the school districts with NO STRINGS attached. This does not happen currently with the state k-12 funding. They can spend the portion on whatever they want.

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

joe I can not help but notice you have not really ever addressed this question. I even enlarged it to be sure you saw it.

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?

My purpose for asking this question is this. If our township can place this additional fiscal burden on the state as a "legally imposed obligation" and the state MUST "fully and properly fund" these "legally imposed obligations", what other suddenly imposed legal obligations do you beleive will be submitted in the budgets that this measure will cover?????  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How long before we end up like almost every other state out there?  

BROKE!

PPPLLLEAAASE joe say it ain;t so. (But give a few facts too if you would)

Ah but the legislature can simply raise other taxes so hey everything is great, run thru the oil and gas monies, implement a bunch more taxes and keep "fully and properly funding" whatever gets sent to Bismarck 
 
It's okay because there is a "formula" and NOBODY will submit anything more than the basic needs for funding . 

Joe, you aren;t the guy in charge of Fargos flood diversion project are you, cause I bet he likes the wording of this measure!!!

Hell I wouldn;t mind not having to deal with the dust on the mile and a half to the county hiway come to think of it after we get our roads paved!!!

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

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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.

Joe please explain the emboldened part of the wording of this measure.

The current amount not funded by the state currently for k-12 (this is the pt portion) will be sent to the school districts with NO STRINGS attached. This does not happen currently with the state k-12 funding. They can spend the portion on whatever they want.

So in other words a blank check with no accountabilites to ND citizens?

327's picture
327
Offline
Joined: 8/25/10

Wondering when this passes and my specials fees whatever you want to call them cost me more than i pay now how will this help me or other residents? when sales tax is at 15% how much will a border city business lose in revenue? how much will we lose in income from our canadian traffic? seems like too much too fast to vote yes for me.

 

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

gst Said:
joe I can not help but notice you have not really ever addressed this question. I even enlarged it to be sure you saw it.

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?

My purpose for asking this question is this. If our township can place this additional fiscal burden on the state as a "legally imposed obligation" and the state MUST "fully and properly fund" these "legally imposed obligations", what other suddenly imposed legal obligations do you beleive will be submitted in the budgets that this measure will cover?????  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How long before we end up like almost every other state out there?  

BROKE!

PPPLLLEAAASE joe say it ain;t so. (But give a few facts too if you would)

Ah but the legislature can simply raise other taxes so hey everything is great, run thru the oil and gas monies, implement a bunch more taxes and keep "fully and properly funding" whatever gets sent to Bismarck 
 
It's okay because there is a "formula" and NOBODY will submit anything more than the basic needs for funding . 

Joe, you aren;t the guy in charge of Fargos flood diversion project are you, cause I bet he likes the wording of this measure!!!

Hell I wouldn;t mind not having to deal with the dust on the mile and a half to the county hiway come to think of it after we get our roads paved!!!

My good sir, please go to yesm2.com and read the actual measure. It's apparent you haven't yet. Focus on Section 4 article 1 and focus on the first 9 words.

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

327 Said:
Wondering when this passes and my specials fees whatever you want to call them cost me more than i pay now how will this help me or other residents? when sales tax is at 15% how much will a border city business lose in revenue? how much will we lose in income from our canadian traffic? seems like too much too fast to vote yes for me.

Measure does'nt affect specials - they are still locally controlled and are not based on property value and are used for specific projects. Why do you think they would go up? The measure doesn't require any new taxes - even the anti-measure 2 folks - have admitted this. support measure 2!

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

fconcolor said:
"Quick question for Justin, tackle Joe and espringers. What happens if you don't pay your income tax? I am sure the government would never go after your home and kick you out on the street because it is free and clear. Obviously because you own your home it is yours and not an asset they can resale for your tax liability?"

While I have my feelings about the income tax as well, this thread is not about that. In short, do I believe they should take your home for failure to pay any tax? No. Furthermore, at least the income tax is based on the amount of income a person makes. The heinous property tax is not based on income. It's based on the assessment of a government bureaucrat. A persons income may go down or a person or family may fall on hard times. This makes no difference to the government. If you can't pay in the prescribed amount of time, the property is seized and you are left without. The property is then sold at auction to someone that will pay the rent (i.e. property tax). Now I don't care how frequent or infrequent the evictions take place. One person losing their property is too many in my book! However, the reality is that EVERYONE has lost their property. It's just that most people pay the rent on a continual basis.

I find it appalling that so many people cannot understand this principle. Was it right in the early 90's for the "local government" to seize my father's property for inability to pay? Was right for the "local government" to seize the farms of two sets of my great-grandparents during the depression for their inability to pay? Is it right today that not just NDtans but Americans in general have the same threat CONSTANTLY hanging over their heads?! I shutter to think about some people's moral compass on here, but in my view IT WAS A SICKENING, HEINOUS, ABUSIVE, REPULSIVE, AND COMPLETELY IMMORAL THING TO DO!!!

I don't give a darn about the "burden" this places on the legislature to come up with a formula. I don't care one iota if they have to work out some perceived kink. We elect them to do the job. If they're not up to it, go home! And we will send people to Bismarck that are! The people of this state have suffered enough and to spare under the horrific property tax.

It is fascinating (yet sad) to me that here we sit on the brink of one of the greatest opportunities in this state's history (to restore property rights), and some people are going to vote against the measure because "non-residents won't pay" (a small percentage) or they MIGHT raise sales/income tax (already shown they don't have to), etc. And then these same people are going to wait for the property tax to be "fixed" when it has already been "fixed" over 130 times WITHOUT SUCCESS!!! And we, as supporters of Measure 2, are crazy???!!! WOW!

-Justin

-Justin

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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
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?

Joe how will the legislture implement the checks and balances needed in approving roughly 2700 different enities budget proposals as well as dealing with every other legislative responsibility in 80 days?

How is it currently done for k-12? There budgets are different every year. Come on, this is about owning your property free and clear with the ability to improve the citizens stake in the state - and it's paid for. There will be a formula - where are you getting the idea you're going to be going to the state to review your budgets? Someone help me here.

Joe we'll get to the school deal in a minute, it clearly states in the measure the legislature will only fund what are "legaly imposed obligations" . How will the legislature and the people of ND know that each and every budget proposal request to be funded by the legislature contains ONLY legaly imposed obligations" as defined by state law?

 The only way a proper checks and balances can be held is by examining ach budget proposal. If these budget proposals are not submitted to the state legislature how will the people of ND know what is being funded meets the criteria set forth?

In otherwords, how will the residents of Antler know that the residents of Fargo are receiving state funding for what is deemed proper thru state law if the budget proposl set forth by Fargo is not examined by the state legislature? 
 
And vice versa!

Joe are you suggesting the state legislature basically just sign a blank check to each of these entities without examining the budgetary proposals simply because there exists a "formula"???????

A formula will be created by the legislature - to replace the taxes on real property prior to 2012.  There will be no "funding" needs by budgets by the subdivisions as what was used for property tax (legal obligations) - what was actually paid for with property tax - before 2012 - will now be replaced fully and properly after the measure passes. So why would budgets need to be reviewed every year? They don't reveiw every school district budget now - see? It's not this tough - don't make it this tough - support M@!

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

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
joe I can not help but notice you have not really ever addressed this question. I even enlarged it to be sure you saw it.

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?

My purpose for asking this question is this. If our township can place this additional fiscal burden on the state as a "legally imposed obligation" and the state MUST "fully and properly fund" these "legally imposed obligations", what other suddenly imposed legal obligations do you beleive will be submitted in the budgets that this measure will cover?????  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

How long before we end up like almost every other state out there?  

BROKE!

PPPLLLEAAASE joe say it ain;t so. (But give a few facts too if you would)

Ah but the legislature can simply raise other taxes so hey everything is great, run thru the oil and gas monies, implement a bunch more taxes and keep "fully and properly funding" whatever gets sent to Bismarck 
 
It's okay because there is a "formula" and NOBODY will submit anything more than the basic needs for funding . 

Joe, you aren;t the guy in charge of Fargos flood diversion project are you, cause I bet he likes the wording of this measure!!!

Hell I wouldn;t mind not having to deal with the dust on the mile and a half to the county hiway come to think of it after we get our roads paved!!!

My good sir, please go to yesm2.com and read the actual measure. It's apparent you haven't yet. Focus on Section 4 article 1 and focus on the first 9 words.

tackle joe, went to your site, followed your directions and I beleive the "section 4 article 1"you reference is as follows:

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 authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state sales taxes, individual and corporate income taxes, oil and gas production and extraction taxes, tobacco taxes, lottery revenues, financial institutions taxes, and other state resources.

I beleive I have posted this wording of the measure a couple of times now in this thread as well as a couple of times ni the last thread, so apparently have read it.

Can you explain where and how it answers the question I have enlarged that is contained in the quote above?  

Please simply answer the question and address the concerns tied to it as explained.

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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
2. The legislative assembly shall direct as much oil and gas production and extraction tax, tobacco tax, lottery revenue, and financial institutions tax as necessary to fund the share of elementary and secondary education not funded through state revenue sources before 2012. The state cannot 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.

Joe please explain the emboldened part of the wording of this measure.

The current amount not funded by the state currently for k-12 (this is the pt portion) will be sent to the school districts with NO STRINGS attached. This does not happen currently with the state k-12 funding. They can spend the portion on whatever they want.

So in other words a blank check with no accountabilites to ND citizens?

Dude - that's called local control. Seriously - one of the other red-herring arguments is loss of local control - they don't have any to beging with - as the mills have to go for what the mills say - they have a max on the mills you can raise - now you're getting a blank check - you are actually at the behest of your neighbors like never before - you can actually go to a city, county etc meeting - school board - and demand they use that  money properly - right now they tell you - "nothing we can do" the state requires this money go here, here and there.


Pages