Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

gst,

You've actually unintentionally hit on one of the beauties of the measure. It IS NOT a "blank check" without any accountability to NDtans for local school boards and governments to spend the money at their "sole descretion" (i.e. No strings attached from the state). THIS IS TRUE LOCAL CONTROL! You know, that thing so many THINK they have now but don't! Not only does this provide local control over the spending, but it means local officials will be directly accountable to their citizens for how they spend the money! No more finger-pointing, but direct accountability with local officials.

-Justin

-Justin

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

gst Said:

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.

If it wasn't paid for with property tax funds before 2012 (calendar year 2011) - it doesn't get replaced. No new taxes are needed - this has been stated over and over. The formula will replace those funds - again what part are you misunderstanding? K-12 is funded across the state with a formula - and every school district is different. I'm sorry - it's late - what am I not explaining. Also - the legislature can change anything they want to right now - it doesn't change after measure 2 passes. They don't need to raise taxes - but the can - hell, they are already talking about raising taxes - shifting may be a better term already onto the farmers! This is why it must go! It's the only fix.

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

gst,

You've actually unintentionally hit on one of the beauties of the measure. It IS NOT a "blank check" without any accountability to NDtans for local school boards and governments to spend the money at their "sole descretion" (i.e. No strings attached from the state). THIS IS TRUE LOCAL CONTROL! You know, that thing so many THINK they have now but don't! Not only does this provide local control over the spending, but it means local officials will be directly accountable to their citizens for how they spend the money! No more finger-pointing, but direct accountability with local officials.

-Justin

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

tackle joe you are to be blunt full of crap!!!!!!! Sec 4 does not prevent the paving of a township road if passed by the county. What this bill does is put the definition into the hands of the court. School formula for education treats for the most part every student the same.( Just using a number as an example.) State determined via the Leg that each student costs $100.00 to educate. State currently funds $70.00 of that! Harvey school district gets the same amount per pupil as Fargo or Bismarck or Hankinson.There is some extra money sent to rural schools for transportation but that is how it works. Harvey wants a new school and it cannot pay for the school with the local allowed assesments under current law. But they pass the resolution to build it anyway. State has to fund it based on the law as it is written. Because of the definition.

See here is something that you and everyone else that supports this has missed. The part of the state constitution that designates who has taxing authority currently and what bodies are allowed to set and make expenditures. Daily operational bills, like sewer water, labor, insurance maintence etc... all fall under this. There are no limits of dollars that can be spent on a particular item. For example county commision is presented with the need for a new road grader! They currently are running 770 JD. They will now entertain bids from various Mfg companies that meet a critera of needs. Problem with the law as written takes away any checks and balances on purchase of this machine. The county can spec if they so desire now any machine and will after as well. This has been a standard type purchase prior. So it has to be funded!

The falicy of this is that local taxing authorities will continue to use some restraint in regards to expenditures. They will no longer have a cap!!!!!!!! Argue all you want, but that is a fact. Unlike schools where there is a history of funding schedules from the state. Cities and counties run differently based on services tax payers have tolerated or demanded. Why would Cass or Nelson County not sell off all the old equipment and buy new under the current proposal?
After all replacing equipment and adding new equipment to meet the needs is critical to current operations and will be deemed  legally imposed

Now a formula  fron the legislators cannot be equal for Cass County is not going to be able to be the same as LaMoure or Dickey counties!!!!!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

To expound they cannot do it based on population like they do schools, Will not work! They cannot do it based on acres again it will not work. They could only do it one way. That is to pay for a % of all expenditures. Now it will not take long and here is the beauty as someone said about local control. Counties once they recieve the money are not obligated to spend it !

So let's look at Cass!!!!! They could submit a budget to buy all new patrol cars, new trucks, snow removal equipment, give 100% raises. State says we are only funding 70% as they have with schools. County gets the money and decides hey we are only going to buy 65% of the things we said!

Now if that does not work then each item for expenditure will have to be authorized by the Leg or block grants of funds sent to the counties. Now like schools how would they determine the formula for the block grants!

You will have Rep and Sen from the large metro areas consolidate voting to get all the funding and the rural counties will be left to scramble! In awarding block grants party lines will not matter!!!!!!!

I could go on and on! But Tackle Joe and others who think this is simple or fair wake up!!!!!!!! You may not have property taxes but you will not if you live outside of any of the counties which hold the largest population levels have anything unless the counties start tacking on specials for the cost of the services and maintence to meet the short fall!!!!!!! So much for local control!!!!!!!!!

Keep in mind that this is not a Rep or Dem bill and party lines will not matter!!!!!!!!!

Want roads fixed in western ND????????? To bad!!!!!!!!!!!! Whap, Fargo, GF,Bismarck will get the funds as well as the counties they are in!!!!!!! People in Lehr, Anamoose, will be driving on roads worse than no roads and snow removal will be done only when a farmer needs to get in or out!

While Cass and Richland counties and the cities within them will be driving on pothole free streets and their equipment will be all brand new or almost new!!!!!!!!!

That is what this bill is setting things up to be!!!!!!!!!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

riverview said:
"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 the reason given for the "breaks" (i.e. Exemptions) given to businesses. So, why should the government pick winners and losers? That's called "crony capitalism" last I checked. Let's abolish the property tax to draw businesses to North Dakota and to lighten the burden of those businesses already here! Thus, more jobs are created which in turn creates revenue through other taxes (i.e. sales, income, gas, etc.). If it's good for one business, why not all?

For years we have wondered how on earth to keep young people here. Well, this is more likely to occur when a climate is created in which jobs exist that ARE NOT related to agriculture or oil/gas! Furthermore, this provides economic stability to the state if/when there was ever a slowdown in relation to the oil industry. Opponents of Measure 2 accuse the measure of being too dependent on oil/gas when the reality is that, as it stands now, we are even more dependent on oil/gas than we would be if the measure passes! Passage of the measure not only restores true property rights (the heart of the issue), but it diversifies the types of businesses/jobs that are available in the state, provides incentives for people to stay in-state, and puts the government out of the business of picking winners and losers.

-Justin

-Justin

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

Actually, Hardwaterman, you're incorrect. Townships are required to use highway taxes to pay for machinery for the roads. It's in Section 24-06-04 of the ND Century Code. Measure 2 does not change that.

I keep seeing/hearing comments about roads in relation to Measure 2. While property taxes do contribute to county roads, they are not the primary revenue source. For example, consider this quote from A question/answer:

"How does North Dakota fund its county road system, in particular what type of funding such as ad valorem, vehicle registration, fuel tax or other funding sources are used?
"In North Dakota the county road system is funded with a mix of local ad valorem* taxes (10%), state fuel & motor vehicle taxes (40%), federal highway funds that are derived from federal fuel taxes (35%) and oil and coal production taxes (15%). These percentages represent an approximate statewide average as the mix in any given county, and for any given year, can vary quite significantly - only about 1/3 of the counties receive oil and coal production taxes.
*Taxes based on value...property taxes."

Source: North Dakota Association of Counties Web Site
http://www.ndaco.org/?id=118&form_data_id=748

The idea that roads will suffer more than they do now, etc. is preposterous.

Well, it's late and we've had some good debate. But I have to get some sleep!

-Justin

-Justin

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

dakota I never said anything about townships buying equipment now did I? Try again!!!!! The reason townships hire work done either by the county or private contractor is that the tax collections are to low to actually purchase the needed equipment. However a county has no such restriction!!!!!!

This is going to affect the roads,already townships are short money, given that they will have even less and cannot levy any taxes other than special assesments snow removal and gravel and general maintence will suffer once they lose local tax base. Certainly that is unless this measure guarantees that they will be fully funded at current levels with the ablity to raise their budgets to needed levels as conditions change!

So try again!!!!!!!! This bill puts rural counties and townships in peril period!!!!!!!!  Hell I should be excited for this to pass I live in one of the areas that would greatly benefit with the number of Rep and Sen we have in the county!!!! Cass has 34! How many does Dickey or LaMoure have? Put Richland,Cass and Nelson and for good measure Burliegh in a voting block and rural ND gets nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You and Tackle and the rest need to start looking at the reality of this!!!!!!!!!!! Instead of thinking how you are going to spend that extra money! It will be for tires, shocks, snow removal equipment! Not toys and joy!!!!!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

!!!!!!!......!!!!!!!!.....!!!!!!!!...!!!!!!!.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!...!!!!!!!!!

Sparky36000's picture
Sparky36000
Offline
Joined: 7/8/05

Been doing some research and reading lots of pros and cons on measure 2 since I first heard about it. Pros outweigh the cons. I'm supporting it. Also talked to several people that were on the fence that have done their own research. They will be supporting it too. Vote yes on measure 2.


SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: 7/14/03

I can say out of the 50 or so people that I work with, I've yet to hear of a single one that plans to vote for this measure. It's nothing but a tax shift and bad news. Accountablity will come down to voting for the representitive of your area that brings home the bacon. If you think this isn't going to be the case, you've got blinders on. The fact is we are sitting hear talking about these so called fomulas that will be derived to disperse the funds however the problems is these so called formulas haven't been devised yet and to say that's how it''l be taken care of is nothing more than a guess. It the same guess as to how exactly they'll be replacing these funds since it isn't spelled out in the text of the bill. If you want to vote on a "Guess and be Damned" senerio of they'll replace and divide the funds that all come out of the same pot of money go ahead and vote Yes for Measure 2 but don't coming whinning when the tax shift happens or when the public facilitys you use don't get funded the way you'd like. On the other hand, if you like to know where and how things are paid for, like the idea of local control, like the idea of having those that bennfit from a service pay for it, Then vote NO for measure two.

The local control arguement from the "yes" side is weak at best. You will not have local control, you'll..... "maybe"...... have a so called "formula" deciding how much your local entity recieves (according to the experts on this site) and the only local control will be on how to get 100% of the planned yearly budget covered with only 70% of the money because some jackwagons in bismarck didn't fund your area correctly or the formula didn't work out due to the population, acres or other factors used to determine your areas allowance. Then comes the lobbying, the politics, and the pork. Is the system we have now perfect, no and I don't think anyone says that it is. The fact still remains that measure 2 doesn't spell out anything and put it in the hands of our legislative body.

I have been trying to stay out of this thread and have managed to do so for eleven pages but I just couldn't stand it any more.

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

StevePike Said:
 

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.

Steve, I am now under the firm beleif that tackle Joe does not understand his posts himself. Much less explain it to you. They don't have the formula's available yet. Can't you read :).

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

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.

You seem to be going in circles, and your "arguments" are not really conveying the message that they were in the beginning. You've stated numerous times that "there will be a formula", and "who cares about the 16% of NR landowners". Do you have anything to tell us that we haven't heard in the previous 11 pages?  We are all well aware that the passing of this measure will enable us to own our property "free and clear", but at what cost? That is the one question for which you DO NOT have an answer? I am not opposed to owning my own property, but I am slightly concerned about long term ramifications that the passing of this measure may have. The abolishment of property taxes will inevitably result in a substantial decrease in income for the state. You have stated, multiple times, that the state will find other methods to make up that lost income, but at the same time, you keep telling us that nothing will change and no new taxes will be implemented? No matter how you look at it, this lost income will have to be replaced one way or another.

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

ndbwhunter 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.

You seem to be going in circles, and your "arguments" are not really conveying the message that they were in the beginning. You've stated numerous times that "there will be a formula", and "who cares about the 16% of NR landowners". Do you have anything to tell us that we haven't heard in the previous 11 pages?  We are all well aware that the passing of this measure will enable us to own our property "free and clear", but at what cost? That is the one question for which you DO NOT have an answer? I am not opposed to owning my own property, but I am slightly concerned about long term ramifications that the passing of this measure may have. The abolishment of property taxes will inevitably result in a substantial decrease in income for the state. You have stated, multiple times, that the state will find other methods to make up that lost income, but at the same time, you keep telling us that nothing will change and no new taxes will be implemented? No matter how you look at it, this lost income will have to be replaced one way or another.

The state has the current funds to cover the cost of property tax. This has been stated ad-naseum by supporters of M2 and even it's opponents. For decades, those opposed currently to the measure have convinced everyone that in order to stimulate the economy of your town/city etc... the best way is "incentives". Those incentives are property tax giveaways. What's the argument for the breaks? They pay for themselves with increases in all other taxes because business has moved in. Again, this is from the opposition. Now it's a level playing field for everyone and it's not going to work? The NDPC identified about $1 billion in wasteful spending just at the state level for 2007-09 bienium  - that was 4 years ago. It's much larger currently. The current property tax money isn't just vanishing - it's going back into the private economy as well. These are the SAME arguments that the SAME people claimed when the personal property tax was ended in 1969. If you can't get past what the measure does - don't vote for it. What don't you get? No matter what happens with government and special interests freebies - they are going to scream bloody murder - and many of you buy into it. I don't - I tired of it. End it. The state of PA is currently in the process of eliminating it as well. Who owns the government - the people or special interests? Whatever the government needs are out weigh the citizen?

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

greenhead Said:

StevePike Said:
 

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.

Steve, I am now under the firm beleif that tackle Joe does not understand his posts himself. Much less explain it to you. They don't have the formula's available yet. Can't you read :).

What's apparent only - is you haven't followed these posts until now - as this has already been discussed. Does the legislature have the formula yet? I don't know - they will have an entire year after Measure 2 passes to formulate it. It's not like they haven't done this before - as every taxing, assessing and funding mechanism in the state is a FORMULA. But, as I already pointed out - there is a formula already - that will be released to the public in the future - so stay tuned. So who exactly isn't understand what?

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

Tackle Joe Said:

The state has the current funds to cover the cost of property tax. This has been stated ad-naseum by supporters of M2 and even it's opponents.

Where are those funds originated tackle?  Oil?  Do you live on the E side of the state or the W side where our infrastructure is getting absolutely pounded by the very companies producing those "current funds to cover the cost of property tax".  Come out here and live for 6 months and then see if you would like more of the oil tax revenue dispersed state-wide rather than directed locally to try to maintain somewhat of a quality of life.

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

ndbwhunter Said: 

You seem to be going in circles, and your "arguments" are not really conveying the message that they were in the beginning. You've stated numerous times that "there will be a formula", and "who cares about the 16% of NR landowners". Do you have anything to tell us that we haven't heard in the previous 11 pages?  We are all well aware that the passing of this measure will enable us to own our property "free and clear", but at what cost? That is the one question for which you DO NOT have an answer? I am not opposed to owning my own property, but I am slightly concerned about long term ramifications that the passing of this measure may have. The abolishment of property taxes will inevitably result in a substantial decrease in income for the state. You have stated, multiple times, that the state will find other methods to make up that lost income, but at the same time, you keep telling us that nothing will change and no new taxes will be implemented? No matter how you look at it, this lost income will have to be replaced one way or another.

The state has the current funds to cover the cost of property tax. This has been stated ad-naseum by supporters of M2 and even it's opponents. For decades, those opposed currently to the measure have convinced everyone that in order to stimulate the economy of your town/city etc... the best way is "incentives". Those incentives are property tax giveaways. What's the argument for the breaks? They pay for themselves with increases in all other taxes because business has moved in. Again, this is from the opposition. Now it's a level playing field for everyone and it's not going to work? The NDPC identified about $1 billion in wasteful spending just at the state level for 2007-09 bienium  - that was 4 years ago. It's much larger currently. The current property tax money isn't just vanishing - it's going back into the private economy as well. These are the SAME arguments that the SAME people claimed when the personal property tax was ended in 1969. If you can't get past what the measure does - don't vote for it. What don't you get? No matter what happens with government and special interests freebies - they are going to scream bloody murder - and many of you buy into it. I don't - I tired of it. End it. The state of PA is currently in the process of eliminating it as well. Who owns the government - the people or special interests? Whatever the government needs are out weigh the citizen?

Let me rephrase that first statement for you. "CURRENTLY, North Dakota has excess funds that will be used in place of the property taxes in the event that measure 2 passes." The key word there is "currently". Now, what happens when those "excess funds" run out, or become depleted to the point that we no longer have a budget surplus? This has been addressed several times throughout this thread, but it seems to me that you are relying on the state's income from the oil field to replace the income earned through property taxes.

Say that measure 2 passes and none of are have to pay property taxes! YAY!!! So now I have an extra $3,400 a year to spend on whatever I want. Maybe I'll stick it in saving, or go on an elk hunt in MT. How will ND benefit from that though? They aren't making money from the other "sources" you described, unless I spend all that money in the state! ND will be able to make up a fraction of the lost funds through income and sales taxes, but will it be enough?

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

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLLLLING ABOUT!

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

mills Said:

diamondguy81 Said:

Measure #2 is severely flawed as written. I am absolutely for a reduction in property tax, but it has to be done in a responsible manner. Two things that are wrong with the measure are: (I'm sure there are more.)

1). If property taxes are completely eliminated, the revenue to fund state/county/local government and services would have to be replaced elsewhere. Would you rather pay higher sales or income taxes? Maybe the state would enact a personal property tax similar to what Montana has. 

2) In order to be guaranteed their funding, every city, county, township, park board, school board, etc. would have to become lobbyists to the state legislature. Since we have a part time legislature, the entire allocated session would be spent in committee hearing requests for funding and there wouldn't be time to act on any other legislative issues.  The only way this would work would be longer and more frequent sessions. This would grow government and require more funding to keep it running, therefore needing to increase revenue (taxes) in other areas to make up the shortfall.

The best thing that could happen is that Measure #2 goes down to defeat.  But, that we the citizens and property owners of ND put pressure on our state legislators to revamp to property tax system providing relief for property owners but ensuring that tax revenues remain at sufficient levels to maintain the funding needed.  Since property values keep rising 10-12% per year in central and western North Dakota, property taxes keep going up and up based on the assessed values.  It is absolutely ridiculous that there is so much money in surplus when there are so many needs throughout the state for infrastructure, emergency services, road repairs, flood control, etc. etc. etc.

That's exactly what it will end up being.  Year round, full time legislature.  You vote for my project and I'll vote for yours.  You give me x amount of $ and I'll make sure you get your $$.  So much for less government..............

Good grief - the measure is designed to fund the legal obligations of the government before special interests. You haven't read the measure, you don't care to read the measure - nothing anyone is going to tell you is going to change your mind. It requires to fully and properly fund the replacement of anything legally paid for with property tax prior to 2012. This isn't that tough. Scare and fear-mongering is all opponents have.

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

ndbwhunter 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.

You seem to be going in circles, and your "arguments" are not really conveying the message that they were in the beginning. You've stated numerous times that "there will be a formula", and "who cares about the 16% of NR landowners". Do you have anything to tell us that we haven't heard in the previous 11 pages?  We are all well aware that the passing of this measure will enable us to own our property "free and clear", but at what cost? That is the one question for which you DO NOT have an answer? I am not opposed to owning my own property, but I am slightly concerned about long term ramifications that the passing of this measure may have. The abolishment of property taxes will inevitably result in a substantial decrease in income for the state. You have stated, multiple times, that the state will find other methods to make up that lost income, but at the same time, you keep telling us that nothing will change and no new taxes will be implemented? No matter how you look at it, this lost income will have to be replaced one way or another.

The concern seems to persist with some about this idea of "making up lost revenue".  Perhaps the "going in circles" is as a result of this having been explained, but people keep talking about unnecessary "tax shifts".  As has been stated before, there is no need to "make up" the lost revenue (i.e. implement a tax shift/raise taxes). The other sources of revenue (identified in the measure) provide enough funding WITHOUT raising taxes. Not to mention the fact that with the new businesses/people coming into the state this will increase revenues through sales tax, income tax, gas tax, etc., etc. The state is already FAR exceeding projections for these revenues. These revenues will increase even more with the abolishment of property taxes.

Having said that, SUPPOSE there were a tax shift (i.e. raising sales tax and/or income tax, etc.) to "make up" for the lost revenue.  I would much rather pay a higher sales tax than continue to have my home/property held hostage by the property tax. As has also been stated before, the sales and income tax fluctuate with how much you earn/spend.  If you earn/spend more, you pay more.  If you earn/spend less, you pay less.  This IS NOT the case with property tax.

Supporters of Measure 2 are accused of depending too much on a legislature that has been problematic (to put it kindly) in the past.  These accusations come from the same people that themselves depend on the legislature to "fix" this unfixable tax!!!  Supporters of Measure 2 realize that if property taxes are abolished it will send a LOUD and CLEAR message to the legislature to take care of business in relation to this constitutional mandate.  This is a powerful message!  Opponents to Measure 2 support more of the same (i.e. status quo) with no real hope of change or home/property ownership.  Supporters of Measure 2 believe in and support restoring true property rights and will be secure in their home/property if they get their way.  Opponents of Measure 2 do not believe in truly owning one's home/property and, if they get their way, we will not be secure in our home/property as we wait for a legislature to "fix" something that history has proven is not fixable. 

This measure does not put local governments at risk at all.  Let's remember, this measure is not a suggestion... it's a constitutional mandate.  Once it passes, the legislature will be required to comply.  Quite simply, the measure abolishes property tax as a form of revenue and allows people to TRULY own their home/property, and it mandates that all things funded with property tax prior be replaced with other revenues going forward.

The "kinks" that have to be worked out with passage of this measure are FAR LESS insurmountable than those that exist in the immoral, unjust, unfair, unnecessary property tax.  So, we have a choice... and yes, it's this simple... we can be secure in our homes/property OR we can sit here 20+ years from now and 260+ changes to the property tax later and cry and moan about how the property tax needs to be "fixed". 

As a great man once said, "Individual liberty, limited government, and private property -- these are the values that built America into the greatest country the world has ever known.  Yet alarmingly in the U.S. of the 21st century, they are on the verge of extinction."

As one person said, the pros far outweigh the cons.  Let's force the legislature to FINALLY put people first (before special interests) by prioritizing spending and, more importantly, allowing the people to be secure in their homes.  Let's "fix" the property tax permanently... VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin


-Justin

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

dakota1977 Said:

ndbwhunter 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.

You seem to be going in circles, and your "arguments" are not really conveying the message that they were in the beginning. You've stated numerous times that "there will be a formula", and "who cares about the 16% of NR landowners". Do you have anything to tell us that we haven't heard in the previous 11 pages?  We are all well aware that the passing of this measure will enable us to own our property "free and clear", but at what cost? That is the one question for which you DO NOT have an answer? I am not opposed to owning my own property, but I am slightly concerned about long term ramifications that the passing of this measure may have. The abolishment of property taxes will inevitably result in a substantial decrease in income for the state. You have stated, multiple times, that the state will find other methods to make up that lost income, but at the same time, you keep telling us that nothing will change and no new taxes will be implemented? No matter how you look at it, this lost income will have to be replaced one way or another.

The concern seems to persist with some about this idea of "making up lost revenue".  Perhaps the "going in circles" is as a result of this having been explained, but people keep talking about unnecessary "tax shifts".  As has been stated before, there is no need to "make up" the lost revenue (i.e. implement a tax shift/raise taxes). The other sources of revenue (identified in the measure) provide enough funding WITHOUT raising taxes. Not to mention the fact that with the new businesses/people coming into the state this will increase revenues through sales tax, income tax, gas tax, etc., etc. The state is already FAR exceeding projections for these revenues. These revenues will increase even more with the abolishment of property taxes.

Having said that, SUPPOSE there were a tax shift (i.e. raising sales tax and/or income tax, etc.) to "make up" for the lost revenue.  I would much rather pay a higher sales tax than continue to have my home/property held hostage by the property tax. As has also been stated before, the sales and income tax fluctuate with how much you earn/spend.  If you earn/spend more, you pay more.  If you earn/spend less, you pay less.  This IS NOT the case with property tax.

Supporters of Measure 2 are accused of depending too much on a legislature that has been problematic (to put it kindly) in the past.  These accusations come from the same people that themselves depend on the legislature to "fix" this unfixable tax!!!  Supporters of Measure 2 realize that if property taxes are abolished it will send a LOUD and CLEAR message to the legislature to take care of business in relation to this constitutional mandate.  This is a powerful message!  Opponents to Measure 2 support more of the same (i.e. status quo) with no real hope of change or home/property ownership.  Supporters of Measure 2 believe in and support restoring true property rights and will be secure in their home/property if they get their way.  Opponents of Measure 2 do not believe in truly owning one's home/property and, if they get their way, we will not be secure in our home/property as we wait for a legislature to "fix" something that history has proven is not fixable. 

This measure does not put local governments at risk at all.  Let's remember, this measure is not a suggestion... it's a constitutional mandate.  Once it passes, the legislature will be required to comply.  Quite simply, the measure abolishes property tax as a form of revenue and allows people to TRULY own their home/property, and it mandates that all things funded with property tax prior be replaced with other revenues going forward.

The "kinks" that have to be worked out with passage of this measure are FAR LESS insurmountable than those that exist in the immoral, unjust, unfair, unnecessary property tax.  So, we have a choice... and yes, it's this simple... we can be secure in our homes/property OR we can sit here 20+ years from now and 260+ changes to the property tax later and cry and moan about how the property tax needs to be "fixed". 

As a great man once said, "Individual liberty, limited government, and private property -- these are the values that built America into the greatest country the world has ever known.  Yet alarmingly in the U.S. of the 21st century, they are on the verge of extinction."

As one person said, the pros far outweigh the cons.  Let's force the legislature to FINALLY put people first (before special interests) by prioritizing spending and, more importantly, allowing the people to be secure in their homes.  Let's "fix" the property tax permanently... VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

Amen. It's either your home or it's not. That's the bottom line. The state can do this - as has been stated by Ed Schafer numerous times without raising a single tax. Schafer is opposing the measure (IMO - he still wanting a oil tax break - if M2 passes - those chances are diminished). Vote Yes!

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

Tackle Joe: Where are you from?

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

Joe I am not talking aobut school funding when I aske the following question.

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 allow me to answer it for you as you seem unable to.

As this measure is worded indeed this "legaly imposed obligation" will have to be "fully and properly funded"

Along with every other "legally imposed obligation" submitted.

Stop and think how long it will take to blow thru the "current" revenues that we have avalible to fund this measure.

Then what, will the requests for these new "legally imposed obligations" suddenly stop?

The measure is designed after the oil and gas monies are gone new taxes emerge. The spending continues, taxes are raised to meet demands of "fully and properly funding" the "legally imposed obligations" this measure requires the state to pay. And the circle continues.

WHERE are the checks and balances and control built into this measure as it is worded. Tackle Joe, please point them out.

Never once have I "fixed" something by "breaking it"

And that is exactly what this measure will do to ND eventually.

Justin I respect your position but this measure simply is not the way to responsibly go about acheiving what you and most others such as myself would like to see done.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Vote No
I would rather pay through property tax, than pay higher sales tax, income tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, tanning bed tax, etc.

I also dont like that out of state property owners get a freebee, and we get to cover it. Nor do I like that oil money is being transferred from the wild west to cover the entire states tax loss. Or the fact that the surplus can be gone in a flash, then what?

If the coffer is full, cut the tax down, but to get rid of it would be a major mistake. Try getting property taxes put back into place once they are gone. would be epic

Neat

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

gst Said:
Joe I am not talking aobut school funding when I aske the following question.

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 allow me to answer it for you as you seem unable to.

As this measure is worded indeed this "legaly imposed obligation" will have to be "fully and properly funded"

Along with every other "legally imposed obligation" submitted.

Stop and think how long it will take to blow thru the "current" revenues that we have avalible to fund this measure.

Then what, will the requests for these new "legally imposed obligations" suddenly stop?

The measure is designed after the oil and gas monies are gone new taxes emerge. The spending continues, taxes are raised to meet demands of "fully and properly funding" the "legally imposed obligations" this measure requires the state to pay. And the circle continues.

WHERE are the checks and balances and control built into this measure as it is worded. Tackle Joe, please point them out.

Never once have I "fixed" something by "breaking it"

And that is exactly what this measure will do to ND eventually.

Justin I respect your position but this measure simply is not the way to responsibly go about acheiving what you and most others such as myself would like to see done.

I have answered this. The replacement funds for property tax legal obligation payments prior to the year 2012. They don't get to create them going forward - however the legislature may certainly make changes - as i've stated ad-naseum - they can do this already. Want mills changed - the legislature does it. This is a constitutional amendment. This measure could have simply stated - You can no longer tax property. You have to understand how the government works and what "legislation" is vs. a constitutional amendment. The Amendment becomes the Rule of the Land in ND - all subsequent laws must conform as to not be in violation. Look at the U.S. constitutions 2nd Amendment - It's one sentence. Measure 2 is a state required policy. However, it goes further and tells the state what it must replace and with what (all other revenue sources) - from when (PT legal obligations prior to 2012) and it must fully and properly replace those funds (these are essentially defined within existing standards/codes that currently exist - example - building codes). It gives the money directly to the sub-divisions via a replacement formula via the legislature. What are you missing?

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

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

The state has the current funds to cover the cost of property tax. This has been stated ad-naseum by supporters of M2 and even it's opponents.

Where are those funds originated tackle?  Oil?  Do you live on the E side of the state or the W side where our infrastructure is getting absolutely pounded by the very companies producing those "current funds to cover the cost of property tax".  Come out here and live for 6 months and then see if you would like more of the oil tax revenue dispersed state-wide rather than directed locally to try to maintain somewhat of a quality of life.

What say you tackle?

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

holy this blew up again... never thought we could still be arguing about it. 

nevertheless... i will take a stab at gst's question...

once the formula has been derived (maybe it is already) regarding who gets what % of property taxes that were currently put towards roads... ie... county gets X%, townships get x%, etc... then that is it... that is all they get from the state coffers to fund their roads and they can spend it however they want.  that is the "legally imposed obligation".  if the township needs or wants more money to pave all township roads (which is ridiculous btw), then they need to figure out a way to fund that paving project locally if the state disbursement doesn't cover the cost.  they fund it anyway they want as far as i am concerned... BUT, they can't fund it by taxing my property!  do i need to give you examples of how they could fund it again? 

this is the same response i would give to hardwaterman regarding his question about everyone wanting a new road grader... or harvey wanting a new school, etc... you get your money from a state according to a set formula which funds the "legally imposed obligations" as defined by the legislature.  if there are questions about the formula or what the "legally imposed obligations" are... then they will have to clear them up... they will have a year to do that.  if and when the county roads department, the township or the school district gets their check... to do w/ as they please mind you... and that check doesn't cover their pet projects... then the local entity will be required to come up w/ its own source of funding to fund that pet project.  is this a difficult concept to grasp?  does it seem overly complicated to some?  are you having trouble figuring out ways to raise revenue w/o taxing the value of my property and making me a property renter?  cause if that is the case, i will go off on a tangent again and list a dozen examples of how the local entities can raise money.  but, i know i don't have to.  use your imagination.  local entities have always come up w/ ingenious ways to get money from us... and those ways don't always involve taxing my property...

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

WHOPPERSTOPPER's picture
WHOPPERSTOPPER
Offline
Joined: 3/31/02

Johnr is right! Please vote NO

Second place is the first loser

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

wstnodak Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

The state has the current funds to cover the cost of property tax. This has been stated ad-naseum by supporters of M2 and even it's opponents.

Where are those funds originated tackle?  Oil?  Do you live on the E side of the state or the W side where our infrastructure is getting absolutely pounded by the very companies producing those "current funds to cover the cost of property tax".  Come out here and live for 6 months and then see if you would like more of the oil tax revenue dispersed state-wide rather than directed locally to try to maintain somewhat of a quality of life.

What say you tackle?

I can't help you. You have no idea what is trying to be done. You have no idea about what you are talking about - you have no clue how things are "paid" for - proprerty tax accounts for 10% of county road funding - the rest is through OTHER taxes which include GAS TAXES, federal funding, coal taxes etc which IS NOT affected by Measure 2. I guess what i'm learning here is the citizens most against this don't even understand how their own government funding mechanisms actually work. They have little concept that the Measure is an Amendment to the Constitution and what that actually means and how it's applied. This levels the playing field for the West vs. the East as the formula devised to replace the funds will be fully and properly funding all required obligations set prior to 2012 - it does not stop the state from additional funding, it does not stop anything else in the state beyond levying a property tax. It's not that tough - why make it so? What say you?

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

johnr Said:
Vote No
I would rather pay through property tax, than pay higher sales tax, income tax, gas tax, alcohol tax, tanning bed tax, etc.

I also dont like that out of state property owners get a freebee, and we get to cover it. Nor do I like that oil money is being transferred from the wild west to cover the entire states tax loss. Or the fact that the surplus can be gone in a flash, then what?

If the coffer is full, cut the tax down, but to get rid of it would be a major mistake. Try getting property taxes put back into place once they are gone. would be epic

How many times can it be said on this thread that TAXES DO NOT NEED TO BE RAISED to make up for "lost revenue" from abolishing property taxes.  Having said that, there is no convincing a person who does not value property rights/home ownership.

As for the NR issue.  That's been beat to death as well.  Pretty silly to vote against owning your own home/property on the basis that an out-of-state MINORITY get a "freebee" (as if NR's don't deserve property rights like everyone else).  As I stated before, based upon that principle, you wouldn't believe in responding to traffic accidents that involve NR's!  LOL!  Not to mention the fact that "freebees" exist in the state now with hundreds of millions in property tax exemptions for one group over another.  Over $800 million in value exemptions alone in the four major cities (Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, and Minot).

Surplus gone?!  Spending has increased 135% over the last ten years!!!  They are spending and NOT putting people first while they do much of it!  Measure 2 forces them to prioritize... K-12 education, political subdivisions, THEN special interests.  Prioritizing... amazing concept!

Major mistake?  Nope!  Phenomenal opportunity? YES!

-Justin 

-Justin

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

 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

J

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

 

iluvswnd Said:
 
dakota1977 Said:


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

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

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

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

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

Justin, I see you're back on line. Still curious about my above comments.. 

J

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

BTW... a little side note.  How do they disperse oil/gas revenues now?  Yep, that's right... a formula.  It's not a new concept.  If Measure 2 passes, on the morning of June 13th and thereafter, the sky will not fall, we will still have education, police, fire, roads, etc. and we will truly own our home/property!  Nice!  Then 10 years from now some will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and why we didn't do it sooner!!!

-Justin

-Justin

Colt's picture
Colt
Offline
Joined: 10/27/10

Seems alwful silly to vote a tax upon yourself.

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

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

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

Section 4 Article 1.

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

Colt Said:
Seems alwful silly to vote a tax upon yourself.

What tax are we voting for? We are voting to eliminate property tax.

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

iluvswnd,

Yes, thanks for reminding me.  So many things to follow and comment on, I totally spaced responding to this.  When I spoke about him arrogantly saying, "No", that's exactly what I meant.  The tone and way in which he said it was arrogant.  It came across to me that way.  And I am not the only one that feels this way about it.  I have had others (without any prompting from me) tell me they feel he is very arrogant.  It's arrogant the way in which he and the legislature have handled the issue of property tax.

Aside from that, do I believe they should have come out with a proposal?  Honestly, it makes no difference to me.  For many, they had their chance in alot of people's eyes to "take care of this".  They didn't.  I want to own my own home/property regardless.  However, from another view, for many (not me) it does make a difference.  I know one individual that called into a radio station and said to a guest representative that "you guys better come out with a proposal on this or I'm voting "YES" on this thing."

-Justin

-Justin

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I was surprised this morning at coffee to discover so many of my farm friends against this bill.  They stated that their concern was loosing local control of funding.  They are worried about the township funding.  Those with the most voice get the money much like the old cliche "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" was what one old fellow said.

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

WHOPPERSTOPPER Said:
Johnr is right! Please vote NO

If those in opposition to Measure 2 have said NO TAXES NEED TO BE INCREASED to pay for it...how can John r be right exactly?

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

Plainsman Said:
I was surprised this morning at coffee to discover so many of my farm friends against this bill.  They stated that their concern was loosing local control of funding.  They are worried about the township funding.  Those with the most voice get the money much like the old cliche "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" was what one old fellow said.

i just don't get that.  they already have very little control over actual funding other than to request state approval for mil increases.  the increases are still approved by the state and funnelled thru them before they end up back in the hands of the local entities.  this measure wouldn't take that control away.  they will still get their check based on whatever formula was used prior to this year or some new formula if the legislature choses to tweek it.  and they will still be able to spend it however they see fit.  if they want more money, they can still raise it a number of different ways other than taxing your real property.  someone needs to explain to me why this is so complicated to some... please. 

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

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

J

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

 

dakota1977 Said:
iluvswnd,

Yes, thanks for reminding me.  So many things to follow and comment on, I totally spaced responding to this.  When I spoke about him arrogantly saying, "No", that's exactly what I meant.  The tone and way in which he said it was arrogant.  It came across to me that way.  And I am not the only one that feels this way about it.  I have had others (without any prompting from me) tell me they feel he is very arrogant.  It's arrogant the way in which he and the legislature have handled the issue of property tax.

Aside from that, do I believe they should have come out with a proposal?  Honestly, it makes no difference to me.  For many, they had their chance in alot of people's eyes to "take care of this".  They didn't.  I want to own my own home/property regardless.  However, from another view, for many (not me) it does make a difference.  I know one individual that called into a radio station and said to a guest representative that "you guys better come out with a proposal on this or I'm voting "YES" on this thing."

-Justin

Gotcha, thanks for the response. 

J

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

Plainsman Said:
I was surprised this morning at coffee to discover so many of my farm friends against this bill.  They stated that their concern was loosing local control of funding.  They are worried about the township funding.  Those with the most voice get the money much like the old cliche "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" was what one old fellow said.

The "squeaky wheel" is currently special interests - the "squeak wheel" needs to be the citizens - as this measure is for the citizens. Township funding is going to be replaced fully and properly - these seniors won't need to pay property tax any longer - or get a "reverse mortgage" scam just to be able to afford those property taxes! Yes, this is true - via the AARP's own research!

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town or other political subdivision.


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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

A city is a town but a town is not a city... 

J

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

lol... if all gobs are snobs and all snobs are jobs, are all jobs gobs? 

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

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

The measure states in Section 1 that the legislative assembly and all political subdivisions.

Does anyone have a description of who the "political subdivisions" are?

I may have missed it, but I'm curious is that extends down to city commissions, to park boards and so on? Anybody know?

Go to www.yesm2.com and click on the "downloads" tab - then click on the actual Measure 2 and read section 4 article . It's all right there - the sub-divisions are listed.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

A city is a town but a town is not a city... 

I meant to say - and I believe I correct it - sorry for confusion - a town is a city or other political sub-division.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:

Plainsman Said:
I was surprised this morning at coffee to discover so many of my farm friends against this bill.  They stated that their concern was loosing local control of funding.  They are worried about the township funding.  Those with the most voice get the money much like the old cliche "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" was what one old fellow said.

i just don't get that.  they already have very little control over actual funding other than to request state approval for mil increases.  the increases are still approved by the state and funnelled thru them before they end up back in the hands of the local entities.  this measure wouldn't take that control away.  they will still get their check based on whatever formula was used prior to this year or some new formula if the legislature choses to tweek it.  and they will still be able to spend it however they see fit.  if they want more money, they can still raise it a number of different ways other than taxing your real property.  someone needs to explain to me why this is so complicated to some... please. 

I am not sure how they are thinking.  I'm not up to speed on this thing and am learning from the comments of folks on here.   Thanks.

Pages