Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

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.

like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

 

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

 

espringers Said:
lol... if all gobs are snobs and all snobs are jobs, are all jobs gobs? 

I got ya Tackle Joe, it's covered, just odd that it was stricken is all I was saying. 

I was only checking because it had been a while since I actually read the bill and I was curious if any local entities (cities, towns) would try to impose a local property tax if m2 passed. I see that they covered their bases there. 


J

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

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. 

It was surprising to me as well when I first encountered someone tell me they know farmers opposed to this.  In a way, it's no different than many others that oppose it.  They either haven't read the bill, misunderstand it, or are scared of change. 

Sometimes I compare it to a battered wife.  She's been slapped around and beaten down for years.  Every time she threatens to leave, her husband gets all sweet and says he will "fix it".  So, she stays.  This process repeats itself for so long she convinces herself that there's no other way to live.  After all, he provides food, shelter, etc. for her (sound familiar?).  How on earth could she make it without him?  So, she stays miserable all her life.  However, there are others in her situation that eventually realize that there is life after the abusive husband.  For these women, not only have they been abused, but they've been lied to.  Suddenly, they realize this, and it becomes clear to them that life is better "without him".  For these women, they may at first struggle to adapt.  It may require some changes and difficulties.  But in the end, they are free!  No longer subjected to abuse and lies!

We are like the battered wife.  The choice is ours... do we honestly believe this can be "fixed" (after 130+ attempts)?  Do we honestly think life will be so horrible without it?  OR do we see through the abuse and lies into a life free from a heartless, abusive, unfair, and unnecessary property tax?

To the farmers who will have an average of a 32% increase in valuations on their crop land, I ask them, "How's that 'local control' workin' out for ya?!" 

In 2009 the legislature passed "Property Tax Relief".  The first year showed a decrease of $98 million in property tax.  Since then, they have risen $174 million.  Quite the "relief".  Yep, that "local control" (there isn't any) is really working wonders.

End it NOW!  VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

-Justin

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

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.

you need to deal with reality.  the state can't raise it to 15% because of competition.  there are dozens of sources of other revenue.  and as Schaefer pointed out there really isn't a need to raise anything.  The state is collecting hoards of cash on a daily basis right now.  they can't even spend if fast enough hence the 3 billion cash surplus which is growing astronomically. 

 

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

 

eyexer 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.

like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

J

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

The provision that limits future spending only applies to schools! Not any other taxing authority! Argue all you want but that is why this is a train wreck!!!!

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
The provision that limits future spending only applies to schools! Not any other taxing authority! Argue all you want but that is why this is a train wreck!!!!

What provision limits what spending?

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

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.

I live in Williston.  They aren't spending the money over here anyway.  They do nothing but provide lip service.  There hasn't been an ounce of road construction done over here that wouldn't normally have been done to this point.  Christ were six plus years into this boom.  Show me where the state has done anything out of the ordinary.  There's 3 billion in cash sitting in the state coffers which is increasing at an alarming rate.  I've asked this numerous times with no response.  Just how the hell much money is the state supposed to have in the slush fund before you all say enough is enough.  What's the figure!!!  or doesn't anybody want to commit an amount.

 

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

 

dakota1977 Said:

In 2009 the legislature passed "Property Tax Relief".  The first year showed a decrease of $98 million in property tax.  Since then, they have risen $174 million.  Quite the "relief".  Yep, that "local control" (there isn't any) is really working wonders.

End it NOW!  VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

I'm cherry picking here but I don't want things to get skewed. Your $174 mil number is different then what your supporters list on yesm2 website:

The last reform was a property tax reduction package that resulted in a $98 million reduction in property taxes in 2010, which has since climbed back by $122 million!

J

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

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

 

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

weren't the figures showing that even w/o an increase in current oil revenue... not taking into account how it is expected to grow by 5X before this madness subsides... we would still have a nearly 800 million dollars surplus after paying for everything that property tax currently pays for? 

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

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

eyexer Said:

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

I sure dont want to pay any more with the huge surplus we have, I am just concerned that surplus like most will dwindle, then have to be mad up some way or another. I think they should cut the tax to almost nothing, but keep it from extinction.

Neat

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

espringers Said:
weren't the figures showing that even w/o an increase in current oil revenue... not taking into account how it is expected to grow by 5X before this madness subsides... we would still have a nearly 800 million dollars surplus after paying for everything that property tax currently pays for? 

Yes - Even better though - the NDTA is on record (they are neutral on M2) stating officially that if property tax ended today - the State would still have $800 million surplus after all bills are paid for - the real beauty of this? - that is from the 2005-2007 BUDGET. Last time I checked it was 2012 - and the budget is almost twice as big. That's why EVERYONE should be voting YES!

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

eyexer Said:

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

How much are they raising taxes by?  What percentage?  Please give us a source.  Also, are they reasing taxes or is the value of your property going up which increases your taxes.  There is a difference.

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer 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.

like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

the oil revenue isn't currently being used for infrastructure out west.  just talk of it.  I guess it's the proverbial "check is in the mail".  I'm not sure if you understand the enormous amount of money that is pouring into the state's coffers.  And I don't think you understand how much that amount is going to increase over the next ten years.  It's an unimaginable amount.  In five years were going to look back and think we were completely insane to have argued over a 800 million dollar amount of money (property taxes)   In ten years the state will make that amount in a few short months of the year just from oil revenue.  The remaining amount can be dispursed throughout for whatever needs the state has.  The majority of the work out west relates to highways and that could damn near be accomplished just from fuel taxes.  Right now the state is receiving 6 million a month in just overweight permits from moving rigs.  The money flowing to the state is staggering. 

 

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

johnr Said:

eyexer Said:

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

I sure dont want to pay any more with the huge surplus we have, I am just concerned that surplus like most will dwindle, then have to be mad up some way or another. I think they should cut the tax to almost nothing, but keep it from extinction.

We the citizens and state have a real opportunity here. This can be done. Remember, this will increase investment in the state with new business's moving into a more friendly "economic arena". This will diversify the state economy in the event the "boom'" of oil tapers off - there will be more tax revenues from other sources that currently exist. 5 years was spent researching all of these scenarios - just as it's been known for years what the ARGUMENTS against the measure would be - more importantly - which is what supporters are trying to drive home - is WHO the opponents would be. They ARE special interests. Vote Yes!

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

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

the oil revenue isn't currently being used for infrastructure out west.  just talk of it.  I guess it's the proverbial "check is in the mail".  I'm not sure if you understand the enormous amount of money that is pouring into the state's coffers.  And I don't think you understand how much that amount is going to increase over the next ten years.  It's an unimaginable amount.  In five years were going to look back and think we were completely insane to have argued over a 800 million dollar amount of money (property taxes)   In ten years the state will make that amount in a few short months of the year just from oil revenue.  The remaining amount can be dispursed throughout for whatever needs the state has.  The majority of the work out west relates to highways and that could damn near be accomplished just from fuel taxes.  Right now the state is receiving 6 million a month in just overweight permits from moving rigs.  The money flowing to the state is staggering. 

That's a pretty nice jump there eye. I ask you a question about your opinion on something and your initial reaction is to question my comprehension. Good on ya

J

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

eyexer Said:
like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

Pretty effing tough to ever take you seriously from here on out when you claim to be a conservative.  That money being "taken in" is largely money taken from fellow North Dakotans, so you are now proudly proclaiming yourself as a big redistribution of wealth kind of guy?

You also have math/logic errors.  The state is currently seeing around a half-million barrels of oil per day of production.  Most think this will peak at something around 800,000 barrels per day.  The State's share of this is about 11.5%, that which is received in taxes (fwiw, most State leases are around 12% so whether you wish to argue how much comes from taxes vs royalties isn't relevant to the total dollar amount). 

So the State's revenue currently is about $4.3 million bucks a day from oil given the roughly $75 price of ND sweet crude.  When production peaks at around 800,000 bbls of oil a day, (for argument's sake we will use the same price of oil) the State will be receiving roughly $6.9 million a day in oil tax revenue.  Remember, the taxes are on production and not on the number of wells.

I know a pretty fair number of North Dakotans who receive oil revenue.  None are thrilled with the oil extraction and production taxes, but are generally OK with them so long as they go to the State for making ND a better place and for putting some money away in a rainy day fund.  I don't know a one of them who is OK with having to pay for their neighbors' full share of infrastructure taxes.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

eyexer Said:
  I've asked this numerous times with no response.  Just how the hell much money is the state supposed to have in the slush fund before you all say enough is enough.  What's the figure!!!  or doesn't anybody want to commit an amount.

I don't have a number, but wasn't the amount to be set aside for the rainy day fund a fixed percentage of oil revenue?

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

Pretty effing tough to ever take you seriously from here on out when you claim to be a conservative.  That money being "taken in" is largely money taken from fellow North Dakotans, so you are now proudly proclaiming yourself as a big redistribution of wealth kind of guy?

You also have math/logic errors.  The state is currently seeing around a half-million barrels of oil per day of production.  Most think this will peak at something around 800,000 barrels per day.  The State's share of this is about 11.5%, that which is received in taxes (fwiw, most State leases are around 12% so whether you wish to argue how much comes from taxes vs royalties isn't relevant to the total dollar amount). 

So the State's revenue currently is about $4.3 million bucks a day from oil given the roughly $75 price of ND sweet crude.  When production peaks at around 800,000 bbls of oil a day, (for argument's sake we will use the same price of oil) the State will be receiving roughly $6.9 million a day in oil tax revenue.  Remember, the taxes are on production and not on the number of wells.

I know a pretty fair number of North Dakotans who receive oil revenue.  None are thrilled with the oil extraction and production taxes, but are generally OK with them so long as they go to the State for making ND a better place and for putting some money away in a rainy day fund.  I don't know a one of them who is OK with having to pay for their neighbors' full share of infrastructure taxes.

Dude, who's going to be paying for what infrastructure full time? Did you miss only 10% of pt goes to roads? Which of course, gets replaced. Street lights, signs, development costs are done via specials - which don't go away with M2. What is it with you - just vote no then. Run around like the rest of the special interests and scream nothing but disinformation of how the world is gonna end and how somehow - people pushing to end the abuse of property tax aren't doing their fair share for the state - or for God's sake - actually want to be secure in their homes - and want to end the abuse property tax IS and want to end the special interests benefits coming at the property tax payers back. Vote no. I 'm too tired to try and convince you anymore with basic facts. But hey, you're right - supporters are just trying to bankrupt then entire population and state - there was not thought involved (sarcasm). Nice chatting.

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

 

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
  I've asked this numerous times with no response.  Just how the hell much money is the state supposed to have in the slush fund before you all say enough is enough.  What's the figure!!!  or doesn't anybody want to commit an amount.

I don't have a number, but wasn't the amount to be set aside for the rainy day fund a fixed percentage of oil revenue?

30%

J

Superfreak's picture
Superfreak
Offline
Joined: 2/4/09

Have any of you guy's watched the video with Bob Hale promoting Measure 2? He sounds fake like he is lying to us. Or like he is talking down to you in a condescending manner.

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

I've watched the video.  Doesn't sound condescending at all to me.  Don't know him personally, but I've spoken with Mr. Hale.  He's a very nice guy.  

-Justin

-Justin

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

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

If you vote not to eliminate it, you are voting a tax upon yourself.

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

Colt Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

If you vote not to eliminate it, you are voting a tax upon yourself.

True indeed!

-Justin

-Justin

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

johnr Said:

eyexer Said:

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

I sure dont want to pay any more with the huge surplus we have, I am just concerned that surplus like most will dwindle, then have to be mad up some way or another. I think they should cut the tax to almost nothing, but keep it from extinction.

it certainly isn't going to dwindle.  the oil revenues are never going to go away.  they will only increase with time.  Since your a good guy John I'll ask you, how much of a surplus would make you say enough is enough?

 

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

Tackle Joe Said:

johnr Said:

eyexer Said:

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

that's the problem.  they have no intent to drop property taxes.  they are currently planning on raising them yet again.  how big of a percentage increase over the next few years will it take to get you to say "enough is enough".  I'm curious what the amount is?  Nobody want's to answer it.

I sure dont want to pay any more with the huge surplus we have, I am just concerned that surplus like most will dwindle, then have to be mad up some way or another. I think they should cut the tax to almost nothing, but keep it from extinction.

We the citizens and state have a real opportunity here. This can be done. Remember, this will increase investment in the state with new business's moving into a more friendly "economic arena". This will diversify the state economy in the event the "boom'" of oil tapers off - there will be more tax revenues from other sources that currently exist. 5 years was spent researching all of these scenarios - just as it's been known for years what the ARGUMENTS against the measure would be - more importantly - which is what supporters are trying to drive home - is WHO the opponents would be. They ARE special interests. Vote Yes!

I predict that just the increase in the sales tax revenue in the next few years from this measure will replace the amount lost from property taxes.  just look at what happened in Williston.  We went from lowest sales tax collections of the cities over 10K to the number one sales tax collector in the state.  The whole state will ignite if you eliminate property taxes.  Sales tax collections will go through the roof.  there will be no need to raise sales taxes.

 

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

the oil revenue isn't currently being used for infrastructure out west.  just talk of it.  I guess it's the proverbial "check is in the mail".  I'm not sure if you understand the enormous amount of money that is pouring into the state's coffers.  And I don't think you understand how much that amount is going to increase over the next ten years.  It's an unimaginable amount.  In five years were going to look back and think we were completely insane to have argued over a 800 million dollar amount of money (property taxes)   In ten years the state will make that amount in a few short months of the year just from oil revenue.  The remaining amount can be dispursed throughout for whatever needs the state has.  The majority of the work out west relates to highways and that could damn near be accomplished just from fuel taxes.  Right now the state is receiving 6 million a month in just overweight permits from moving rigs.  The money flowing to the state is staggering. 

That's a pretty nice jump there eye. I ask you a question about your opinion on something and your initial reaction is to question my comprehension. Good on ya

I don't see any question in there regarding my opinion on anything.

 

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..............

Come on KIL ND lacky's - you've got to be kidding us? Full time legislature? Why? Are they full time figuring out all the "k-12" budgets. There are liars, damn liars and then there is Keep It Local ND. Enough said. All these arguments don't have a leg to stand on and they know it - too bad they are playing you for fools. You either own your home after June 13, or you don't. One of the groups is right - one is wrong. One is for and by the citizens, the other for special interests and the good ole boys network. You figure it out.

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
like I pointed out before, currently the state takes in 5 million a day in oil revenues.  And that is going to continue to escalate.  Currently there's roughly 5,000 wells.  28,000 expected when the drilling subsides.  So the state will eventually take in 25 million a day.  at the current revenue collection your 126 million will be paid in 32 days of oil revenue.  when the drilling subsides it'll be paid in six days.  your argument holds no water

Pretty effing tough to ever take you seriously from here on out when you claim to be a conservative.  That money being "taken in" is largely money taken from fellow North Dakotans, so you are now proudly proclaiming yourself as a big redistribution of wealth kind of guy?

You also have math/logic errors.  The state is currently seeing around a half-million barrels of oil per day of production.  Most think this will peak at something around 800,000 barrels per day.  The State's share of this is about 11.5%, that which is received in taxes (fwiw, most State leases are around 12% so whether you wish to argue how much comes from taxes vs royalties isn't relevant to the total dollar amount). 

So the State's revenue currently is about $4.3 million bucks a day from oil given the roughly $75 price of ND sweet crude.  When production peaks at around 800,000 bbls of oil a day, (for argument's sake we will use the same price of oil) the State will be receiving roughly $6.9 million a day in oil tax revenue.  Remember, the taxes are on production and not on the number of wells.

I know a pretty fair number of North Dakotans who receive oil revenue.  None are thrilled with the oil extraction and production taxes, but are generally OK with them so long as they go to the State for making ND a better place and for putting some money away in a rainy day fund.  I don't know a one of them who is OK with having to pay for their neighbors' full share of infrastructure taxes.

thanks for making my case Allen on the 4.3 million a day.  No way in hell the states production tops out at 800,000 barrels a day.  We have roughly 6K wells.  The projections are 25K plus wells.  Plus there is no telling what else they will discover under our soil between now and that 25,000th well.  So with the discovered oil in the state we are roughly 1/5th drilled out.  So simply multiply 4.3 million by five and you get closer to 2 million barrels a day than you do 800,000.  Oh yea I can hear you say now the wells will taper off.  Well the early ones have already done that.  And the technology is evolving so fast that they will be able to keep new ones producing larger amounts a much longer time.  And they will soon be kicking the older ones in higher gear.  The one thing that keeps being proven over and over regarding the oil in ND is that the states expectations or predictions are always much lower than reality.  And your only talking taxes and not the royalties the state is receiving on mineral rights owned by the state.  You can spin my conservatism all you want.  if the state isn't going to use the money to benefit all North Dakotans than they have absolutely no reason to take any of the revenue.  The state isn't a "for profit" corporation. 

 

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
  I've asked this numerous times with no response.  Just how the hell much money is the state supposed to have in the slush fund before you all say enough is enough.  What's the figure!!!  or doesn't anybody want to commit an amount.

I don't have a number, but wasn't the amount to be set aside for the rainy day fund a fixed percentage of oil revenue?

The fact you won't give a number isn't surprising.  Nobody wants to do that.  I cannot fathom why the hell not.  The money your referring to I'm assuming is the legacy fund.  If so, it has already grown to 50% more than projected at this point in time.  I believe it's 30%.  Given that there is this money set aside, there is absolutely no reason this state should be showing the kind of surplus it is.  It's beyond insane.  750 million along with the legacy fund is way beyond adequate.  I smell another measure that will limit the states surplus that it can pocket away without returning taxes back to the people.  I'm not asking to take anybodies money, I'm asking that the state not take mine when it doesn't need it.  If it needs it, I'll be glad to pay.  But it sure as hell doesn't need it.  It's no different than the IRS.  Liberals think it's the governments money, when in fact it's my money I'm forced to let them waste.

 

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

In the past, I've seen people make comments about proponents of Measure 2 like "follow the money" and it must be "out-of-staters" backing this.  LOL!  I can't help but chuckle.  What money?!  This is a grassroots effort by citizens of ND to restore property rights to the people. 

If you want to follow the money, check into K.I.L. North Dakota.  There's no way we can compete in funding with them.  They have millions.  We have meager resources.  They have lobbyists.  We have the grassroots.  It is certainly a David (Measure 2 Supporters) vs. Goliath (K.I.L. ND, Opponents to Measure 2) situation.  I remind myself from time to time that David won.  ;o) 

-Justin

-Justin

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

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

the oil revenue isn't currently being used for infrastructure out west.  just talk of it.  I guess it's the proverbial "check is in the mail".  I'm not sure if you understand the enormous amount of money that is pouring into the state's coffers.  And I don't think you understand how much that amount is going to increase over the next ten years.  It's an unimaginable amount.  In five years were going to look back and think we were completely insane to have argued over a 800 million dollar amount of money (property taxes)   In ten years the state will make that amount in a few short months of the year just from oil revenue.  The remaining amount can be dispursed throughout for whatever needs the state has.  The majority of the work out west relates to highways and that could damn near be accomplished just from fuel taxes.  Right now the state is receiving 6 million a month in just overweight permits from moving rigs.  The money flowing to the state is staggering. 

That's a pretty nice jump there eye. I ask you a question about your opinion on something and your initial reaction is to question my comprehension. Good on ya

I don't see any question in there regarding my opinion on anything.

It's the part with the question mark at the end. I highlighted it above for you.

J

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

iluvswnd Said:

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:

Weren't you one of the guys on here in agreement with us that the oil revenue should be going to helping the infrastructure out west before getting divvied up among all sorts of other projects/causes/uses? 

This is separate from the direct measure two discussion. I'm just surprised to see you in support of using oil revenue to make up for property tax $

the oil revenue isn't currently being used for infrastructure out west.  just talk of it.  I guess it's the proverbial "check is in the mail".  I'm not sure if you understand the enormous amount of money that is pouring into the state's coffers.  And I don't think you understand how much that amount is going to increase over the next ten years.  It's an unimaginable amount.  In five years were going to look back and think we were completely insane to have argued over a 800 million dollar amount of money (property taxes)   In ten years the state will make that amount in a few short months of the year just from oil revenue.  The remaining amount can be dispursed throughout for whatever needs the state has.  The majority of the work out west relates to highways and that could damn near be accomplished just from fuel taxes.  Right now the state is receiving 6 million a month in just overweight permits from moving rigs.  The money flowing to the state is staggering. 

That's a pretty nice jump there eye. I ask you a question about your opinion on something and your initial reaction is to question my comprehension. Good on ya

I don't see any question in there regarding my opinion on anything.

It's the part with the question mark at the end. I highlighted it above for you.

I thought I answered that.  anyway, the money isn't being used out west, as I pointed out.  There has been nothing done over here.  so we need to put it to good use some other way.  However, since I made that original statement, the numbers have come in way higher in regards to the state's take on oil extraction.  So in honesty there is no reason all the objectives can't be met. 

 

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

 

eyexer Said:

StevePike Said:
  
“... nonresident owners of surface property would be relieved of their tax obligations. ..."

 your argument holds no water

Does this portion hold no water as well?  (I deleted the dollar figures since you don't think that is an issue)

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

espringers and tackle joe what does "fully" mean????

here it is for you.

fully
Definition
ADVERB
1.
completely: to the greatest extent possible or required
"The flight is fully booked."
2.
for what is specified: to the full extent of a particular time, quantity, or number
"We waited fully 40 minutes."

Now espringers, tackle joe I give you the wording of article 3 of this measure.

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.

Please note the usage of the word "fully" in this wording.

The wording of the measure itself prevents this "formula" from limiting what must be paid towards the "legaly imposed obligation".

This "formula" you wish to hold up as the catch all savior of your measure is nothing more than a "red herring" in making your claims.

The "formula" will be WHERE the dollars to do this come from, not what percentage of the dollars requested will be allotted.

If there is not enough oil and gas tax revenues to cover these requests, the "formula" will kick in and the other revenue sources will kick in to "fully and properly fund"  these "legally imposed obligations". 
 
If someone has already addressed this in the few pages I missed I apologize.

tackle joe and espringers please show where that is wrong.
 

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

StevePike Said:
 

eyexer Said:

StevePike Said:
  
“... nonresident owners of surface property would be relieved of their tax obligations. ..."

 your argument holds no water

Does this portion hold no water as well?  (I deleted the dollar figures since you don't think that is an issue)

and I've answered this numerous times between the two threads that we have had on this.  And so has espringers.  There are numerous ways to replace that lost revenue.  But the bottom line is there is no piece of legislation that has ever satisfied 100% of the people or has been a masterpiece.  And like was stated earlier, I wouldn't let 16% of a piece of pie spoil the whole pie for me.  but to each his own

 

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

gst Said:
espringers and tackle joe what does "fully" mean????

here it is for you.

fully
Definition
ADVERB
1.
completely: to the greatest extent possible or required
"The flight is fully booked."
2.
for what is specified: to the full extent of a particular time, quantity, or number
"We waited fully 40 minutes."

Now espringers, tackle joe I give you the wording of article 3 of this measure.

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.

Please note the usage of the word "fully" in this wording.

The wording of the measure itself prevents this "formula" from limiting what must be paid towards the "legaly imposed obligation".

This "formula" you wish to hold up as the catch all savior of your measure is nothing more than a "red herring" in making your claims.

The "formula" will be WHERE the dollars to do this come from, not what percentage of the dollars requested will be allotted.

If there is not enough oil and gas tax revenues to cover these requests, the "formula" will kick in and the other revenue sources will kick in to "fully and properly fund"  these "legally imposed obligations". 
 
If someone has already addressed this in the few pages I missed I apologize.

tackle joe and espringers please show where that is wrong.
 

are you afraid they won't be able to come up with the money to replace the property taxes?

 

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

Next we will be paying 500 dollars to license our vehicles then we wont "own"  them.  Will you look to pass a measure to get rid of vehicle registeration so that we can fully own them?

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

 

eyexer Said:
and I've answered this numerous times between the two threads that we have had on this.  And so has espringers.  There are numerous ways to replace that lost revenue.  But the bottom line is there is no piece of legislation that has ever satisfied 100% of the people or has been a masterpiece.  And like was stated earlier, I wouldn't let 16% of a piece of pie spoil the whole pie for me.  but to each his own

It is not even so much the lost revenue but the incentive for NR to start increasing ownership in ND without contributing anything other than the initial land purchase. All the protection services but none of the costs. 

If 16.7% of ND being owned by NR is not a big deal, at what point does it become a problem?

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
espringers and tackle joe what does "fully" mean????

here it is for you.

fully
Definition
ADVERB
1.
completely: to the greatest extent possible or required
"The flight is fully booked."
2.
for what is specified: to the full extent of a particular time, quantity, or number
"We waited fully 40 minutes."

Now espringers, tackle joe I give you the wording of article 3 of this measure.

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.

Please note the usage of the word "fully" in this wording.

The wording of the measure itself prevents this "formula" from limiting what must be paid towards the "legaly imposed obligation".

This "formula" you wish to hold up as the catch all savior of your measure is nothing more than a "red herring" in making your claims.

The "formula" will be WHERE the dollars to do this come from, not what percentage of the dollars requested will be allotted.

If there is not enough oil and gas tax revenues to cover these requests, the "formula" will kick in and the other revenue sources will kick in to "fully and properly fund"  these "legally imposed obligations". 
 
If someone has already addressed this in the few pages I missed I apologize.

tackle joe and espringers please show where that is wrong.
 

are you afraid they won't be able to come up with the money to replace the property taxes?

eye exer, stiop and think for a moment, the legislature will NOThave a problem coming up with the money, this measure gives them plenty of other options besides the oil and gas  in various taxes

Whatpeople do not seem to grasp is the hu=-man nature to , if the money is there, spend it.

This measures wording says the legally imposed obligations of all these entieis will be "fully and properly " by the state legislature.

So why should our township not pave the roads????? Why should Fargo not build a flood diversion project, why should every one of these entities simply impose legal obligations that the state MUST fully and properly fund???

What people need to be concernedwith is not that the revenues to fund these obligations will not be there, but where they will have to come from and at what level.

So Joe, espringers, please for once answer directly, if the measure states the legislature must "fully and properly fund the  legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions", why would they not have to fund the paving of all roads in my township?  

It says the "formula" you guys champion is to "fully and properly fund these legally imposed obligations"

So the"formula" will determine where the monies come from, NOT how much will be allocated .

THAT will be determined by how much the "legally imposed obligations" that are "fully and properly funded" of every single entity under the scope of this measure totals up to be.  

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07
This is a grassroots effort by citizens of ND to restore property rights to the people. 

 

              
                           

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

StevePike Said:
 

eyexer Said:
and I've answered this numerous times between the two threads that we have had on this.  And so has espringers.  There are numerous ways to replace that lost revenue.  But the bottom line is there is no piece of legislation that has ever satisfied 100% of the people or has been a masterpiece.  And like was stated earlier, I wouldn't let 16% of a piece of pie spoil the whole pie for me.  but to each his own

It is not even so much the lost revenue but the incentive for NR to start increasing ownership in ND without contributing anything other than the initial land purchase. All the protection services but none of the costs. 

If 16.7% of ND being owned by NR is not a big deal, at what point does it become a problem?

this will be a non factor.  land prices in ND are skyrocketing.  I don't see a line of NR's wanting to buy land here.  I'll bet that 16% figure hasn't changed in fifty years.  Hell the abstracts on the ten acre and eighteen acre parcels of land I own both had numerous non resident owners over it's lifetime.  and now it's owned by a resident again. 

 

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
espringers and tackle joe what does "fully" mean????

here it is for you.

fully
Definition
ADVERB
1.
completely: to the greatest extent possible or required
"The flight is fully booked."
2.
for what is specified: to the full extent of a particular time, quantity, or number
"We waited fully 40 minutes."

Now espringers, tackle joe I give you the wording of article 3 of this measure.

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.

Please note the usage of the word "fully" in this wording.

The wording of the measure itself prevents this "formula" from limiting what must be paid towards the "legaly imposed obligation".

This "formula" you wish to hold up as the catch all savior of your measure is nothing more than a "red herring" in making your claims.

The "formula" will be WHERE the dollars to do this come from, not what percentage of the dollars requested will be allotted.

If there is not enough oil and gas tax revenues to cover these requests, the "formula" will kick in and the other revenue sources will kick in to "fully and properly fund"  these "legally imposed obligations". 
 
If someone has already addressed this in the few pages I missed I apologize.

tackle joe and espringers please show where that is wrong.
 

are you afraid they won't be able to come up with the money to replace the property taxes?

eye exer, stiop and think for a moment, the legislature will NOThave a problem coming up with the money, this measure gives them plenty of other options besides the oil and gas  in various taxes

Whatpeople do not seem to grasp is the hu=-man nature to , if the money is there, spend it.

This measures wording says the legally imposed obligations of all these entieis will be "fully and properly " by the state legislature.

So why should our township not pave the roads????? Why should Fargo not build a flood diversion project, why should every one of these entities simply impose legal obligations that the state MUST fully and properly fund???

What people need to be concernedwith is not that the revenues to fund these obligations will not be there, but where they will have to come from and at what level.

So Joe, espringers, please for once answer directly, if the measure states the legislature must "fully and properly fund the  legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions", why would they not have to fund the paving of all roads in my township?  

It says the "formula" you guys champion is to "fully and properly fund these legally imposed obligations"

So the"formula" will determine where the monies come from, NOT how much will be allocated .

THAT will be determined by how much the "legally imposed obligations" that are "fully and properly funded" of every single entity under the scope of this measure totals up to be.  

that makes zero sense.  the money is there no matter where it's funded from.  The economy is insane right now and will be for the foreseeable future.  Won't change in a very long time.  this is usually when state's get the things done they've been putting off for quite some time.  I really can't understand the fears people have of this measure.  It's crazy. 

 

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

StevePike Said:
 

eyexer Said:
and I've answered this numerous times between the two threads that we have had on this.  And so has espringers.  There are numerous ways to replace that lost revenue.  But the bottom line is there is no piece of legislation that has ever satisfied 100% of the people or has been a masterpiece.  And like was stated earlier, I wouldn't let 16% of a piece of pie spoil the whole pie for me.  but to each his own

It is not even so much the lost revenue but the incentive for NR to start increasing ownership in ND without contributing anything other than the initial land purchase. All the protection services but none of the costs. 

If 16.7% of ND being owned by NR is not a big deal, at what point does it become a problem?

If this measure would pass it then creates a hell of a place for some outside individual to park a lot of money without having to worry about any fees.

I have a question though that goes along with that statement.  If you own a sizeable piece of land and then sell it do you have to pay property gains tax on it?  Is there an amount of time you have to own it before you do sell it without having to pay tax?

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

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

eewoniuk Said:
"Next we will be paying 500 dollars to license our vehicles then we wont "own"

-Justin

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

Sorry! Stupid computer is doing crazy things!

Anyhow, no offense... But talk about apples and oranges on the vehicle registration comment. Nobody comes to take your vehicle from you if it's not registered. I have a few like that in my yard. Believe me, I know! LOL! However, my wife souls be very happy if someone did come and take them. :o)

-Justin

-Justin

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

...my wife ***would...

Holy cow I'm having issues with the iPad tonight! Sheesh! I need to spell check!

-Justin

-Justin

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

Dakota, Im just asking a question of if there was a shortfall in money, where would they possibly get the money from.  I believe someone said that it costs 500 dollars in Montana to register a vehichle.  Now say we dont have enough money and they do up the vehichle registration, 500 for vehicle registration on say even a new 50k truck is about in line with 2500k in property taxes on a 250k house.  If you are making the statement of not ever really owning your home, do you really own your vehicle?  I dont think its really apples and oranges, more like big apples and little apples ;)

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
espringers and tackle joe what does "fully" mean????

here it is for you.

fully
Definition
ADVERB
1.
completely: to the greatest extent possible or required
"The flight is fully booked."
2.
for what is specified: to the full extent of a particular time, quantity, or number
"We waited fully 40 minutes."

Now espringers, tackle joe I give you the wording of article 3 of this measure.

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.

Please note the usage of the word "fully" in this wording.

The wording of the measure itself prevents this "formula" from limiting what must be paid towards the "legaly imposed obligation".

This "formula" you wish to hold up as the catch all savior of your measure is nothing more than a "red herring" in making your claims.

The "formula" will be WHERE the dollars to do this come from, not what percentage of the dollars requested will be allotted.

If there is not enough oil and gas tax revenues to cover these requests, the "formula" will kick in and the other revenue sources will kick in to "fully and properly fund"  these "legally imposed obligations". 
 
If someone has already addressed this in the few pages I missed I apologize.

tackle joe and espringers please show where that is wrong.
 

are you afraid they won't be able to come up with the money to replace the property taxes?

eye exer, stiop and think for a moment, the legislature will NOThave a problem coming up with the money, this measure gives them plenty of other options besides the oil and gas  in various taxes

Whatpeople do not seem to grasp is the hu=-man nature to , if the money is there, spend it.

This measures wording says the legally imposed obligations of all these entieis will be "fully and properly " by the state legislature.

So why should our township not pave the roads????? Why should Fargo not build a flood diversion project, why should every one of these entities simply impose legal obligations that the state MUST fully and properly fund???

What people need to be concernedwith is not that the revenues to fund these obligations will not be there, but where they will have to come from and at what level.

So Joe, espringers, please for once answer directly, if the measure states the legislature must "fully and properly fund the  legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions", why would they not have to fund the paving of all roads in my township?  

It says the "formula" you guys champion is to "fully and properly fund these legally imposed obligations"

So the"formula" will determine where the monies come from, NOT how much will be allocated .

THAT will be determined by how much the "legally imposed obligations" that are "fully and properly funded" of every single entity under the scope of this measure totals up to be.  

Dude - the terms fully and properly are legal art - they are already defined within state code and or specifications. You have to understand - when you build a road - it has to meet already predetermined specifications. In order to be "properly" built - they must meet the required specs already in existence. In order for the road to be fully funded - they must fund to MEET THOSE SPEC COSTS. This is just another RED-HERRING. If you read the measure - it states all property tax that was used prior to 2102 - is what will be replaced fully and properly for legal obligations. How many times does this have to be told to you guys? READ the MEASURE. If in 2011 it was paid for as a legal obligation with property tax money - that is what gets REPLACED - going forward - as there will be obvious "inflationary" factors - this should be factored into the funding FORMULA set by the legislature. The only thing the legislature is required to do is develop the funding formula. Measure 2 does not restrict any other function of anything the legislature can do - just as the legislature can pretty much do what they want now. How many times does it take for you to understand? Bottom line - you're going to put people first or you're going to put bureaucrats and special interests first. Period.

Pages