Measure 2

Pages

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

riverview Said:
I have read all the posts on here and find it kind off weird how owning your own home without a fear of loosing it. Kind of gordon kahlish??
i own and live on 44 acres with no specials and my taxes  are cheap.
my lot in devils lake is expensive but it is all specials for sewer and water
in a previous post sombody stated 250 a month in taxes for a old farmhouse does anybody on here pay 3000 a year without specials in tax???????
the people for measure 2 have mentioned all the tax breaks business in the big citys get. I thought they did this to draw business to north dakota
Remember before oil when we were trying to attract business and you could drive around out west for days and not see anybody.
This is going to benifit some of the big land owners alot more than me How much is a farmer owning 20000 acres going to save??? I see this just costing me money in the long run.

seems kind of odd to come up with something like this and leave it up to somebody else to come up with the answers to cover the funds lost
I say vote no

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

 

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

StevePike Said:
 

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

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

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

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

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

StevePike Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

gst Said:
Joe if his measure passes, how will the legislaure determine that the funding requests each of these entities are submitting are ONLY for legally imposed obligaions without examining each and every one of these proposals?

How will this be accomplished under our current legislative time frame that is set by law in our constitution of no more than 80 days every biennium?

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gst Said:
Joe, What has not been addressed as I'v seen is while currently all the entities have the ability to levy mills or property taxes to fund what they need for the portion of the legally imposed obligationsunder a formula set within the state statutes that they now regulate, do ANY of them have the power to impose the various revenue generating methods specifically defined in this measure that MUST repalce the property tax? .

If not how will they replace the ability to generate funds as they currently have up to an amount allowed as they have under the current system?

In other words what revenue sources can say a soil conservation district or township impose to generate this portion that can no longer be generated tied to property?

Yes there is a formula developed by the state legislature and yes there are legally imposed obligtions defined in the NDCC

But it is the portion of thisformula that is currently controled by the local entity under this measure that many beleive will be lost to the state legislature as well under the wording of this measure

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

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

 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
Joe if his measure passes, how will the legislaure determine that the funding requests each of these entities are submitting are ONLY for legally imposed obligaions without examining each and every one of these proposals?

How will this be accomplished under our current legislative time frame that is set by law in our constitution of no more than 80 days every biennium?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gst Said:

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation that the state now must fund under this measure?

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

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

BROKE!

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

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

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

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation that the state now must fund under this measure?

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

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

BROKE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Justin

-Justin

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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

gst Said:
Joe if his measure passes, how will the legislaure determine that the funding requests each of these entities are submitting are ONLY for legally imposed obligaions without examining each and every one of these proposals?

How will this be accomplished under our current legislative time frame that is set by law in our constitution of no more than 80 days every biennium?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

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

So Joe, if this measure passes and our township board meets and votes to pave all our township roads is that now a legally imposed obligation that the state now must fund under this measure?

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

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

BROKE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gst Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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


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.


Pages