Measure 2

Pages

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

eewoniuk Said:
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 ;)

Can we get anymore end of days here? Seriously? You're not required to register your vehicle. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? How many times do you need to be told - even the anti-supporters have stated NO NEW TAXES nor RAISES to existing taxes need to happen! Can they? Yes. Can they raise taxes if M2 fails? Yes. Bottom line - they won't be taxing your property! Fix it up all you want - give yourself your dream home - increase it's value FOR YOU - without being penalized - what part of this doesn't sink in - seriously?

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

 

eyexer Said:
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. 

Possibly the reason it has not gone above the 16.7% is due to the cost to own. Once there is no annual fee, buying and sitting on it for a couple years becomes much more lucrative. I haven't found a source to see what it has been historically.

You never answered at what percent would NR ownership of ND property concern you. 

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

eewoniuk Said:
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 ;)

Can we get anymore end of days here? Seriously? You're not required to register your vehicle. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? How many times do you need to be told - even the anti-supporters have stated NO NEW TAXES nor RAISES to existing taxes need to happen! Can they? Yes. Can they raise taxes if M2 fails? Yes. Bottom line - they won't be taxing your property! Fix it up all you want - give yourself your dream home - increase it's value FOR YOU - without being penalized - what part of this doesn't sink in - seriously?

Really, we arent required to register our vehicles?  I just received a notice from the state saying I need to.  End of days?  Not really, just some people on here are stating their concerns of what if, not end of days.  What if the EPA shuts down fracking tomorrow.  Then our oil production wont get to stated estimates.  Then where is all the revenue going to come from to pay for our expenses?  I love North Dakota but I just dont see where abolishing property taxes is going to bring in enough businesses to offset the loss.  Whats the difference if they are taxing your home, your vehicle, your income, your purchases, they are going to get theirs whatever means necessary.  These are my concerns, then you come on here and basically tell people they are dumb if they dont vote for M2.  I was riding the fence on this whole thing but after reading these posts and reading comments I am going for a no vote.  People ask specific questions about M2 and the only answers anyone gets is Read the measure or go to this or that link.  You guys just talk in circles without directly answer questions.  I hope M2 is defeated and in turn a better way to fix property taxes comes about, until then No on M2.

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

eewoniuk Said:

Really, we arent required to register our vehicles?  I just received a notice from the state saying I need to.  End of days?  Not really, just some people on here are stating their concerns of what if, not end of days.  What if the EPA shuts down fracking tomorrow.  Then our oil production wont get to stated estimates.  Then where is all the revenue going to come from to pay for our expenses?  I love North Dakota but I just dont see where abolishing property taxes is going to bring in enough businesses to offset the loss.  Whats the difference if they are taxing your home, your vehicle, your income, your purchases, they are going to get theirs whatever means necessary.  These are my concerns, then you come on here and basically tell people they are dumb if they dont vote for M2.  I was riding the fence on this whole thing but after reading these posts and reading comments I am going for a no vote.  People ask specific questions about M2 and the only answers anyone gets is Read the measure or go to this or that link.  You guys just talk in circles without directly answer questions.  I hope M2 is defeated and in turn a better way to fix property taxes comes about, until then No on M2.

Your only required to register your vehicle if you operate it on public roads, and even if you don't they won't take it away from you. Try not paying property taxes and see what happens. I'd gladly pay more to register a vehicle and not have my property held hostage. And when you do drive your vehicle, your paying gas taxes to use the roads. If they would enforce the vehicle registration for all the out of state vehicles that are gainfully employed her and required to have ND registration, I bet it would offset the property taxes we would lose from out of state property owners.


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

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

tascklejoe, what you have typed as a supposed answer is othing more than smoke andmirrors. You have NOT answered the concenr I have voiced.

The legislature has to do more than just develope the "formula" you keep refering to as thesave all, which in fact will only determine WHERE the monies come from, but the legislature must "fully and properly fund" all legally defined obligations of all the entirites.

For you to insinuate this measrue will not have factions of "special interests" determining their share of this fundig indicates you simply do not understand how things will work.

It has become clear no matter how many times I ask the question regarding wether our township can paved all the roads within it and the legislature will have to provide thefunding to do so as stated in this measure, you simply willnot understand the consequeces of thequestion.

Or perhaps you do and simply do not wish to acknowledge them, burying your head in the sand and not acknowledging peoples concerns will not keep them from happening,,,,    dude.

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

eyexer Said:

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. 

You really crack me up.  You're so delusional about the prospect of shifting your tax burden over to someone else that you are willing to ignore/twist whatever anyone else writes.  Aren't you the same one who knows a bunch of oil wells that haven't declined over time?  I tell you what, you let me know which oil well in ND hasn't declined over time and I will post the production of that well from the time it was put online.


I agree, the state isn't a for-profit operation.  But I have NO problem with the state putting away a considerable chunk of the oil money for future use before giving you a free ride.  BTW, you seem to forget that I have put the math on FBO at least twice about how the royalties received by the state is at most 2/36 of the total oil revenue.  So it IS tax money we are talking about here.

We had people like you running this state back in the 70s and 80s who thought the oil would never go down/away.  Guess what, they were proven wrong and we went through some pretty darn tough years from the latter 80s up through about 4 yrs ago. 

“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

http://www.whiting.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-media-events/

Ahh hell eyexer, I'll just save you some time.  Go to the above website, click on the April presentation, and proceed to slides 13-16.

“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

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

eewoniuk Said:

Really, we arent required to register our vehicles?  I just received a notice from the state saying I need to.  End of days?  Not really, just some people on here are stating their concerns of what if, not end of days.  What if the EPA shuts down fracking tomorrow.  Then our oil production wont get to stated estimates.  Then where is all the revenue going to come from to pay for our expenses?  I love North Dakota but I just dont see where abolishing property taxes is going to bring in enough businesses to offset the loss.  Whats the difference if they are taxing your home, your vehicle, your income, your purchases, they are going to get theirs whatever means necessary.  These are my concerns, then you come on here and basically tell people they are dumb if they dont vote for M2.  I was riding the fence on this whole thing but after reading these posts and reading comments I am going for a no vote.  People ask specific questions about M2 and the only answers anyone gets is Read the measure or go to this or that link.  You guys just talk in circles without directly answer questions.  I hope M2 is defeated and in turn a better way to fix property taxes comes about, until then No on M2.

As has been stated...No.  We are not required to register our vehicles if they are not used on the public roads.  I have three UNREGISTERED vehicles in my yard.  Nobody has come to my home to take them from me because I "didn't pay the registration" on them.  But, like I said before... my wife would love it if someone would!

What if they shut fracking down?  Well, then we have choices to make.  We make cuts in other areas or raise other taxes or a combination of both.  As has been stated before... it is not necessary to raise taxes, but I personally would rather pay a higher sales tax (for example) and be secure in my home than to continue paying rent to the government on something that's SUPPOSED to be mine.  Let's not forget that in the last 10 years the legislature has INCREASED SPENDING 135%!!!  For goodness sakes, scaling spending back to previous levels ALONE pays for this! 

You ask the difference it makes of whether they tax home, vehicle, income, or purchases.  This too has been explained on this thread in previous posts.  They don't take your vehicle if you don't register it.  Sales and income tax fluctuate according to income.  If you earn less, you will spend less, which means you will pay less sales tax.  Property tax DOES NOT function this way!  It is based on the assessment of a government bureaucrat and you are penalized for improving "your home" (i.e. assessment goes up and you pay MORE property tax).  So, if it truly doesn't make a difference to you, then vote "YES" on Measure 2, and be secure in your home/property!!!  Because, after all, you said yourself it doesn't make a difference because they will "get theirs whatever means necessary".   

And no offense, but I don't believe I ever called anyone "dumb" (although the Fargo Forum used that very word towards us) on this thread if they don't support Measure 2.  I do not mind agreeing to disagree.  And I can do it without ANY hard feelings towards anyone.  I have many people that I deeply care about and admire that are opposed to this measure. 

Furthermore, the questions that have been asked on here have been answered directly... again and again.  And doesn't it make sense to direct people to the measure and to read it?  Links have been provided as a source of information for people to read up on the issue.  Why is that so bad?  The only reason it appears at times that we are in circles is because people keep asking questions that have been answered already.

-Justin

-Justin

golfer's picture
golfer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/15/02

Allen Said:
http://www.whiting.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-media-events/

Ahh hell eyexer, I'll just save you some time.  Go to the above website, click on the April presentation, and proceed to slides 13-16.

He doesn't like seeing facts.  You won't hear from him again on this matter. 

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

gst Said:

It has become clear no matter how many times I ask the question regarding wether our township can paved all the roads within it and the legislature will have to provide thefunding to do so as stated in this measure, you simply willnot understand the consequeces of thequestion.

Or perhaps you do and simply do not wish to acknowledge them, burying your head in the sand and not acknowledging peoples concerns will not keep them from happening,,,,    dude.

Measure 2 clearly defines what “fully and properly” means: “Taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund the operations of political subdivisions with authority to levy property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the proceeds of state revenues and other state resources.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Measure 2 takes effect, all those “operations of political subdivisions” funded on that date by property taxes must be replaced with revenues from the state revenues and/or other state resources.

 

 

Thus the level of funding on the date that Measure 2 takes effect will be considered the total dollar amount of “full and proper.” From that point forward, as political subdivisions change by growth, shrink- age, or additional legally imposed obligations, the amounts involved would change. Modifications in funding would be addressed through the formula devised by our elected state legislators with disagree- ments to be settled.

So, the answer to your question could even be further answered by answering this... "Can your township pave all the roads now?"  Let's not forget that Measure 2 simply changes the source of revenues and abolishes property taxes.  I think we sometimes make it more complicated than it really is.

Do you want to truly own your home/property or don't you?  To me, that is the heart of the entire issue.  Even the issue of oil or no oil matters not to me.  I wouldn't care if there was a single oil well in the state or not.  I would still support abolishing property taxes because they are a violation of a fundamental right.  They are heinous, abusive, intrusive, unjust, immoral, and the list could go on and on.  I'm all for good government and funding such, but property taxes ARE NOT the means in which they should be funded.

VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2! 

-Justin

 

-Justin

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

I need a new computer.  Sheesh!  Try to change my font, size, etc. and things turn out whacky!  There's no way it can be the person operating it.  LOL! 

-Justin

-Justin

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

gst... fully and properly are already defined.  the question about being able to pave all the roads is sill cause you know the answer is no unless of course they were able to pave all their roads w/ the check they get from the state right now.  formulas already exist for funding roads in counties and townships.  whatever those formula's are is whatever fully and properly is.  the legislature will be allowed to change those formulas and thereby essentially change what the definition of fully and properly are.  they have a formula... do some simple math.... they cut you a check based on those formulas and that is it... that is fully and properly funding whatever that particular formula applies to. 

someone accused us supporters of talking in circles... i see it the complete opposite. these questions have been answered by numerous people numerous times on a couple of different threads now.  it gets frustrating that some people aren't reading the posts before they post the same question again and then claim we haven't answered them.  but, i can kind of understand not wanting to read the prior 300 posts.  you, on the other hand, have probably read every one of these posts... and your specific question has already been answered a dozen times or more.  yet you keep posting it... only you change the wording of the question just slightly and try act like you haven't posted the same question 12 times already and it hasn't been answered 12 times already.  one question ask how to define "fully"... the next "properly"...  the next "legally"... the next "imposed"... the next "obligations"...

the answer to each of those questions is the same... the legally imposed obligations are defined by the legislatively defined formulas that are in place today and fully and properly funding those obligations is the same... in order to meet the requirement of "fully and properly", the state government will have to cut the check in the amount of whatever the formula spits out after the equals (=) sign.  if they change the formula... they change the definition of their legally imposed obligations and whatever that new formula spits out after the = sign again is what defines fully and properly.

can we now move onto the definition of "the"?

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

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

espringers,

So, let's say some backwards county like Mountrail has been growing and decides that it needs to pave a few new roads.  Under the old measure, the county commission could simply open the discussion up to the public and let's say that every single county resident would agree to higher mill levies in order to pay for that new road (afterall, it's going to everyone's favorite watering hole).  But now the State would now be able to tell them no, because it's not an already funded obligation to pave that new road so they will have to wait in line like every other county for new road construction?  Doesn't seem local control to me.

Or how about county parks and recreation areas funded at least partially through property taxes?  Let's use Morton county as an example here.  If this measure were in place, could they still have the ability to go to the county residents for funding to develop the recreational aspects of Harmon Lake which is a dam that was built just few years ago. 

I see no opportunity here for local citizenry to ask for and receive funding for these kinds of new projects. 

“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

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

yes... they can pave the road... they can build an amusement park... they can even build the vikings a new stadium if they want.  if the check they already get from the state doesn't cover the new stadium, they can do two things the way i see it... they can ask the state to fund it w/ other money via an introduced bill much like devils lake has to do for its outlet or grand forks or fargo has to do when looking for help for flood protection... or they can fund it locally and KEEP IT LOCAL like all of the non supporters want them to do... the only caveat is that they can not tax your real property as a way to fund it locally.  they will have to use one of the hundred and one other ways in which local governments can and do raise money. 

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

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

Allen Said:
espringers,

So, let's say some backwards county like Mountrail has been growing and decides that it needs to pave a few new roads.  Under the old measure, the county commission could simply open the discussion up to the public and let's say that every single county resident would agree to higher mill levies in order to pay for that new road (afterall, it's going to everyone's favorite watering hole).  But now the State would now be able to tell them no, because it's not an already funded obligation to pave that new road so they will have to wait in line like every other county for new road construction?  Doesn't seem local control to me.

Or how about county parks and recreation areas funded at least partially through property taxes?  Let's use Morton county as an example here.  If this measure were in place, could they still have the ability to go to the county residents for funding to develop the recreational aspects of Harmon Lake which is a dam that was built just few years ago. 

I see no opportunity here for local citizenry to ask for and receive funding for these kinds of new projects. 

Good points,

I think the discussion on this is moot anyway as it will never pass. I think it will get about 10-15% on the yes side.

Neat

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

?? i don't get it... ?? face meet palm... palm meet face... i give up.  you guys win.  since none of your concerns are ever addressed or answered... vote no on measure 2 i guess. 

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

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

espringers Said:
yes... they can pave the road... they can build an amusement park... they can even build the vikings a new stadium if they want.  if the check they already get from the state doesn't cover the new stadium, they can do two things the way i see it... they can ask the state to fund it w/ other money via an introduced bill much like devils lake has to do for its outlet or grand forks or fargo has to do when looking for help for flood protection... or they can fund it locally and KEEP IT LOCAL like all of the non supporters want them to do... the only caveat is that they can not tax your real property as a way to fund it locally.  they will have to use one of the hundred and one other ways in which local governments can and do raise money. 

If there are 101 other ways why did you just mention two?

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

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

two ways to get the money... special request from the legislature like pet projects require or raise it locally... there are 101 ways to raise it locally give or take about 100 or so...

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

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

Sad part is that some still think this is a good idea! No amount of spin changes the fact that this measure other than for school allotment has a stop for spending at the local level. It takes all controls away. Only schools have the 2012 restriction as the amendment is written.

Address this issue within the wording of the amendment for once!!!!!!

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

That question is directed to you espringer since you keep insisting that there are caps or controls. There are none!!!!!!!! Absolutely none! Your example of a pool is a good one to take up. Tell us in the wording where it cannot be fully funded if put into a budget!

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!

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

espringers Said:
two ways to get the money... special request from the legislature like pet projects require or raise it locally... there are 101 ways to raise it locally give or take about 100 or so...

Oh.  That helps.  Thanks.

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

Allen Said:
espringers,

So, let's say some backwards county like Mountrail has been growing and decides that it needs to pave a few new roads.  Under the old measure, the county commission could simply open the discussion up to the public and let's say that every single county resident would agree to higher mill levies in order to pay for that new road (afterall, it's going to everyone's favorite watering hole).  But now the State would now be able to tell them no, because it's not an already funded obligation to pave that new road so they will have to wait in line like every other county for new road construction?  Doesn't seem local control to me.

Or how about county parks and recreation areas funded at least partially through property taxes?  Let's use Morton county as an example here.  If this measure were in place, could they still have the ability to go to the county residents for funding to develop the recreational aspects of Harmon Lake which is a dam that was built just few years ago. 

I see no opportunity here for local citizenry to ask for and receive funding for these kinds of new projects. 

Remember, special assessments are not eliminated by Measure 2.  What you are describing could/would fall under special assessments.  Furthermore, the description you give of paving roads is unlikely anyhow.  Believe me, I know from experience.  They spent part of last year tearing up one of our paved roads to return it to gravel (and this is "oil country").  And where I live is not the only place this is happening in the state.  There are other places in the state where voters have rejected proposals like this to keep paved roads. 

Examples -

Paving Roads info from Burleigh County web site:
http://www.co.burleigh.nd.us/departments/hwy/paving/

Article on Paved Roads to Gravel/Stutsman County Voters Reject Proposal:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177016136951.htm

Again, VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

-Justin

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

wstnodak Said:

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?

of course you do.  unless it's a home that you live in and reside in it for 18 months. 

 

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

StevePike Said:
 

eyexer Said:
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. 

Possibly the reason it has not gone above the 16.7% is due to the cost to own. Once there is no annual fee, buying and sitting on it for a couple years becomes much more lucrative. I haven't found a source to see what it has been historically.

You never answered at what percent would NR ownership of ND property concern you. 

there is no percentage of non resident ownership that would bother me because right now there is no limit.  it's limited by free enterprise and I'm a firm believer in free enterprise.  the reality of the matter right now is that there isn't more than a 16.7% desire to own property in ND by non-residents.  I don't think this law will change that much if any.  people that are buying land/business's here aren't worried about the taxes.  the residents are.  most non-residents own farm property and that is the least taxed real property in the state.  I'm not concerned about it once iota.

 

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:

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. 

You really crack me up.  You're so delusional about the prospect of shifting your tax burden over to someone else that you are willing to ignore/twist whatever anyone else writes.  Aren't you the same one who knows a bunch of oil wells that haven't declined over time?  I tell you what, you let me know which oil well in ND hasn't declined over time and I will post the production of that well from the time it was put online.


I agree, the state isn't a for-profit operation.  But I have NO problem with the state putting away a considerable chunk of the oil money for future use before giving you a free ride.  BTW, you seem to forget that I have put the math on FBO at least twice about how the royalties received by the state is at most 2/36 of the total oil revenue.  So it IS tax money we are talking about here.

We had people like you running this state back in the 70s and 80s who thought the oil would never go down/away.  Guess what, they were proven wrong and we went through some pretty darn tough years from the latter 80s up through about 4 yrs ago. 

I don't believe I have ever stated that there are a bunch that have declined over time.  what I believe I said is there are a bunch that were producing a very large amount when they were first drilled and are still producing a very large amount.  As in well over a thousand barrels a day.

 

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

eyexer Said:

wstnodak Said:

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?

of course you do.  unless it's a home that you live in and reside in it for 18 months. 

Thanks.

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

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

Allen Said:
http://www.whiting.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-media-events/

Ahh hell eyexer, I'll just save you some time.  Go to the above website, click on the April presentation, and proceed to slides 13-16.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.  That's one company.  company production runs the whole spectrum.  that's why some companies are far more profitable than other companies.  The bottom line is there are some really big producing holes and some not so big producing holes.  Geez, that's how the oil industry goes.  Of course they all fall off some after they are first tapped.  some stay pretty high up there some fall way off.  I'm not sure what your trying to prove. 

 

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

eyexer Said:

wstnodak Said:

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?

of course you do.  unless it's a home that you live in and reside in it for 18 months. 

Why comment on things you know nothing about?

You will pay cap gains tax.  If owned less than a year you pay as ordinary income.  If owned greater than a year then you pay cap gain rate.  If you own a home and have lived in said home for 24 months in previous 5 years and it is your main home then you may not have to pay taxes.  You get exclusion of 250k on cap gain if single and 500k if married.  There are some other tax laws where you don't have to pay taxes, but you are mainly trading said property for other property.

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

johnr Said:

Allen Said:
espringers,

So, let's say some backwards county like Mountrail has been growing and decides that it needs to pave a few new roads.  Under the old measure, the county commission could simply open the discussion up to the public and let's say that every single county resident would agree to higher mill levies in order to pay for that new road (afterall, it's going to everyone's favorite watering hole).  But now the State would now be able to tell them no, because it's not an already funded obligation to pave that new road so they will have to wait in line like every other county for new road construction?  Doesn't seem local control to me.

Or how about county parks and recreation areas funded at least partially through property taxes?  Let's use Morton county as an example here.  If this measure were in place, could they still have the ability to go to the county residents for funding to develop the recreational aspects of Harmon Lake which is a dam that was built just few years ago. 

I see no opportunity here for local citizenry to ask for and receive funding for these kinds of new projects. 

Good points,

I think the discussion on this is moot anyway as it will never pass. I think it will get about 10-15% on the yes side.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  right now I think it's 50-50 and that number is growing in favor of the measure. 

 

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

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:

wstnodak Said:

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?

of course you do.  unless it's a home that you live in and reside in it for 18 months. 

Why comment on things you know nothing about?

You will pay cap gains tax.  If owned less than a year you pay as ordinary income.  If owned greater than a year then you pay cap gain rate.  If you own a home and have lived in said home for 24 months in previous 5 years and it is your main home then you may not have to pay taxes.  You get exclusion of 250k on cap gain if single and 500k if married.  There are some other tax laws where you don't have to pay taxes, but you are mainly trading said property for other property.

what the hell did I just say.  I said you pay capital gains taxes on it unless it's your home and you meet certain criteria.  are you retarded?

 

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

dakota1977 Said:

Remember, special assessments are not eliminated by Measure 2.  What you are describing could/would fall under special assessments. 

For once in 17 pages I somewhat agree with you because you are right, special assessments will still be around. What you likely don't understad is by voting yes on measure 2 you have just effectively raised the price of every special assement project. In most cases, the projects are funded with a bond which is sold on the open market. Without property taxes, the assurance of these bonds being repaid is gone. I can tell you first hand we have already seen a significant increase in the interest rate in which the bonds are being sold for projects in ND because there's no garentee that anybody will pay the specials, why would they, they have nothing to lose. The above situation is already happening and the measure hasn't even passed. There's a good chance that the bond market will be very apprehensive about purchasing a bond from ND if there is no assurance of payment. 

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

If this passes what do you suppose the state gas tax will do? Or what will City sales taxes do? In the town of Minot we already have a .07 cent sales tax and when people come from out of town they bitch about it. Do you think these taxes will change?

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

Funny, I've been to Minot and never even noticed.  Seriously.  And I'm poor as heck.    As far as state gas tax... no reason to raise it.  As has already been pointed out numerous times on this thread. 

-Justin

-Justin

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Sad part is that some still think this is a good idea! No amount of spin changes the fact that this measure other than for school allotment has a stop for spending at the local level. It takes all controls away. Only schools have the 2012 restriction as the amendment is written.

Address this issue within the wording of the amendment for once!!!!!!

huh?  me no follow.  first... agree to disagree... cause i find it sad people don't think its a good idea.  anyway... all school funding has always gone thru the state.  mil increases are approved by the state, collected by the state and dispersed by the state.  the state will still fund day to day school activities pursuant the same formula they have always used.  any special project like that gymnasium or new school will have to go thru the legislature just like flood control projects or the local entity will have to find a way to fund it locally thru something like specials or a sales tax. 

does that answer it within the wording of the amendment? 

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:
That question is directed to you espringer since you keep insisting that there are caps or controls. There are none!!!!!!!! Absolutely none! Your example of a pool is a good one to take up. Tell us in the wording where it cannot be fully funded if put into a budget!

i think what you are missing is that "fully and properly" funded are already defined via the current formula(s) already in place and can be redefined via tweaking of the same forumula(s).  the controls are in the formula(s).  there won't be a need to submit a budget.  you will get a check for whatever the formula spits out for your district after the = sign.  spend it however the heck you wish.  if you can't pay for the pool w/ that check, you fund it locally with a tax, fee or special that has nothing to do w/ the value of my real property or you can go begging the state legislature for money to pay for it like we do for all other special projects across the state.  and in case you don't understand... i will end it with a bunch of exclamation points cause that obviously helps get the point across.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

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

SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: 7/14/03
That's funny, there's all kinds of opinions and facts being spouted off but no one wants to comment on the fact that a yes vote will also likely cripple special assessments which are used to fund infrastructure projects (water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, etc.) that each of us has likely had some benefit from at some point or another. I think it’s comical that the supporters of this measure like to put their heads in the sand when faced with factual questions that have no answers!

Riddle me this batman, since there are political subdivisions which are not considered a City, County, or Townships (ie recreation districts, etc.); and those political subdivisions have very little taxing authority now, they often times operate and construct most of their projects as special assessment districts (which are voted in by the majority affected). A yes vote has the potential to cripple the use of Bond sales to fund these projects, and the “legally imposed obligations” that have to be funded won’t cover the projects because the political subdivision doesn’t have the authority to "Legally Impose” much of anything; please explain which affordable option they will be able to utilize for funding?
Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:

Allen Said:
http://www.whiting.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-media-events/

Ahh hell eyexer, I'll just save you some time.  Go to the above website, click on the April presentation, and proceed to slides 13-16.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.  That's one company.  company production runs the whole spectrum.  that's why some companies are far more profitable than other companies.  The bottom line is there are some really big producing holes and some not so big producing holes.  Geez, that's how the oil industry goes.  Of course they all fall off some after they are first tapped.  some stay pretty high up there some fall way off.  I'm not sure what your trying to prove. 

That your wildly optimistic estimation of state revenue from oil is exactly that, a wild over-estimation.  Is it true that the state is benefitting more now than the tax people thought possible just a few years ago?  Yep, sure is.  However, the reason is more to do with the record number of drilling rigs than it is about some infinite amount of oil in the ground.

“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

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

By, the way, for those that think "special / pet projects" are considered water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or streets; let me stop over to your house and shut off your services for a month or two and then report back to me and let me know how "special" you think they are.

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

YarcraftStorm Said:
By, the way, for those that think "special / pet projects" are considered water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or streets; let me stop over to your house and shut off your services for a month or two and then report back to me and let me know how "special" you think they are.

LOL!  Please don't shut mine off!  I have private well and sewer.  And the road that runs by my house is gravel (as they all are in my town).  Heck, it's a public road that goes by my house and there have been many of winters when the blade wouldn't even come through to plough the road!  I've had to literally use a snow shovel some winters to remove snow down the street so I can get out to go places (don't own any equipment).  And this isn't a small stretch I'm talking about... it's probably 1/2 a football field of shoveling. 

Again, special assessments are not eliminated by Measure 2.

VOTE TO TRULY OWN YOUR OWN HOME/PROPERTY! 

VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!!!

-Justin

-Justin

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

I would never support giving up my freedom of speech, right to a trial by jury, right to bear arms, etc.  Why on earth should I give up or not support regaining property rights?!  You can dress it up as "local control".  You can tell me it's a "necessary evil".  You can tell me about all the wonderful "services" it funds.  You can tell me the sky is falling and there's bogeymen under my bed.  But at the end of the day, it is as simple as this... property tax is a violation of our fundamental right to own property, and so long as we have it, we will NEVER be owners of the property we THINK is ours!

We have fallen FAR from the likes of people like Patrick Henry who declared, "Give me Liberty or give me death!"  Without property rights, there is not true Liberty.

Vote "YES" on Measure 2 on June 12, 2012!!!

-Justin

-Justin

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

espringers Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
Sad part is that some still think this is a good idea! No amount of spin changes the fact that this measure other than for school allotment has a stop for spending at the local level. It takes all controls away. Only schools have the 2012 restriction as the amendment is written.

Address this issue within the wording of the amendment for once!!!!!!

huh?  me no follow.  first... agree to disagree... cause i find it sad people don't think its a good idea.  anyway... all school funding has always gone thru the state.  mil increases are approved by the state, collected by the state and dispersed by the state.  the state will still fund day to day school activities pursuant the same formula they have always used.  any special project like that gymnasium or new school will have to go thru the legislature just like flood control projects or the local entity will have to find a way to fund it locally thru something like specials or a sales tax. 

does that answer it within the wording of the amendment? 

Wrong in your assumption of funding it locally!! If a city or county decides to put it in the budget and it had prior to this measure the right to do so then the STATE LEG HAS TO FUND THE PROJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For example the Diversion project in Fargo and flood control measures. The city set in its annual budget expenditures for that! They did so legally as the Charter that the city has allows for them to do so! It is a legal and binding obligation now if this passes for the state to fund it fully byy passage of this law! There is no stop gap measure in place to prevent it! The only thing the state will be required to do is determine a formula that will provide the money!!!!!!

There will be no special assesment for the funding needed! The building of a library in Fargo is a good example. The commision could have simply authorized the plans and attached the bill to our taxes. Instead they sought the use of a special sales tax to fund it and that dropped off when the plan was paid off!

Street improvement gets funded two ways in Fargo, again the city council has the ablity to determine funding legally as well as the improvement itself!!!! Are you not capable of understanding the simple wording of this measure? Or are you simply blinded by dollars you assume will be coming back into your pocket?

So answer the question espringer! Where in the measure does it say that the state can say NO to any legal expenditure that any current taxing authority other than schools have put forth!

You are assuming that any short fall will be made up via another funding source, the problem is there will be no short fall. If the budgets exceed the state revenue forecast the choice is cut services funded by the state not under a taxing authority or raise revenue via sales tax or income tax or other fees!!!!!!!

Take Harvey for example! This year they set a budget based on revenue. If this passes they have no restriction on what they can budget  up to the max taxing authority they had  2012!!!!!!!

Here is the other part, currently taxing authority is based on formula and sales tax revenue. Using Fargo as an example on a $100,000.00 home. Current mill levy is less than the state allows, actual tax value is less than the 100,000
as well. Now as that home value rises so would the amount the city can max budget for and be paid from the state.

You and all who support this are not paying attention to the mistake that this measure has!!!!!!!!! It will increase expenditures all across the state and regardless of oil revenue, those increases will exceed the current stream of income at some point in the very near future!
So the city will not have to ask permission to build and new city hall or even what goes into the structure as long as the city is not seeking to get more money than it currently can tax for at max levels!!!!!!!

I will await your anwser where it says they cannot do this!!!!!!! And the Leg formula response is NOT A CORRECT ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

eyexer Said:

.

what the hell did I just say.  I said you pay capital gains taxes on it unless it's your home and you meet certain criteria.  are you retarded?

Nice.

Just throw out generalities and see if it sticks.  You said 18 mo.  Where does it say that in the tax code?

Shouldn't you be commenting on the vikings stadium thread.  Weren't you and your front office buddy saying they were doing a racino for this?  "It was a done deal and they break ground fall of 2012"

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

YarcraftStorm Said:

dakota1977 Said:

Remember, special assessments are not eliminated by Measure 2.  What you are describing could/would fall under special assessments. 

For once in 17 pages I somewhat agree with you because you are right, special assessments will still be around. What you likely don't understad is by voting yes on measure 2 you have just effectively raised the price of every special assement project. In most cases, the projects are funded with a bond which is sold on the open market. Without property taxes, the assurance of these bonds being repaid is gone. I can tell you first hand we have already seen a significant increase in the interest rate in which the bonds are being sold for projects in ND because there's no garentee that anybody will pay the specials, why would they, they have nothing to lose. The above situation is already happening and the measure hasn't even passed. There's a good chance that the bond market will be very apprehensive about purchasing a bond from ND if there is no assurance of payment. 

if that's the case, wouldn't you think the legislature should be out there right now stating they will be drastically lowering property taxes.  why the hell aren't they doing that?

 

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

Superfreak Said:
If this passes what do you suppose the state gas tax will do? Or what will City sales taxes do? In the town of Minot we already have a .07 cent sales tax and when people come from out of town they bitch about it. Do you think these taxes will change?

won't happen because of competition from surrounding states

 

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

YarcraftStorm Said:

That's funny, there's all kinds of opinions and facts being spouted off but no one wants to comment on the fact that a yes vote will also likely cripple special assessments which are used to fund infrastructure projects (water, sewer, storm sewer, streets, etc.) that each of us has likely had some benefit from at some point or another. I think it’s comical that the supporters of this measure like to put their heads in the sand when faced with factual questions that have no answers!

Riddle me this batman, since there are political subdivisions which are not considered a City, County, or Townships (ie recreation districts, etc.); and those political subdivisions have very little taxing authority now, they often times operate and construct most of their projects as special assessment districts (which are voted in by the majority affected). A yes vote has the potential to cripple the use of Bond sales to fund these projects, and the “legally imposed obligations” that have to be funded won’t cover the projects because the political subdivision doesn’t have the authority to "Legally Impose” much of anything; please explain which affordable option they will be able to utilize for funding?

you simply tie these prices into the lot prices

 

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:

Allen Said:
http://www.whiting.com/investor-relations/presentations-and-media-events/

Ahh hell eyexer, I'll just save you some time.  Go to the above website, click on the April presentation, and proceed to slides 13-16.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.  That's one company.  company production runs the whole spectrum.  that's why some companies are far more profitable than other companies.  The bottom line is there are some really big producing holes and some not so big producing holes.  Geez, that's how the oil industry goes.  Of course they all fall off some after they are first tapped.  some stay pretty high up there some fall way off.  I'm not sure what your trying to prove. 

That your wildly optimistic estimation of state revenue from oil is exactly that, a wild over-estimation.  Is it true that the state is benefitting more now than the tax people thought possible just a few years ago?  Yep, sure is.  However, the reason is more to do with the record number of drilling rigs than it is about some infinite amount of oil in the ground.

I guess you can choose to believe whatever you want.  I work in the oil industry.  I have a pretty good idea what's coming down the pipeline in regards to the amount of drilling, etc.

 

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

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:

.

what the hell did I just say.  I said you pay capital gains taxes on it unless it's your home and you meet certain criteria.  are you retarded?

Nice.

Just throw out generalities and see if it sticks.  You said 18 mo.  Where does it say that in the tax code?

Shouldn't you be commenting on the vikings stadium thread.  Weren't you and your front office buddy saying they were doing a racino for this?  "It was a done deal and they break ground fall of 2012"

at the time it appeared to be.  then the libtards sold out to the tribes.  Either it was 18 months and it was recently changed to 24. or it was 24 and recently changed to 18.  but it really makes no difference.  the question was whether non residents had to pay capital gains.  your really reaching if you wish to make a case out of 18 months. 

 

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

hardwaterman!!!!!  lol.  i completely disagree on your view of legal obligations are and what fully and properly mean.  i don't have time to elaborate.  but, i think you are dead wrong on your assumptions/assertions.  just because it was submitted in a budget prior to 2011 and approved doesn't mean it is or will have to be a legal obligation of the state after this measure passes.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

and please don't tell me i am motivated by money that will end up in my pocket.  i've said it time and time again... i would happily pay more money out of my own pocket in the form of other taxes, specials, fees etc... than i will save in property tax if it means that nobody will ever lose their home to the government because they couldn't afford an unjust tax on their home. 

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

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

I just hoes it passes--------

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

espringers Said:
hardwaterman!!!!!  lol.  i completely disagree on your view of legal obligations are and what fully and properly mean.  i don't have time to elaborate.  but, i think you are dead wrong on your assumptions/assertions.  just because it was submitted in a budget prior to 2011 and approved doesn't mean it is or will have to be a legal obligation of the state after this measure passes.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

and please don't tell me i am motivated by money that will end up in my pocket.  i've said it time and time again... i would happily pay more money out of my own pocket in the form of other taxes, specials, fees etc... than i will save in property tax if it means that nobody will ever lose their home to the government because they couldn't afford an unjust tax on their home. 

So in other words, you cannot point to anywhere in the measure that it stops what I have said! The measure says nothing about the year 2011! It simply says prior to 2012! The reality is that every municipal,county etc.. that can levy a property tax is going to be able to submit that budget at the max level they could have and the state Leg will be bound by law to fund it. That budget will rise every year with the rise in property value.

Like it or not this is exactly what the measure says the Leg has to do!!!!!!!!!! So either show where the measure prevents it or stop saying that this is not a reality! Again this is a constitutional amendment and that is a big deal.
The term fully funded is going to be decided in court and with the measure as it is written it makes it clear that the cities and counties will be able to do pretty much whatever they want in regards to dollars.

Now when I get my assesment and assesments will continue because of specials being allowed. I have little or no reason to question it. So they value my $100,000.00 home at $175,000.00 why would I care! Is the Leg then going to have to create a assesor to go around and double check every assesment to see if it is accurate.

Then look at the properties currently listed with tax abatements. While the city and county are not currently collecting tax, they can and will be able to use those values in setting the submitted budget.

Plus the problem is that the law takes away the states ablity to tie those funds to the actual expenditure that the budget indicated it was for! So they can state that they are building a new court house or jail and then decide hey lets build a swimming complex instead.

I was wondering why none of the major city councils or township leaders really have come out to oppose this. Then I found out about this and the pieces fit!

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!

Pages