Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
Roundhouse's picture
Roundhouse
Offline
Joined: 7/3/10

eyexer Said:

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. 

Once again wrong on both counts.

Sorry to everybody else for hijacking this thread.

We are still waiting for you to link to the source of land taxes going up 32% and property taxes going up 7.5%

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

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

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

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

I think he means people from Minot and surrounding areas will drive to Montana and Minnesota for their gas and other essentials.  The more he talks the deeper he digs.  He's a classic. 

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

I just hope it passes-----

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.

Please show me where in the wording of this measure for things other than education the funding requirements or formula are tied to anything from the past.

Yet once again, the wording of the measure direscts the legislature to "devise" a formula which will determine what percentage of the revenue  will be drawn from what sources.

This formula must "fully and properly fund the legally imposed obligations.

Please, do not post a proponanents "opinion".

Post the wording of the measure and highlight exactly where in the measure it states what you claim to answer this question.

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

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?????

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.

espringers, it appears the measure pretty specifically and clearly defines what revenues generated in the past from property taxesbefore 2012  must be replaced with does it not????

Can you point out which one of these a township has the ability to do?

How about a soil conservation district?

irrigation district?

ect...

Now please show us by hilighting the direct wording in the measure itself that explains how these "local" entities can use any of these methods to generate funding of a "local" project? .

I guess they can always hold a bake sale!
 

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

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. 

How will this be determined without examining each budget request?

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

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. 

It would be interesting to hear an answer to this concern.

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

It this statement is indeed true, how can the funding of operations for these entities be done by anything other than "state" revenues and other "state" sources?

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

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:

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. 

Once again wrong on both counts.

Sorry to everybody else for hijacking this thread.

We are still waiting for you to link to the source of land taxes going up 32% and property taxes going up 7.5%

it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

 

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

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand if you have two stores next to each other that sells the same stuff.  One store sells it for twenty percent less than the other store.  The expensive store isn't going to be in business very long.  So you can understand it, if ND raises it's sales tax to 15%, Fargo will go broke,lol.  legislators aren't that stupid. 

 

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

golfer Said:

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

I think he means people from Minot and surrounding areas will drive to Montana and Minnesota for their gas and other essentials.  The more he talks the deeper he digs.  He's a classic. 

your priceless.  You jump in here and bag on me and you bring zero to the debate.  Actually I don't recall you bringing anything of any means to any of the debates here.   It's obvious your mom needs to take your computer away again

 

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

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

I think he means people from Minot and surrounding areas will drive to Montana and Minnesota for their gas and other essentials.  The more he talks the deeper he digs.  He's a classic. 

your priceless.  You jump in here and bag on me and you bring zero to the debate.  Actually I don't recall you bringing anything of any means to any of the debates here.   It's obvious your mom needs to take your computer away again

Your priceless, I'll back Golfer on this one. Like he said your going to drive from Minot to another state or Bismarck to another state or Kenmare, the list of cities could go on and on. You for sure are not a Rocket Scientist!

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

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

I think he means people from Minot and surrounding areas will drive to Montana and Minnesota for their gas and other essentials.  The more he talks the deeper he digs.  He's a classic. 

your priceless.  You jump in here and bag on me and you bring zero to the debate.  Actually I don't recall you bringing anything of any means to any of the debates here.   It's obvious your mom needs to take your computer away again

Your priceless, I'll back Golfer on this one. Like he said your going to drive from Minot to another state or Bismarck to another state or Kenmare, the list of cities could go on and on. You for sure are not a Rocket Scientist!

don't tell me your as stupid as goofer.  I didn't say people from Bismarck, or Minot were going to run to MN.  God I still can't believe I have to explain this to you.  The stupid meter is definitely pegged to the hilt on this thread.  Anyway, there's this city called fargo and one called grand forks.  they are located in the red river valley in case you didn't know.  this area of the state has the largest representation in our state legislature.  the legislature will set the sales tax level.  their constituents will go completely nuts if they raise the sales tax level to a point where the people simply drive to a city named Moorehead and one named East Grand Forks.  People will do this for a multitude of reasons.  It still amazes me I had to explain this to a few on here. 

 

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

 

dakota1977 Said:
 Remember, special assessments are not eliminated by Measure 2.  

So if someone does not pay their specials, what can be done? Is the ability to take their property still there?

What about if you do not pay your State or Federal Income Tax? Can your home be taken?

You can't aim a duck to death.

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

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

Superfreak Said:

eyexer Said:

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

What !?  Explain what won't happen because competition of surrounding states.

I think he means people from Minot and surrounding areas will drive to Montana and Minnesota for their gas and other essentials.  The more he talks the deeper he digs.  He's a classic. 

your priceless.  You jump in here and bag on me and you bring zero to the debate.  Actually I don't recall you bringing anything of any means to any of the debates here.   It's obvious your mom needs to take your computer away again

And as long as you continue to post garbage and opinion as fact, I will bag on you.

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

I have a lot to read.  Haven't followed.  Mind doesn't tell me which way to go, gut doesn't really either.

My gut; however, tells me this is just another example of taxation without representation.  Instead of working about the big picture we worry about revenue.  Cut spending.  You cut the need to worry about generating more "revenue."

Put local control in place...I mean real local control.  If you think property tax is local you forget the big picture.  If you are on the school board, city commission, county commission, etc you still have to answer to a higher power before making a "local" decision.  That includes money.

I don't know, I do say it sucks that officially you never get to own your property.  I mean, if you stop paying your property tax and you long ago paid off your land or your home and they can come take it because you didn't pay your property tax...that doesn't make sense.

Hmm......


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Trouble with taxes IMO is that they are going to get the money somehow, and if one tax is aboloshed, they'll just fill it in and make it up with another.   Like squeezing a balloon.  Squeeze it and it pops out somewhere else. Squeeze it there and here we go again....
Yes, the argument about the oil revenue makes some sense, except that sooner or later that will likely dry up or at least go down.  
There's little or no talk about how to decrease the need for some of the current tax revenue, aka reducing waste, increasing efficiency, etc.    Just what I call 'tax shifting!"   Like the Health care thing on a National level - health care will get the money from us one way or another and all the politicians are doing is bashing heads how to shift it from one form to another.  Not reduce it.

There's interesting viewpoints on measure 2 on FBO and the various ND newpaper blogs.   Again, like the Health care thing, what liar or expert do you believe!?!   

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

Yup.

To answer your last question it goes into what I said.  Remove the need for dependency (bigger government) and let them or require them to just do what they are suppose to do and we take care of ourselves (like we use to do).

Some "transition" time will occur and so will some belly aching but in due time, all will right itself.  But I'm afraid when you inflict dependency upon people they become faint shadows of what they once were.  Its no different than drugs, alcoholism, etc.  It doesn't discriminate.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
chas tuttle's picture
chas tuttle
Offline
Joined: 4/20/12

To the last comment your out of state property owner is a canned statement by the KIL North Dakota People. They think that by demonizing the out of state property owner we will cut our nose to spite the face. Petty, childish and false.The numbers keep changing also with these people, first it was 123 million, you now claim it's 160 million. You folks just keep making up what ever you feel. Show us were the Association of Counties gets its numbers, They can't. But lets look at the real measure go to yesm2.com website. don't become  a sheep. Read it before you argue against it you will be surprised. Everyone say we lose local control with measure 2.You have the right answer to the naysayers.We gain local control with measure 2 , who better to determine the needs of the local government than the local government. Measure 2 trusts the local government by empowering them with their budgets. Aren't they doing that now. Do they not have governing power from the legislature now. That's whats called the right to create legally imposed obligations. Your fear is that they will be irresponsible with their new found real local control. Yes some maybe and it may spend more on the local subdivisions. But last year we gave 17000 out of state students $12,000 dollars to fill up our universities. Yes 200 million dollars. We did not hear people say no lets build our k-12 schools that are needed first. How about the over 2 billion we spend now on welfare in this state. Our population has not grown, yet our Dept of human service has, and at an alarming rate. Of the top 25 highest paid state employees not counting our universities, 17 are dept of human services workers. 1 in 19 of our population work for the state government, the national average is 1 in 29. What Measure 2 does is prioritize spending and gives the local schools and governments the right to be first in line. And how about the Beacon Hill study that was done on North Dakota. It claims that people who get to keep the extra money given to them by measure 2 won't put the money in their back yard but actually spend it back into our economy creating in the first year over 10,000 jobs at the same time shrinking government. It's the Chambers own figures that claim that dollar will be spent 7 time creating a new economy.Wow wouldn't that be a real positive turn of events for a change. (less government and more jobs) please feel free to call me 701-630-9489 chas tuttle The other fact is that the 80 special interest groups that form the KIL North Dakota are the same groups that lobby our Govenrment for all the other funds. We need to defeat these people who hurt North Dakota. We need to give power back to the people and that is what measure two will do. Whats more powerful and local than to be secure in one home.

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

chas tuttle Said:
To the last comment your out of state property owner is a canned statement by the KIL North Dakota People. They think that by demonizing the out of state property owner we will cut our nose to spite the face. Petty, childish and false.The numbers keep changing also with these people, first it was 123 million, you now claim it's 160 million. You folks just keep making up what ever you feel. Show us were the Association of Counties gets its numbers, They can't. But lets look at the real measure go to yesm2.com website. don't become  a sheep. Read it before you argue against it you will be surprised. Everyone say we lose local control with measure 2.You have the right answer to the naysayers.We gain local control with measure 2 , who better to determine the needs of the local government than the local government. Measure 2 trusts the local government by empowering them with their budgets. Aren't they doing that now. Do they not have governing power from the legislature now. That's whats called the right to create legally imposed obligations. Your fear is that they will be irresponsible with their new found real local control. Yes some maybe and it may spend more on the local subdivisions. But last year we gave 17000 out of state students $12,000 dollars to fill up our universities. Yes 200 million dollars. We did not hear people say no lets build our k-12 schools that are needed first. How about the over 2 billion we spend now on welfare in this state. Our population has not grown, yet our Dept of human service has, and at an alarming rate. Of the top 25 highest paid state employees not counting our universities, 17 are dept of human services workers. 1 in 19 of our population work for the state government, the national average is 1 in 29. What Measure 2 does is prioritize spending and gives the local schools and governments the right to be first in line. And how about the Beacon Hill study that was done on North Dakota. It claims that people who get to keep the extra money given to them by measure 2 won't put the money in their back yard but actually spend it back into our economy creating in the first year over 10,000 jobs at the same time shrinking government. It's the Chambers own figures that claim that dollar will be spent 7 time creating a new economy.Wow wouldn't that be a real positive turn of events for a change. (less government and more jobs) please feel free to call me 701-630-9489 chas tuttle The other fact is that the 80 special interest groups that form the KIL North Dakota are the same groups that lobby our Govenrment for all the other funds. We need to defeat these people who hurt North Dakota. We need to give power back to the people and that is what measure two will do. Whats more powerful and local than to be secure in one home.

Tell us where in the measure it prevents current taxing authorities from submitting and by law a maxed tax evaluation budget and have the Leg be forced to provide those funds?

Simple question that all you YES supporters refuse to address! The answer is not the formula by the way all that does is specifiy how the amount is reached not control of the amount!!!!!!!!

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:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

Atypical's picture
Atypical
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/7/10

Sorry if this has been brought up already, here's something interesting and it's not based on scare tactics.

Beacon Hill Institute Policy Study on eliminating property taxes in ND.


My sincere thanks to all the men and women who have/are serving this great country. Freedom isn't Free.

sdwxman's picture
sdwxman
Offline
Joined: 4/6/07

 

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

I had to look. You can do an easy search on the Williston Herald Website.

Here are the only 2 articles I could find regarding any taxes.

http://www.willistonherald.com/opinion/columnists/productivity-assessment-curbs-farm-taxes/article_49f11372-7ce4-11e1-a000-0019bb2963f4.html 

http://www.willistonherald.com/news/tax-debate-sides-debate-pros-cons-of-abolishing-property-taxes/article_b252c02c-6011-11e1-a3d1-0019bb2963f4.html 

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

Atypical Said:
Sorry if this has been brought up already, here's something interesting and it's not based on scare tactics.

Beacon Hill Institute Policy Study on eliminating property taxes in ND.


Tell us where in the measure it prevents current taxing authorities from submitting and by law a maxed tax evaluation budget and have the Leg be forced to provide those funds?

Simple question that all you YES supporters refuse to address! The answer is not the formula by the way all that does is specifiy how the amount is reached not control of the amount!!!!!!!!
 Try and do this!

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!

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

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

I'm pretty sure this is another one of eyexer's
 read between the lines and you know what I mean't responses.

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

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

both actually. 

 

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

golfer Said:

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

I'm pretty sure this is another one of eyexer's
 read between the lines and you know what I mean't responses.

when your old enough to pay property taxes you'll be able to bring something meaningful to this discussion.

 

wood duck 30's picture
wood duck 30
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/23/06

Please try and use a fraction of common sense and vote NO!!!

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.

Once again, here is crux of the measures wording.

I have asked very specific questions and ask that they be answered by pointing out directly in the wording of this measure the portion that addresses these question. NOT a proponants "opinion".

Espringers tackle joe, eyexer, if you would, please go back to the last series of four posts I made and show directly within the wording of this measure where the concerns are addressed.

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

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

I'm pretty sure this is another one of eyexer's
 read between the lines and you know what I mean't responses.

when your old enough to pay property taxes you'll be able to bring something meaningful to this discussion.

so where is your link?

chas tuttle's picture
chas tuttle
Offline
Joined: 4/20/12
Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 I have been very active in opposing M2, both for myself and as a spokesman for Keepitlocal.    I have debated the sponsors and debated other supporters of M2 on talk radio.  I spent over an hour on the radio today pointing out the fraudulent representations in the newest version of the Beacon Hill report.    The old versions of the BH studies were so nonsensical that they are trying a new tact with this new report.  But, there is no validity to this new BH report either.    I am not much for a long circular  spiting matches, but I am willing to give you my answers to any legitimate questions over the weekend if anyone wants to ask me some...Ladd Erickson  

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

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

Roundhouse Said:

eyexer Said:
it was linked in an article in the Williston Herald.  I looked for that article and I don't see it on their website anymore.  The info came right from the state tax dept.  It's probably on their site.  But it really doesn't matter.  They've raised property taxes for me for the past six years.  And for everybody I know.  I have no reason to believe they won't be raising them again next year.  Their track record is stellar for that.  And honestly it really doesn't matter if they are or not in regard to this measure.  They are already grossly too high.

It does matter.  You claimed it was true.  So back up your claim.  People can't just say things like it is true when it isn't.  If it is on the state tax dept website then show us the info.
Have they raised your taxes or has your valuation increased?

I'm pretty sure this is another one of eyexer's
 read between the lines and you know what I mean't responses.

when your old enough to pay property taxes you'll be able to bring something meaningful to this discussion.

So what you bring is meaningful?  Your opinion which you try to sneak by as fact, your name calling, retard and libtard, when you are backed into a corner.  Your discussion concerning the Vikings, the Sioux name,  tax issues.    Name one thing that has been a meaningful discussion in which you have added anything other than your hearsay?

Jig4Pig's picture
Jig4Pig
Offline
Joined: 3/7/10

If this sucks we can always get rid of it.  Tax decreases are easier to get rid of than tax increases........kind of.

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

 Ladd,

I have a couple questions that have not been answered by the proponents of the Measure. Actually, they have been avoided.

So if someone does not pay their specials, what can be done? Is the ability to take their property still there?



What about if you do not pay your State or Federal Income Tax? Can your home be taken? 


You can't aim a duck to death.

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

 

Jig4Pig Said:
If this sucks we can always get rid of it.  Tax decreases are easier to get rid of than tax increases........kind of.

Not with a Constitutional Measure, as I understand it would have to go back to a vote of the people.

Of course, the Legislature could try out a property tax forgiveness for a year or two. See how Measure 2's philosophy actually works and if viable, suspend property taxes until needed again. The vehicle would still be in place to collect if needed. Or we can get rid of Property Taxes and roll the dice with how our children and grandchildren will fund those items property tax currently does.

I am all for Property Tax relief or getting rid of it all together IF there is a plan completely identified and it appears sound. Leaving the Formula to be developed later with a host of sources they can pull from is a little too much of a shot in the dark.

You can't aim a duck to death.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 

StevePike Said:
 Ladd,

I have a couple questions that have not been answered by the proponents of the Measure. Actually, they have been avoided.

So if someone does not pay their specials, what can be done? Is the ability to take their property still there?



What about if you do not pay your State or Federal Income Tax? Can your home be taken? 


Failure to pay specials can lead to forfeiture of property.  During one of the interim legislative hearings on M2 one of the sponsors testified as follows:

"In response to a question from Senator Sorvaag, 
Mr. Hale said the initiated measure is not intended to 
disallow special assessments.  He said local 
jurisdictions can vote to impose special assessments." 

"In response to a question from Senator Cook, 

Mr. Hale said the initiated measure would allow a 
school district to impose a special assessment for 
 

Currently, schools are not allowed by statute to use "specials", but the legislature could change the special assessment statute to broaden its use if M2 passes, as the legislators are inquiring into here, and Mr.   Hale is saying would be ok by the measure's language.

 With income taxes, liens are used first if income taxes aren't paid.   Those liens can render property worthless because the underlying tax judgments grow with interest and penalties that could  eventually out value the property if no address is made to the income tax debt.   I am not aware of a house actually being seized for failure to pay income taxes at the state level.   I was involved in a criminal case a few years ago where a lawyer had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from his clients.   He was prosecuted by the feds for tax violations and I believe the IRS seized some property he had in AZ. ...I don't know how often the IRS seizes property even if they can???  

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

 Thank you.

So if this passes, just based on the special assessment portion, your property can still be "taken" if you do not pay. Just like with property taxes currently.

It DOES NOT give you unconditional ownership where your property can never be taken for failure to pay a government imposed fee. Same boat, just a different fee you didn't pay that results in you losing your home.

Is that correct?

You can't aim a duck to death.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 

StevePike Said:
 Thank you.

So if this passes, just based on the special assessment portion, your property can still be "taken" if you do not pay. Just like with property taxes currently.

It DOES NOT give you unconditional ownership where your property can never be taken for failure to pay a government imposed fee. Same boat, just a different fee you didn't pay that results in you losing your home.

Is that correct?

No one ever has "unconditional" ownership of their property under any circumstances.  What the Constitution requires when the government "takes" property is it uses "due process of law" - whether the purpose of the taking is for failure to pay a tax or other reason.    Our law puts high burdens on the government in any property seizure, and rightly so.    What has been laughable during the M2 debate is how the sponsors are fear mongering so much about how your house could be taken if you don't pay your property taxes.   There are a number of protections and requirements  to keep that from occurring and the counties and cities don't want anyone's property because the law requires they sell it and it is a time and money loser to go through the process.     

 What the counties and cities typically end up getting for tax properties is junk.  Property that the owners walk away from because the buildings are in such bad condition they get dumped on the local government entity to deal with.   Sometimes we try and get local fire departments to burn the buildings down for training, other times we have to demolish them and eat the loss.     It just depends.     There are exceptions to the rule, times where a property isn't just junk, and it is seized for tax purposes.   But that is very rare.    

slipbobr's picture
slipbobr
Offline
Joined: 4/3/03

Sombody dumping a house? Seems to me the city would gain a lot then. anywhere in ND, more so in the Bakken area.

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

I sure hope it passes. If could always be added back if needed.

PerchMan's picture
PerchMan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/5/02
 I am confused more than ever on the subject.  There are so many scenarios (good and bad) floating around, a person doesn't know what to believe.  No property tax would be great,  I am all for that.  It is the uncertainty and the what ifs that spook me a little.  

Maybe it has been stated in this thread already, but does anyone know what % of the property tax stays in the county in which it is paid?  Also,  does the property tax that does stay in county go directly to said county or is it sent to state and then issued back.

 
Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 

PerchMan Said:
 I am confused more than ever on the subject.  There are so many scenarios (good and bad) floating around, a person doesn't know what to believe.  No property tax would be great,  I am all for that.  It is the uncertainty and the what ifs that spook me a little.  

Maybe it has been stated in this thread already, but does anyone know what % of the property tax stays in the county in which it is paid?  Also,  does the property tax that does stay in county go directly to said county or is it sent to state and then issued back.

 

There is only one property tax levy that the money doesn't stay local and that is the levy for the UND medical school.   This amounts to only a few dollars on everyone's property taxes.   Other than that, our constitution prohibits the state from using property taxes to fund state government.      My answer could be a bit misleading however because there are some the state requires the local governments do and those things can mean property taxes are needed to pay for those things.   For example, if your county operates a jail there are some state requirements like having a jail nurse on contract or staff.    If your county has a farm to market road the feds and the state pay a lot of the road costs for that road, but in order for them to do that they require your county to levy a percentage of the road maintenance costs for that road.   That's why things like the amounts in the federal transportation bill will impact your property tax statement to some degree.

As far as what percent of property taxes stay in your county, other than the medical school levy, it is 100%, but it all doesn't stay with "the county".  What happens is all the taxing  districts - fire, school, weed board, cities, townships, etc.   go through their public budgeting process and set their levies, those are all then sent to the county auditors to come up with the consolidated mil levy for your area within the county.    And then that mil levy number is applied to the "taxable" value of your property, which is not the "market" value of your home when you home is assessed for value and that you get on your tax statement.     None of your property tax payments go to the state first and then come back to the county.     That does happen in MN and is why they have such a budget mess over there all the time.  In MN, the state gets all the property tax dollars and then decides how much of those dollars come back.     

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

Ladd Said:
 

PerchMan Said:
 I am confused more than ever on the subject.  There are so many scenarios (good and bad) floating around, a person doesn't know what to believe.  No property tax would be great,  I am all for that.  It is the uncertainty and the what ifs that spook me a little.  

Maybe it has been stated in this thread already, but does anyone know what % of the property tax stays in the county in which it is paid?  Also,  does the property tax that does stay in county go directly to said county or is it sent to state and then issued back.

 

There is only one property tax levy that the money doesn't stay local and that is the levy for the UND medical school.   This amounts to only a few dollars on everyone's property taxes.   Other than that, our constitution prohibits the state from using property taxes to fund state government.      My answer could be a bit misleading however because there are some the state requires the local governments do and those things can mean property taxes are needed to pay for those things.   For example, if your county operates a jail there are some state requirements like having a jail nurse on contract or staff.    If your county has a farm to market road the feds and the state pay a lot of the road costs for that road, but in order for them to do that they require your county to levy a percentage of the road maintenance costs for that road.   That's why things like the amounts in the federal transportation bill will impact your property tax statement to some degree.

As far as what percent of property taxes stay in your county, other than the medical school levy, it is 100%, but it all doesn't stay with "the county".  What happens is all the taxing  districts - fire, school, weed board, cities, townships, etc.   go through their public budgeting process and set their levies, those are all then sent to the county auditors to come up with the consolidated mil levy for your area within the county.    And then that mil levy number is applied to the "taxable" value of your property, which is not the "market" value of your home when you home is assessed for value and that you get on your tax statement.     None of your property tax payments go to the state first and then come back to the county.     That does happen in MN and is why they have such a budget mess over there all the time.  In MN, the state gets all the property tax dollars and then decides how much of those dollars come back.     

So, in Minnesota all the property tax dollars goes to the state first and they decide what will come back to all the political subs? Isn't that kinda what measure 2 is trying to accomplish, they just won't call it "property tax" anymore?

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

The more i read on this the more i am convinced relief is the answer. if we get rid of this tax and in ten years it is decided oops guess we need this what a burden it would be for tax payers to budget in this sum of money.

 

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 

PerchMan Said:
 I am confused more than ever on the subject.  There are so many scenarios (good and bad) floating around, a person doesn't know what to believe.  No property tax would be great,  I am all for that.  It is the uncertainty and the what ifs that spook me a little.  

Maybe it has been stated in this thread already, but does anyone know what % of the property tax stays in the county in which it is paid?  Also,  does the property tax that does stay in county go directly to said county or is it sent to state and then issued back.

 

I am also torn. Both sides make compelling arguments. 

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

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

If this passes it is going to cost us more money in the long run. And you can still loose your house and land if you dont pay your specials (taxes)  doesnt make a whole lot of sense to vote for this.

wood duck 30's picture
wood duck 30
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/23/06

Vote NO

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

Vote Yes

Pages