Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
SkeeterWX's picture
SkeeterWX
Offline
Joined: 7/14/03

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

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

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

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

StevePike Said:
 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ndbwhunter Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

greenhead Said:

StevePike Said:
 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

Tackle Joe Said:

ndbwhunter Said: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mills Said:

diamondguy81 Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ndbwhunter Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Justin


-Justin

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

dakota1977 Said:

ndbwhunter Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Justin

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

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

Tackle Joe: Where are you from?

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

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

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

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

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

Along with every other "legally imposed obligation" submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neat

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

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

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

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

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

Along with every other "legally imposed obligation" submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

What say you tackle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnr is right! Please vote NO

Second place is the first loser

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

wstnodak Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

What say you tackle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major mistake?  Nope!  Phenomenal opportunity? YES!

-Justin 

-Justin

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

 I have a question:

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

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

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

J

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

 

iluvswnd Said:
 
dakota1977 Said:


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

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

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

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

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

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

J

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

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

-Justin

-Justin

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

Seems alwful silly to vote a tax upon yourself.

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

iluvswnd Said:
 I have a question:

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

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

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

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

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

Section 4 Article 1.

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

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

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

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

iluvswnd,

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

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

-Justin

-Justin

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

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

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

WHOPPERSTOPPER Said:
Johnr is right! Please vote NO

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

Pages