Measure 2

Pages

445 posts / 0 new
Last post
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

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

i just don't get that.  they already have very little control over actual funding other than to request state approval for mil increases.  the increases are still approved by the state and funnelled thru them before they end up back in the hands of the local entities.  this measure wouldn't take that control away.  they will still get their check based on whatever formula was used prior to this year or some new formula if the legislature choses to tweek it.  and they will still be able to spend it however they see fit.  if they want more money, they can still raise it a number of different ways other than taxing your real property.  someone needs to explain to me why this is so complicated to some... please. 

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

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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

J

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

 

dakota1977 Said:
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

Gotcha, thanks for the response. 

J

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

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

The "squeaky wheel" is currently special interests - the "squeak wheel" needs to be the citizens - as this measure is for the citizens. Township funding is going to be replaced fully and properly - these seniors won't need to pay property tax any longer - or get a "reverse mortgage" scam just to be able to afford those property taxes! Yes, this is true - via the AARP's own research!

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

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

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town or other political subdivision.


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

 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

A city is a town but a town is not a city... 

J

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

lol... if all gobs are snobs and all snobs are jobs, are all jobs gobs? 

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

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tackle Joe Said:

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.

Thanks. It lists county, township, city, school district, or any other political subdivision. Town was stricken... 

A city is a town.

A city is a town but a town is not a city... 

I meant to say - and I believe I correct it - sorry for confusion - a town is a city or other political sub-division.

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

espringers Said:

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

i just don't get that.  they already have very little control over actual funding other than to request state approval for mil increases.  the increases are still approved by the state and funnelled thru them before they end up back in the hands of the local entities.  this measure wouldn't take that control away.  they will still get their check based on whatever formula was used prior to this year or some new formula if the legislature choses to tweek it.  and they will still be able to spend it however they see fit.  if they want more money, they can still raise it a number of different ways other than taxing your real property.  someone needs to explain to me why this is so complicated to some... please. 

I am not sure how they are thinking.  I'm not up to speed on this thing and am learning from the comments of folks on here.   Thanks.

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

StevePike Said:
 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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


J

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

espringers Said:

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

i just don't get that.  they already have very little control over actual funding other than to request state approval for mil increases.  the increases are still approved by the state and funnelled thru them before they end up back in the hands of the local entities.  this measure wouldn't take that control away.  they will still get their check based on whatever formula was used prior to this year or some new formula if the legislature choses to tweek it.  and they will still be able to spend it however they see fit.  if they want more money, they can still raise it a number of different ways other than taxing your real property.  someone needs to explain to me why this is so complicated to some... please. 

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

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

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

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

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

End it NOW!  VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

-Justin

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

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

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

 

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

 

eyexer Said:

StevePike Said:
 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J

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

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

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

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

What provision limits what spending?

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

wstnodak Said:

Tackle Joe Said:

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

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

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

 

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

 

dakota1977 Said:

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

End it NOW!  VOTE "YES" ON MEASURE 2!

-Justin

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

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

J

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

eyexer Said:

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

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

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

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

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

Neat

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

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

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

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

eyexer Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

eyexer Said:

StevePike Said:
 

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

Thanks for the condescending attitude, it helps...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

johnr Said:

eyexer Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

eyexer Said:

iluvswnd Said:

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

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

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

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

J

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allen Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages