E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNorth Dakota voters on Tuesday soundly rejected a ballot measure that sought to make the oil-rich state the first to abolish property taxes, a move critics said would have undermined local governments and forced an increase in taxes overall.
The measure, which would have required state lawmakers to come up with a way to replace $812 million in lost property tax revenues for 2012 alone, was defeated by a vote of 77.5 percent to 22.5 percent, with 70 percent of precincts reporting.
A varied coalition organized opposition to the measure, including the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, which said it was looking for "broad based" reform of personal income, corporate and sales taxes as well as property taxes.
"We would like to see all levels of our taxes go down, spread it across all of our tax streams," Jon Godfread, vice president of governmental affairs for the chamber, said in a telephone interview before the polls closed.
Supporters of the proposal called property taxes among the most regressive and argued that North Dakota's booming oil economy has produced low unemployment levels and hefty budget surpluses that would make the transition easier.
"The surplus makes it easy for us to fund whatever revenue might be lost when the measure passes," said Charlene Nelson, chairwoman of the group that proposed the measure.
Nelson said earlier that the group did not expect the measure to be approved by voters, but they would try again next year if lawmakers fail to approve broad-based tax changes.
"We will give them a chance," Nelson said. "My guess is they will be unable, unwilling, incapable of reforming this tax because it really is unfixable."
The measure would have eliminated $812 million in property tax revenue from 2012 and $1.8 billion from the next two-year budget period, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis.
The measure also would have required North Dakota state legislators to replace lost revenue to cities, counties, townships, school districts and other political subdivisions without specifying how that was to be done.
Moody's had issued a special comment on the measure, saying that if voters were to approve it, local and municipal governments in North Dakota would face significant financial pressure.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
The Citizens have spoken so let it be done. Good for them.
Communism was defeated again......
Communism seems to be dying. Unions were defeated in Wisconsin last week.
Middle Class = 1
Tea Bangers/Christian Taliban = 0
When conservatives go to the polls, they always vote to end taxation, vote for lower wages for themselves and everybody else, vote to restrict women's rights, reduce education spending for their kids and everybody else's kids and give generous tax cuts to the wealthy.
Screwing over the middle class and rabid discrimination is a Republican/Tea Bangers/Christian Taliban core value.
Seven2Seven
Communism was defeated again......
Wat
Hey!!! Where is all the Tea Bangers and Conservative Talibans who were here yesterday telling us how property tax is illegal, it wasnt their responsibility to fund education or pay for police and fire services...... and how the sales tax should be like 15% to fund everything, and how Lush, Bort, Fatbo and Faux News is always correct???
Also, didnt I read yesterday from a Tea Trash supporter who said, it was "discrimination" against property owners who pay property tax and the poor who dont pay property tax...and that was unfair??
and how Lush and Faux News is always right??
Wow! It's amazing how people can draw any conclusion they want out of any situation.
Did you not see that this was defeated with a 77.5% vote against? Unless there are only 22.5% republicans in North Dakota, anyone can see that this was defeated overwhelmingly by BOTH parties!
You guys simply astound me with your hate!
@ Shekel Trader et al
Your comments show how seriously misguided your thoughts, and all those who support your comments, are.
Property taxation is the most discriminatory means of taxation. It is not based on ones ability to pay (ie- amount of earnings ) but on the value of ones property. The middle class is being screwed out of the " family farm" by ever rising property taxes which they can no longer afford. They have no home "ownership". As the cost of local services rise at an ever increasing pace, property taxes rise along with them, without regard for how ones income needed to pay those taxes has risen, or in some cases, such as retirement, fallen. Seriously, think about it. Wouldn't you like to be able to stay in your home that you paid for, regardless of your income level, without the fear of the government taking it from you just because you can't pay your property taxes? I'll say it again. Taxing property only hurts, and stymies the middle class from ever being able to own nicer property, increasing family wealth through real estate like the wealthy do. The wealthy can afford the property taxes. Property taxes are such a small percentage of their income. The middle class does not have that level of disposable income after essential needs to pay ever increasing, discriminatory property taxes.
Wake up !
There will be property tax reform in North Dakota and elsewhere!
Now it is time to raise the taxes..you will pay and you will like it...
I don't see how property taxes are discriminatory, it is the same rate for everyone. If everything was the same rate for everyone, regardless of income levels, etc we would be alot better off. I get tired of hearing that we need adjustments on everything for income levels. If we do that where is the incentive to try to achieve more?
No one is entitled to real estate. There is a limited quantity. Next you are going to say no one should be denied basic living conditions, etc. So when someone buys a home, generations can live there once it is paid off, at no cost, because they will be on welfare and other gov't programs, and they won't have to work, just live off the gov't. Right?
Tired of hearing the entitlement arguements. When you buy a home you know what you are getting into, has been that way as long as most homes have been built. If you can't 'keep the farm' obviously you aren't managing it right. A farm is a business. If businesses aren't managed right they fail.
I am delighted to see that common sense prevailed here. Property taxes pay for services that we use. Where many of us get aggravated is when our tax dollars are spent in a frivolous, wasteful manner. We understand that the services and infrastructure that we rely on are paid for through our tax dollars, we just desire that those monies be used wisely. I frankly do not understand the logic or rationale behind a "no tax" policy; it makes no sense whatsoever.
As for those of you lined up in your partisan firing lines, just keep verbally beating the crap out of each other and spinning every fact to match your ideological rhetoric. It serves no productive purpose, yet you seem to enjoy it in a rather sadistic/masochistic fashion. Of course, if this nation is to ever solve her problems, it won't arise from that mentality. Solutions are derived from logic, reason, cooperation, and, yes, even compromise at times, aided by the ability to set personal egos aside to achieve the better end for the nation as a whole.
Man, I bet the teabaggers in ND feel stupid now...
Wow, I think if I were you I would go read MyView-222's post again, it was spot on.
@ hootgib et al
That you can't see how property taxes are discriminatory is quite disturbing.
Let me give you a simple example....
Lets take a home in a middle class community. Lets say the property taxes, school and local taxes are $6,000/year.
Let's assume, for arguments sake, that this home is "owned" by a family whos annual income is $50,000/ year. That would make the tax rate against there income (what they will use to pay those taxes) an effective rate of 12%.
Now lets assume, again for arguments sake, that that same home were owned by a family whos annual income is $100,000/ year. This families effective tax rate on the home they "own" is only 6%.
If that's not discriminatory and repressive to the middle class, I'm not sure what is.
This system is also self defeating, particularly on the school tax side.
Let take that same home, generating $6,000/year in taxes, $3,000 of which goes to the school district it sits in. Let's assume this time it is owned by a retired couple. They have no school aged children, so they put no burden on the school district. They are a pure profit center for the school district.
Let's now assume, that the retired couple are forced to sell because the taxes on their home, you know, the one they supposedly "own", have risen to the point they can no longer afford to live their on their fixed income. This home will likely be purchased by a younger couple, perhaps thinking of starting a family or with an already established family of, say 2 school age children, at an average cost according to the US Census of $10,499/student. This means that this property now goes from being a pure profit center of $3,000/year to a net deficit generating property of -$17,998. This is one reason the property tax system is imploding.
And how you managed to twist this around to be about entitlements and living off the Gov't dole is beyond me.
Does Fuhrer Norquist have a corresponding hand/arm gesture?
Just asking.
This is unfortunate. Property taxes is a violation of our rights.
evidently hot gib doesn't own a home-he's just one of the mooches who doesn't have to pay real estate taexs. I've been in my home 30 years, now retired, and when I first bought this home my taexs were 125 a month, but now at 450 a month plus utilities, food etc, how the hell are retirees supposed to get by. There should be no real estate taxes for retirees 65 and older,that would definitely help.
Seven2seven @ 1.1
"Communism was defeated again..."
RoadWarrior @ 1.2
"Communism seems to be dying. Unions were defeated in Wisconsin last week"
I live in North Dakota. This was a Tea Party backed amendment from day 1.
MyView-222's post at 1.7 overlooks some enormous problems. Eliminating property taxes will only further accelerate the accumulation of wealth by the very richest. They already pay lower tax rates because capitol gains are only taxed at 15%. If you eliminate property taxes they will simply move their assets into real estate and price the middle class out of the market. Great idea if you want to develop an entire nation of "Potter's Fields".
My View @ 1.14
"Lets take a home in a middle class community. Lets say the property taxes, school and local taxes are $6,000/year.
Let's assume, for arguments sake, that this home is "owned" by a family whos annual income is $50,000/ year."
In Fargo the median family income is about $73,000 per year and the median home value is about $145,000.
In order to pay $6,000 in property taxes your $50K family would need to be living in a $350,000 house.
I live here. I can back everyone of those figures up.
My View, so please tell us how this lost revenue is replaced? Sales Tax? (even more regressive). Income tax? That will never pass in these times. I don't have children, but have no problem paying taxes for schools. I had a public education, so I'm paying back. Our state has a limit of a 5% increase in your tax bill no matter how much the value of your home rises (or falls, but of course nobody seems to ever see a drop in value on the tax rolls). As for the "poor family farms"... I live in a very rural agritcultural based state. I can't tell you how many "poor farmers" I see trying to figure out where to put there money... new car, new second home, etc. While that isn't the case for EVERY farmer, I think the sympathy for the poor farmer is overblown.
@ Hartvig Lein
Perhaps. But what you fail to envision is the home building boom that would ensue, building new construction homes to replace the ones taken out of "circulation " by the reduced turn over of homes due to the elimination of forced tax sales and investment by the wealthy, as you project it. These new homes will need to be furnished with appliances, furniture, bric a brac ect, also good for the economy. Also, without the burden of property taxes, the middle class can afford "more home" through the freed-up cash, literally upwards of $1,000/month.
The wealthy want property taxation as a means of covert red-lining. It keeps the less affluent in their place, their middle class neighborhoods, and keeps them out of the wealthy communities.
@ Hartvig Lein
Your #'s don't change anything. They don't change the fact that someone else living in that same $145,000 home in Fargo with a higher or lower income will pay a different tax rate as a percentage of income, again, what is used to pay those taxes, than the person with your median income. Still discriminatory.
Booby Holly, think about what communism is very hard and you may get it.........
Ok, lets go on income. You figure that it would have to be based on income taxes for the income. A business owner that writes off most of their income is going to be paying next to nothing in income taxes. You have welfare recipients that don't work, they'll pay nothing in taxes. You have farmers that can write enough off to where they pay little to nothing in taxes. You have the wealthy that can find enough loopholes to where they won't be paying their actual income. Where are the majority of the income tax going to come from - the middle class. You do know that with property tax businesses make up a large majority of the tax base, right? Do you want that falling on the people who works shoulders? I don't. You know they wouldn't lower the cost of their goods or services or add extra employee benefits or pay, it would just be more money in their pockets.
The problem is you can manipulate you income in so many ways that income isn't a good tax base for essential services. Incomes can fluxuate greatly. And who collects the income tax, the state, who would dictate local taxing entities. I would rather local communities have control of their local tax $$ as much as possible.
The retired person. Lets say they had children at one point in school. They personally benefited. Lets say they didn't ever have kids. If the school is helping produce quality workers, they are benefiting by the social security taxes that the educated kids are paying.
You do realize property taxes are in no way related to income taxes right? Next are you going to say retirees shouldn't be paying taxes and registrations on their cars?
How did I twist this around to entitlements, what do you think exempting people of a certain age is? It is saying you are entitled to less taxes due to your age!!
Btw, I own a house and pay taxes on it.
Not necessarily. You can choose to live wherever you want, and can choose to rent if you do not like property taxes. Granted, most times that cost is partially, if not fully passed on, however, don't be a homeowner then. It just means that people who choose to live more conservatively pay less, and where they live is a choice. Income tax rates are not a choice, there are many ways around paying, but still, it's still a mandated revenue source.
@ wives fan
I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers. I am merely making the observation that the current system is discriminatory and destined to fail. Have you ever looked into the Fair Tax? It addresses your concern of the sales tax being regressive through the use of a prebate and eliminates the Income tax and IRS.
@hootgib
No, my friend, I'm afraid you've gotten it wrong again. I said income was the basis of the means for paying the taxes. I never said, figured, eluded to, or suggested in any way that the answer was income taxes. It might be, if the tax code could be cleaned up. However, see #1.26 for another alternative.
I'll agree with you on this one, kind of. I do agree that the current tax system is out dated or in need of a makeover at every level. I still believe in tax income diversification. I think the current tax system is way to complicated at every level. I worked in an assessors office for almost 5 years valuing real estate and personal property, so I understand how real estate taxes work and what goes into calculating them. I also can see how bad it would be to put the tax burdon from real estate onto people with an income. I do feel bad for people that would be forced to move due to excessive taxes, but that's just part of the responsibilities of owning real estate.
The only thing I've came up with to reform real estate taxes is to do away with appraised values and just tax based how much land you own. And that isn't a very good system either, but it would do away with the fluxuation of appraised values and taxpayers could directly see what the taxing entities are taxing them, and the taxing entities would have no excuse of appraised values fluxuating. I just don't ever see the gov't going away from real estate taxes because you can't hide real estate.
But it shouldn't be. That sounds like a defeatist expression which I hate; well that's the way it's always been, so.....
See, that's where a little document called the Constitution of The United States of America comes in.
We are the Government. If WE want to make it so...It will be.
MyView--sorry, but YOUR 'formula' is assuming that everyone has a right to own the same size house ($$ wise) no matter what your income. If a person who only makes $50K has trouble paying the $6k in property taxes, they have obviously bought more house than they could afford.
My town had trouble about 10 years ago getting a bond issue passed 10 years ago to build a new high school, and to give our teachers a raise. (and this town is about 60% Pub voting) Now, in most of the taxpayer's minds, we didn't see the NEED for a new HS since the old one had way fewer students in it than when WE were there. But after three tries, the school board finally split the two measures up, and the part for the new HS failed again, but the TEACHER's raise SAILED through. See, we don't MIND paying for something we view as worth while.
Anyway--in newspaper "Man on the street'' interviews, one young black girl (High school Sr.) was asked if it was fair for the old people to have their taxes raised since they no longer had kids in school, and her response was spot on--she said that the average age of doctors in our town was 55 years old. That most were in the process of slowing down toward retiring. So where did the town think they would find NEW doctors to move there if they could not put their kids in the public schools because they were underfunded?
And who, as an age group, needs doctors most often?
Pretty smart for a teenager.
I support property taxes
What I don't support is the continuous suppressing of wages and benefits for Americans that makes it hard or impossible for them to pay their taxes.
But hey lets destroy America's ability to maintain a society and stop paying taxes all together. I'm sure that will be a much better society [/sarcasm]
The oil in North Dakota, Texas or wherever the oil in this nation is should benefit Americans, not conglomerates. America's oil should be used to pay down debts and deficits this country has and to repair Social security and allow us all to retire with our benefits at age 60 and fund healthcare for all..
then maybe we will have a decent society, but hey lets just destroy it all and let personal wealth fill the void and create a whole new style of feudal system that you morons can kowtow too
My View
I'm sorry but you have to pay for what you have. If you can't afford it you need to sell it. Age descrimination at any level isn't ok with me. Locals should have to pay for local services. If education is required by law then it should be offered at the expense of the population. Everyone benefits from education. Please realize that a lot of people commute to work because there aren't enough jobs for everyone at every local level. I don't know how you can get more fair than property tax because nearly everyone is required to pay, and you can't manipulate how much real estate you own. It would be nearly impossible to administrate any tax based on age and income and do it effectively.
bobt-1724981 If you're being assessed $450/month in property taxes, you must doing just fine. Quit complaining and go on a trip to Bermuda. Clearly you can afford it. The rest of us have to work our butts off and still can't afford health care.
Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." He spoke against vast personal wealth... and, if you believe in the Bible (I don't, but making a point here), then you would know that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven." That said, forcing your cherry-picked biblical views on others while hording vast amounts of money, property (you CAN'T take it with you) is the most blatantly hypocritical thing that I have ever been witness to. This is why I left the right wing, and why I will never go back.
This is great news for North Dakota and America.
The GOP surfs a high anti-tax tidal wave.
The right wing is attempting to hoodwink our citizens into believing that taxes and spending are at the root of America's financial problems. The problem is that the 1% and the most wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. The GOP stalwarts feign that without an adequate tax base, that "somehow" we can still maintain our schools, bridges, highways and other infrastructure. The citizens of North Dakota did not swallow the Republicans' "anti-tax" lies. Now, the people of North Dakota can rest more easily...knowing that there is money in counties' coffers to pay a firefighter.
Obama/Biden 2012
If you really think property taxes are great, consider this. I am a vet, U.S. Army Airborne, and a few years ago I went blind from a service related injury. While waiting the FOUR YEARS it took the V.A. and Social Security and having to go to court to get the benefits and medical care I needed I was unable to work. Even though the doctors confirmed the problem was real and service related, some lazy Govt. clerk "routinely denied" the claim. During that time since I was unable to pay property taxes which had been rising every year to pay for the ever increasing overspending by local Govts.
For $4000 in taxes they took my 3 bedroom on 1 acre of land home that I had owned for 23 years. I sought help from all the usual agencies, but they turned me down and several told me the programs were not meant for "single white males".
The county auctioned it to a guy for the exact tax amount owed. The guy is a illegal alien, but since his wife gave birth in the States, they were allowed to stay and have all the rights and privileges of a citizen.
The V.A> finally operated on my eyes and I can see again to a certain extent. Went back and looked at the house. It was pretty trashed. The owner doesn't live there, he uses it as rental property. The neighbors say he charges $300 per person per month and that as many as 15 people live there. All of whom are Hispanic. They also say the house has been raided three times, there is traffic there all night and several shootings have occurred.
Property taxes, unlike income taxes, accrue whether you can work or not, so I disagree that property taxes are fair.
I really don't see what this has to do with communism as some suggest. Just folks want to use other sources of revenue to fund the state.
Americans don't like taxes ..... but they scream when their services like fire and police are CUT, don't they. I would much rather pay taxes and have the services that they provide than live in the not-utopia that the 'no tax' crowd wants.
MyVeiw claims that a bunch of new homes would be built if property taxes are abolished, which would somehow create more money for the local government to pay for everything. ??? THAT is an assumption. If the tax (as some of you claim) is UNFAIR in what you pay for the home that you own, I might understand that. But the absolute POISON that is spouted about 'doing away with the property tax' completely is insane and unstable. You don't even have a plan to replace the money lost to the local gov: but you claim the tax is "discriminatory". Fix it or forget it - you certainly will F everything up for the local gov (and the residence) if you abolish it. If I were police, fire or a teacher I would start putting apps in at the next state over.....
@ MOmaid
Sorry, but you are assuming that these individuals just bought their home and over extended themselves. What of the couple who bought their house 20 or 30 years ago when the home payment and taxes were affordable, at their then working wage, but have since retired on a fixed income and are now in danger of losing their home because of skyrocketing taxes? I guess they should have had the foresight to see this coming and stayed renters, right? Please.
@ hootgib
Never said we didn't have to.
I'm sorry, that's not true. What about renters? Oh yes, I know, the landlord who owns the property pays taxes on that property, but it is a disproportionate amount to the number of families living there. A single family home might pay, say $3,000/year in school taxes on their 2000 sqft home. An apt complex, housing 100 families in 1000 sqft apts certainly does not pay $150,000/yr in school taxes which would be the proportionate share.
See comment #1.26.
No matter what you say, renters are paying it through their rent. It doesn't matter if it's fair. Taxes aren't ever fair, not tax is or ever will be. Who is going to administrate the Fair Tax? If it's not the locals then it is missing the point. The locals HAVE to administrate their own taxes or they lose control of their taxing entities to the state government. Then people will complain that their state taxes are too high and want the feds to administrate them. Then you have the feds running the states.
The whole reason there are different levels of taxes is so taxpayers have some control. Otherwise state or federal bureacrats will be running the show even more than they already are. You don't want someone running your local budget when they are just looking at the numbers, not the situation you are in.
I also have no clue where you got your numbers from in your last post. I'll break down my school taxes. Tax value of 101080 x assessment rate of 11.5% x state mill levy 20 mills (.020) + local lob for total of 54.757 mills (.054757) = 636.50 to the schools. It's actually less because in our state the first 20K of all residential real estate is exempt from the state school mill levy. The total tax bill is around 1,200. That's only $53/month to the school. I live in a rural area, so the wages aren't what they would be in the city, and you can buy alot more house here than in the city.
Have you ever looked up the taxes on a housing complex that size? More than likely one that large is valued on the income approach and the single family housing unit is on the comparable approach. So they won't be proportionate to each other. And if it is considered a commercial property it might not be assessed at the same rate as a residential property, depending on the state of course.
Milgrams Experiment, Sorry you lost your house, but if I cut away all the filler material, I simply see a case where you did not pay your property tax. The county then assessed lien and then auctiion it off. Property auctions generally takes years from when the original tax was due. I have seen cases where properties took 8+ years before the property reaches auction.
The person who won the auction, paid off your property tax. When you purchased the property, it came with deeds and other lending documents which clearly stated your responsiblity as a property owner of the State or County. You and I may not like who purchased your property, but you would have had the same right to have rented out your property to help pay off the debt...
It also occur to me that you have used plenty of state and county services where property tax fed into as well. Unfortunately, you simply did not realized it or chose to ignore it. So is that fair to use services that you did not pay for? Though we sympathize with your plight, but I do understand and even agree with the course of County actions.
This explains a lot towards your attitude. In your reality you cannot even begin to conceive of the tax burden creating the desire for some to do away with property taxes. You state that your tax value for your home was $101080, which generated a tax burden to you of around $1200. My tax value was $84,000 last year, which generated a tax burden for me of nearly $3900. Extrapolated to your value, that would be nearly $4700/year. Would you be changing your tune if your taxes were $400/month rather than $100?
This scenario would not be the worse thing to happen. Much of our local tax burden is due to un-funded mandate from state and Federal programs which the local taxing authority has to find funds for. Maybe if the State and Feds had to provide the funds they would change their tune.
With a statement like that I can see it is pointless to continue this discussion with you. It was a pleasure, though,really. We had a civil exchange of opinions. Hope you feel the same. Take care.
Don't grenade-troll people who were commenting yesterday, folks. It's still a #1 violation. Shekel Trader banned, rereg of banned user Hugh Class=.
@ Ro Mar et al
Ah, but it hasn't....on your part, and so many others here, who, with an absence of common sense seem to believe that the elimination of the property taxes was to be done without some other means of revenue generation for the services you speak of.
I guess "common sense" is not so common after-all.
Milgram's experiment,
Truly, your situation is an unfortunate one.
You served your country, and it is regrettable that the VA clerk improperly processed your disability claim.
However, when your property taxes became delinquent, were there other county or state services that you could have applied for? Were there any other special VA services that you could have applied for that may have helped you to bridge the financial gap?
About your situation, thturd's post was quite comprehensive.
That your situation did not turn out well, still does not eliminate the fact that property taxes help pay for vital and irreplaceable services...such as education, firefighters and law enforcement.
Hopefully, your circumstances have improved...and all the best.
Some people in this thread have claimed that the rejection of the measure to abolish property taxes represents a victory over communism. I have a question about that logic.
Are you crazy?
MyView,
You've made really good points, I admit. But the core of your "unfairness" argument hinges on the assumption that a family whose annual income is $100k typically has real estate of the same value as a family making $50k/yr.
That is, in fact, not the case, and you know it. A family making twice as much as another family will typically own more in real estate—and will therefore be taxed accordingly. In fact, intuitively, I would think that the more money you make (and up to a point), the more real estate you will own as a percentage of your income. Why? Because your discretionary spending goes up as a percentage of your income, having all your basic needs been taken care of, and much of that will go toward real estate. If I make $5,000/yr, I would not be able to afford a place of my own at all--all of my money will go toward basic survival measures. If I make $50,000/yr, I might be able to afford a place, but still, a large chunk of my income goes toward meeting basic necessities. Now, if I'm making $500,000/yr, baby, we're starting to talk about some serious real estate here. Food and hygiene make up a make up a much smaller percentage of my spending, so not only can I afford to buy a large home in the nice part of town; I can also think of getting that lakeside cabin in Idaho that I always dreamed of having.
Why is it that a system that has worked for hundreds of years is suddenly under attack by the right wing anti-tax nuts? Certainly by the turnout it was voted down by both parties but it was the anti-taxation right wing that got it on the ballot.
What I have a problem with is the a-hole that says he will bring it up for a vote again next year. Anyone with any sense at all can see that this is an attempt to save the oil industry tax money and pass the burden of keeping services for them to the people. Increase sales tax?? The oil companies don't pay sales tax so naturally they would support elimination of property tax in favor of a sales tax.
What gets me is the fruitcakes on here calling for an elimination of property tax yet insist on more services to protect their property from vandals. They and their their kids were educated in public schools and now want to eliminate the tax that pays for them thus forcing everyone with children to pay for their own child's education out of their pocket. What a bunch of selfish a-holes.
Now after reading some of the comments on here about fair and unfair real estate taxes one thing that comes to mind is how did it get this way. I'm not sure about how taxes are determined in all parts of the country but in Ohio where I still have a house the taxes are voted on by the people in their district. A levy is placed on the ballot and the people vote whether its a good tax or a useless tax. What a democratic concept of having people to determine how much they pay and what their taxes are to be used for.
Now here in Florida where the home value is equal to the one in Ohio, the city determines how much operating money they need for the year and tax everyone accordingly. No vote on what taxes are used for but we do vote for the people that make those decisions. If we have a complaint we vote them out. A different concept but functional.
The point is property tax are a necessary evil for living in a society and having the services that are at hand if you need them. Schools, police, fire department, library, street maintenance, etc. Some of you complain that if you don't pay property tax they can take your house but don't realize that if you don't pay any taxes you owe they can take anything and everything you own. As I stated before taxes are a necessary evil of living in a society and as long as you live in this country you're going to pay it either directly or indirectly. Live with it or kill yourself worrying about it.
lfertg: While I agree with much of your post above, I just don't think taxes are "evil" (whether necessary or not). Most who support capitalism don't think it's "evil" to have to pay for a car or a book or a set of dishes; why should it be "evil" to pay for government services?
I agree with the majority idea that our taxes need major reformation across multiple areas. Sadly, the "machine" has been setup to run on a certain type and amount of "fuel"; to make major changes would certainly be a major hit to the economy across all sectors. Could it be done? I believe so but the government who did it would never be re-elected! America just has too many short-sighted thinkers to understand long-term benefits.
Regarding property taxes, the money raised by taxation should be directly spent on the people being taxed (this should be mandatory across the board!). Homeowners need, for example, fire departments (fire) and police (burglary/arson/vandalism) as public services directly related to property ownership. The costs to respond to property calls should be tallied and evenly distributed based on need level (a single dwelling home pays less of a share than a four tenant apartment building). Other public services, schools for example, need a better way of identifying and calculating need and taxation. Schools have no direct relationship to property ownership and none of the above services have any direct correlation to the value of your property! How does taxation correlate when a well-to-do double income couple with no kids is taxed on their $350k home more than a family of eight on one income and government assistance? Or, when a well-off city with solid property value and low unemployment raises more taxes (than needed) than a larger metropolis with high unemployment, twice the citizens, and property values in the toilet?
The primary grievance of the Original 13 was "Taxation without representation!"; I say we need to make the new slogan, "No taxation without correlation!" Taxes I pay should be in support of services I use or will conceivably use and directly tied to the perceived impact or rate of consumption of these services not tied to my personal wealth! In the words of Andrew Ryan - "Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!', says the man in Washington..."
Watch out North Dakotans...Master Grover Norquist will be coming to punish you for accepting taxes as a payment for our society.
Dang, you were so close to the teabag dream of no funding for education and maintaining an ignorant populace for republican control for years to come. Good for you standing up to another stupid republican idea.
Sure, it would be nice to have no taxes (any kind of taxes) but it sure is NOT realistic. It would also be nice to never have to work, have sex whenever it is wanted, eat your favorite food all the time, not have to exercise and have a perfect body...etc. But it is not realistic. The oil boom will not last forever. ND and all states need to have a balanced plan for all taxes. Not to much, not to little. I can't think of anything in this world that doesn't benefit from balance or moderation. Can you? Realistically?
Please don't tell Washington that. You will break their hearts. They have convinced themselves that it is possible to run the Federal and all local and state governments on no taxes. Don't shatter their illusions.
Does Fuhrer Norquist have a corresponding hand/arm gesture?
Just asking.
Of course, it's the "grab him by the hips and approach his backside to your mouth, so as to be able to kiss him on his buttocks." If that language is too explicit for you, they also call it the "vote Republican so your representative can sign his pledge."
I disagree. A poor person is probably not going to own expensive property.
The notion that property taxes are "the most regressive" is a real howler. Just how stupid do these one-percenters think the rest of us are?
Pretty stupid.
The 1% are responsible for the middle class losing 1/2 its wealth in the last 4 years due to property values depreciating after they bundled and collapsed with them, yet they know people are stupid enough to blame Obama.
They have a mormon vulture capitalist running for president, they think we are really stupid.
Property taxes are regressive because they don't correspond to one's ability to pay. An unemployed person with no income and living off savings pays the same tax rates as someone making $1MM a year.
They're also regressive because lower-income people spend a greater percentage of their income on housing (and homes represent a larger percentage of their assets) than high-income individuals/families.
I think it could be argued that police/fire protection should be paid by property taxes because that would those with more property to protect would be paying more. But, education and other costs should be paid with an income tax.
So, Barry, you advocate allowing the wealthiest segment of the population (seniors) off the hook AFTER their children were supported by their neighbors? An income tax gives seniors one more break, in a bunch of breaks for them...NO one should lose their home because of oppressive taxes, BUT neither should wealthy seniors be allowed to keep their non-taxed wealth, thus putting more of a burden on the working middle-class...those seniors' benefits are supported by taxes and they are being short-sighted if they don't see a clear connection between bad schooling and less taxes coming in due to less-educated people in poorer paying jobs
FYI: The richest 1 percent captured a staggering 93 percent of all the income growth in 2011.
BUT neither should wealthy seniors be allowed to keep their non-taxed wealth, ...
1) Not all seniors are wealthy.
2) Their homes were purchased with after-tax dollars
3) People with stock and bonds that have appreciated in value also have "non-taxed" wealth. Why let them off the hook if you're going after "non-taxed" wealth.
"oppressive" is a relative term. How would you propose people losing their homes because they can't afford the taxes. Would you support an cap on property taxes as a percent of income? Of course, that would require others to pay more, just like an income tax.
Balance guys..... some property taxes but not excessive. Many places have homestead exemptions for seniors. Many of these homestead exemptions could be increased too. Some sort of income cap on property taxes would likely be a good idea. One way that the wealthy and powerful can force someone out of their property is to inflate surrounding property values, wait until revaluation so that the land rich, cash poor person cannot afford to keep their land. Balance is best.
And much of that (as was the case before the collapse) from nothing more than financial transactions that produced nothing concrete. Of course the majority of Americans do not make fortunes in this way and are thus excluded from the game. Oh sure they may see your 401k rise but come the next man-made disaster those profits will be gone. Exactly what occured in '08 as the big dogs bet against the markets toward the end and cleaned up from the government bailouts particularly the AIG money. The ordinary investor lost out big time and the top echelon lost little. No one ever said they were stupid. Unethical perhaps but not stupid.
Maybe such a radical proposal as this one is what it takes to wake up people? Would have killed services that the public takes for granted. They saw the revenue shortfalls and said 'no way'.
They think that we are plenty stupid because they have been inordinately successful getting us to vote against our own interests and put more money in their pockets.
And all one has to do is look around these comment threads to see that the blind march to an oligarchy is still moving rapidly. I've never understood how people can let some ideology so blind them that there is no room to allow for continued confirmation that the ideology is correct and working. It goes on both sides of the isle. There are way too many extremists on both sides out here who are not interested in what really works and what does not. They totally fly by gut feeling and that is the quickest road to failure that there is. I'm glad the good citizens of ND were not blinded by the whole anti-tax, starve government ideology as it just isn't true or capable of working. I'm also glad that the citizens of AZ were not blinded by the same thing as the defeated candidate in yesterday's special election there stood on that very same platform. The public unions were defeated in Wisconsin as they should have been, the conflict of interest is obvious as are the failures of a system where you elect the guy who negotiates your contract. However, I think people are wising up to the failed ideology of "trickle down" as well and are ready to do something about placing all of the country's wealth in the hands of a few "job creators".
Ya know I was raised to respect my elders.....increasing taxes on a seniors goes against that even if they are "wealthy seniors". Being a Middle aged non-married white male I'm getting a major knife in my back for taxes, and don't even talk to me about putting my neighbors kids through school when I don't even have any kids. I totally agree that the only things that property taxes should pay for is police and fire. Being that those are the only things that are there to "protect" your property. As for the "wealthy" sending their kids to "public schools" that is a load of bull@!$%#. Very few so called "Wealthy" families send their kids to public schools those wealthy kids almost always attend private schools. Private schools are a lot like colleges all their funding comes from boosters, tuition, and donations. Hence the reason they are "PRIVATE". Anyway I also agree that property taxes are a little high for low income families. But this is the price of "Owning Property" and as such if you can't afford it don't buy it. There is a huge renting boom right now and in renting you don't pay property taxes directly instead the owner or land lord does. There is a reason we have public parks and recreational areas, again if you can't afford to have a home with a yard there are other ways for you to experience the outdoors. Public parks are paid for by property taxes because guess what its property that is owned by the public. Anyway you will have to have balance if you take education out of property taxes and put it in income taxes. I say only income taxes because of the shear fact that I'm against the family that has kids and gets a tax break when me who doesn't have kids pays the same taxes. So basically I don't have kids and I'm paying for someone else's kid to go to school where is the logic and the fairness in that? Again a Business doesn't have kids so they have no need to send kids to school so it shouldn't carry over into sales tax, now if a business wants to donate to a school then welcome it. Treat it like a charity and give the business a tax break on a percentage of what was donated so if they donate say $1million they get a 50% tax break so they save $500 thousand also they can put in their store front that they contribute to local community schools etc. Don't know about you but that is the new trend I'm seeing with consumers they are purchasing more and more from businesses that contribute to local communities. You have to remember there are a lot of things to consider and spreading hate and discontent is just going to cause more and more problems. I'm not a family man being that I don't have a family "yet" and I've heard from my sisters who both have families about how high taxes are and how expensive kids are. Again I say if you can't "afford it" then don't do it. The whole "well it was an accident" or "I really really wanted one".....well I really really want a private jet but I can't afford one so I'm not gonna go out and just buy one because I "really really" wanted it. Also you don't just happen to "accidentally" buy a Lamborghini or other sports car that costs a couple hundred thousand dollars....."Oh well kids are different they are part of you...." yeah I got nothing there.....the point is again if you can't afford it don't do it. That isn't hate, that isn't stupidity that is just plain common sense. Personally I'd love to have a family of my own and I'm sure my girlfriend would love to get married and have a couple kids but we both know that we couldn't afford it and if we just jumped into it we would cause each other more stress and end up like a lot of married couples. Broke to the point of wanting to blame others for our problems, at each others throats to the point of divorce, and so unhappy we would transfer that unhappiness unwillingly to the kids we would have. So again lots of things to think about when it comes to taxes, families, education, and property. Just keep that all in mind when you post. Don't just go crazy and talk about all the hate and discontent for one political party or the other. This isn't a discussion about which party did what this is a discussion about families, education, and property taxes and how it will all work out in the end for one state.
Does Fuhrer Norquist have a corresponding hand/arm gesture?
Just asking.
Spouting fire--you DO know that even though you have no kids YOU TOO benefit from paying for public schools? If your schools fall apart from lack of money from property taxes, the next thing to happen is that industry also leaves the area since they don't have a steady source of workers who have a decent education.
Next will be doctors retiring and moving away, because why would they want to stay in a one horse town?
IF you live in a city, you might have some good private schools as an option, but in my town, its public school or the Catholic school, and no WAY is the Catholic school able to take in more students than they already have, much less the 4000 students that are in public schools here.
No matter WHAT your age, or whether you are an individual or a corporation (or small business) you have a vested interest in keeping the schools well funded. EVEN if you personally don't have school age kids.
Arent property taxes eleagle didnt the government start the propery tax to pay for ww1 or 2 then just left it y does this country give money away to other countries stead of back to the peoples of this country we shouldnt owe anybody o government scam by the law make laws scam more make laws and scam o dont give any ideas but its been happening now for how long ? rediculous sue someone ,s buisness dont work sit around yup i know right what a shame .
Property taxes are regressive because they don't correspond to one's ability to pay. An unemployed person with no income and living off savings pays the same tax rates as someone making $1MM a year.
I might be going out on a limb, but I'm guessing the person with no income either lives in a place whose value is proportional to the savings he's living on or has no place of his own at all, whereas the person making a million a year might have a really, really nice place.
They're also regressive because lower-income people spend a greater percentage of their income on housing (and homes represent a larger percentage of their assets) than high-income individuals/families.
You're confusing income and wealth. Real estate represents a larger chunk of the total wealth of the middle class than of the rich, but the same isn't true for income. A loaf of bread costs the same for the rich and the poor. So does toothpaste or shampoo. What are the rich doing with their extra money? They're not buying more bread or toothpaste. They buy more and nicer cars and more and nicer houses.
Todd...since so many are talking about using property taxes for education I want to personally thank you for providing a prime example of what would happen if we did not pay property taxes and had uneducated people around.
On another note it seems we are discussing tax or no tax. which is what the article is about. What I am wondering, and since I was born and raised in North Dakota. For a little information for all of you for years North Dakota had a negative growth of population because jobs are difficult to find in an agriculturally based area and the ones that are available (the bulk anyway) barely pay above minimum wage. So rather than introduce a bill to eliminate property tax why did they not introduce one that simply reduced it for lets take for example 20%. On a $1000 tax bill that would be a savings of $200/year. I know not a huge amount but yet a start instead of constant increases. Then if this glut of fortune from the oil continues it could have been built in to continue to reduce property taxes or income taxes proportionally each year. Why does it have to be an all or nothing thing? I would think something like this would help all the residents of North Dakota, old and young rich and poor and therefore also stimulate the economy.
Property taxes could be tied to the same sliding scale that people pay for income taxes. Also, It makes zero sense to require retirees on fixed incomes and who have finally paid off their homes to be expected to pay ever increasing land taxes.
It isn't fair at all. I agree with you. There should be some scaling according to income.
If you Google information on private schools compared to public schools you will find several sources showing the facts that private schools cost less on average, have higher graduation rates, and score consistently higher on tests. (Please note: by "cost less" that is comparing tuition rates of private schools to tax burden of public school).
This leads me to believe that private institutions and other paid forms of education are supporting the industries and jobs that public schooled adults end up applying for. Besides, how does taxing property value correlate to education and schooling? Do more children live on expensive property than on cheap property? Without even making any crazy statements I will just say that there are no public services rendered in this country that directly relate to the value of one's home. Occupancy definitely but not value.
"a move critics said would have undermined local governments and forced an increase in taxes overall"
Of course... because cutting government spending is never an option, is it???
Most states fund their schools with properity taxes.....sounds like a tea party thing to me. Defund the schools and give us our money so we can buy more "stuff"....way to go GOP
There are alternatives to local property taxes for funding education. How about a local income tax? Or, how about state-funding of education?
Income taxes are regressive and it only gets to the workers and leaves out others who benefit...EVERYONE should be a part of the solution
How are income taxes regressive? Those who make more, pay more. Property taxes are regressive because they don't take into account the ability to pay. Take two people in homes worth $250K and paying taxes of $5K/year. A retiree making, say, $40K/year (if lucky) would pay about 16% of income in property taxes. Another (younger, employed) person making $100K/year would pay only 5% in property taxes on a home worth the same amount of money.
I fear it will be like Cuba was...... You own a home until one day a young person shows up at your door to tell you, you now own a room and you will be sharing it with him/her from now on Comrade!
jolly, spoken like true True Banger and Conservative Taliban.
Rather than presenting reasoned arguments, the Tea Trash party uses fear, hatred and ignorance as it seeks to divide America in half.
Did this not happen in Cuba....is this not history? Do you just forget history.....written off like yesterdays liberal news? did you mean Bagger... or did you really mean a sausage? Its not fear ...... for I fear no one! Its history and it goes back a long long way!
Barry is right. (I can't believe I'm saying this.) In one school district I lived in, we paid 1% income tax to the local government. Half went to the Township for the roads, etc. The other half went directly to the school district.
In another school district, we had a very high renter population. So years before I moved there, the school district funding was changed from property taxes to a flat tax on all employed persons. I forget what it was for individuals, but it was $240/year for married couples. So, even though my husband and I had no kids and did not own a home, we still paid into the education of our community. I was happy to write that check each year. It was less than the 1% of our annual income, but it didn't place all the burden on the home owners.
My grandmother is on the hook for property taxes. Her little rural 2 bedroom rancher is only worth about 30-40K. (Yes, seriously) They are on fixed incomes from SS and Grandpa's pension. The property taxes are a burden on them.
I'm an unapologetic liberal and think that education should be funded by public money. If you want to send your kid to private school fine, that's your choice. But, every child should be guaranteed a basic K-12 education. I think we've lost too much. Budget cutbacks have hit the shop programs too hard. If you can show me a better way to fund education, fine. But, I do not believe 1 red cent should be cut from education budgets. Or police or fire. Those are three public areas that are just non-starters for me. Anything else, negotiable.
Barry, I don't want to sound like an a-hole, or not compassionate to the retired crowd, but no one is entitled to having property they can't afford, whether it is the rent/mortgage/property taxes. Once you start giving exceptions to the rule it snowballs because the special interest groups dig in. I don't think any entity should be exempt except the gov't properties that operate on tax dollars.
Education funding needs a stable source of local tax income. Schools can't just have furloughs if they wouldn't get enough income tax to meet their needs. And if they are operated on income tax it would come from the state. It would also exclude people that don't work who should be paying in, like generational welfare recipients.
The main reason you should want to keep it this way is if it comes from the state then you lose any control you currently have of your local money, because property taxes are collected locally. The state could basically shut down schools and consolidate them without the local taxpayers having any say.
Jolly - those property taxes payed for your obviously unsuccessful high-school career. Read your own history about why communism arose: Abuses by the 1% in Russia, abuses by corporations in Cuba... If you want to prevent history - prevent the abuse by the uber-class - because it's the middle-class that prevents the under-class from lynching the 1%.
hootgib ... which state do you live in? In a state like NJ, even a low-priced home has VERY high property taxes. Why should someone who grew up in NJ, lived here his/her whole life, and paid income and property taxes each year be forced to leave the state (and family) simply because he can't can't the taxes on property that he has fully paid for?
Property taxes are regressive. There's no getting around that.
If a state switched to funding with income taxes, then you wouldn't have that concern about local property taxes. Anyway, I've got no control over how my school board spends money, anyway. So, I don't really care if it is Trenton or my local town that wastes my money.
Pot and kettle with Jolly's straw man here. If we want to look at history we will see that Individualism failed miserably and was largely responsible for what happened in the 1930's. If we look at history we will see that "trickle down" has failed as those that "have" forgot to turn on the faucet for those that "have not". If we look at history we will see that oligarchies fail everywhere that they ever happened. Those failures result in communism and totalitarian states when the poor rise up and take the wealth away from those who had it and treated it carelessly like Cuba and Argentina. If we look at history we will see that "states rights" were defeated in a rather brutal war. So please Jolly, stow your history arguments until you take a history class and learn that ALL of history matters. If one wants to look at history one will see the this isn't the first trip around for conservatives and the first time around they tanked the country just like they did a second time in 2007. It's not like the history isn't there, it's like we're blind to it.
Barry, I see your point but you are missing one crucial element. A senior that has lived in a house for 20-30 years would have paid off the mortgage, so property tax and insurance would be the only housing expense left. According to today's Star-Ledger, the average property tax in NJ is $7,500. Of course, that is high, but if that is one's only property expense I don't feel so bad.
Of course, we had a lot of people in this country by houses to flip them. They weren't thinking of long-term financial planning, so they didn't think ahead that they could live in a house in NJ for $7,500/year if they stayed in the home and paid it off in full. People made their own bed.
If I feel for anyone it's middle aged folks who made good decisions but are still trying to cover rising taxes and a mortgage.
Barry, I don't want to sound like an a-hole, or not compassionate to the retired crowd, but no one is entitled to having property they can't afford, whether it is the rent/mortgage/property taxes.
When I purchased my house 20+ years ago I could easily afford my payments (and still can) but my property tax bill has increased these payments by over 150+. The kicker is I do not and never will have children (51 years of age) and my property taxes keep increasing, while the value of my house keeps plummeting.
Well said. "Undermining government" should always be the case. Government only knows how to spend, spend, and spend. God people, they actually had a surplus, shouldn't it go back to the taxpayer? Unbelievable they voted to not get their hard earned money back. What sheep.
The bad thing is that the gov't has us all fooled.
When the gov't wants to eliminate a tax everyone jumps for joy. They do it at the federal level, then the states get less aid. Then they do it at the state level and the local entities get less aid. Then your property taxes go up. It doesn't matter if the appraised value of your home goes up or down, the local taxing entities have to make up the money or not offer the service. Then people want the property taxes abolished, instead of trying to figure out a real solution to the problem.
No one wants to pay for the gov't services they get or have received in the past (education), which is obvious in these posts. They just want their taxes cut and pushed on to someone else.
hoot--agreed, that every one wants the 'other guy' to pay but doesn't want to pay themselves. I live 7 miles outside the nearest town though, and as a result, we had to pay to pave our OWN road, and we also pay to have our garbage collected, and to have our snow plowed. We also have to pay to have our OWN well, and for the pump for it and for the state to come out and test it for all the bad stuff that can leach in. Nearly everyone who lives here is retirement age, in modest homes, but we all knew 30 years ago that we would not be able to live 'free' here once the house was paid off.'
I cannot help it if some people are so totally helpless at finance that they didn't anticipate how much it would cost to retire. And I REALLY don't want to subsidize, any more than I already do, the people who do not work and have never made the least push to get the training or education to make themselves employable, much less to NOT have babies they cannot and never COULD afford. The ONLY method we have of making those people pay a TEENY bit of the share of mutual costs (and that includes schools) is through property tax, even if it is only the property tax on the place they RENT. (and trust me, the landlords DO pass on any increase in property tax!)
Go to the worst public school you can find and notice the neighborhood around it. Would you want to live there? Cut property taxes that fund public schools and your neighborhood will look like that.
I don't care if your retired. Keeping the local public school funded helps you and your neighbors regardless of wether or not you send kids to that school.
Ya'll know now, you can't take money away from government, whatever will they do without it. Besides all this extra money coming in will help all of ya'll, not a cent will be spent on anything but helping the taxpayer. The government of North Dakota sucked ya'll right on in. Let's see you will be taking education away from the children, you will be taking jobs away fro the police and the fireman and state services, why I bet they threatened to go to a three day state work week,right. Stupid is as stupid does. The dumbing down of America continues.
Continues? Sounds like the people of North Dakota said "No thanks" to the dumbing down of their state.
Exactly. Are these people sheep or what?? I'd really like to interest them in swampland in Florida. How gullible are these people?
Jerry--don't know about your state, but in MY state property tax does NOT go to the State. It goes to the county.
Not gullible enough to buy the whole "let's do away with taxes, we'll be just fine" message that the GOP/TP perpetually tries to drill into everyone's mind.
You probably have to look a lot deeper than what is easiest to see. Sure property taxes would put a lot more money in the hands of voters, a good way to buy votes. But what effect would no property taxes have on all those lands which are a part of the "oil-rich" state. I can imagine the true factors behind zero property taxes is to help the oil industry purchase or lease land at a greatly reduced price. If they don't have to pay property taxes on the value of land that contains oil, they increase their profits. If they don't have to factor in property taxes on land that they lease from a citizen, they don't have to pay as much for that lease.
You are probably right on.
Oil or no oil the schools will still get funded!! I guess the teabaggers are going to complain about big Govt!!!
Better to live with the monster you know than the one you don't know. The money has to come from somewhere, my guess is that if property taxes were eliminated North Dakota would end up with all manner of other taxes with who know what consequences.
Of course other taxes would go up, but funding education with income taxes is much more equitable than funding with property taxes. Income tax increases would allow more of the burden to be shifted to higher-income taxpayers. My own Republican governor understands that. Given a choice between a rebate of up to $2,000 on property taxes and an income tax cut that would net a family making $50K/year about $100 or so in savings, he naturally chose the income tax cut because millionaires would save far more than $2,000.
Yes, but why did the GOP/Tea Trash governor of ND slash $32 million from education funding for 2012...when the state had a $800 million surplus??
The schools in ND are outdated and waaaay overcrowded with the explosion of new workers and their families. ND school districts and teachers are begging for more funding to cover the costs of dramatic increases to its student population...but still have to work with funding levels from 2008.
Just shows you where the priorities are in ND.
BTW:
The war on public schools is part of the conservative dream to “get government down to the size where you can drown it in the bathtub,” as conservative guru Grover Norquist so memorably put it.
This is a perfect justification for funding with income taxes. The new workers can pay for the schools with their income taxes. Expecting retirees who aren't sharing in the employment boom (or the unemployed) to pay higher taxes makes no sense.
You're right Barry....because wealthier neighborhoods collect more property taxes, which leads to better schools and more resources, which leads to better student performance. These students are then the ones going to college, making more money, and then funding better schools, keeping the vicious cycle going.
Many states have tried to balance out this inequity by taking state property taxes, and applying them to state public schools using a "foundation aid" method. Foundation aid is when the state works with local governments to guarantee a minimum level of funding per student based on a combination of state and local funding. Districts that are poor in relation to property wealth then get a chance to get more of the funding than districts that already have good funding due to wealthy properties.
God knows there is plenty of poverty in ND...despite the boom.
Barry, Of course it does....... If you want it too! Mr. Shekel there probably doesnt have that many shekels to trade so of course other peoples money looks good to him or her.
Shekel ... I have concerns about the "foundation aid" method, at least when it involves the state taking a portion of property taxes. Texas tried that with a "Robin Hood" technique of taking property tax revenue from high-value districts and transferring it to low-value districts and it helped to destroy property values.
I think that it would be better to abolish the property tax, raise the state income tax and have the state pay each district a per-student allowance, with perhaps some adjustments for special needs children.
Gotta pay for what you want.........guess it depends on what you want. Rich folks can send their kids to private schools......so no skin off their nose to defund education.
Thats right Kathryn, the GOP/Tea Trash governor of ND slash $32 million from education funding for 2012...when the state had a $800 million surplus??
The schools in ND are outdated and waaaay overcrowded with the explosion of new workers and their families. ND school districts and teachers are begging for more funding to cover the costs of dramatic increases to its student population...but still have to work with funding levels from 2008.
Just shows you where the priorities are in ND.
BTW:
The war on public schools is part of the conservative dream to “get government down to the size where you can drown it in the bathtub,” as conservative guru Grover Norquist so memorably put it.
Apparently you guys missed the part where the Chamber of Commerce, that bastion of GOPness, was the primary opponent of the eliminating property taxes
@Shekel Trader - It's the same in South Dakota... We have school districts using mobile storage units and small mobile homes for makeshift classrooms, because of growth of school districts or because schools were condemned. Teacher pay is still 50th in the nation. Yet, the Republicans continue to slash education in SD, year after year. I just don't get it.
Deep down, part of me thinks that ND (and perhaps SD, too, MJ1986) wants to keep their kids and teachers at "just educated enough" so they will stay in the state after graduation. If you give them a good education and really educate them on what they can do with their lives, they'll run away as fast as humanly possible and go somewhere warmer and with more options for their futures.
I love my home state of ND but I will never move back.
State, county and local govt. cost $ to run. Where do you get this $? How much do you spend collecting/disbursing this $? How steady is the stream that you collect your $ from? How quickly can you react when this stream changes?
The housing crisis has shown that the concept that property taxes as a stable source of revenue is a fallacy. As property values fall, local governments have to either accept lower revenue or impose higher rates. That's no different than what they would have to do if local government operations were funded with income or sales taxes.
Barry, you are incorrect. Property taxes are stable because real estate is always there. When property values rise and fall you just adjust the mill levy rate. If the budget remained the same the only difference would be that the taxes on properties would fluxuate due to changes in the values of the properties, which are reflected by the local real estate market. The reason real estate taxes have went up so much is the state and federal government have cut funding in lots of areas, so the local taxing entities don't get as much external funding and have to raise their local mill levy rates to make up the difference. That is why it is a bad idea to go to the state for funding, because they aren't reliable. Income tax is also a bad idea because, like the current situation, the jobs can dry up or salaries can decrease. You can't just shut down schools in the middle of the year because you are out of $$. Either way you are going to have to pay taxes. If you go to the state you lose control of your local budgets because the state WILL dictate the budgets, whether directly or indirectly.
Well, the income tax rate can always be adjusted, just as the property tax rate can be adjusted. If somone's salary decreases (or is lost), isn't it more fair that they pay lower taxes?
Barry the problem is it is easier to adjust at the local level. Have you ever heard of a state reducing any tax rate? If it's at the local level you can run for office and actually do something about it, at the state level it's not that easy.
If we put all the burdon on income and sales tax you would still have to pay the same amount regardless of if you were making more or less than normal because you would have to adjust the tax rate to meet the budget needs. So when people fall to lesser incomes you are just putting more of a burdon on the people who stay at the same level.
No matter what you do it's not going to ever be fair. As a taxpayer I want as much money to stay in local control as possible, and to also have several streams of tax revenue coming in (real estate, income, sales tax) so when one is down it doesn't bankrupt the taxing entities.
Something can be said for higher taxes to help the avg joe. Take a look at salaries. The rushbo gets $500M, hannity - $300M, beck - $100M. All from corporate moneys. And the potus - $0.40M from your tax money after the bushman's tax cuts.
But i like the potus. Because obama, the cia, & special forces killed bin laden & ghaddafi and nearly brought the war on terror to an end. Money well spent. People rushed into the streets to celebrate when the navy buried bin laden at sea. The rushbo, hannity, & the beckman is nothing but hot air.
There is something to said for ending the bushman's tax cuts for people & corporations having only super incomes. Schools & roads & bridges could use the funding. Plus the social security & medicare lockboxes should be refilled with the cash that mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo borrowed at $1B/month to fight the war in iraq.
How is it you libs, never mention all the actors in Hollywood, Rachel M, colbert or any of the otherclowns that make a ton of money on the Democrat side.
Are you that robotted that you just spew the mantra.
"Conservative Money Bad"
Liberal money good9 cause we hope for change)
It's true. Hollywood is one of the largest exports we have. Next to defense hardware. Everybody in the world know kate winslet from the movie titanic. And columbo used to say people in the deepest part of the mountains in argentina recognized him immediately. It's why hollywood stars are paid millions.
But joe goebels only job i mean the rushbo, hannity, & the beckman only jobs are to snow job the people in their own country. To tell them that the death camps do not exist, i mean that climate change does not exist, i mean to tow the propaganda line of mr grover & the gop. I tell you they receive a new set of talking daily because the talk about the same subjects on the same day.
And finally, you never hear about how the rushbo, hannity, or the beckman are recognized overseas. No. No. Like the bushman, they hardly dare set foot out of this country. It's because people outside of this country have it in for them. Just as goebels before them. The bushman has his foreign trips canceled because the secret service cannot protect him. People tell foreign countries to have him arrested the moment he sets foot in a foreign country for war crimes. These people are a hindrance to this country.
The voters of North Dakota figured out that booms will go bust sooner or later!
Replace the property tax. As long as you are required this annual payment to your local government, private property ownership will not exist. Go ahead and miss a tax payment and your property will be auctioned off at the courthouse steps. The demand to make this payment proves you are a renter from your landlord government.
Well I guess no private property ownership is a good thing if you're a Marxist/Communist.
If you own property in a community you have a obligation to pay for the services that common for that community. If you don't then you are a leech.
If you don't use the services then who leeching who?
You say that until you need them and they don't come quick enough because they are understaffed and you bitch.
Funny, I thought private property ownership was (or at least used to be) quite common in the US.
Hmm .... property taxes = communism? I guess that expecting governments to provide police/fire protection for that same property is also a marxist concept?
It is absolutely a socialist idea and frankly we need more of it!
The concept of no private property ownership is a Marxist/Communist one. Who said property taxes were Marxist/Communist?
Replace the property tax as a means to fund local government including schools, firefighters, and police.
Do you realize that with property taxes you never truely "OWN" the property. You are basically renting for the property tax value, due to the fact if you don't pay they can take it away....
Nothing else that you buy, once paid for, can the government come and take it if you don't continue sending them money.
Why just tax the value of the property, why not everything inside, TV's, computers, clothing, cars, etc?
Never thought of it that way. Also, when you think about it, we are really paying property taxes on the homes sitting on that "property". You would think it would be more fair to pay on the actual chunk of land our homes were built on. I guess that is why we call these taxes "real estate" taxes where I live. When I was a child people also paid taxes on the contents in their homes. In other words, if you had a lot of stuff (furniture, etc.) you paid a higher tax than someone without much.
You never truely would own real estate even if you didn't have to pay taxes on it. They can just take it away, but it's not as easy. And you pay taxes on the land and improvements (there are taxes on vacant land). I don't know how it is in your state, but in my state if you have 'personal property' and don't pay the taxes it can be sold just like real estate (like boats, etc). You pay taxes on your car to get the tags renewed.
The citizens of North Dakota would rather pay property taxes than inflated traffic fines. The government is going to get that money one way or another anyway.
I live in Bismarck, ND....and I can tell the state is crawling with Tea Bangers and Christian Taliban looking to make war on women, Hispanics, blacks, alternate life styles, the poor, suppress voting rights, wanting to give massive tax breaks to robber barons while eliminating safety nets for the middle class.
Blame
Shame
Defame
Inflame
Racism is a Republican core value.
I feel for you. Down here in TX we have an infestation of tea baggers, as well. There are even crazies running around trying to get rid of property taxes, too. I wonder, when all the madness is going to end?
To shekel dude - you are a moron!
I second that opinion. Everything is racist to you. I guess there are zero rich minority people, only white men are uber rich.
I third that opinion. shredder, you sound like a libby puppet. Any original thoughts?
The mega corporations, the banking syndicate, and the prostitute politicians are so powerful and effective, that they now have total control over their little serfs; to such an extent, that the people will now voluntarily tax themselves and freely give away their civil liberties. The world is in deep trouble.
"Moody's had issued a special comment on the measure, saying that if voters were to approve it, local and municipal governments in North Dakota would face significant financial pressure."
Why should a credit rating agency have any say on the governance of people? If you don't got it, don't spend it! Creditors continue to lose big on that idea:)
So you're opposed to mortgages? To taking out student loans? To taking on debt in an emergency?
Whenever you tell politicians to tax and produce a revenue stream, you're asking for trouble. In most cases they figure out how to bleed off significant portions of the revenue for purposes never intended. Also this moves local taxes, where local people have control up to the state level, where locals have less influence. Never a good idea.
As much as I prefer to keep my taxes low, I would oppose moving taxing responsibility up the pyramid. It always costs more, and the taxing authority is always less responsive to your opinions and requirements.
So, in other words, the people said no but we'll find some crooked politicians to pay off next year.
That's about right, and should tell us all something. If the people say "no", you can expect a do over. At what point do the people lose their voice altogether?
Skonsin, use that same logic for the states saying no to same sex marriage. Different story now, isn't it?
North Dakotan's are pretty practical people and I'm not surprised at the vote. The money to run cities needs to come from somehwere and they realized the immesnse problems of not having money to operate cities. They are in an "oil boom" there. In the past oil revenues have allowed them to reduce property taxes in the state so they have the ability to adjust property taxes when other revenues become available. Reason prevailed in North Dakota and I'm not surprised. Destroying our cities to spite the government is never a good outcome.
I think it's great to pay taxes to the people who blow the money on themselves. I know that even if the state ran short on money they wouldn't start taxing property again to make up for the short fall. Why would I want to put an extra $5,000 in my saving for a couple of years when I could give it to the rich instead?
I do understand that property taxes are necessary for the function of local governments and the services they should provide, local police, education etc. But in many areas taxes on property value was super inflated by the "bubble" in real estate they became abusive and unnecessarily high. I have arrived to the conclusion that the american dream of home ownership even a modest one has become a nightmare for seniors and an impossible dream for the young.
This is not a crusade against libs or Communism looks like to me no one wants the low middle class to have savings or a modest home when they aged even their SS benefits are in jeopardy. Are we that dumb ? keep on voting against the 99% we will with NADA.