Maybe I don't understand the homestead exemption. But, doesn't that address the old people losing their home argument?
It's not just old people losing their homes! Why should a person under 65 lose their home due to property tax?Maybe I don't understand the homestead exemption. But, doesn't that address the old people losing their home argument?
Not true, the legislature does not decide how and how much. The state provides the same amount of money to the the locals, the locals decide how to spend it. They can not tax your property. If more money is needed (because of foolish spending) the locals(commissioners that rubber stamp) will need to go to the people to raise the additional funds. Probably in the form of a sales tax(example)…which we the people can vote on. It would NOT be on property. Fear mongering…The way I read that measure it still doesn't eliminate property tax. It eliminates property tax on assessed value. That won't stop them from finding another way to tax it. Having the legislature decide how and how much is even scarier than the the system we have now.
Not true, the legislature does not decide how and how much. The state provides the same amount of money to the the locals, the locals decide how to spend it. They can not tax your property. If more money is needed (because of foolish spending) the locals(commissioners that rubber stamp) will need to go to the people to raise the additional funds. Probably in the form of a sales tax(example)…which we the people can vote on. It would NOT be on property. Fear mongering…
Where are you getting that? None of that is in the official ballot language. Dr. Becker himself stated that subs (counties, cities, townships) would need to apply for funds and the legislature would review and approve funding. The bill language only applies to assessed value tax, which means they can still tax property or fight out the definitions in court. I badly want to support this but it is half baked.Not true, the legislature does not decide how and how much. The state provides the same amount of money to the the locals, the locals decide how to spend it. They can not tax your property. If more money is needed (because of foolish spending) the locals(commissioners that rubber stamp) will need to go to the people to raise the additional funds. Probably in the form of a sales tax(example)…which we the people can vote on. It would NOT be on property. Fear mongering…
Agree. Should measure #4 pass it will require the legislature to make some adult decisions. They could start with cutting pet projects & corp welfare and then de-fund the commerce department which is nothing more that a money laundering scheme. Not all that difficult so far, right? The $3B suggested deficit does not factor in the dollars that will be left in the pockets of the citizens of ND. Assuming retail spend will increase by 50% or more of the $3B and economists suggest turn 4-5 times on average, the state will receive additional $$ of 5% of the additional retail spend (state sales tax) in revenue.I had voted no in the past but this time is a yes for me . That 500 deal did it for me , what a slap in the face and you had to apply for it ? Its your money and our legislators trying to treat us like kids. I have had enough
Did you watch the debate?????Where are you getting that? None of that is in the official ballot language. Dr. Becker himself stated that subs (counties, cities, townships) would need to apply for funds and the legislature would review and approve funding. The bill language only applies to assessed value tax, which means they can still tax property or fight out the definitions in court. I badly want to support this but it is half baked.
You would hope, but that is no guarantee.Agree. Should measure #4 pass it will require the legislature to make some adult decisions.
100% agree.They could start with cutting pet projects & corp welfare and then de-fund the commerce department which is nothing more that a money laundering scheme.
Can you clear this up? How does the ~$3000 saved by property owners guarantee a surplus?Not all that difficult so far, right? The $3B suggested deficit does not factor in the dollars that will be left in the pockets of the citizens of ND. Assuming retail spend will increase by 50% or more of the $3B and economists suggest turn 4-5 times on average, the state will receive additional $$ of 5% of the additional retail spend (state sales tax) in revenue.
Yes, both of them. And I watched his videos. What is said is nearly his exact quote. Subs will apply to the legislature for funds with this plan.Did you watch the debate?????
Why do people need to make things so hard? This is just an example...let's say bismarck/burleigh county need 3.5 million due to a shortfall. The geniuses involved will need to come to the people..you and I and say "hey we need $3.5 million this year to fund such and such. We propose a half cent sales tax so we can fun the police and fire dept or amphitheater." The people can then vote and say yes we believe this should take place or no we don't believe this should take place...ya know allow the people to decide vs a few stooges. Pretty simple the way I look at it...How is inflation to be handled? Customarily 3% is the nationwide average, obviously the last 5 years has been way more than that. that's compounded year after year. If the political subdivisions are funded at the current rate, what happens when the services they provide simply go up because it costs more due to inflation and nothing else? do they get an inflationary increase from the state?
To put this in perspective, lets say a community runs on a budget that requires $5M in property tax revenue. So next year they get that amount allotted to them for the next 5 years. Even at a only 3% annual inflation rate, they would need approximately 5.8M in 5-years to pay for the exact same stuff. and after 5-years, the municipality would be 2.34M backwards maintaining the same services/level of spending.
This isn't fear mongering, this is a real question.
Watch again.....You would hope, but that is no guarantee.
100% agree.
Can you clear this up? How does the ~$3000 saved by property owners guarantee a surplus?
Yes, both of them. And I watched his videos. What is said is nearly his exact quote. Subs will apply to the legislature for funds with this plan.
They were given the chance to fix the system but they chose to do nothing, this force them to address the issue knowing how they decide will decide if they get re-elected next term.The way I read that measure it still doesn't eliminate property tax. It eliminates property tax on assessed value. That won't stop them from finding another way to tax it. Having the legislature decide how and how much is even scarier than the the system we have now.
What do you do when your income doesn't cover inflation ? I know I have to tighten my belt and cut spending, why should government be any different ? With the present system they have no incentive to keep costs down or eliminate wasteful spending.How is inflation to be handled? Customarily 3% is the nationwide average, obviously the last 5 years has been way more than that. that's compounded year after year. If the political subdivisions are funded at the current rate, what happens when the services they provide simply go up because it costs more due to inflation and nothing else? do they get an inflationary increase from the state?
To put this in perspective, lets say a community runs on a budget that requires $5M in property tax revenue. So next year they get that amount allotted to them for the next 5 years. Even at a only 3% annual inflation rate, they would need approximately 5.8M in 5-years to pay for the exact same stuff. and after 5-years, the municipality would be 2.34M backwards maintaining the same services/level of spending.
This isn't fear mongering, this is a real question.
So, what I'm hearing is there is no plan to cover inflationary costs? Once the pet projects and wasteful spending is gone, and all of the dollars are allocated to essential services, where do you want them to start tightening their belts? Inflation since 2020 is over 20%. How about the small town political subs that don't have wasteful spending and struggle to provide the basics as-is? How many years do the political subdivisions go before they don't have places to cut without sacrificing service in some aspect? Again, not fear mongering. Just a question that can't be answered because the measure wasn't well thought-out. Why can't they put an actual plan in place so these questions aren't left for someone else to figure out. I just don't understand how they had years to devise a good plan and execute it, and yet we get this half baked measure.What do you do when your income doesn't cover inflation ? I know I have to tighten my belt and cut spending, why should government be any different ? With the present system they have no incentive to keep costs down or eliminate wasteful spending.
Jeezus....So, what I'm hearing is there is no plan to cover inflationary costs? Once the pet projects and wasteful spending is gone, and all of the dollars are allocated to essential services, where do you want them to start tightening their belts? Inflation since 2020 is over 20%. How about the small town political subs that don't have wasteful spending and struggle to provide the basics as-is? How many years do the political subdivisions go before they don't have places to cut without sacrificing service in some aspect? Again, not fear mongering. Just a question that can't be answered because the measure wasn't well thought-out. Why can't they put an actual plan in place so these questions aren't left for someone else to figure out. I just don't understand how they had years to devise a good plan and execute it, and yet we get this half baked measure.
They were given the chance to fix the system but they chose to do nothing, this force them to address the issue knowing how they decide will decide if they get re-elected next term.
Jeezus....