Property Tax Credit

[db-2]

Over my 50 plus years of working for others i have learn a lot mainly in these last years as i have become more involved.
This has been an excellent topic as so many things have come out on property tax on here that many are not aware of.

I do feel the concept maybe fine as one way to tax, but it is so full of unfairness.

Why do some not have to pay on their homes while other groups do pay?

The valuation assignment to property is way wrong from one to another.

Why did a lending institution have the right to keep mineral right after foreclosing?

Why have part of those school section been sold off.

Why is the rent on those school section so low for the benefit of some and when rented out the public has no rights for use of those section?

The list goes on and on. In the end, hopefully something good comes of this.
i do not believe eliminating property tax is the answer. But a good topic. db

 

[eyexer]

Keep in mind though the first sales tax i can remember was at 3%. The rate did not need to increase as inflation automatically takes care of the increase. The cities are running out of control adding these additional sales taxes. Its crazy.


I have changed my mind on property tax - give me a ballot i will vote to get rid of it. Why because they mishandled the credit so bad imo

Very interesting on that 3% and very true

 

[eyexer]

Over my 50 plus years of working for others i have learn a lot mainly in these last years as i have become more involved.
This has been an excellent topic as so many things have come out on property tax on here that many are not aware of.

I do feel the concept maybe fine as one way to tax, but it is so full of unfairness.

Why do some not have to pay on their homes while other groups do pay?

The valuation assignment to property is way wrong from one to another.

Why did a lending institution have the right to keep mineral right after foreclosing?

Why have part of those school section been sold off.

Why is the rent on those school section so low for the benefit of some and when rented out the public has no rights for use of those section?

The list goes on and on. In the end, hopefully something good comes of this.
i do not believe eliminating property tax is the answer. But a good topic. db

My personal belief is that school section land that was sold off, many years ago, was used to build the school buildings in the state

 

[eyexer]

Only a small percentage of land owners actually own the mineral rights

 

[Allen]

Define "small". I know an awful lot of landowners who do own at least a fraction of the minerals under their surface acres, others own minerals under their neighbor's land. Have things gotten complicated with mineral ownership through the years? Yep, they sure have. The bottom line though is that at one point in time the land changed hands and often the buyer decided to not pay that which was needed to also acquire the minerals, because they simply thought they were over-priced, unnecessary, etc.

Some farmers and ranchers during the dustbowl years needed operating loans to see them through the tough years, so they used their mineral and gravel rights to buy down the interest on operating loans (this was largely a state program). Remember, the ag guys thought this was a good deal because they were trading what they believed to be worthless rights for something tangible in order to keep the farm in the family. Near as I can figure, the State wanted the gravel rights in order to build roads as they too generally thought the mineral rights were worthless, but they had to get something in return for the low interest rates to appease the non-ag interests in the legislature.

Yeah, there are many reasons and paths leading to separation of the minerals from the surface, and it isn't stopping anytime soon. Mineral owners routinely get offers to buy mineral acreage in ND, I have to imagine some without production and maybe a little doubt about if their holdings will ever get developed, do opt for taking the bird in the hand rather than waiting for a company to develop their minerals. Let's face it, if you're getting up there in age and wanting to retire, it would have to be awfully tempting.

 

[Obi-Wan]

I don’t own the mineral rights below my 10 acres, they were sold off in the 50’s

 

[eyexer]

I have two family friends that are landmen for a couple oil companies. I asked them both this very question back in 2010 or so. One told me in their experience the landowner only owned the minerals on about ten percent of the leases. The other told me in his experience it’s been about fifteen percent. With both my parcels I’ve owned over here, when looking through the abstracts, neither has had the mineral ownership changed since the early 50’s

 

[lunkerslayer]

https://www.kxnet.com/news/state-ne...s-want-to-end-property-taxes-in-november/amp/
70 percent that's

 

[Davey Crockett]

I have preached mineral rights; hunting rights need to stay with the land. Not sure how that could be corrected now. And gravel rights are not mineral rights. db

I agree, separating them is one of the most backwards things that I know of. minerals should have stayed with the land 100%. I can't belive that in the 30s somebody with half a brain didn't step up to the plate and educate the people what they were doing.

 

[Pheasant 54]

Do other states handle mineral rights like ND . I agree all rights should have stayed with the land

 

[risingsun]

I agree, separating them is one of the most backwards things that I know of. minerals should have stayed with the land 100%. I can't belive that in the 30s somebody with half a brain didn't step up to the plate and educate the people what they were doing.

Back in the 30's MOST people had respect and were not greedy. They were happy and content to have shelter and food from there hard work.

 

[eyexer]

I agree, separating them is one of the most backwards things that I know of. minerals should have stayed with the land 100%. I can't belive that in the 30s somebody with half a brain didn't step up to the plate and educate the people what they were doing.

So land owners shouldn’t have had the right to sell em?

 

[eyexer]

Do other states handle mineral rights like ND . I agree all rights should have stayed with the land

Far as I know the whole nation does. And it actually makes sense. It’s simply an asset. Why shouldn’t the one that owns the asset have the right to sell it

 

[Davey Crockett]

So land owners shouldn’t have had the right to sell em?

So banks wouldn't have the option to seperate them during tough times. Ever wonder why Farm Credit Services almost never have vehicles in the parking lot but they have brand new huge buildings?

 

[eyexer]

So banks wouldn't have the option to seperate them during tough times. Ever wonder why Farm Credit Services almost never have vehicles in the parking lot but they have brand new huge buildings?

Why shouldn’t someone who owns something be allowed to sell some or all that they own. Especially something that can be so easily separated. Had that not been allowed to happen there would be an enormous number of people that would have lost their homes/land which have been in some families for hundreds of years. This line of thinking would be no different than not allowing the original settlers from selling off some of their land that was deeded to them by the government in the very beginning.

 

[Davey Crockett]

My Dad bought the farm in the 40s and the minerals were divided amongst him and 9 siblings. When oil and gas mineral leasing got to be a thing here in ND. My Dad had the foresight to see what would happen within two generations so he bought back as many as he could from his siblings that were still living. Fast foreward, when I bought the farm from my Dad he was positive that he wanted the minerals to stay with the land despite the lawyers opinion to divide them up. Other part of the farm that my Dads brother bought is already divided so thin that it could just as well be dissolved. I think it was like 143 people. Oil drillers nightmare , bankers and lawyers cash cow. Then you have guys like Helms that say people in non oil producing areas all going to be millionaires and the phone starts ringing. It's total BS

 

[Obi-Wan]

Why shouldn’t someone who owns something be allowed to sell some or all that they own. Especially something that can be so easily separated. Had that not been allowed to happen there would be an enormous number of people that would have lost their homes/land which have been in some families for hundreds of years. This line of thinking would be no different than not allowing the original settlers from selling off some of their land that was deeded to them by the government in the very beginning.

What takes precedence the surface rights or mineral rights ?

 

[Allen]

So banks wouldn't have the option to seperate them during tough times. Ever wonder why Farm Credit Services almost never have vehicles in the parking lot but they have brand new huge buildings?

I wonder how many more family farms would have failed if they weren't able to sell their minerals?

Note, I really doubt the banks refused to sell the minerals when they put the land up for sale. Rather, it was offered up as $100 per acre for land and minerals, or $90 an acre for just the land.

Remember, these were people who had for years watched numerous failed attempts at finding oil. It wasn't a good idea to buy the minerals based on what they were seeing. Most banks (and we are talking largely about the State here) ended up holding a lot of what they thought were worthless mineral acres with the exception of the gravel rights.

Every single mineral acre in private ownership across ND is for sale.

 

[Davey Crockett]

I wonder how many more family farms would have failed if they weren't able to sell their minerals?

Note, I really doubt the banks refused to sell the minerals when they put the land up for sale. Rather, it was offered up as $100 per acre for land and minerals, or $90 an acre for just the land.

Remember, these were people who had for years watched numerous failed attempts at finding oil. It wasn't a good idea to buy the minerals based on what they were seeing. Most banks (and we are talking largely about the State here) ended up holding a lot of what they thought were worthless mineral acres with the exception of the gravel rights.

Every single mineral acre in private ownership across ND is for sale.

How's that ?

 

[Allen]

How's that ?

It's no different than anything else. Find the owner of the minerals you would like to purchase and make the owner an offer. If you offer enough, they will sell.