Property Tax Petition

[woodduck30]

I say let them figure it out. Thats the job they have. But if they need ideas. Cut spending and get the rest from sales tax. Sales tax will spread it out more. Also, Non residents will shoulder some of it too. The more you spend the more you pay. I am never going to be one that says, "yes, please keep taxing the piss out of me". No thanks!

 

[SLE]

.......... I am never going to be one that says, "yes, please keep taxing the piss out of me". No thanks!

Then don't give them an option, because just voting yes gives them an open canvas. good luck with that.

 

[woodduck30]

Then don't give them an option, because just voting yes gives them an open canvas. good luck with that.

Spin it how you want. Spin it how the governor wants. Makes no difference to me. I know I will sign the petition and I know how I will vote. I will take the opportunity to have a chance to own my property instead of renting it from the government.

 

[scrotcaster]

Watch property values soar with the influx of out of state money, if this happens

 

[shorthairsrus]

use up the legacy fund ---I think any type of savings account of taxes if bullshit. That will suffice it for what one year ---- plus the amounts going into that fund isnt going to replace the property taxes.

The whole problem is today --- -is that americans do not look at the taxes they pay as whole. If the state made property taxes something that gets paid every two weeks auto out of a checking acccount nobody would bitch about property taxes. Specials that is a whole other matter and that should of never been created.

withholding, sales, gas nobody looks at it anymore. They just bend over.


What needs to happen BUDGET CUTS !!! Federal, State, Local all need to be reviewed and decreased. That will never happen as they just find out another way to make people bend over.


When i intially read this thread i though great --- like johnr said use fees -- -in other words each student would pay a tution --- yearly tuition would be about 15k per child. Now if you want to talk user lets talk user. I am all over that.

You wont get change ---- some consultant at a gazzzillion dollars would be hired to figure out how to make the same revenue up. He would increase income taxes and everthing else and we would resemble Minnesota when it all got done Bismarck and Fargo ruling every damn dime of taxes and spending it all for its blue agenda.

 

[shorthairsrus]

Biggest problem right now is both parties are the same ---- They both TAX and SPEND

 

[johnr]

When one looks at any government run anything, It might look on the surface that we have only 535 members in congress, but their staffs are about 10 people or likely 15 each, and that staff has a staff of a couple each, and then that staff has an intern or two.

The cost of one government legislator is really about what one would have to pay 20 high paid accountants, and 100 percent of all their expenses, and travel, and lodging, and whores, and the lawyers to cover up the whores, and the drug dealers, and the limo drivers, the list is endless.

 

[Allen]

I say let them figure it out. Thats the job they have. But if they need ideas. Cut spending and get the rest from sales tax. Sales tax will spread it out more. Also, Non residents will shoulder some of it too. The more you spend the more you pay. I am never going to be one that says, "yes, please keep taxing the piss out of me". No thanks!

"let them figure it out" kind of reminds me of boot camp where the Drill Instructor would come in after you've just cleaned the squad bay and they'd tear shit apart just so you'd have to clean everything all over again. In this case it would appear the electorate is the drill instructor, recruits are the elected officials, and the squad bay's the tax system.

I don't ever remember the squad bay actually getting any cleaner the 2nd or 3rd time around.

I think a lack of property tax will cause an incredible rush on non-residents buying property in ND. There's no way around that, property taxes are currently a considerable annual expense associated with owning a piece of land, house, or lake cabin. You remove that and property values will skyrocket. Great for existing property owners, not so good for our kids' ability to buy something down the road.




As usual, such radical shifts in public law will absolutely create winners and losers going forward as the tax burden shifts from one segment of the population to another. Since I build my life around existing conditions, it is a virtual certainty this is setting me up to once again come out on the short end of things. If you built your life around the existing conditions, including the tax code, you (like me) are being setup to shoulder more of the burden.

Sorry peeps, but I am convinced there are several kinds of people who are for something like this. The first are those who are intentionally planning on shifting their tax burden onto someone else (these are the worst of our neighbors). The second are those who have been misled into thinking it will shift their tax burden onto someone else (perhaps the dumbest of our neighbors).

After them we have those who think this will somehow prompt our elected officials into lowering their overall budget(s) for services provided to the residents of ND, that's not how govt works. Given the amount of history we have to learn from, it amazes me there's this large of a segment of the population. Govt budgets are set by the amount of services, entitlements, and goods we the population have demanded from the govt. For every example given where "I" think the govt should cut their budget, there's at least another voter out there who is demanding that as a higher priority than "I" think it should be. That's called democracy.

IMHO, the best way to fight against higher taxes is to attend the City, Township, County, and State meetings where actual budgets and projects are discussed and voted on. There tends to be very low public attendance at such meetings and those from the general public that do take the time out of their day to attend a given meeting are the ones hoping to get their pet project funded.

 

[guywhofishes]

What's the viable solution?

Is it a rational to end taxation of personal domiciles and the few necessary acres surrounding that?

 

[woodduck30]

"let them figure it out" kind of reminds me of boot camp where the Drill Instructor would come in after you've just cleaned the squad bay and they'd tear shit apart just so you'd have to clean everything all over again. In this case it would appear the electorate is the drill instructor, recruits are the elected officials, and the squad bay's the tax system.

I don't ever remember the squad bay actually getting any cleaner the 2nd or 3rd time around.

I think a lack of property tax will cause an incredible rush on non-residents buying property in ND. There's no way around that, property taxes are currently a considerable annual expense associated with owning a piece of land, house, or lake cabin. You remove that and property values will skyrocket. Great for existing property owners, not so good for our kids' ability to buy something down the road.




As usual, such radical shifts in public law will absolutely create winners and losers going forward as the tax burden shifts from one segment of the population to another. Since I build my life around existing conditions, it is a virtual certainty this is setting me up to once again come out on the short end of things. If you built your life around the existing conditions, including the tax code, you (like me) are being setup to shoulder more of the burden.

Sorry peeps, but I am convinced there are several kinds of people who are for something like this. The first are those who are intentionally planning on shifting their tax burden onto someone else (these are the worst of our neighbors). The second are those who have been misled into thinking it will shift their tax burden onto someone else (perhaps the dumbest of our neighbors).

After them we have those who think this will somehow prompt our elected officials into lowering their overall budget(s) for services provided to the residents of ND, that's not how govt works. Given the amount of history we have to learn from, it amazes me there's this large of a segment of the population. Govt budgets are set by the amount of services, entitlements, and goods we the population have demanded from the govt. For every example given where "I" think the govt should cut their budget, there's at least another voter out there who is demanding that as a higher priority than "I" think it should be. That's called democracy.

IMHO, the best way to fight against higher taxes is to attend the City, Township, County, and State meetings where actual budgets and projects are discussed and voted on. There tends to be very low public attendance at such meetings and those from the general public that do take the time out of their day to attend a given meeting are the ones hoping to get their pet project funded.

I can only assume you were in the military. Most that were in know this. They test you physically and mentally. So, when they did shit like you are describing. Its not to get anything cleaner. Its testing you mentally. Playing mind games to try and break you mentally. Not sure where you are going with that?

Saying people are the worst of people or the dumbest of people because they want to own their own property doesn't really fly.

Maybe, just maybe there are 2 types of people that want property taxes and taxes in general. Those who spend them and those who drain them.

There will be lots of scare tactics coming from the 2 types of people I mentioned.

 

[johnr]

What's the viable solution?

Is it a rational to end taxation of personal domiciles and the few necessary acres surrounding that?

Yes it is.

 

[SDMF]

"let them figure it out" kind of reminds me of boot camp where the Drill Instructor would come in after you've just cleaned the squad bay and they'd tear shit apart just so you'd have to clean everything all over again. In this case it would appear the electorate is the drill instructor, recruits are the elected officials, and the squad bay's the tax system.

I don't ever remember the squad bay actually getting any cleaner the 2nd or 3rd time around.

I think a lack of property tax will cause an incredible rush on non-residents buying property in ND. There's no way around that, property taxes are currently a considerable annual expense associated with owning a piece of land, house, or lake cabin. You remove that and property values will skyrocket. Great for existing property owners, not so good for our kids' ability to buy something down the road.




As usual, such radical shifts in public law will absolutely create winners and losers going forward as the tax burden shifts from one segment of the population to another. Since I build my life around existing conditions, it is a virtual certainty this is setting me up to once again come out on the short end of things. If you built your life around the existing conditions, including the tax code, you (like me) are being setup to shoulder more of the burden.

Sorry peeps, but I am convinced there are several kinds of people who are for something like this. The first are those who are intentionally planning on shifting their tax burden onto someone else (these are the worst of our neighbors). The second are those who have been misled into thinking it will shift their tax burden onto someone else (perhaps the dumbest of our neighbors).

After them we have those who think this will somehow prompt our elected officials into lowering their overall budget(s) for services provided to the residents of ND, that's not how govt works. Given the amount of history we have to learn from, it amazes me there's this large of a segment of the population. Govt budgets are set by the amount of services, entitlements, and goods we the population have demanded from the govt. For every example given where "I" think the govt should cut their budget, there's at least another voter out there who is demanding that as a higher priority than "I" think it should be. That's called democracy.

IMHO, the best way to fight against higher taxes is to attend the City, Township, County, and State meetings where actual budgets and projects are discussed and voted on. There tends to be very low public attendance at such meetings and those from the general public that do take the time out of their day to attend a given meeting are the ones hoping to get their pet project funded.

Maybe a whole lot more people will attend the budget meetings knowing for certain that:

"This is the way we've always done it." or, "ND Law has always been........."

Will no longer be the answer to ANYTHING.

 

[Allen]

I can only assume you were in the military. Most that were in know this. They test you physically and mentally. So, when they did shit like you are describing. Its not to get anything cleaner. Its testing you mentally. Playing mind games to try and break you mentally. Not sure where you are going with that?

It's because I think we would be delusional to think scrambling of this egg would lead to anything more acceptable than what is already in place, even if we think the status quo is unacceptable.

I'm not inclined to think a monthly bill from my rural firefighting dept, the county roads dept, county parks and rec, and local school districts is a better option than just paying my annual property tax bill which lumps this all into one. Services and goods need to be funded and if we say we are going to switch it to an increase in sales tax, that means we are trying to get someone else to fund our expenses (note the comments on out-of-towners and non-residents). So let's say this passes and Bismarck needs to up the sales tax to offset the loss of property tax revenues. All those people who live in New Salem, Sterling, Lincoln, Washburn, etc, etc will still come to shop in Bismarck and they'll be supporting the services of the residents of Bismarck. Good deal for Bismarckians, not so good for small town and rural ND. Oh, then let's pillage the Legacy fund or oil taxes paid to the State they say. Well, that then puts the bill for much of rural and small town ND onto the shoulders of a few, e.g. let someone else pay for my goods and services.

I can't philosophically support any of the above.

There is a system in place for the public to weigh in on govt budgets at the local level, people just don't seem to want to use it unless they have a pet project that needs funding. Let's change that.

For example, the town I live closest to, but am not able to vote in, has been hearing a cry from a segment of the population to build a city owned swimming pool for the kids. I have little doubt that they will eventually be able to make it happen if they organize even as Bismarck shutters swimming pools due to a lack of lifeguards and use. In a nutshell, they are essentially trying to get a govt subsidized pool for their kids, it will be something that goes right on the local government's budget if those who don't want the pool refuse to show up when this comes in front of the elected officials that can make it happen.

 

[Fester]

There are other ways to get the revenue which of course these politicians will find a way to get. With the current property tax system we have in my opinion it is wrong. People can literally be taxed out of their house if they can not afford the taxes. Think about that a second. You have worked hard your whole life and paid your house off. You retire and your taxes get so high you can no longer afford them…what happens then? Get rid of the property tax system and you can actually own your home…..imagine that.

 

[Allen]

Maybe a whole lot more people will attend the budget meetings knowing for certain that:

"This is the way we've always done it." or, "ND Law has always been........."

Will no longer be the answer to ANYTHING.

I think we agree on the public should be more involved. But a system that's unused isn't necessarily broken.

There were some very bright people involved in setting up our system going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. I am not convinced we have the same level of public involvement as our found fathers. Or the same quality in leadership.

Government, by design, is not intended to move quickly on issues like this because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Radical changes always bring on unpopular unintended consequences. Those that helped create the change refusing to accept any responsibility for the negative effects.

 

[woodduck30]

It's because I think we would be delusional to think scrambling of this egg would lead to anything more acceptable than what is already in place, even if we think the status quo is unacceptable.

I'm not inclined to think a monthly bill from my rural firefighting dept, the county roads dept, county parks and rec, and local school districts is a better option than just paying my annual property tax bill which lumps this all into one. Services and goods need to be funded and if we say we are going to switch it to an increase in sales tax, that means we are trying to get someone else to fund our expenses (note the comments on out-of-towners and non-residents). So let's say this passes and Bismarck needs to up the sales tax to offset the loss of property tax revenues. All those people who live in New Salem, Sterling, Lincoln, Washburn, etc, etc will still come to shop in Bismarck and they'll be supporting the services of the residents of Bismarck. Good deal for Bismarckians, not so good for small town and rural ND. Oh, then let's pillage the Legacy fund or oil taxes paid to the State they say. Well, that then puts the bill for much of rural and small town ND onto the shoulders of a few, e.g. let someone else pay for my goods and services.

I can't philosophically support any of the above.

There is a system in place for the public to weigh in on govt budgets at the local level, people just don't seem to want to use it unless they have a pet project that needs funding. Let's change that.

For example, the town I live closest to, but am not able to vote in, has been hearing a cry from a segment of the population to build a city owned swimming pool for the kids. I have little doubt that they will eventually be able to make it happen if they organize even as Bismarck shutters swimming pools due to a lack of lifeguards and use. In a nutshell, they are essentially trying to get a govt subsidized pool for their kids, it will be something that goes right on the local government's budget if those who don't want the pool refuse to show up when this comes in front of the elected officials that can make it happen.

This is for all property owners. Not just one town. Every property owner would benefit. Small towns would support Bismarck???? When someone mentioned how could we possibly do this? I mentioned the idea of a sales tax. This would not be a city sales tax. It would need to be a state sales tax. We can do better than rent our property from the government for the rest of our lives.

 

[SLE]

There are other ways to get the revenue which of course these politicians will find a way to get. With the current property tax system we have in my opinion it is wrong. People can literally be taxed out of their house if they can not afford the taxes. Think about that a second. You have worked hard your whole life and paid your house off. You retire and your taxes get so high you can no longer afford them…what happens then? Get rid of the property tax system and you can actually own your home…..imagine that.

Or be able to live in that house but you cann't pay your monthly sewer, water, electric biill or street bill that now shows up because there are no property taxes? Or you can afford to live in the house but can't afford your eat or buy toilet paper because that's taxed to make up for it.

Again, don't think for a second that getting rid of property taxes is actually going to lower your tax burden. If you want to avoid property taxes, there's is a way, go a buy a super cheap small home to live in that has poor public services. I mean you probably won't want to live there but the tax burden will be super cheap! think about that for a second........

 

[Allen]

IMHOl, the closest widespread radical change I can compare this to is Prohibition. I doubt many thought there would be such widespread and negative consequences to Prohibition, and I suspect many who were in favor of it would have changed their minds if they had had the foresight to the unintended consequences of it, but that was a painful time for America.

That doesn't mean I think the loss of property taxes would lead to a resurgence of Al Capone type of gangs, but even legal side effects of this are likely to be very unpopular in the long run.

Another example of well intended laws was the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The federal government saw the need to do something with respect to large scale disasters like hurricanes, spring floods, etc. There were just so many people that were devastated by these kinds of natural disasters that they "had to do something". So, along comes federally subsidized flood insurance. Well, fast forward a fair number of years and the federal cost of subsidizing flood insurance became quite onerous and people like myself who refuse to live on a flood plain won out in Congress and a number of years ago they decided to let people who live on the flood plain start paying for the actuarial cost of living there. People who bought their homes (most glaring example I am thinking of is the Outer Banks of NC) were SHOCKED to discover they were going to see their insurance go up a few hundred percent. They fought over this in Congress for years to reach a complicated scaling up of insurance to avoid devastating the investment millions of Americans have in flood prone areas. Needless to say, flood prone areas are no longer as attractive an investment as they once were.

These may seem like far-fetched analogies to the topic at hand, but I suspect the level of change this would involve will lead to a similar level of unintended consequences.

 

[Allen]

This is for all property owners. Not just one town. Every property owner would benefit. Small towns would support Bismarck???? When someone mentioned how could we possibly do this? I mentioned the idea of a sales tax. This would not be a city sales tax. It would need to be a state sales tax. We can do better than rent our property from the government for the rest of our lives.

And que the fight in the legislature about who is going to receive the proceeds from said state sales tax. Our legislature struggles to get their job done in the current allotted time. Who is going to be the almighty decider of who gets how much money? No way rural ND stands a chance under this plan.

Property taxes are not a "rent" payment to the government. Absolutely wrong way to think of them IMHO. Property taxes are what is paid to the government for services and goods provided that support the desirability and usefulness of that property. Roads, firefighting, law enforcement, utilities, etc are not "rent". I live rural and if the access via county roads were removed from my place, it would be a lot less desirable to own. Hence, the value of my property would fall accordingly.

 

[johnr]

Or be able to live in that house but you cann't pay your monthly sewer, water, electric biill or street bill that now shows up because there are no property taxes? Or you can afford to live in the house but can't afford your eat or buy toilet paper because that's taxed to make up for it.

Again, don't think for a second that getting rid of property taxes is actually going to lower your tax burden. If you want to avoid property taxes, there's is a way, go a buy a super cheap small home to live in that has poor public services. I mean you probably won't want to live there but the tax burden will be super cheap! think about that for a second........

Ones sewer, water, electric bill are not covered under your property taxes now. We get those bills already in addition to my property tax bill that has increased 37% in 6 years.

taxation is theft