Property taxes

woodduck30

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2022
Posts
850
Likes
1,205
Points
293
Now that I'm a home owner and no longer paying rent, I too would like to see a change in the way our taxes are being used especially with the way our federal government seems to be helping everyone else in the world instead of helping our tax paying American first.
It would be interested though how other states use their cslt compared to north dakota
Not singling lunker out because there are many that think this way. This will help homeowners and renters out. I will not rehash as I already explained. Shrinking the size and power of our government is a great deal. So removing a tax is a win. Whether you are a homeowner or not. If you are of the mindset this will only help homeowners, then I would think most, not all, want to strive to own a house. Death tax is an example. Some states still have that. I'm not dying. We don't need to get rid of that. Many forms of wealth redistribution which we call taxes.
 


zoops

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
1,861
Likes
231
Points
288
It was my understanding when nd became a state a condition by the federal gov. section 16 and then 36 were to be used to fund education.
But on the atlas not all this land is own by the state anymore.
What happen here? db
Game and fish has a podcast and one of the episodes centered around state school sections. IIRC, it talked about how the state sold off quite a few sections, especially in the eastern part of the state, to raise money long ago but realized it’d be best to stop that.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,739
Likes
719
Points
438
Location
williston
Well they sold a large chunk of the land to fund the first schools in the state. That’s how they got built. The mechanism was in place with the trust fund but the income in the beginning was small and slow coming. So selling the land to build schools was needed. Which brings up another item. Somewhere along the road politicians came up with the false understanding the school land trust money couldn’t be used for building schools. That’s absolutely hog wash. It’s what the fund was made for. There is enough money in that fund today to build every school district a moderate/sensible new school
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
20,837
Likes
4,998
Points
883
Location
Cavalier, ND
Not singling lunker out because there are many that think this way. This will help homeowners and renters out. I will not rehash as I already explained. Shrinking the size and power of our government is a great deal. So removing a tax is a win. Whether you are a homeowner or not. If you are of the mindset this will only help homeowners, then I would think most, not all, want to strive to own a house. Death tax is an example. Some states still have that. I'm not dying. We don't need to get rid of that. Many forms of wealth redistribution which we call taxes.
Yeah forgive me I admit I very ignorant to the whole property tax issues of North Dakota, I was originally looking at this as a debate to end property taxes all together, even though eye has brought up other examples of funds to be used on property taxes,.the core voters will only see that if you let the privileged few off on paying their fair share, who is going to pay for those services those taxed pay for. The cslt can be used for argument if the taxes that are generated can indeed be used to bring down property taxes now. It makes a compelling argument that needs to be investigated for future discussions, again I'm all for change to the way our government keeps putting the screws to the middle class Americans who just want more money to spend as they wish.
 

wjschmaltz

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Posts
989
Likes
378
Points
218
Location
Southcentral ND - Southcentral AK
The Legacy fund is primarily money taken from a select group of North Dakotans. That has never been a good way to fund anything. Funding sources (taxes) need to be derived from a majority of the population, not a select few. Once you make them poor, they will eventually get to your segment of the population. And you will find yourself with just as many friends as those who currently contribute the majority of the money to the Legacy fund.
Yessir, I think in a former thread me and you were in a small group that were against how the Legacy Fund gets it's money. It's always been my view that if people want their cut of oil money, there are plenty of companies hiring. My comment was more in line with if these big slush funds are going to be done away with, I'd rather them lower tax burdens than paid out in lump sums to citizens. The AK PFD really can't be compared to the legacy fund as the PFD is derived from mineral rights owned by the state and the people of the state; and the legacy fund is derived from private party mineral rights. But it's a joke how the AK PFD is paid out IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, in recognition that we do need money to fund a number of essential government programs and projects (and in recognition that most states and feds could and should slash their budget by at least 50%), I think that consumer taxes should be the majority of the few taxes in place. We should have at least a 25% tax on junk food. Set a sugar amount (including processed sugars in certain bread and pasta that charade as "healthy") and tax the shit out of those items that are considered food. Fund agriculture programs with a small tax on produce and dairy, environmental programs on vehicles and fuel taxes, so on and so fourth. Roads and such should be covered by vehicle and vehicle part taxes. People will fall into their tax bracket by how much they spend. Naturally higher earners will spend more and pay more in taxes. Keep a small property tax for minor maintenance and snow removal on those local roads. Low income people will hopefully clean up their diet and money spent on garbage food would ease the strain those diets have put on Medicare and Medicaid. Hell, a tax on junk food would be so massive that it could probably even fill the holes in social security. I recognize there are holes in what I just proposed, but I think it's worth the conversation. 50% of this country doesn't pay taxes, they need skin in the game. Us hunters, fishermen, and gun enthusiasts have successfully funded conservation, fish and wildlife management, and public lands with this model.

As far as the system in place, I 100% agree that they should do away with paycheck deductions for taxes. I would LOVE to see that made illegal if the Republican party can get back a majority across the board. Everyone should get full paychecks and then have to write a check to Uncle Sam at the end of the year. That is the only way the fat will ever be cut. That or the inevitable economic collapse from our unsustainable debt. Add in that you can't get a check from the government. If your tax bill is $8,000 but your child tax credit is $12,000; instead of the government paying that person $4,000 they should just be happy with being at $0.

Of course that's all just dreaming. Red ties and blues ties, it doesn't matter, they're all the same and need our money to buy votes to stay in power.
 


johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
20,781
Likes
5,595
Points
923
Location
Dickinson
mrs johnr and I even after the tax is withheld end up writing a year end check, its infuriating.

What I get for the gross amount the government takes is not even close to a good deal. Its like buying a jug of milk for $200 dollars, and finding out the milk is sour...
 

shorthairsrus

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
8,643
Likes
635
Points
443
What if antthing did doug give to mr wonderful? Wonderful isnt smiling anymore
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,129
Likes
1,218
Points
483
Location
ND
Was in Grand Forks this past weekend and did see the $80,000 rock pile.
To me it appears slaps of concret ends stuck in the ground. Had pipes running around the slaps in various places, not sure for what.
Anyways, guy told me they are planning to put more art up.

Whatever, but maybe a slap welcoming one to Grand Forks on the highways coming to town. db.
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,129
Likes
1,218
Points
483
Location
ND
I will admit, IMHO it looks like crab art. Seen a lot nicer rock piles in other towns and rock piles that began on the family farm in the homestead days i would consider nicer. There were a number of hammers collected off one of the hills that my aunt would tell stories of the Indians camping there now and then in the early 1900.
She was born in 1895 and just wish i had spent more time hearing stories. Said her dad would need to get a hold of someone to come and get them back to the reservation.
That rock pile is still there, and it is huge from all those years.
Sometimes time goes fast but at times it has gone slow.
Family meeting this weekend and sister gave me slides from the 40 and 50 that i plan to show. A few go back to earlier 1900 so will spread a little history with the kids and grandkids.
One of the slides (first time i seen it) was me at 13 with my first car, a 52 Buick dad bought for me for $50. Spend hours working on that car. db
 
Last edited:


Davey Crockett

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
14,355
Likes
1,815
Points
638
Location
Boondocks
Years ago when the Homestead Property Tax Credit was something new , I was under the impression that it was developed for retired farmers who want to keep onto the family homestead. Now that I got older and looked into it, I find out it's like all the other "programs" out there. They created all these programs and all they do for the average joe is RAISE taxes not lower them. Wife and I both retired and our SS alone keeps us from qualifying. It would be interesting to add up how many dollars have been paid in property taxes over the last 124 years, 125 as soon as write the check. Just wondering how someone actually benifits from this tax credit other than the workers who work at the jobs it created ? I'm good with paying my fair share but the services we get are minimal , pay my own garbage pickup, sewer, and water. We have a good road crew so roads are good, no complaints about that.
 

Ponyroper

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
1,049
Likes
29
Points
231
Location
Mandan
It was my understanding when nd became a state a condition by the federal gov. section 16 and then 36 were to be used to fund education.
But on the atlas not all this land is own by the state anymore.
What happen here? db
At one time state owned land could be brought up for sale by some sort of petition process and if it brought appraised value at auction it was sold. That is why there is very little land owned by the state east of the Missouri River. Good crop land was purchased at auction long ago. Most of the remaining state land is undesirable due to location, lack of access, or lack of water. Some time in the 80's a moratorium was put on the sale of the remaining state land and now it can only be sold if it is replaced by an equal amount of land with comparable value.
 

Ponyroper

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
1,049
Likes
29
Points
231
Location
Mandan
and how many acres of mineral right does the state have? my home place the state owns the mineral rights
The state owns over 700,000 acres of land and over 7,000,000 acres of mineral rights. I believe originally when state land was sold the mineral rights went with the land but when the state ended up getting thousands of acres back from foreclosures in the early 1900's they decided to keep the mineral rights on the land they resold. Then in the 80's a moratorium was put on the sale of state land so the amount of land and mineral rights owned by the state will stay the same from now on.
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,129
Likes
1,218
Points
483
Location
ND
What was the thinking back then to sell this land and then keep the mineral rights?

After the thirties my dad bought his uncle's 3 quarters of land from FLB they had reposes from him.
As i understood, paid $2,700 for those 3 quarters. Sold the uncle's house for $900 and crop 30 acres. Balance was quack grass for winter pasture. In 3 years had it paid for. FLB did keep the mineral rights.

However, i strongly believe all mineral rights need to stay with the land and not treated as a separate item. Same with those who want to keep hunting rights.
State needs to dead those rights back to the surface landowner as does FLB. db
 
Last edited:

deleted member

Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,352
Likes
1,175
Points
488
Location
Devils Lake
i get advocating for not being allowed to separate them in the future. but, you aren't advocating for going back and forcing current mineral rights holders to give those rights up to the current surface title holder are you?
 


db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,129
Likes
1,218
Points
483
Location
ND
No, i know this will not happen but i would push for it and big time for FLB which i will assume is Farm Credit Systems right now and the same for the state. Neither should be in the business of owning mineral rights just because at one time they took the land away due to lack of payment by someone. Never should have been allow.

And as time passes on how many airs will own mineral rights on a piece of land. How would one find them all to give them their share. So yes, over time i would push for all mineral rights to go back to the surface owner. db
 
Last edited:

Davey Crockett

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
14,355
Likes
1,815
Points
638
Location
Boondocks
Iv'e read and heard over the years that the federal or state gave away 25% of the land w/ mineral rights to railroad companies to entice them to build a railroad across ND . The rail companies then sold off most of the land but kept the mineral rights. There is some gray area in those contracts that's been disputed over the years but I never kept up with it. Rumor in the oilfield was that either EOG or Continental resources eventually ended up with most of those minerals.
 

BrokenBackJack

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 13, 2015
Posts
9,559
Likes
5,724
Points
873
Location
Central, AZ
I heard back in the day, that if you got a FLB loan for farm land, FLB got half of the mineral rights. I thought some of my Mother's side of the family's land was this way.
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,129
Likes
1,218
Points
483
Location
ND
BBJ:
FLB was establish after WW1 to provide low interest loans for farmers to buy land. They went broke in the 30's and again in 85. Our government bail them out both times
Told they are own by the customers (paid off the federal bailout) and get their funds on the open market. I know in pre 85 if you were alive, you could get a loan from FLB.

When my dad bought back the land his uncle own from FLB they kept 50% of the minerals. There are rules concerning this. One being they could only own this land for 5 years, but mineral rights were not under this rule.
I do not feel it was ever their mission to own this right for ever after they repo land. Nor do i feel the state should own mineral rights on land own by individuals.
I would suggest all these rights be given back to the surface owners and also for any other organization like these two to also give back. No more sale of mineral right to other than the landowner and over time all Indvidual mineral rights be return to the landowner when the current owner's dies. Maybe the surface owner would need to pay something but minimum.

Never happen.
As far as them getting mineral rights when they made a loan, no idea. db
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 405
  • This month: 157
  • This month: 141
  • This month: 119
  • This month: 115
  • This month: 100
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 81
  • This month: 78
  • This month: 77
Top Bottom