The State Chamber of Commerce and several of the local Chambers have come out in opposition to Measure 2. Earlier this month we challenged them on their conflict of interest at a state meeting of the North Dakota Realtor's Association. We pointed out that the Chamber's opposition to Measure 2 was a little disingenuous when so much of the Chamber's membership and board members are government entities. The Chamber's representative denied that there was any link between the Chamber and state or local governments.
This article in Say Anything Blog exposes the Chamber's lie.
So when the CoC comes out against Measure 2, ask yourself: who's interests are they representing?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
MEASURE 2 GETS NATIONAL ATTENTION
A nice 2 1/2-minute interview on Fox Business News.
And a podcast from Heartland Institute in Chicago, IL.
And a podcast from Heartland Institute in Chicago, IL.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS?
According to the ND Tax Department, farmers can expect to see their property tax bills between 2010-2012 rise 27%. Good grief.
BELGRAD NEWS COVERS MEASURE 2
We Americans view our homes as our castles, but it’s easy to feel like a serf, instead of a lord or lady of the manor, when we regularly are forced to pay ‘rent’ to the government for our abodes (even when we have no mortgage) in the form of a property tax.
The great state of North Dakota is poised to right that wrong.
This coming June, residents will have the opportunity to vote on a primary ballot measure that, if approved by voters, would eliminate local property taxes, retroactive on Jan. 1, 2012. They would be the first state in the nation to do so.
Can I get a freedom shout?
Read the entire article
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
THE FORUM CONTINUES ITS DECEPTION
As noted in a previous post, the Forum was not content with belittling the nearly 30,000 citizens who put Measure 2 on the ballot, calling them inept, thoughtless buffoons. They also misquoted the Attorney General, saying that he'd ruled all money collected between January and June 2012 would have to be refunded should the measure pass. I wrote a rebuttal to their venomous tirade and pointed out three things:
1-The Forum is using scare tactics to disuade voters from repealing this offensive tax.
2-The Attorney General did not say one word about having to refund any tax money collected between January 2012 and passage of the measure at the June 2012 election.
3-The Attorney General didn't say that because he (unlike the Forum) knows that taxes collected in 2012 were billed in 2011 and therefore unaffected by the measure's effective date of January 2012.
Rebuttal published in today's Forum
Now look for those points in my response printed in today's Forum. Notice two of the three points are missing. In fact, the letter I submitted was 538 words long. The published version is 386 words. That's right--the Forum chopped out nearly 150 words, one quarter of my response. And then they put my name at the bottom, implying that I wrote that response. What they published was their version of my response, spun to meet their approval.
The Forum ridiculed and insulted tens of thousands of North Dakotans, they lied about what the Attorney General said, they lied about needing to refund money if the measure passes and then they lied when they printed this gutted version of my rebuttal, implying that I was the author. Ask yourself, is this a reliable source of news?
1-The Forum is using scare tactics to disuade voters from repealing this offensive tax.
2-The Attorney General did not say one word about having to refund any tax money collected between January 2012 and passage of the measure at the June 2012 election.
3-The Attorney General didn't say that because he (unlike the Forum) knows that taxes collected in 2012 were billed in 2011 and therefore unaffected by the measure's effective date of January 2012.
Rebuttal published in today's Forum
Now look for those points in my response printed in today's Forum. Notice two of the three points are missing. In fact, the letter I submitted was 538 words long. The published version is 386 words. That's right--the Forum chopped out nearly 150 words, one quarter of my response. And then they put my name at the bottom, implying that I wrote that response. What they published was their version of my response, spun to meet their approval.
The Forum ridiculed and insulted tens of thousands of North Dakotans, they lied about what the Attorney General said, they lied about needing to refund money if the measure passes and then they lied when they printed this gutted version of my rebuttal, implying that I was the author. Ask yourself, is this a reliable source of news?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
FORUM EDITORIAL FULL OF MISQUOTES
If you happened to see Monday's Forum editorial, you might be a little surprised to see what the editors think of us and the measure. Well, not too surprised, I hope. After all, the Forum is not known for taking the forward-thinking view on political issues. They love the status quo, hanging on to it and the power brokers as if it were a lifeline.
So let's look at what the Forum had to say: referring to the State Attorney General's recent ruling that the measure, if passed at the June 2012 election, will take effect retroactively to January 1, 2012 the editorial says: “[T]he Attorney General has ruled that cities, counties, parks and school boards will have to refund all that tax money that they collected in the first half of 2012.”
So let's look at what the Forum had to say: referring to the State Attorney General's recent ruling that the measure, if passed at the June 2012 election, will take effect retroactively to January 1, 2012 the editorial says: “[T]he Attorney General has ruled that cities, counties, parks and school boards will have to refund all that tax money that they collected in the first half of 2012.”
News Flash: the property taxes collected in 2012 are taxes levied in 2011, billed in 2011 and therefore not affected by passage of Measure 2. That's correct, our brilliant editors at the Forum apparently are ignorant of the the fact that property taxes are collected in the year after they are billed to the taxpayer. No one has to refund anything.
Second news flash: The Attorney General did not say one single word about refunding taxes collected in 2012. Read the AG's opinion and judge for yourselves if this editorial was misleading: http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/2011-L-10.pdf
Did you read it? Does it say anything about refunding money? No. Why? Refer back to News Flash #1. There's nothing to refund because the taxes paid in 2012 are billed in 2011 and not affected by the measure.
Here's what the Attorney General DID say: “There may be difficulties and problems created by the effective date” but that “it is within the purview of the Legislative Assembly and the Governor to pass contingency plans, if necessary in a special legislative session.” I'll repeat it for emphasis. He said: “There may be difficulties” (emphasis mine) created by the measure's retroactive effective date, but if there are, it is up to the legislature to pass contingency plans, if necessary.
We applaud the Attorney General's ruling because it gives meaningful and immediate tax relief to the citizens of this state. A January 2012 effective date means that our state and the people of this state can immediately start to build a new, more vibrant and diverse economy, freed from the unreasonable and capricious property tax.
Don't be fooled by those who are scared of change. Be informed. Know and understand the issue for yourself. That's why we have published a book detailing the impacts and realities of property tax. In addition, we commissioned a dynamic econometric study by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI), a respected economic think tank that North Dakota's Commerce Department has consulted in the past. This study identifies the fiscal and economic impact that abolishing property taxes will have on the state. If you haven't already read the BHI study, click the link on the side and find out for yourself what will happen when we abolish property taxes. Decide for yourselves if there is anything to be scared of in this measure.
The Forum doesn't think you are capable of understanding this issue and so they will spoon feed you the opinions you should have. We think better of you. We don't expect you to take our word alone. We invite you to read and study all sides of the issue. We believe that a well-informed public will come to the right decisions.
Without a shred of fact to back them up (and even throwing in a few “made up” facts), the Forum editors have called the nearly 30,000 North Dakota voters who got this measure on the ballot “dumb and dumber” for their efforts. After seeing the Forum misquote the Attorney General, calling 30,000 citizens dumb, failing to identify a single fact, issue or reason to oppose Measure 2, we have to wonder, who really is dumb and dumber?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
THIS FROM THE PORK
REPORT CLICK ON PIG TO READ FULL REPORT.
Costly Changes
According to Business Dictionary.com, a change order “changes theterms of a contract, such as price amounts and time requirements,
usually for construction projects.”
In other words, changes orders are required to appropriate additional
funding for projects that cost more than originally estimated. There is
$52,978,255 in suspicious change orders during the 2007-09 biennium.
The problem with change orders centers on the fact that the entire
legislature does not vote on them; rather, only the interim Budget
Section gets to vote. The appropriate legislative process is ignored. In
the case of emergency funding and other rare occurrences, change order
are necessary; however, they are used entirely too much. Change orders
can also be viewed as poor planning. The following are examples of
questionable change orders
• $16,000,000 – North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
salaries and operating expenses
• $400,000 – Dorms at North Dakota State University
• $257,000 – Schafer Hall at Bismarck State College
• $200,000 – Attorney General’s office for salaries and wages
• $151,250 – Costs related to the 1997 flood
• $44,500 – Minot Dome floor replacement.
These projects are the result of poor planning, not emergencies.
Notice: The costs of the change order listed here would more than pay for the costs of property taxes for one year.
Notice: The costs of the change order listed here would more than pay for the costs of property taxes for one year.
The North Dakota Pork Report
Will Abolishing Property Tax leave North Dakotans high and dry during a flood?
Flood relief is well-funded by the state. Here is the OMB's report on flood relief: OMB Special Report
Flood relief is well-funded by the state. Here is the OMB's report on flood relief: OMB Special Report
But WHERE Will the Money Come From?
The ND Office of Management and Budget just released new revenue information, showing that sales tax revenues have hit an all-time high. Yes, oil revenues are up but so are personal and corporate income taxes as well.
Read the report here: October Report
The ND Office of Management and Budget just released new revenue information, showing that sales tax revenues have hit an all-time high. Yes, oil revenues are up but so are personal and corporate income taxes as well.
Read the report here: October Report
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Empower the TaxPayer 2nd debate
Click here to listen Debate with Andy Peterson President of North Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Empower the TaxPayer
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Supporters Say Property Tax Measure Needed To Diversify States Economy
Written by Plains Daily Report. Posted in Plains Daily Exclusives
Tagged: Andy Peterson, charlie tuttle, election 2012, empower the taxpayer, measure 2, north dakota chamber of commerce
Tagged: Andy Peterson, charlie tuttle, election 2012, empower the taxpayer, measure 2, north dakota chamber of commerce
Published on October 24, 2011 with 0 Comments and 0 Reactions
BISMARCK, ND – An initiated measure to abolish property taxes that will be on the June ballot in 2012 is drawing opposition from an unlikely source. The North Dakota Chamber of Commerce says that while they are for lower taxes, abolishing the property tax would have too many unintended consequences.
“The property tax thing is really unsustainable, we said that in the last [legislative] session,” said state Chamber of Commerce President Andy Peterson referring to property tax reform started under former Governor John Hoeven which saw the state buying down local property taxes. “This proposal, however, is really fraught with unintended consequences. That’s what we’re concerned about.”
Peterson says that abolishing property taxes could lead to increases in other taxes. “We’d like to lower all these taxes, but you have to have a plan. In theory it sounds good, we all want to get there, but in practice I don’t think it’s the most practical ideal.”
But Charlie Tuttle, a spokesman for the group backing the measure called Empower the Taxpayer, says that Peterson’s concerns are unfounded. “‘Chicken little, the sky is falling’ is what we keep hearing from these guys,” said Tuttle. “The revenues we’ll generate [from abolishing property taxes] will grow those other tax revenues.”
“If you eliminate the property tax you’ll have growth in sales tax revenue.”
North Dakota would be the first state in the nation to abolish property taxes if the measure passes, and Tuttle says it’s the solution North Dakota needs after tinkering with property taxes for decades. “When you’ve tried to fix something 180 times, which we’ve done with property taxes since 1980, you start using it for target practice.”
Peterson says he agrees that property taxes are a problem, but is worried that a dramatic change in policy could hurt things like local control and school funding. “Property taxes are high here in North Dakota and I think it’s a significant issue we all have to be concerned about,” he said. “I’m debating whether or not it’s a good thing to pass 70% of the control of the school budget to the state is a good idea.
“The area with the biggest legislative delegation is going to swing a pretty big ax.”
But Tuttle says the state already has control over school spending. “What’s really interesting is you say the schools are funded by property taxes. That’s not true in North Dakota any more, the state funds 70% of the schools,” he said. “The 70% has already been done, 70% is already in control of the state.” Tuttle also said that the measure, if passed, would fund schools through block grants with local officials and not state officials deciding how the funds are spent.
“What this will do by eliminating the property tax, it will give back local control,” said Tuttle. “Look at who is fighting this vehemently. It’s the state legislators who don’t want to lose control and give it back to the local.”
Both Tuttle and Peterson agree that North Dakota’s economy has been strong, but Tuttle says North Dakotans need to do something to diversify the economy should political or market fortunes turn on the state’s energy and agriculture sectors. “We want to diversity the industry in North Dakota so that…we’re not dependent on oil, gas and agriculture.”
But Peterson maintains that the property tax measure is the wrong sort of reform, suggesting that a slower approach with involvement from the business community would be better. “What we’re talking about is putting together a blue ribbon commission with partes vested in this thing and come up with a detailed plan on sales taxes and property taxes and say where we ought to be with this thing in five or ten years.”
“You’ve got to take this comprehensive approach to this.”
Both men appeared on the Scott Hennen Show this morning to debate the issue, which will be Measure 2 on the June 2012 ballot. More information about the measure can be found at EmpowerTheTaxpayer.com, a website set up by its supporters.
“The property tax thing is really unsustainable, we said that in the last [legislative] session,” said state Chamber of Commerce President Andy Peterson referring to property tax reform started under former Governor John Hoeven which saw the state buying down local property taxes. “This proposal, however, is really fraught with unintended consequences. That’s what we’re concerned about.”
Peterson says that abolishing property taxes could lead to increases in other taxes. “We’d like to lower all these taxes, but you have to have a plan. In theory it sounds good, we all want to get there, but in practice I don’t think it’s the most practical ideal.”
But Charlie Tuttle, a spokesman for the group backing the measure called Empower the Taxpayer, says that Peterson’s concerns are unfounded. “‘Chicken little, the sky is falling’ is what we keep hearing from these guys,” said Tuttle. “The revenues we’ll generate [from abolishing property taxes] will grow those other tax revenues.”
“If you eliminate the property tax you’ll have growth in sales tax revenue.”
North Dakota would be the first state in the nation to abolish property taxes if the measure passes, and Tuttle says it’s the solution North Dakota needs after tinkering with property taxes for decades. “When you’ve tried to fix something 180 times, which we’ve done with property taxes since 1980, you start using it for target practice.”
Peterson says he agrees that property taxes are a problem, but is worried that a dramatic change in policy could hurt things like local control and school funding. “Property taxes are high here in North Dakota and I think it’s a significant issue we all have to be concerned about,” he said. “I’m debating whether or not it’s a good thing to pass 70% of the control of the school budget to the state is a good idea.
“The area with the biggest legislative delegation is going to swing a pretty big ax.”
But Tuttle says the state already has control over school spending. “What’s really interesting is you say the schools are funded by property taxes. That’s not true in North Dakota any more, the state funds 70% of the schools,” he said. “The 70% has already been done, 70% is already in control of the state.” Tuttle also said that the measure, if passed, would fund schools through block grants with local officials and not state officials deciding how the funds are spent.
“What this will do by eliminating the property tax, it will give back local control,” said Tuttle. “Look at who is fighting this vehemently. It’s the state legislators who don’t want to lose control and give it back to the local.”
Both Tuttle and Peterson agree that North Dakota’s economy has been strong, but Tuttle says North Dakotans need to do something to diversify the economy should political or market fortunes turn on the state’s energy and agriculture sectors. “We want to diversity the industry in North Dakota so that…we’re not dependent on oil, gas and agriculture.”
But Peterson maintains that the property tax measure is the wrong sort of reform, suggesting that a slower approach with involvement from the business community would be better. “What we’re talking about is putting together a blue ribbon commission with partes vested in this thing and come up with a detailed plan on sales taxes and property taxes and say where we ought to be with this thing in five or ten years.”
“You’ve got to take this comprehensive approach to this.”
Both men appeared on the Scott Hennen Show this morning to debate the issue, which will be Measure 2 on the June 2012 ballot. More information about the measure can be found at EmpowerTheTaxpayer.com, a website set up by its supporters.
Monday, October 24, 2011
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE REGAINS LOST LOCAL CONTROL THROUGH MEASURE No. 2
By HARVEY CHRISTIAN, Mandan | Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:00 am
The initiated Measure No. 2 on the June 2012 ballot will require the Legislature to fund K-12 schools not already funded by the Legislature and, "The state cannot condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditures of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided." This ensures local control of 30 percent of K-12 expenditures.
During the legislative session (January-April 2009), your senators and representatives voted to have 70 percent of the cost of K-12 schools funded from the general fund. Unfortunately, they also provided that 70 percent of the additional funding had to be used to increase teacher salaries. While this may be appreciated, it stripped the local school board of control over the spending. Further, today 100 percent of total K-12 expenditures are under the control of the Department of Public Instruction through imposition of the State Accreditation Manual.
If passed, this measure will give local school boards complete control over 30 percent of their budget - an increase over what they currently have - which is none. The measure will increase local control over the schools our children attend.
All other funding from the Legislature to make up for the funding current raised through property taxes is required to "fully and properly fund the legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political sub-divisions." The measure goes on to state "how counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions choose to allocate the expenditures of this revenue is at the sole direction of the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political sub-divisions."
The measure provides that how the revenue provided by the Legislature is to be used is the "sole direction" of the local governing bodies. Do not be misled by the talking point that you will "lose local control." Read the initiative (www.empowerthetaxpayer.com).
By HARVEY CHRISTIAN, Mandan | Posted: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:00 am
The initiated Measure No. 2 on the June 2012 ballot will require the Legislature to fund K-12 schools not already funded by the Legislature and, "The state cannot condition the expenditure of this portion of elementary and secondary education funding in any manner and school boards have sole discretion in how to allocate the expenditures of this portion of the elementary and secondary funding provided." This ensures local control of 30 percent of K-12 expenditures.
During the legislative session (January-April 2009), your senators and representatives voted to have 70 percent of the cost of K-12 schools funded from the general fund. Unfortunately, they also provided that 70 percent of the additional funding had to be used to increase teacher salaries. While this may be appreciated, it stripped the local school board of control over the spending. Further, today 100 percent of total K-12 expenditures are under the control of the Department of Public Instruction through imposition of the State Accreditation Manual.
If passed, this measure will give local school boards complete control over 30 percent of their budget - an increase over what they currently have - which is none. The measure will increase local control over the schools our children attend.
All other funding from the Legislature to make up for the funding current raised through property taxes is required to "fully and properly fund the legally imposed obligations of the counties, cities, townships and other political sub-divisions." The measure goes on to state "how counties, cities, townships and other political subdivisions choose to allocate the expenditures of this revenue is at the sole direction of the governing bodies of counties, cities, townships and other political sub-divisions."
The measure provides that how the revenue provided by the Legislature is to be used is the "sole direction" of the local governing bodies. Do not be misled by the talking point that you will "lose local control." Read the initiative (www.empowerthetaxpayer.com).
Sunday, October 23, 2011
PROPERTY TAXES DOUBLE THE PAIN WHEN REAL TRAGEDY HITS
Yesterday PlainsDaily.com broke a story about Republican Rep. RaeAnn Kelsch and her husband owing over $21,000 in unpaid property taxes on their home in Mandan. Today, on my Facebook page, Rep. Kelsch’s husband Thomas Kelsch responded to the story:
But, from a political perspective, what this story represents is a compelling case for abolishing the property tax. Thousands of North Dakotans signed a petition to put a measure on the ballot in the June 2012 election that would abolish property taxes in the state, and part of the motivation for that drive was the very problem the Kelsch family faced.
Every single year North Dakotans, whether it be because they’ve lost their jobs or fell ill or because they live on a fixed income, lose their homes because of property tax bills they can’t pay. And often these people own their homes outright, meaning they’re being kicked off property they own free and clear because they couldn’t pay what amounts to rent to the government.
The Kelsch family was, thankfully, able to get their property tax bill paid off. But what about the citizens who can’t? Why should you lose your home, especially a home you own, just because you couldn’t pay the government’s taxes on it?
The property tax is immoral and ought to be ended. The Kelsch’s story, in my opinion, is illustrative of that.
Tags: measure 2, North Dakota News, property taxes, raeann kelsch
Husband Of State Legislator Responds On Unpaid Property Taxes
Yesterday PlainsDaily.com broke a story about Republican Rep. RaeAnn Kelsch and her husband owing over $21,000 in unpaid property taxes on their home in Mandan. Today, on my Facebook page, Rep. Kelsch’s husband Thomas Kelsch responded to the story:
Dear Mr. Port,It’s certainly understandable when families fall behind on something like this due to illness, and I wish the Kelsch family nothing but the best though, I’d note, that unpaid taxes by a public official are a legitimate news story. As of the time of this writing the Morton County website still shows a balance of over $21,000 due on the property as of yesterday, but as Kelsch states it’s probably a matter of slow bookkeeping.
I am sorry we were not around to return your phone call yesterday. The reason that mention it is because I could have provided you with updated information on the status of the real estate taxes. Yesterday morning around 9:00 a.m. I paid all of the Real Estate taxes we owed to the Morton County Treasurer. I tried to send you an email with an attached a copy of the receipt for payment of the 2008, 2009 and 2010, real estate taxes owed to Morton County dated July 12, 2011, but it was undeliverable to your address listed on your blog. You can confirm yesterday’s payment by contacting the Morton County Treasurer’s office. Apparently the County has failed to timely update its online records.
It is true we had unpaid real estate taxes from 2008, 2009 and the first half of 2010. This was my fault and was in part due to health problems that I was going through. I was diagnosed with colon cancer in early February 2009, (when these real estate taxes first became due). Due to the cancer I had surgery and went through over 6 months of Chemo Therapy. As a result of this illness and treatment I was forced to miss work, lost income and had increased medical costs.
And remember, legislators and their families are human beings, just like their constituents and are not exempt from devastating illness or financial issues.
I am not making an excuse for letting the property taxes go unpaid, it is just what happened. Nor am I asking for any special treatment.
I was fully aware of the tax deed forfeiture provisions, and that we had until October to pay off the 2008 real estate taxes.
Prior to 2007, ND property owners had 5 years to pay their taxes before their property would be forfeited, (four years after the tax is due). This was changed in 2007 in House Bill 1332, which lowered the 5 year period to 3 years. A check of the journal for 2007 shows that Rae Ann voted in favor of this reduction.
By failing to pay our real estate taxes when due we have had to pay interest at the rate of 12 % per year on the 2008 and 2009 real estate taxes. Given that high rate of interest, the taxing authorities have not been harmed by the late payment of these real estate taxes.
But, from a political perspective, what this story represents is a compelling case for abolishing the property tax. Thousands of North Dakotans signed a petition to put a measure on the ballot in the June 2012 election that would abolish property taxes in the state, and part of the motivation for that drive was the very problem the Kelsch family faced.
Every single year North Dakotans, whether it be because they’ve lost their jobs or fell ill or because they live on a fixed income, lose their homes because of property tax bills they can’t pay. And often these people own their homes outright, meaning they’re being kicked off property they own free and clear because they couldn’t pay what amounts to rent to the government.
The Kelsch family was, thankfully, able to get their property tax bill paid off. But what about the citizens who can’t? Why should you lose your home, especially a home you own, just because you couldn’t pay the government’s taxes on it?
The property tax is immoral and ought to be ended. The Kelsch’s story, in my opinion, is illustrative of that.
Tags: measure 2, North Dakota News, property taxes, raeann kelsch
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Here is an Article from Say Anything Blog
Abolish Property Taxes In North Dakota?
Yes We Can
Ralph Kingsbury, writing in the Grand Forks Herald, offers a defense of a measure that will be on the North Dakota ballot in June of 2012 to abolish the state’s property taxes.It’s well worth a read. An excerpt:
Next year in North Dakota, we will be voting on eliminating property taxes. I understand the valid concerns some have about removing this system of taxation, but I also know that the system is broken.I think the mistake a lot of people make when thinking about this proposal to end property taxes is that they think of it merely as tax reduction. That’s a mistake. What this would be is a change in the way we’re taxed. We’d move from a tax that’s terribly expensive and invasive to support, one that has us paying rent to our property to the government even long after we’ve paid off the mortgage, to other forms of taxation.
I am old enough to remember the arguments about the personal property tax system and how people said it could neither be eliminated nor replaced. Then both of those things happened; and so, too, can the property tax system be zeroed out.
I won’t deny that ending property taxes would take a heavy chunk away from the state’s tax revenues. I won’t deny that losing said revenue would drive up other forms of taxes. What I am arguing is that we will have a healthier taxing regime in North Dakota without the property tax.
The long-term economic boons of eliminating the property far outweigh the short-term headaches of restructuring our statewide tax code.
Tags: North Dakota News, property taxes
Friday, October 21, 2011
JFF(Just For Fun))
It’s About Time: 6 Senators Move to Make the Sale of Fake Maple Syrup a Felony
It’s About Time: 6 Senators Move to Make the Sale of Fake Maple Syrup a Felony
Posted: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:28:14 PDT
**Written by Doug Powers
Amid the chaos of war, economic hardship, moral decay, crony capitalism, graft and corruption, is there any more refreshing way to kick off a weekend than by finding out that there are still at least a half dozen members of the US Senate who haven’t lost track of the real problem? I’m of course referring to a scourge that is ripping apart the fabric of this nation: fake maple syrup:
Selling fake maple syrup is currently merely a misdemeanor, but if the “Syrup Six” have their way, it will be a felony, and the following conversation may soon take place in a high security prison near you:
“What’cha in for?”
“Armed robbery. You?”
“Counterfeit waffle topping.”
How long will it be until Joe Biden’s jobs bill spiel gets an addition: “Murders will go up, rapes will go up, robberies will go up, fake maple syrup will go up…”
Useless trivia: The MAPLE Act is, oddly enough, the second piece of proposed legislation I’ve read about this week where the word that contains the first letter of the acronym is also the name of the entire acronym — the DIAPER Act being the other. I think that’s mandated by the REDUNDANCY Act — the R stands for redundancy.
Amid the chaos of war, economic hardship, moral decay, crony capitalism, graft and corruption, is there any more refreshing way to kick off a weekend than by finding out that there are still at least a half dozen members of the US Senate who haven’t lost track of the real problem? I’m of course referring to a scourge that is ripping apart the fabric of this nation: fake maple syrup:
Six senators introduced legislation that would make selling fake maple syrup a felony offense leading to fines and up to five years in prison.When it comes to sap, there’s no group of senators I trust more to know their stuff.
The Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement (MAPLE) Act is a response to what chief sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others say is the increasing practice of cheating Vermont, Upstate New York and other maple syrup regions by selling inferior, fake syrup.
“I have been alarmed by the growing number of individuals and businesses claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all,” Leahy said Thursday. “This is fraud, plain and simple, and it undermines a key part of Vermont’s economy and reputation for quality that has been hard-earned through Vermonters’ hard work.”
He added that others in the syrup-producing regions of Maine, New York and other states also have been hurt. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are all co-sponsors.
Selling fake maple syrup is currently merely a misdemeanor, but if the “Syrup Six” have their way, it will be a felony, and the following conversation may soon take place in a high security prison near you:
“What’cha in for?”
“Armed robbery. You?”
“Counterfeit waffle topping.”
How long will it be until Joe Biden’s jobs bill spiel gets an addition: “Murders will go up, rapes will go up, robberies will go up, fake maple syrup will go up…”
Useless trivia: The MAPLE Act is, oddly enough, the second piece of proposed legislation I’ve read about this week where the word that contains the first letter of the acronym is also the name of the entire acronym — the DIAPER Act being the other. I think that’s mandated by the REDUNDANCY Act — the R stands for redundancy.
JFF (Just for Fun):
Grand Theft TOTUS: Obama’s Prompter, Presidential Seal and Podium Stolen
**Written by Doug Powers
What’s next? Finding Air Force One up on blocks?
From NBC12:
According to the story, the truck was later recovered. At this time, nothing about the teleprompter thief or thieves is known, other than that police are on the lookout for anybody who can’t stop saying “pass this jobs bill”:
What’s next? Finding Air Force One up on blocks?
From NBC12:
HENRICO, VA (WWBT) – NBC12 has uncovered one of those stories that makes you think: “How in the world does that happen?!” A truck filled with President Obama’s podiums and audio equipment was stolen in Henrico just days before his visit to Chesterfield.With the Democrat convention less than a year away, the White House is breathing a sigh of relief that the fake Greek columns weren’t also on the truck.
We confirmed an investigation with the U.S. Defense Department. There are still a lot of questions. The biggest one being did the thieves intentionally target the President’s truck or did they take advantage of a crime of opportunity and give a big “uh-oh” when they saw what was inside.
When you see President Obama speak, there is a pretty typical setup including the presidential seal on a podium, the see-thru Teleprompter and a portable sound system.
Thieves saw the truck carrying that equipment and couldn’t resist the target.
We’re told the truck was parked at the Virginia Center Commons Courtyard Marriott in advance on Wednesday’s presidential visit to Chesterfield.
Sources said inside that vehicle was about $200,000 worth of sound equipment, several podiums and presidential seals, behind which only the President himself can stand.
According to the story, the truck was later recovered. At this time, nothing about the teleprompter thief or thieves is known, other than that police are on the lookout for anybody who can’t stop saying “pass this jobs bill”:
Senate votes to end subsidies to wealthier farmers
Published: Thursday, Oct. 20, 2011 - 9:39 pm
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has voted to end direct payments to farmers whose annual incomes exceed $1 million.
The 84-15 vote approving the provision by Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn came as the Senate worked into the early morning hours Friday on a vast spending bill.
Coburn argued that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the highest earning farmers at a time of deep budget deficits. The leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who opposed Coburn, are working on legislation that could eliminate the entire $5 billion-a-year direct payment program for farmers.
Direct payments go to farmers regardless of crop prices or yields. They are relied on heavily by many rice and cotton farmers in the South.
The 84-15 vote approving the provision by Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn came as the Senate worked into the early morning hours Friday on a vast spending bill.
Coburn argued that the government shouldn't be subsidizing the highest earning farmers at a time of deep budget deficits. The leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who opposed Coburn, are working on legislation that could eliminate the entire $5 billion-a-year direct payment program for farmers.
Direct payments go to farmers regardless of crop prices or yields. They are relied on heavily by many rice and cotton farmers in the South.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/20/3992405/senate-votes-to-end-subsidies.html#ixzz1bRCor5Ji
AND THE SPENDING CONTINUES!!!!!!!
Guess what else they did? They paved the way for more Fannie/Freddie taxpayer crutches:
The U.S. Senate adopted a measure that would raise the maximum size of a home loan backed by mortgage companies Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration to $729,750.Above is the roll call vote on that:
Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, offered the increase as an amendment to a spending bill today. The measure was approved less than a month after the limit on so-called conforming loans was automatically reduced to $625,500.
“If we want to get the economy moving, the housing market has to be part of it,” Menendez said tonight on the Senate floor.
The Senate adopted the amendment 60-3[8]. The amendment required 60 votes for approval and was offered during the chamber’s consideration of a package of spending measures. If the Senate passes the underlying bill, the House would then have to vote for it to become law.
The higher limits, should they be signed into law, would apply until Dec. 31, 2013. Lawmakers would pay for the cost of the higher limits by imposing an annual fee on the loans of 15 basis points of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage.
Michelle Obama: ‘That's Why We Start With Kids, Right? We Can Affect Who They Will Be Forever’
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and First Lady Michelle Obama at a reception for the HealthierUS School Challenge at the White House on Oct. 17, 2011. (White House photo)
(CNSNews.com) - First Lady Michelle Obama said yesterday that the government can affect who kids “will be forever” if it can shape their "habits and preferences" during the large part of the day they are at school.
Mrs. Obama was speaking on the South Lawn of the White House at a reception to honor schools that met the goals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s HealthierUS School Challenge (HUSSC). The USDA Web site describes HUSSC as “a voluntary initiative established in 2004 to recognize those schools participating in the National School Lunch Program that have created healthier school environments through promotion of nutrition and physical activity.” The program has since been rolled into Mrs. Obama’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.
“When many kids spend half of their waking hours and get up to half their daily calories at school, you know that with the food you serve and, more importantly, the lessons you teach that you're not just shaping their habits and preferences today, you’re affecting the choices they’re going to make for the rest of their lives,” said Mrs. Obama.
“That's why we start with kids, right?” she said. “We can affect who they will be forever.”
At the reception, Mrs. Obama praised the 1,273 schools that have doubled the number of students eating federally subsidized meals that fit the program’s criteria.
Among the schools Mrs. Obama praised was the Burlington Elementary School of North Dakota, where, she said, the teachers eat two USDA-approved meals a day with the students.
“And the teachers eat breakfast and lunch with students every single day,” said Mrs. Obama. “Now, that's a sacrifice. You know it. That's love. They even send out a monthly newsletter called, “Nutrition Notes,” to provide healthy eating tips and recipes for the families.
“You’re affecting not just how these kids feed themselves, but how they’re going to feed their own children,” she said.
“So the beauty is, is that you’re not just making this generation of kids healthier, but the next generation as well. And that is truly, truly powerful stuff,” she said.
Mrs. Obama said that the children trained in these schools may have a trickle-down effect on their families.
“They're changing the way they think about their health and they're trickling that information down to their families,” said the First Lady.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Measure 2 will stop these special interests
Taxpayers Should Question North Dakota DPI’s Cozy Relationship With The State Teacher’s Union
Rob Port • October 20, 2011
Social conservatives and I don’t often agree on issues like homosexuality, but I think concerns being expressed by social conservatives in North Dakota over the NDEA’s statewide teacher conference in Bismarck today and tomorrow are valid.
This conference has always bothered me, because I don’t understand why they hold it during the school year. Don’t teachers have months off during the summer where they could hold their conference and union meeting without interrupting the school week? But when you look at the agenda for the conference in Bismarck, there are some real problems.
Janne Myrdal of Concerned Women for America has been leading the charge on this (read her SAB post on the subject here), and makes some good points about whether or not the involvement of state employees in this conference is appropriate:
BISMARCK, ND – The North Dakota Education Association and North Dakota’s Department of Public Instruction are holding an instructional conference in Bismarck this week, but the agenda for the conference is causing some controversy. Janne Myrdal, state director of the socially conservative Concerned Women for America, says a scheduled seminar on gay, lesbian, transgendered and questioning students is inappropriate.
“I don’t really know what that’s got to do with safe education for our students,” sayd Myrdal during an interview on the Scott Hennen Show today. “It doesn’t improve my children’s education to have teachers focusing on this.”
She also questions the involvement of a state employee in the seminar. “The one that’s actually holding the seminar is a taxpayer funded employee of DPI,” said Myrdal.
According to an agenda for the conference posted on the NDEA website, DPI employee Sandra Tibke will lead the seminar which is described as “an interactive training where teachers will learn how to start creating a safe school environment for LGBTQ students.”
But Myrdal says the question of student safety is already being covered by another seminar at the conference. “There’s already a bullying seminar.”
Here’s another fun fact about the conference: It’s called “Sharing The Change Together.” Which, uh, sounds remarkably similar to a certain President’s 2008 campaign slogan.
And when you consider that this isn’t the first time the state’s Department of Public Instruction has pulled a stunt like this, you begin to see a problem.
Any close observer of North Dakota politics knows that the North Dakota Education Association – the state’s teacher union – is an overtly political group. It may as well be a liberal advocacy group which also dabbles in representing teachers. Their building in Bismarck houses not just the union staff itself, but the offices of a myriad of liberal activist groups as well.
There’s a lot of hidden politics in North Dakota’s education system, starting with state Superintendent Wayne Sanstead who is supposedly a non-partisan elected official but makes no bones of his allegiance to Democrats.
Now, the NDEA is a private group. Whether or not they’re appropriately representing their membership is between them and their membership. And they can promote whatever political agendas they want at their conferences. But state employees and taxpayer dollars ought not be involved.
Tags: north dakota education association, North Dakota News, sandra tibke, wayne sanstead
Taxpayers Should Question North Dakota DPI’s Cozy Relationship With The State Teacher’s Union
Rob Port • October 20, 2011
Social conservatives and I don’t often agree on issues like homosexuality, but I think concerns being expressed by social conservatives in North Dakota over the NDEA’s statewide teacher conference in Bismarck today and tomorrow are valid.
This conference has always bothered me, because I don’t understand why they hold it during the school year. Don’t teachers have months off during the summer where they could hold their conference and union meeting without interrupting the school week? But when you look at the agenda for the conference in Bismarck, there are some real problems.
Janne Myrdal of Concerned Women for America has been leading the charge on this (read her SAB post on the subject here), and makes some good points about whether or not the involvement of state employees in this conference is appropriate:
BISMARCK, ND – The North Dakota Education Association and North Dakota’s Department of Public Instruction are holding an instructional conference in Bismarck this week, but the agenda for the conference is causing some controversy. Janne Myrdal, state director of the socially conservative Concerned Women for America, says a scheduled seminar on gay, lesbian, transgendered and questioning students is inappropriate.
“I don’t really know what that’s got to do with safe education for our students,” sayd Myrdal during an interview on the Scott Hennen Show today. “It doesn’t improve my children’s education to have teachers focusing on this.”
She also questions the involvement of a state employee in the seminar. “The one that’s actually holding the seminar is a taxpayer funded employee of DPI,” said Myrdal.
According to an agenda for the conference posted on the NDEA website, DPI employee Sandra Tibke will lead the seminar which is described as “an interactive training where teachers will learn how to start creating a safe school environment for LGBTQ students.”
But Myrdal says the question of student safety is already being covered by another seminar at the conference. “There’s already a bullying seminar.”
Here’s another fun fact about the conference: It’s called “Sharing The Change Together.” Which, uh, sounds remarkably similar to a certain President’s 2008 campaign slogan.
And when you consider that this isn’t the first time the state’s Department of Public Instruction has pulled a stunt like this, you begin to see a problem.
Any close observer of North Dakota politics knows that the North Dakota Education Association – the state’s teacher union – is an overtly political group. It may as well be a liberal advocacy group which also dabbles in representing teachers. Their building in Bismarck houses not just the union staff itself, but the offices of a myriad of liberal activist groups as well.
There’s a lot of hidden politics in North Dakota’s education system, starting with state Superintendent Wayne Sanstead who is supposedly a non-partisan elected official but makes no bones of his allegiance to Democrats.
Now, the NDEA is a private group. Whether or not they’re appropriately representing their membership is between them and their membership. And they can promote whatever political agendas they want at their conferences. But state employees and taxpayer dollars ought not be involved.
Tags: north dakota education association, North Dakota News, sandra tibke, wayne sanstead
WE NEED YOUR HELP WE NEED YOUR
DONATIONS
$5 $10 $20 EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS
FAMOUS NORTH DAKOTANS
Dr. Robert H. Bahmer U.S. archivist
Elizabeth Bodine humanitarian
Dr. Anne Carlsen educator
Ronald N. Davies jurist
Angie Dickinson actress, Kulm
Ivan Dmitre artist
John Bernard Flannagan sculptor, Fargo
Phyllis Frelich actress, Devils Lake
William H. Gass writer and philosopher, Fargo
Rev. Richard C. Halverson U.S. Senate chaplain
Phil D. Jackson basketball player, coach
Dr. Leon O. Jacobson researcher, educator, Sims
Harold K. Johnson army general
Louis L'Amour author, Jamestown
Peggy Lee singer, Jamestown
William Lemke representative
Marquis de Mores cattleman
Casper Oimoen skier
Arthur Peterson radio and TV actor
Cliff Fido Purpur hockey player, coach
James Rosenquist painter, Grand Forks
Eric Sevareid TV commentator, Velva
Ann Sothern actress, Valley City
Dorothy Stickney actress Dickinson
Edward K. Thompson editor
Era Bell Thompson editor
Tommy Tucker band leader, Souris
Lawrence Welk band leader, entertainer, Strasburg
Larry Woiwode writer
DONATIONS
$5 $10 $20 EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS
FAMOUS NORTH DAKOTANS
Dr. Robert H. Bahmer U.S. archivist
Elizabeth Bodine humanitarian
Dr. Anne Carlsen educator
Ronald N. Davies jurist
Angie Dickinson actress, Kulm
Ivan Dmitre artist
John Bernard Flannagan sculptor, Fargo
Phyllis Frelich actress, Devils Lake
William H. Gass writer and philosopher, Fargo
Rev. Richard C. Halverson U.S. Senate chaplain
Phil D. Jackson basketball player, coach
Dr. Leon O. Jacobson researcher, educator, Sims
Harold K. Johnson army general
Louis L'Amour author, Jamestown
Peggy Lee singer, Jamestown
William Lemke representative
Marquis de Mores cattleman
Casper Oimoen skier
Arthur Peterson radio and TV actor
Cliff Fido Purpur hockey player, coach
James Rosenquist painter, Grand Forks
Eric Sevareid TV commentator, Velva
Ann Sothern actress, Valley City
Dorothy Stickney actress Dickinson
Edward K. Thompson editor
Era Bell Thompson editor
Tommy Tucker band leader, Souris
Lawrence Welk band leader, entertainer, Strasburg
Larry Woiwode writer
JOIN THE REVOLUTION
Best and Worst States for Property Taxes
From Tonya Moreno, CPA, former Contributing Writer
See More About:
We've all heard Benjamin Franklin's old quote that nothing is certain in life but death and taxes. Welll, that may be especially true for property taxes. No matter where you live in the U.S., if you own real estate you'll have to pay property taxes. However, some states have much higher property taxes than others. The nonprofit Tax Foundation has used Census data over a three year period to find the states with the highest and lowest property taxes.
Let’s say someone in State 1 is paying $2,000 a year in property taxes on a home worth $1 million and someone else in State 2 is paying $2,000 a year on a condo worth $150,000. The best way to compare those two states would be to figure the property taxes as a percentage of home value. The person in State 1 is paying only 0.2% of their home value in property taxes, while the person in State 2 is paying 1.33% of their home value in property taxes. When you look at it that way, it’s clear that the person in State 1 is getting the best deal, even though they are both paying the same dollar amount per year.
Using this methodology, the Tax Foundation found that people in Louisiana paid the least in property taxes. The full list of the top ten best states for property taxes along with the percentage of home value paid in property taxes is:
Best States for Property Taxes
The Tax Foundation ranked the states based on property taxes paid as a percentage of median home value for owner-occupied homes in each state. This is a good way to rank the states because it provides a standardized number for comparison. For example, let’s take a hypothetical situation:Let’s say someone in State 1 is paying $2,000 a year in property taxes on a home worth $1 million and someone else in State 2 is paying $2,000 a year on a condo worth $150,000. The best way to compare those two states would be to figure the property taxes as a percentage of home value. The person in State 1 is paying only 0.2% of their home value in property taxes, while the person in State 2 is paying 1.33% of their home value in property taxes. When you look at it that way, it’s clear that the person in State 1 is getting the best deal, even though they are both paying the same dollar amount per year.
Using this methodology, the Tax Foundation found that people in Louisiana paid the least in property taxes. The full list of the top ten best states for property taxes along with the percentage of home value paid in property taxes is:
- Louisiana - 0.18%
- Hawaii - 0.26%
- Alabama - 0.33%
- Delaware - 0.43%
- West Virginia - 0.49%
- South Carolina - 0.50%
- Arkansas - 0.52%
- Mississippi - 0.52%
- New Mexico - 0.55%
- Wyoming - 0.58%
Worst States for Property Taxes
The Tax Foundation found that homeowners in these states paid the most in property taxes compared to home value. The percentages represent the percentage of home value that homeowners pay in property taxes.- New Jersey - 1.89%
- New Hampshire - 1.86%
- Texas - 1.81%
- Wisconsin - 1.76%
- Nebraska - 1.70%
- Illinois - 1.73%
- Connecticut - 1.63%
- Michigan - 1.62%
- Vermont - 1.59%
- North Dakota - 1.42%
Cartoon by McPherson
JOIN THE REVOLUTION
FACT: The goal of local governments is to get every single penny in tax revenue from you! When I got my property tax bill in 2009, I was astonished to see that the City is taxing my primary residence based off an assessed value 7% HIGHER than in Armageddon 2008! In the biggest economic downturn ever, the San Francisco assessors office believes my property actually increased?! What a sham!
Like clock work, assessed values increase 2-3% higher every year, regardless of the economic environment. It’s as if the City is punishing me for succeeding to lower my assessed value last year by 3%. Too bad for the city, because they are messing with the WRONG person. The tax collectors office counts on citizens to roll over and listen to their every whim, but not me, and certainly not you!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Charlene Nelson answers questions about property tax issue
property taxes may be axed
By Kay Bell ·
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Posted: 12 pm ET
Nobody likes paying taxes, even when we acknowledge that we must do so to get services. But which tax do we hate the most?
It's a close race, but last year property taxes edged out income taxes as the most-hated tax. Yes, even though this levy can offer some tax benefits to homeowners who are allowed to deduct it on their federal income tax returns, annual real estate tax bills really set us off.
And apparently, North Dakota residents hate property taxes more than other Americans. We'll find out for sure next summer when North Dakota voters get to decide whether to abolish property taxes.
In June 2012 a constitutional amendment to eliminate the tax will be on the ballot. If approved, it would make North Dakota the only state in the nation to abolish real estate taxes.
Like many ballot initiatives, this one will go before the voters thanks to a grassroots effort. A citizens' group critical of increased government spending pushed for the measure after noting that North Dakota's general fund spending has doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion since 2005.
While elimination of property taxes is dramatic, there have been some precursors nationwide.
Ballot initiatives have allowed many jurisdictions to limit the rate of growth of real estate taxes. See California's landmark Proposition 13, the granddaddy of real estate tax rate restrictions.
Other taxing districts have forgone collection of property taxes in years when there was enough other revenue to cover government operating costs, but the collection resumed later.
Added income is the catalyst behind the North Dakota effort to kill property taxes. The oil industry is booming in the state, especially the northwestern section, providing local governments more revenue without raising tax rates.
As a native of the West Texas oil patch, trust me. The boom won't last. But the services paid for by property taxes, most notably public schools, will continue to need money.
If the property tax system is axed, the proposed law would force the state legislature to come up $740 million for North Dakota's school districts, counties and cities. The fight over apportioning that money would be brutal.
And let's not forget about America's real pastime, lawsuits. Opponents and proponents alike of ending property taxes will clog the courts with requests for rulings on the state's obligation to provide revenue to replace property taxes.
Supporters of the North Dakota initiative say the property tax ban is necessary to keep older homeowners on fixed incomes from being priced out of their homes by rising tax bills.
Point taken. But deal specifically with that group of adversely affected taxpayers. Enact a new property tax relief program or expand existing ones specific for lower-income senior citizens.
Don't create a whole other set of impacted taxpayers statewide who see their schools demolished because the funding mechanism was eliminated.
But don't nuke a system that lets each taxing district be in charge of how money is spent for local needs. Once it's gone, I'm willing to bet that another ballot measure effort will soon begin to put the property tax system back in place.
Comment
It's a close race, but last year property taxes edged out income taxes as the most-hated tax. Yes, even though this levy can offer some tax benefits to homeowners who are allowed to deduct it on their federal income tax returns, annual real estate tax bills really set us off.
And apparently, North Dakota residents hate property taxes more than other Americans. We'll find out for sure next summer when North Dakota voters get to decide whether to abolish property taxes.
In June 2012 a constitutional amendment to eliminate the tax will be on the ballot. If approved, it would make North Dakota the only state in the nation to abolish real estate taxes.
Like many ballot initiatives, this one will go before the voters thanks to a grassroots effort. A citizens' group critical of increased government spending pushed for the measure after noting that North Dakota's general fund spending has doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion since 2005.
While elimination of property taxes is dramatic, there have been some precursors nationwide.
Ballot initiatives have allowed many jurisdictions to limit the rate of growth of real estate taxes. See California's landmark Proposition 13, the granddaddy of real estate tax rate restrictions.
Other taxing districts have forgone collection of property taxes in years when there was enough other revenue to cover government operating costs, but the collection resumed later.
Added income is the catalyst behind the North Dakota effort to kill property taxes. The oil industry is booming in the state, especially the northwestern section, providing local governments more revenue without raising tax rates.
As a native of the West Texas oil patch, trust me. The boom won't last. But the services paid for by property taxes, most notably public schools, will continue to need money.
If the property tax system is axed, the proposed law would force the state legislature to come up $740 million for North Dakota's school districts, counties and cities. The fight over apportioning that money would be brutal.
And let's not forget about America's real pastime, lawsuits. Opponents and proponents alike of ending property taxes will clog the courts with requests for rulings on the state's obligation to provide revenue to replace property taxes.
Supporters of the North Dakota initiative say the property tax ban is necessary to keep older homeowners on fixed incomes from being priced out of their homes by rising tax bills.
Point taken. But deal specifically with that group of adversely affected taxpayers. Enact a new property tax relief program or expand existing ones specific for lower-income senior citizens.
Don't create a whole other set of impacted taxpayers statewide who see their schools demolished because the funding mechanism was eliminated.
But don't nuke a system that lets each taxing district be in charge of how money is spent for local needs. Once it's gone, I'm willing to bet that another ballot measure effort will soon begin to put the property tax system back in place.
Comment
Add a comment
(Comments may take 5-10 minutes to appear)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Second--Let's assume that the Prophet Kay is right. Let's assume that 10 or 20 yrs from now the oil boom withers and dies. If we don't abolish property tax what will happen with the oil bust? People will lose their jobs and, unable to pay both mortgage and property taxes, they will lose their homes. Right now the state's economy is based on two things: oil and agriculture. Left with just agriculture as its economic base, jobs and wages will be severely limited. There will be a statewide economic downturn, just like the bust in the 80's.
What happen's if we DO abolish property taxes? A study from the well-known economic think tank Beacon Hill Institute shows that in the first year alone:
New jobs increase nearly 12,000
Business investments increase $694 million
Personal income increase 3.6%
State revenues increase $45 million
Five years later the increases are even more dramatic:
Over 13,000 new jobs
Business investments will increase 1.05 BILLION
Personal income increases 4.1%
State revenues increase another $56 million
More importantly, the economic base will have diversified dramatically. This measure makes the entire state an "economic development zone" and so will attract industry that will invest heavily in business infrastructure (since the tax incentive will be permanent, not the 3-5 yrs incentives normally offered in economic development packages.) Instead of just oil and agriculture driving the economics of the state, we will attract businesses like Boeing, auto makers, high-tech industry and goods production. Building and the supporting trades will expand in response to this new investment.
So IF that oil bust does come (I don't claim to have the prophetic powers that Kay does), what will happen? Displaced workers will keep their houses because there will be no property tax that forces them to sell during their unemployment AND they have a wide range of job opportunities that was unavailable to displaced workers during the last oil bust. The state's economy will have diversified in those 10-20 years, becoming more vibrant and resilient.
Third--Kay seems to think that the burden of losing one's home is so negligible that it can be easily born by other taxpayers. Property tax doesn't only make the unemployed, disabled and elderly homeless for failure to pay, it unnecessarily forces many more into smaller housing, apartments and gov subsidized housing. It inhibits investment in one's home, leading to blight and neighborhood malaise. It discourages first time homebuyers--usually young families. It's no wonder that the state with the 12th highest property tax rate also has the lowest rate of young families in the nation. And every dollar of property tax relief given to the needy means a dollar added to someone else's bill and removes that money from the economic market that would improve the state.
In the last 25 years, the state legislature has amended or reformed propert tax 134 times. And every year it gets more complicated, unfair and unpayable. It's time to acknowledge that the tax is unfixable and find a better way to fund needed gov services. This measure does just that.