Wednesday, February 15, 2012
NEW NEW NEW Calendar Page
We just added a new feature to our webpage: A calendar of all the radio and TV appearances, debates and other events that Empower the Taxpayer will be participating in. Check frequently because new things are being added. Quite often with radio and TV we only have 2-3 hours warning but we'll try to get it up as soon as we know.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Rebuttal to GF Herald Opinion
Below is a rebuttal to the GF Herald submitted by a supporter of M2:
In the February 4 issue of the Grand Forks Herald Opinion Tom Dennis tries to justify that Measure 2 is a very bad idea from the government’s & business point of view. But what about all the rest of North Dakota residents? He does not mention a single positive reason why it is on the ballot in the first place.
We all know why Measure 2 is on the ballot. It will free the homeowners from the perpetual serfdom to the government and stop any further abuse of the taxpayers. For Tom Dennis, and others associated with the “keep it LOCAL”, to ignore these important facts is truly amazing. But what is more amazing is that Tom Dennis is implying that the group responsible for Measure 2, is trying to destroy the local form of government in North Dakota.
It is clear that Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” organization have not read the facts about Measure 2. But even if they have not read it, there is no excuse to condemn M2 with dogmatic rhetoric that it is inferior to the status quo of the present property tax concept. I don’t know of any other tax that violates our basic rights as much as the property tax does. How can Measure 2 be inferior when it will restore our basic rights?
Tom Dennis is implying that there will be a tax revenue vacuum to the local governments if Measure 2 is passed. He will blush with shame after he reads the whole text of Measure 2. But even for people who don’t want to read the whole text of Measure 2, it is illogical that there would be a tax vacuum to the local governments. We all understand that all of our tax dollars come from our personal incomes, including property taxes. By eliminating the property tax does not mean that the over all tax burden will automatically drop by the amount we pay in present property taxes. It just means that the tax base is changed from home values to personal incomes.
So, why is Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” group preaching doomsday to local governments by merely changing the tax base for our local government tax revenue? At the present time, there is an established hierarchy of administration between the taxing districts, county, city and township governments. That will not change when Measure 2 is passed. Measure 2 will just make it more efficient to administer the tax revenue to the local governments.
We constantly hear about government waste and duplication. North Dakota’s present property tax concept is no exception to this duplication and waste. One does not have to be a member of a “think tank” to see what obvious waste and duplications will be eliminated when Measure 2 is passed. Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” group’s nostalgia, for the status quo property tax, leaves a lot to be desired. It is like insisting to use an antiquated outdoor toilet when we have indoor plumbing. And who thinks that is is OK for the local government to pass judgment on how wealthy we are by sending out an assessor to snoop at our homes?
Read the editorial here:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/228554/group/Opinion/
In the February 4 issue of the Grand Forks Herald Opinion Tom Dennis tries to justify that Measure 2 is a very bad idea from the government’s & business point of view. But what about all the rest of North Dakota residents? He does not mention a single positive reason why it is on the ballot in the first place.
We all know why Measure 2 is on the ballot. It will free the homeowners from the perpetual serfdom to the government and stop any further abuse of the taxpayers. For Tom Dennis, and others associated with the “keep it LOCAL”, to ignore these important facts is truly amazing. But what is more amazing is that Tom Dennis is implying that the group responsible for Measure 2, is trying to destroy the local form of government in North Dakota.
It is clear that Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” organization have not read the facts about Measure 2. But even if they have not read it, there is no excuse to condemn M2 with dogmatic rhetoric that it is inferior to the status quo of the present property tax concept. I don’t know of any other tax that violates our basic rights as much as the property tax does. How can Measure 2 be inferior when it will restore our basic rights?
Tom Dennis is implying that there will be a tax revenue vacuum to the local governments if Measure 2 is passed. He will blush with shame after he reads the whole text of Measure 2. But even for people who don’t want to read the whole text of Measure 2, it is illogical that there would be a tax vacuum to the local governments. We all understand that all of our tax dollars come from our personal incomes, including property taxes. By eliminating the property tax does not mean that the over all tax burden will automatically drop by the amount we pay in present property taxes. It just means that the tax base is changed from home values to personal incomes.
So, why is Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” group preaching doomsday to local governments by merely changing the tax base for our local government tax revenue? At the present time, there is an established hierarchy of administration between the taxing districts, county, city and township governments. That will not change when Measure 2 is passed. Measure 2 will just make it more efficient to administer the tax revenue to the local governments.
We constantly hear about government waste and duplication. North Dakota’s present property tax concept is no exception to this duplication and waste. One does not have to be a member of a “think tank” to see what obvious waste and duplications will be eliminated when Measure 2 is passed. Tom Dennis and the “keep it LOCAL” group’s nostalgia, for the status quo property tax, leaves a lot to be desired. It is like insisting to use an antiquated outdoor toilet when we have indoor plumbing. And who thinks that is is OK for the local government to pass judgment on how wealthy we are by sending out an assessor to snoop at our homes?
Read the editorial here:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/228554/group/Opinion/
Saturday, February 4, 2012
NORTH DAKOTA REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONEY
Here is a recent post in Say Anything Blog about ND's finances:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/guest-post-north-dakota-really-doesnt-have-the-money/
Mr. Busek brings out an important point that I think many are not aware of: this surplus that you're always hearing about? It is not the accumulation of years of excess revenues. But this is the excess that was generated just since the last legislative session and is money over and above what the state has budgeted to spend. In 2011 the state had ANOTHER $2B surplus and the state spent it all.
Yes, you read that right: Every single penny of the 2009-2011 surplus was spent in the last budget. And in 2009, there was another surplus and the state spent all of that one as well. The current $1.8 billion (and rising) surplus that's pouring into state coffers right now is also slated to be spent, unless we pass M2.
Mr. Busek is right to be concerned with that state of North Dakota’s fiscal safety, security and money management. While ND is blessed with incredible natural resource wealth, it is not blessed with responsible management of that wealth. Instead of managing our wealth the Legislature has been on a 10 year spending binge. That spending binge goes unabated. State spending of taxpayer money has increased more than 135% in ten years, while personal income growth has gone up 61% and the CPI 26%. Instead of decreasing taxes the legislature has recklessly given hundreds of millions to special interests and spent lavishly on virtually everything imaginable. While we have the lowest unemployment in the country and thousands of jobs unfilled – the legislature increased State taxpayer spending (non-federal spending) on welfare from $650 million to $932 million this last legislative session. North Dakota taxpayers spend $200 million each year to subsidize non-resident college student tuition and are then told by the Legislature if they need schools to tax themselves again to get them! Remember the 5% state sales tax was originally intended to be used to provide basic government services to our political subdivision, not pay for non-resident college tuition or grow a massive welfare bureaucracy. Welfare consumes K-12 education; 2 ½ times public safety cost and almost 3 times what we spend on roads.
NORTH DAKOTA’S BUDGET IS SERIOUSLY MISMANAGED.
MEASURE 2 will stop much of this non-sense by constitutionally requiring the STATE fund basic government services before they can fund discretionary and special interest wants. This is why these entities oppose M2.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/guest-post-north-dakota-really-doesnt-have-the-money/
Mr. Busek brings out an important point that I think many are not aware of: this surplus that you're always hearing about? It is not the accumulation of years of excess revenues. But this is the excess that was generated just since the last legislative session and is money over and above what the state has budgeted to spend. In 2011 the state had ANOTHER $2B surplus and the state spent it all.
Yes, you read that right: Every single penny of the 2009-2011 surplus was spent in the last budget. And in 2009, there was another surplus and the state spent all of that one as well. The current $1.8 billion (and rising) surplus that's pouring into state coffers right now is also slated to be spent, unless we pass M2.
Mr. Busek is right to be concerned with that state of North Dakota’s fiscal safety, security and money management. While ND is blessed with incredible natural resource wealth, it is not blessed with responsible management of that wealth. Instead of managing our wealth the Legislature has been on a 10 year spending binge. That spending binge goes unabated. State spending of taxpayer money has increased more than 135% in ten years, while personal income growth has gone up 61% and the CPI 26%. Instead of decreasing taxes the legislature has recklessly given hundreds of millions to special interests and spent lavishly on virtually everything imaginable. While we have the lowest unemployment in the country and thousands of jobs unfilled – the legislature increased State taxpayer spending (non-federal spending) on welfare from $650 million to $932 million this last legislative session. North Dakota taxpayers spend $200 million each year to subsidize non-resident college student tuition and are then told by the Legislature if they need schools to tax themselves again to get them! Remember the 5% state sales tax was originally intended to be used to provide basic government services to our political subdivision, not pay for non-resident college tuition or grow a massive welfare bureaucracy. Welfare consumes K-12 education; 2 ½ times public safety cost and almost 3 times what we spend on roads.
NORTH DAKOTA’S BUDGET IS SERIOUSLY MISMANAGED.
MEASURE 2 will stop much of this non-sense by constitutionally requiring the STATE fund basic government services before they can fund discretionary and special interest wants. This is why these entities oppose M2.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
$$$ URGENT: DONATE TODAY $$$
The Anti-M2 group is well-funded--with YOUR tax money. Yes, that's right. The group that calls itself Keep it Local is made up of ND League of Cities, ND Assoc. of Counties and ND Chamber of Commerce, all of which receive taxpayer money. If we are going to get our message out, we need donations TODAY.
$20, $50, $100, $500, every little bit helps. Click the button on the left or the link in the title to donate.
$20, $50, $100, $500, every little bit helps. Click the button on the left or the link in the title to donate.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Does This Make You Laugh or Cry?
Here is a news report from today's Bismarck Tribune on the recent increases in Ag-land valuations. When I read this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It almost makes my head explode, it is so incomprehensible.
Folks, this is what our opponents call "keeping it local." What do you call it?
Excerpt:
"Staff from the North Dakota Tax Commissioner's office and the Agriculture Department held a meeting Wednesday afternoon to provide information on why owners of agricultural land are facing a nearly 30 percent increase in land values in 2012...Goehring said the primary reason for the increase in land value was because of a lowering of the capitalization rate for agricultural land.
Goehring said a statutory minimum capitalization rate, or "floor," was set by the Legislature in 2004 at 9.5 and had declined to 7.4 percent by 2011. The floor lapsed after 2011. When the capitalization rate is lowered, it results in higher land values.
Fong explained that when the floor set by the Legislature lapsed, the rate was determined for 2012 using the method used prior to the floor being set. The capitalization rate, therefore, was calculated using the 10-year average of mortgage rates on North Dakota farmland loans. The rate is determined by the Agribank mortgage rate of interest for North Dakota.
Using that form of calculation rather than the floor set by the Legislature, the rate was lowered from 7.4 percent to 5.864 percent for 2012.
"That contributes to 26 percent of the 29 percent increase," Fong said.
Two other factors also played a minor role in the increase, Fong said.
One factor is production data, which is the annual gross returns for cropland and non-cropland. After taking production data from the previous 10 years and dropping the high and low production year, an eight-year average is calculated. Higher production leads to higher values. For 2012, increases ranged from 5.9 percent to 17.4 percent for cropland. Non-cropland production increased by approximately 1.9 percent.
The other factor is the cost of production index. It is calculated by using input costs such as fertilizer, fuel and equipment as well as wages and taxes. After taking 10-year data, dropping the high and low years, an eight-year average is calculated. For 2012, Fong said, the cost of production index increased to 1.47, up from 1.39 in 2011. That resulted in a 5.4 percent decrease in land agricultural values for all North Dakota counties."
Read the entire article: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/officials-explain-why-land-values-are-increasing/article_f146c144-47ab-11e1-ad8f-001871e3ce6c.html
Folks, this is what our opponents call "keeping it local." What do you call it?
Excerpt:
"Staff from the North Dakota Tax Commissioner's office and the Agriculture Department held a meeting Wednesday afternoon to provide information on why owners of agricultural land are facing a nearly 30 percent increase in land values in 2012...Goehring said the primary reason for the increase in land value was because of a lowering of the capitalization rate for agricultural land.
Goehring said a statutory minimum capitalization rate, or "floor," was set by the Legislature in 2004 at 9.5 and had declined to 7.4 percent by 2011. The floor lapsed after 2011. When the capitalization rate is lowered, it results in higher land values.
Fong explained that when the floor set by the Legislature lapsed, the rate was determined for 2012 using the method used prior to the floor being set. The capitalization rate, therefore, was calculated using the 10-year average of mortgage rates on North Dakota farmland loans. The rate is determined by the Agribank mortgage rate of interest for North Dakota.
Using that form of calculation rather than the floor set by the Legislature, the rate was lowered from 7.4 percent to 5.864 percent for 2012.
"That contributes to 26 percent of the 29 percent increase," Fong said.
Two other factors also played a minor role in the increase, Fong said.
One factor is production data, which is the annual gross returns for cropland and non-cropland. After taking production data from the previous 10 years and dropping the high and low production year, an eight-year average is calculated. Higher production leads to higher values. For 2012, increases ranged from 5.9 percent to 17.4 percent for cropland. Non-cropland production increased by approximately 1.9 percent.
The other factor is the cost of production index. It is calculated by using input costs such as fertilizer, fuel and equipment as well as wages and taxes. After taking 10-year data, dropping the high and low years, an eight-year average is calculated. For 2012, Fong said, the cost of production index increased to 1.47, up from 1.39 in 2011. That resulted in a 5.4 percent decrease in land agricultural values for all North Dakota counties."
Read the entire article: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/officials-explain-why-land-values-are-increasing/article_f146c144-47ab-11e1-ad8f-001871e3ce6c.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Land Values Going Up
Two weeks after it was announced that Agricultural Land values were going up an average of 30%, there is FINALLY a newspaper covering the issue. Show of hands: who thinks that counties are going to reduce mills to compensate for the increased valuation? No, I don't think so either.
Show of hands: how many farmers have enjoyed a 30% increase in income in the last year? No, I didn't think so. In fact, this last year saw some of the highest number of acres of cropland that were not planted because of rain and flooding.
This is just one more example of how unsustainable Property Tax is. It continues to rise and the increases far outstrip citizen's income. Can there be any other solution other than to eliminate this onerous tax?
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/taxpayer-caution-land-values-have-risen/article_3a4ad22c-4b5d-11e1-94fe-001871e3ce6c.html
Show of hands: how many farmers have enjoyed a 30% increase in income in the last year? No, I didn't think so. In fact, this last year saw some of the highest number of acres of cropland that were not planted because of rain and flooding.
This is just one more example of how unsustainable Property Tax is. It continues to rise and the increases far outstrip citizen's income. Can there be any other solution other than to eliminate this onerous tax?
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/taxpayer-caution-land-values-have-risen/article_3a4ad22c-4b5d-11e1-94fe-001871e3ce6c.html
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Play the Game and Win a Prize!
Let's play our old favorite: How many mistakes can you spot?
Below is the Q&A that the Anti-Measure 2 people are putting out. How many mistakes (errors, incorrect or non-factual statements) can you find in their statement? A free bumper sticker to the person who comes up with the most correct answers. Contest closes Midnight, February 8, 2012.
What is Measure No. 2?
_______________________________________________
It’s a proposal to amend the North Dakota Constitution to prohibit political subdivisions (cities, counties, school districts, townships, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, etc.) from levying a tax on the assessed value of property. The proposal will be on the primary election ballot on June 12.
If local services are now funded by property tax, how would those services be funded in the future?
_________________________________________________
The measure provides that “taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund operations” of political subdivisions must be replaced by state resources.
The measure says taxes on real property used before 2012 to fund operations must be replaced by state resources; does that mean the state-replaced revenue would be frozen at 2011 levels?
_________________________________________
The measure requires funding to be determined “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Would all local operations be required to be funded?
_______________________
The measure’s language requires funding of “legally imposed obligations” of political subdivisions.
How are “legally imposed obligations” defined?
____________________________
The proposed measure does not define this term, nor does state law define this term for political subdivisions.
Would police and fire protection be considered “legally imposed obligations”?________________________________________________________
There is no legal requirement in state law to provide police and fire protections.
Would local control of local budgets be affected?
__________________________
Funding for political subdivisions would be determined “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Would the measure affect special assessments?
____________________________
Special assessments are based on the benefit to property, not based on the value of property. However, the method of collecting (currently through property tax statements issued by the county) and the method of enforcing (currently through a sale conducted by the county for delinquent taxes) could be affected.
Would the measure affect the limit of public debt?
_________________________
Currently in state law, the debt limit is five percent of “assessed value of the taxable property.” The measure would change the debt limit to five percent of “the market value of the property.” The public debt limit would increase significantly and market value would have to be determined on all property, including churches, personal property and other property not currently taxed.
When would the proposed measure become effective?
_______________________
The effective date is January 1, 2012.
If the effective date is January 1, 2012, how would political subdivisions fund local services before the 2013 Legislative Assembly meets?
__________________
Either the legislature will have to meet in special session, or the method of funding would be unknown after June 12. The measure specifies funding “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Below is the Q&A that the Anti-Measure 2 people are putting out. How many mistakes (errors, incorrect or non-factual statements) can you find in their statement? A free bumper sticker to the person who comes up with the most correct answers. Contest closes Midnight, February 8, 2012.
What is Measure No. 2?
_______________________________________________
It’s a proposal to amend the North Dakota Constitution to prohibit political subdivisions (cities, counties, school districts, townships, park districts, water districts, irrigation districts, fire protection districts, soil conservation districts, etc.) from levying a tax on the assessed value of property. The proposal will be on the primary election ballot on June 12.
If local services are now funded by property tax, how would those services be funded in the future?
_________________________________________________
The measure provides that “taxes upon real property which were used before 2012 to fund operations” of political subdivisions must be replaced by state resources.
The measure says taxes on real property used before 2012 to fund operations must be replaced by state resources; does that mean the state-replaced revenue would be frozen at 2011 levels?
_________________________________________
The measure requires funding to be determined “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Would all local operations be required to be funded?
_______________________
The measure’s language requires funding of “legally imposed obligations” of political subdivisions.
How are “legally imposed obligations” defined?
____________________________
The proposed measure does not define this term, nor does state law define this term for political subdivisions.
Would police and fire protection be considered “legally imposed obligations”?________________________________________________________
There is no legal requirement in state law to provide police and fire protections.
Would local control of local budgets be affected?
__________________________
Funding for political subdivisions would be determined “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Would the measure affect special assessments?
____________________________
Special assessments are based on the benefit to property, not based on the value of property. However, the method of collecting (currently through property tax statements issued by the county) and the method of enforcing (currently through a sale conducted by the county for delinquent taxes) could be affected.
Would the measure affect the limit of public debt?
_________________________
Currently in state law, the debt limit is five percent of “assessed value of the taxable property.” The measure would change the debt limit to five percent of “the market value of the property.” The public debt limit would increase significantly and market value would have to be determined on all property, including churches, personal property and other property not currently taxed.
When would the proposed measure become effective?
_______________________
The effective date is January 1, 2012.
If the effective date is January 1, 2012, how would political subdivisions fund local services before the 2013 Legislative Assembly meets?
__________________
Either the legislature will have to meet in special session, or the method of funding would be unknown after June 12. The measure specifies funding “according to a formula devised by the legislative assembly.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)