Author
Message
ishoot2live
Stay in a Round Room You'll Never get Cornered
Instructor
Offline
Posts: 8896
Feedback: 100% (1)
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:00:56 PM

THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT
Hello North and South Dakotans.

I thought I would ask here in the Dakotas HTF, because, if anybody knows it would be here.

I've been seeing this all day on Facebook, and in my e-mail box.

North Dakota Votes to Secede from Union

I hope this is not a dupe. If it is, please delete.

Thanks in advance.

Joe
"Domari Nolo" III
ndkid
Offline
Posts: 178
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/24/2012 8:49:31 PM
Uh no. John Hoeven is no longer the Governor any more, he is a Senator.
tbougie1
Member
Offline
Posts: 2962
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/24/2012 9:07:52 PM
[Last Edit: 4/24/2012 9:08:32 PM by tbougie1]
Absolutely true...we have oil, ag, wind, tech, health care and controllable borders..unfortunately we will have to import our cars and trucks from Minnesota...C YA!!!!
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
UBB
Member
Offline
Posts: 5119
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/25/2012 10:29:53 AM
No but we are trying to be the first to abolish property taxes. Vote YES on measure 2 this June.
ishoot2live
Stay in a Round Room You'll Never get Cornered
Instructor
Offline
Posts: 8900
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/25/2012 10:30:01 PM
I thought it sounded too good to be true.

Thanks for the responses.


"Domari Nolo" III
nobodyspecial
hates stupid people
Military
Offline
Posts: 884
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 2:26:54 PM

Originally Posted By UBB:
No but we are trying to be the first to abolish property taxes. Vote YES on measure 2 this June.

I don't think that it will be as good as people think. The money will still have to come from somewhere, so other taxes will go up.

The state will then control dispersion of the money, and it will be near impossible for small community organizations to lobby for money since they just won't have enough votes. Organizations in the bigger cities will have more votes and will get a larger percentage of the funding.

I say keep it the way it is, so communities will be able to spend their tax dollars how they deem necessary, and not have to lobby the state for money. This will dramatically effect school funding in smaller communities.
Psalm 144:1
UBB
Member
Offline
Posts: 5144
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 4:48:53 PM
[Last Edit: 4/28/2012 4:51:26 PM by UBB]

Originally Posted By nobodyspecial:

Originally Posted By UBB:
No but we are trying to be the first to abolish property taxes. Vote YES on measure 2 this June.

I don't think that it will be as good as people think. The money will still have to come from somewhere, so other taxes will go up.

The state will then control dispersion of the money, and it will be near impossible for small community organizations to lobby for money since they just won't have enough votes. Organizations in the bigger cities will have more votes and will get a larger percentage of the funding.

I say keep it the way it is, so communities will be able to spend their tax dollars how they deem necessary, and not have to lobby the state for money. This will dramatically effect school funding in smaller communities.

Inaccurate.

The constitution mandates that the state fund education and doesn't stipulate what revenue stream is used.

Communities are able (per the constitution) to levy local taxes for a revenue shortfall if necessary. I personally would welcome more income or sales tax if it meant that I could actually own my property but that's looking at it as a 'WORST CASE SCENARIO'.

....."
So, what would happen to North Dakota’s economy if property taxes were eliminated?

Intuitively, we know that a $750 million per year tax cut would help the economy. Families and businesses would have more money to spend and invest, creating thousands of more jobs and increasing disposable income, raising our standard of living. That’s something that is unquestioned in conservative and Republican circles.

But thanks to the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, we can more accurately predict the impact. The institute has created an economic model that adjusts things like overall private investment, job creation numbers, disposable income and many other variables by tinkering with tax revenue figures. The model seeks a supply-and-demand equilibrium.

So, the North Dakota Policy Council approached the institute about Measure 2, and it agreed to conduct a study for us. We changed property tax revenue to zero dollars, and the model predicted what would happen.

The results are amazing.

In 2013, private employment would increase more than 13,000, private investment would increase nearly $1 billion, and real disposable income would increase $1,430 per capita ($5,720 per family of four).

Because these increases would be above the projected baseline, they already take into account the oil and agriculture boom effect, meaning this would all be in addition to that forecasted economic growth.

So, the economic benefits of eliminating property taxes in North Dakota would be tremendous. In fact, the authors of the study left us with this statement: The positive benefits to the private sector of the state’s economy brought about by eliminating property taxes are without question."




I can't for the life of me understand how people can claim to be for smaller government and more personal liberty wouldn't support something as ground breaking as Measure 2.

I say actually educate yourself about the issue and look beyond the propaganda the media and elected officials (who are breaking the law btw by spreading lies about the issue).

http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/index.php


nobodyspecial
hates stupid people
Military
Offline
Posts: 885
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 7:13:38 PM
To begin with, I will admit that I responded to quickly, and emotionally. I responded with the feelings I did because I have great concern that has been voiced to me from educators, including teaching family members that see difficult times coming in their future in regards to program funding.

As you know more about this than I do, hopefully you can answer this. The one thing that I hear a lot, is that in a lot of the measure 2 information I have read, it seems that they will be looking to oil revenue to replace some of the property tax. I thought that the oil revenue was already earmarked for other things.

I am caught in the middle, because I see how it can be great, but I also see how it can be bad. I never said that it would not be great for the individual, there is just a larger picture than that. As a landowner, I understand the good that will come from this, but I have to look at how others will be affected as well, and not just myself.
Psalm 144:1
UBB
Member
Offline
Posts: 5146
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 7:39:55 PM
[Last Edit: 4/28/2012 7:40:49 PM by UBB]

Originally Posted By nobodyspecial:
To begin with, I will admit that I responded to quickly, and emotionally. I responded with the feelings I did because I have great concern that has been voiced to me from educators, including teaching family members that see difficult times coming in their future in regards to program funding.

As you know more about this than I do, hopefully you can answer this. The one thing that I hear a lot, is that in a lot of the measure 2 information I have read, it seems that they will be looking to oil revenue to replace some of the property tax. I thought that the oil revenue was already earmarked for other things.

I am caught in the middle, because I see how it can be great, but I also see how it can be bad. I never said that it would not be great for the individual, there is just a larger picture than that. As a landowner, I understand the good that will come from this, but I have to look at how others will be affected as well, and not just myself.
http://empowerthetaxpayer.org/main/index.php

click on "Measure 2 Basics" and read and then decide for yourself.

nobodyspecial
hates stupid people
Military
Offline
Posts: 887
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 10:14:07 PM
[Last Edit: 4/28/2012 10:18:24 PM by nobodyspecial]
Thanks for the link, I am sure others will find it useful. I have read through it a few times, now.

EDIT: What I am really asking is this: I know that they list multiple ways of recouping the losses, oil being one of them. I have heard from proponents of the measure that they are heavily relying on the oil revenue to cover it. That could disappear in the blink of an eye. It has happened before. Secondly, as I said before, I thought the state already had oil revenue earmarked for other things. Is that true, or is it misinformation?
Psalm 144:1
UBB
Member
Offline
Posts: 5147
Feedback: 100% (4)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/29/2012 12:32:37 PM
[Last Edit: 4/29/2012 12:40:42 PM by UBB]

Originally Posted By nobodyspecial:
Thanks for the link, I am sure others will find it useful. I have read through it a few times, now.

EDIT: What I am really asking is this: I know that they list multiple ways of recouping the losses, oil being one of them. I have heard from proponents of the measure that they are heavily relying on the oil revenue to cover it. That could disappear in the blink of an eye. It has happened before. Secondly, as I said before, I thought the state already had oil revenue earmarked for other things. Is that true, or is it misinformation?
Opponents of the measure conveniently forget (when crunching the numbers) to account for the savings of not having to asses and collect property taxes as well which comes close (I think) to around 100 million/year.

As for the oil/gas tax, the State is collecting approx 4.3 million PER DAY from that. That comes to over a billion/year. Some of it is being added to the 'Legacy Fund' however. The State is operating on a billion dollar surplus. States should NEVER being running on that big of a surplus. Never a deficit but not a massive surplus either. That's tax payers dollars that should be back in the pockets of the tax payers not in the bank collecting interest in a Gov. slush fund. So please tell me how we CAN'T afford to eliminate property tax in this State?

Look, I won't pretend the measure is perfect and there won't be issues to address as a result. With that said, that is why we have elected officials. It's their job to deal with such issues in a responsible manner and then be held accountable for their actions at the ballot boxes. For those (like the Tax Commissioner) to play the fear monger game by stating income and sales taxes would have to increase by 120% is not only irresponsible and illegal in this state but just plain dishonest. Let's see someone run a successful election/re-election campaign on a platform of raising income taxes in a state that is running a billion+ dollar surplus.

We have a chance to set a huge precedence in our country and lead the way in making our local governments operate within their means finally and not with a blank check. Passing Measure 2 would be a huge step in that direction.



nobodyspecial
hates stupid people
Military
Offline
Posts: 888
Feedback: 100% (14)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/29/2012 6:03:19 PM
Thanks for clearing some things up for me, I appreciate it!
Psalm 144:1
Poop3rscoop3r
Member
Online
Posts: 473
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/9/2012 11:39:29 PM
Vote yes on measure 2, and Buy all of my taxable goods in Montana! Too bad the money I save will not recoup my fuel costs, even living in Williston...
With enough Kentucky Jelly you can park a Winnebago in a garden shed. I'm sure she has no problems. -Banjaxed