• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Dakota voters to decide on abolishing property tax

So why is your state broke, and North Dakota has hundreds of billions in surplus revenue?

1) State Bank-Even the most liberal states do not have this (we are the only state in the country). By the time the rest of the national economy crashed, the State-owned Bank did not engage in risky deals or investments. We were in large part spared the economic woes when the housing market crashed.
2) Conservative budgeting->Fiscal hawks (of both Republican and Democratic Parties) control both the state legislature and have prominent seats in the Senate and the House, and a somewhat solid to moderate conservative Governor (s).
3) Great contribution to intake percentage. For every dollar we sent to the country, we pull in $1.25. This is much to do with our influence in the federal government.
4) Oil Boom.

Some can be duplicated elsewhere in the country, but we are an exceptionalist state. It would be next to impossible to sell the idea of a State-owned bank elsewhere. It will be difficult to argue for the incredibly conservative fiscal policies (with exception to agriculture) here to be exported to liberal states, especially those with different populations and demographics and social service policies that have been in place for a great deal of time.

You can't exactly plop North Dakota politics and its budget onto other states and call it good.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
But it's not all roses and champagne for the people already living in the state, as Fiddy has pointed out. Housing shortages, congested roads, people who can't afford new housing because it's priced for those with the new higher paying wages, or existing housing because of the increased demand. It takes time for the infrastructure to catch up and for those who already have jobs, their wages will have to rise, or they move because they cannot afford housing in those areas most greatly effected by the boom. Not everyone in a boom town, or state, has a positive view of it, for reasons like these.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have economic growth, but it's not all good news and there are unforeseen consequences.


And...



And as you posted above to Fiddy:


It does sop up much of it,certainly to begin with, so the oil money is not the end all, be all to economic problems. Again, I'm not down on economic growth or developing industries, but to say it's all good, is a mistake.

To tell you the truth if I was an ND resident living in a quiet little town and then this oil boom happened I would be bummed out big time. I am speaking purely on an economy level and the oil boom is nothing but good for the economy.
 
To tell you the truth if I was an ND resident living in a quiet little town and then this oil boom happened I would be bummed out big time. I am speaking purely on an economy level and the oil boom is nothing but good for the economy.

I would be thinking about what money I could make, and where I could retire when the boom was over. That plot of land just over the hill you always had your eye on.
 
I would be thinking about what money I could make, and where I could retire when the boom was over. That plot of land just over the hill you always had your eye on.

Depends. Rent is costly, housing scarce, and you are probably going to be busting your balls with less access to your family. Truckers are pissing in bottles because they want money, and wrecks are a big worry. Then youd be contemplating leaving your career for the boom which can equalize in a short time.
 
This kind of prosperity could be going on across America if Obama wasn’t so anti fossil fuel and blue states that use so much fossil fuel wouldn’t refuse to drill in their own back yards. We could be in a boom instead of a bust, nice work left wingers


North Dakota voters will decide Tuesday on the ultimate tax revolt: abolishing the property tax altogether. A citizen-led petition drive has put the daring, all-or-nothing proposal before the voters in a state flush with tax revenue, jobs and prosperity generated by an oil boom.

North Dakota voters to decide on abolishing property tax

From the article

Measure 2, as the proposal is called on the ballot, would require state government to make up for property tax revenue lost by local governments but doesn't specify how.

If the economic boom is going to make up the differences, why does the measure require the state government to make up the revenue? I don't have a good feeling about this.

If they can cut taxes without just creating a deficit, fantastic and wonderful and go for it, but cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes isn't smart financial policy
 
From the article



If the economic boom is going to make up the differences, why does the measure require the state government to make up the revenue? I don't have a good feeling about this.

If they can cut taxes without just creating a deficit, fantastic and wonderful and go for it, but cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes isn't smart financial policy

Don't worry it wasn't passed.
 
property taxes are infinitely more just than income taxes... so yeah, they should have shot for getting rid of income taxes

a missed opportunity for sure...

I wish people would do a better job of supporting their points. Please explain why property taxes are infinitely more just than income taxes.

I certainly beg to differ, as income taxes only arise when there is income (cash flow), so the means to pay them is evident. Property taxes are assessed on an illiquid asset. If someone is a long resident of an area where property values increase they often find themselves in the position of having to sell their home (or farm) because they have no means to pay the property tax.
 
I wish people would do a better job of supporting their points. Please explain why property taxes are infinitely more just than income taxes.

I certainly beg to differ, as income taxes only arise when there is income (cash flow), so the means to pay them is evident. Property taxes are assessed on an illiquid asset. If someone is a long resident of an area where property values increase they often find themselves in the position of having to sell their home (or farm) because they have no means to pay the property tax.

I agree, as property taxation is simply unending and increasing rent owed to the gov't.
 
From the article



If the economic boom is going to make up the differences, why does the measure require the state government to make up the revenue? I don't have a good feeling about this.

If they can cut taxes without just creating a deficit, fantastic and wonderful and go for it, but cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes isn't smart financial policy

I am against property tax on principle. Property tax means you really don’t own your property, the state does. It is also an unfair tax because people that rent get a free ride. In the depression many lost their homes where they could have had a garden, chickens etc. and ended up in soup lines because they couldn’t pay their taxes. The same is happening now; people are homeless because they couldn’t pay the state. It is no better than the feudal system and makes us serfs.
 
In what way do renters get a free ride? You don't think landlords factor the cost of the property taxes, and then some, into the rent?

I have been a landlord and unfortuanately will soon be again because I'm not selling in this depressed market. I charged whatever the going rate was for my houses. When housing prices were going up and houses were being built all over town rent was going down, the old supply demand thing. At the same time my prop taxes were going up so in answer to your question no. prop taxes are not figured in.
 
I have been a landlord and unfortuanately will soon be again because I'm not selling in this depressed market. I charged whatever the going rate was for my houses. When housing prices were going up and houses were being built all over town rent was going down, the old supply demand thing. At the same time my prop taxes were going up so in answer to your question no. prop taxes are not figured in.

Well that's not very smart landlording, with all due respect. What's the point? I've owned rental properties and always factored in the property taxes into my tenants' rent. That's why I increased the rent annually. If I was unable to do that, there would have been no point in renting out the property.
 
Last edited:
I would be thinking about what money I could make, and where I could retire when the boom was over. That plot of land just over the hill you always had your eye on.

Agreed. While working on a survey project in NW North Dakota many years ago, I had a conversation with a local farmer who had just built a new house with a picture window overlooking the oil well in his front yard. That well was putting $3,000 a month into his bank account, and that was pretty good money in the seventies. In fact I have a neighbor now who owns land near Williston, and he is indeed now thinking about where to retire.
 
I wish people would do a better job of supporting their points. Please explain why property taxes are infinitely more just than income taxes.

Local services - police and fire protection, schools, libraries, garbage collection, and the like - work best when they are under local control and responsive to the needs of the community they serve. Local control can only be guaranteed when the services are locally funded. Since the local services - particularly in largely rural areas like North Dakota - are essentially services to the property owner, it makes sense to use property taxes to fund those services. On a county or municipal level, property taxes are much easier to administer than income taxes, although some places also use sales taxes of one sort or another if they think they have enough tourist traffic to make it worthwhile.

The prospect of every county and city in the state descending on the state capitol to petition the legislature for money to buy new vehicles, hire more personnel and erect new buildings --- that's the stuff of nightmares for the taxpayers. The greater the degree of separation between the taxpayer and the expenditure of public money, the more waste, fraud and abuse creeps into the system.
 
Trouble is Fiddytree, you never have local control. They are controled by the local rich people and the 99% will never get control over the taxes or the spending.
All you can do is avoid the taxes and their attempt at controling your money.

The real answer is to tax the rich 80% like in the past.
 
I am against property tax on principle. Property tax means you really don’t own your property, the state does. It is also an unfair tax because people that rent get a free ride. In the depression many lost their homes where they could have had a garden, chickens etc. and ended up in soup lines because they couldn’t pay their taxes. The same is happening now; people are homeless because they couldn’t pay the state. It is no better than the feudal system and makes us serfs.

Property tax is not what means you don't own your property. Fee simple does that.
 
Trouble is Fiddytree, you never have local control. They are controled by the local rich people and the 99% will never get control over the taxes or the spending.
All you can do is avoid the taxes and their attempt at controling your money.

The real answer is to tax the rich 80% like in the past.

We dealt with our monopolies decades ago.
 
Local elected cronies are not effected by any monopoly legislation.

Kind of like the high school that cost $20 million in a small town far from me.
For a town of 1,000 people, of that say 150 kids.

They expanded their control territory to include my house that I had specificly bought to avoid them and raised my taxes 40% in 3 years.

As I said, you NEVER have lcoal contro lnless YOU are the one as grand poo ba of the board.
 
Well that's not very smart landlording, with all due respect. What's the point? I've owned rental properties and always factored in the property taxes into my tenants' rent. That's why I increased the rent annually. If I was unable to do that, there would have been no point in renting out the property.

The way real estate was going up in price all I cared about was someone making my payments, I did fine when I sold. When it was so easy to buy homes though, no down and bad credit, why rent, so there wasn't that many renters out there which kept rent down. I will soon rent out a house I was getting 750 a month for during the boom for 1000 a month. It's hard to buy now plus people are afraid to buy, rents up.
 
Oklahoma has been an oil state for awhile now, the boom/bust cycle of oil/gas isn't something to base long term budgets on. Alaska is different because the oil is plentiful, the population slight, 1 million or so in the entire state, and the kickback from the feds amazing. Alaska is a true socialist state.

I can see where a few right wingnuts see property tax as renting from the state. But the real deal is the tax pays for schools, roads, emts and fire depts. If a fellow can't make the property tax payment he has far more financial trouble than just the tax. Around here the very old complain about property taxes, they don't have kids in the school system and they think the gravel roads are maintained by magic. They don't like the sheriff's deputies, and think the ambulance service is done by volunteers and the annual calf fry pays all the operating costs. :roll:

Here in Oklahoma we have seen the boom bust of oil. While we didn't work it out 100% the surplus going into our rainy day fund is more to the point than cutting off revenue while times are good to have no reserve when times are lean.

It is good to see N.D. is smarter than the average anti-govt/tax teabag whiner. Create a rainy day fund because oil royalties, and taxes are like a hooker's promise.
 
Oklahoma has been an oil state for awhile now, the boom/bust cycle of oil/gas isn't something to base long term budgets on. Alaska is different because the oil is plentiful, the population slight, 1 million or so in the entire state, and the kickback from the feds amazing. Alaska is a true socialist state.

Don't forget the PFDs!

Yes, we take full advantage up here. Thanks guys.
 
This kind of prosperity could be going on across America if Obama wasn’t so anti fossil fuel and blue states that use so much fossil fuel wouldn’t refuse to drill in their own back yards. We could be in a boom instead of a bust, nice work left wingers

Prove Obama is "anti fossil fuel". I'm not taking a partisan poster's word for it. Then perhaps try to back up your hairbrained notion that if King Obama ordered more oil drilling we'd somehow have a booming economy. Again, not taking a partisan poster's word for it. Also, wtf does this have to do with North Dakota's property taxes?

North Dakota voters will decide Tuesday on the ultimate tax revolt: abolishing the property tax altogether. A citizen-led petition drive has put the daring, all-or-nothing proposal before the voters in a state flush with tax revenue, jobs and prosperity generated by an oil boom.

North Dakota voters to decide on abolishing property tax

Don't let this knock you views into a tizzy but... me, a crazy hard-core left winger doesn't like property taxes either.
 
Prove Obama is "anti fossil fuel". I'm not taking a partisan poster's word for it.

President Obama has made it pretty clear he's anti fossil fuel. Despite a technological explosion that has allowed us to access more of previous deposits and get at new ones in ingenious methods that reduce environmental impact, drilling on federal lands has decreased at the rapid rate as his administration chokes the permit process. All that new drilling he takes credit for is taking place on private lands where they are more willing to take advantage of the new tech and methodologies. From the Gulf ban, to Alaska, to Fracking, to his energy secretary, the administration has made it pretty clear that it seeks ways to move us from fossil fuel to "clean new green" energy by subsidizing the new and tightening the spigot on the old.

As a single small example, Obama's Justice Department sued a bunch of companies in North Dakota to temporarily shut down fracking last year, claiming that roughly 25-30 birds had died in their reserve pits, and this was in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Mind you, an estimated 33,000 birds are killed by wind turbines every year... yet the administration, apparently, didn't want to sue them.... President Obama told Harold Hamm (CEO of Continental Resources) that "he sees essentially no future for oil and gas." So Hamm signed on instead as an energy adviser to Mitt Romney. The Obama Administration now accuses Romney of "standing with Big Oil" :roll:.

Then perhaps try to back up your hairbrained notion that if King Obama ordered more oil drilling we'd somehow have a booming economy.

Booming like North Dakota? No. But we would have a much better economy. Oil Jobs pay above the American average, and hire the same blue-collar workers that have taken the brunt end of the recession. You know one of the things they need most in North Dakota right now? Housing Construction workers. Truck Drivers are pulling in between $80-120,000 a year with generous benefits. And they are paying taxes, too. The reason for this thread is that North Dakota has more money right now than it fully knows what to do with, and increased revenues would occur at the national level as well - not only from the companies, but from the workers who would go from being net drains on the system via unemployment to being net payers into the system; a double win.

Fortunately, Romney (despite his many ideological sins) is no idiot. He knows if he wins, he needs to produce some dramatic improvements in about two to three years to demonstrate that his selling message (that he is the competent business guy who specializes in turning around failing enterprises) was accurate and win reelection. Shifting the Executive Branch into high-octane enabling of the energy sector rather than seeking to choke it off is one of the ways to help do that, and I would bet he knows it.

People talk about Saudi Arabia, but America is actually the energy king of the world - we have more here at home than anywhere else, and yet we're buying more expensively than we need to from everyone else.
 
President Obama has made it pretty clear he's anti fossil fuel. Despite a technological explosion that has allowed us to access more of previous deposits and get at new ones in ingenious methods that reduce environmental impact, drilling on federal lands has decreased at the rapid rate as his administration chokes the permit process. All that new drilling he takes credit for is taking place on private lands where they are more willing to take advantage of the new tech and methodologies. From the Gulf ban, to Alaska, to Fracking, to his energy secretary, the administration has made it pretty clear that it seeks ways to move us from fossil fuel to "clean new green" energy by subsidizing the new and tightening the spigot on the old.

As a single small example, Obama's Justice Department sued a bunch of companies in North Dakota to temporarily shut down fracking last year, claiming that roughly 25-30 birds had died in their reserve pits, and this was in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Mind you, an estimated 33,000 birds are killed by wind turbines every year... yet the administration, apparently, didn't want to sue them.... President Obama told Harold Hamm (CEO of Continental Resources) that "he sees essentially no future for oil and gas." So Hamm signed on instead as an energy adviser to Mitt Romney. The Obama Administration now accuses Romney of "standing with Big Oil" :roll:.



Booming like North Dakota? No. But we would have a much better economy. Oil Jobs pay above the American average, and hire the same blue-collar workers that have taken the brunt end of the recession. You know one of the things they need most in North Dakota right now? Housing Construction workers. Truck Drivers are pulling in between $80-120,000 a year with generous benefits. And they are paying taxes, too. The reason for this thread is that North Dakota has more money right now than it fully knows what to do with, and increased revenues would occur at the national level as well - not only from the companies, but from the workers who would go from being net drains on the system via unemployment to being net payers into the system; a double win.

Fortunately, Romney (despite his many ideological sins) is no idiot. He knows if he wins, he needs to produce some dramatic improvements in about two to three years to demonstrate that his selling message (that he is the competent business guy who specializes in turning around failing enterprises) was accurate and win reelection. Shifting the Executive Branch into high-octane enabling of the energy sector rather than seeking to choke it off is one of the ways to help do that, and I would bet he knows it.

People talk about Saudi Arabia, but America is actually the energy king of the world - we have more here at home than anywhere else, and yet we're buying more expensively than we need to from everyone else.

If you are here to blame Obama for fighting drilling for oil blah blah blah... then explain why drilling has increased under his watch.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom