Skip to comments.North Dakota Considers Eliminating Property Tax
Posted on 06/12/2012 12:08:38 AM PDT by quesney
BISMARCK, N.D. Since Californians shrank their property taxes more than three decades ago by passing Proposition 13, people around the nation have echoed their dismay over such levies, putting forth plans to even them, simplify them, cap them, slash them. In an election here on Tuesday, residents of North Dakota will consider a measure that reaches far beyond any of that one that abolishes the property tax entirely.
Connect With Us on Twitter Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines. Twitter List: Reporters and Editors Enlarge This Image
Jim Wilson/The New York Times A group of Edgeley residents, including Nicole Gibson, who held a Vote No on Measure 2 sign, gathered after the debate. I would like to be able to know that my home, no matter what happens to my income or my life, is not going to be taken away from me because I cant pay a tax, said Susan Beehler, one in a group of North Dakotans who have pressed for an amendment to the states Constitution to end the property tax. They argue that the tax is unpredictable, inconsistent, counter to the concept of property ownership and needless in a state that, thanks in part to wildly successful oil drilling, finds itself in the rare circumstance of carrying budget reserves.
When, Ms. Beehler asked, did we come to believe that government should get rich and we should get poor?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Starve the beast for now, but what will their fiscal health be if oil revenues falter?
There is power in the simplicity of this question:
I would like to be able to know that my home, no matter what happens to my income or my life, is not going to be taken away from me because I cant pay a tax.
I can guess that mill rates and property values are both going up in the boom. I can also guess that mill rates will not go down while property values do go down after the boom.
I see the many RINOs that have infected ND are opposing the abolition.
I have a good friend who owns his home outright. It's a small mother/daughter split-level type in a CRAPPY neighborhood - Hempstead, NY.
Though it's paid off, he still gets to pay nearly $1,500 per month in property tax because the lefty govenmental theives in the Nassau County Hempstead irresponsibly piss his money away.
The home has been in his family for around 40 years.
Also, my daughter will never, EVER set even one single toe in a public school. Hence, why should I have pay for her education, then pay again for some stranger's kids to go to a school where they're likely not to learn very much - except how to hate everything I stand for?
Well, let's say ND goes the way of Wisconsin and rids itself of compulsory government union membership, which BTW:
“The state has a low rate of private-sector union
membership at 4.3 percent, and a public-sector unionization
rate of 17.4 percent.”
I think they would do very well in the long term. There aren't many who move to North Dakota that don't have something to offer, except maybe the 3 biggest cities.
If not burdened with a high maintenance citizenry, investment and development should continue, just not at a helter skelter pace, which would be good.
My experience is that once government gets a surplus someone always will find a way to spend it. The reason so few Americans are wealthy isn’t because it is hard to earn enough to be wealth, but because it is so very, very easy to spend too much.
If the state continues in this direction, decreasing government, thereby decreasing income tax needed, and dedicating surplus to infrastructure conducive to business investment, and eventually getting rid of income taxes, they could have a long stable future.
As a resident of a state with probably the highest property taxes in the nation (NJ), I’ll tell you some reasons not to eliminate property taxes. Here in NJ, they pay for your municipal employees; in other states all of the money is put in a common pot at the state or county level. In those models, your taxes are re-distributed beyond your municipality, and your vote is much more diluted. The reason Newark, Camden, and Paterson NJ all laid off so many employees is BECAUSE we have property taxes; their residents hadn’t been paying for their services for decades, with “state aid” (our money) picking up the tab. When that aid dried up, they couldn’t loot from those areas where people get out of bed each morning and go to work (hence the layoffs).
In the end, what many people pay from property taxes will simply be paid from another source anyway (state income tax, for example); property owners lose a lot of control when that happens. Nothing is free.
I understand the frustration with the school part of the tax bill; I find that frustrating as well (it is the main reason many Catholic schools in NJ are either closed or winding down). Those taxes are higher than mine, but I know some people in nearby areas in NJ prefer higher taxes and the segregation it brings (along class lines, as opposed to race) than to simply having the taxes re-distributed at the state level and moving low-income housing into their neighborhood.
Very interesting post. I live in a town in CT. We are having a vote on the town budget today. Ironically we had reassessed our home property values for the first time in 5 years. Required by state law every 5 years. Not surprisingly most people’s lost about 1/8 of their property value. I lost 1/6 of my value. However since moving here 4 years ago, the property taxes has increased about 15 percent in a recession. Of course, each budget vote, there will be signs all over town saying “Vote (Yes) for edcuation”. Why should we vote yes each time, should we give the town a blank check? Now that the reassessment comes back, they of course want to increase the mill rate to ensure that the budget is not endangered. Its pretty frustrating. I guess this is typical townlike shanigans. The surrounding towns did similiar things.
Had that happen in Ohio when the property values hit the skids in the past few years. When I got a reevaluation and the value was lowered they raised the multiplier to make up of the county’s lost revenues.
While you have it you save it and operate in a prudent manner, plan for the future.
OK, my experience with politicians and money is the exact opposite... like giving whiskey and car keys to teen boys. YMMV
That works for individuals, but with OPM it doesn’t quite work so well.
That makes absolutely no sense. A pox on property taxes.
I will go against the grain here and say this is a bad idea. It gives the state dull control over local government revenues. Government is best closest to the people. Theyd be better iff eliminating the sales tax or some other revenue to the state coffers.