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 ...
Private roads would work in some areas, but not all. Lightly-trafficked private roads would not work, as user fees (or whatever other funding model used) would not be enough to cover maintenance/repairs/etc.
Don't get me started. With the money they confiscate and waste, the streets could be paved in gold.
Nail. Head. The Fourth Amendment has no meaning otherwise.
I’m highly adaptable to hot and cold....having grown up in North Dakota and Minnesota...ya, you betcha.
North Dakota holds the 5 hottest temperture recorded in the US, 121 degs F, BTW.
Ichabod Crane didn’t work for free; they called them “levies”, and they certainly collected them from property owners. It pre-dates the American Revolution.
I’m all for user fees; I like the toll increases here in NJ because I rarely use the toll roads, and I even like Governor Florio’s proposed “toilet paper tax” 20 years ago - it was the only waay we would get ANY revenue out of some parasites here in NJ.
Until they perfect a system for those fees, the most localized tax is the only way to ensure I’m not paying for someone else’s services in the next town or county.
You are probably referring to the county portion of your property tax bill; while taxes in my town have stabilized, the county and school portion keep climbing.
Thanks for the update.
Post of the year.
Excuse me - I was the one who wanted the widow to pay her own bills; maybe you mis-read.
I think everyone should pay their way; rather than have it decided on a county level (where you may be one of a few hundred thousand) or at a state level (where you may be one of millions), I’d want it done on the smallest level possible so I don’t get someone else’s (widows included) bills.
Until every service can be charged to the user, local property taxes are the closest we can get to that.
I couldn’t agree with you more; less government is the best government. I’ve never advocated for paid police forces, public schools, etc.; we did fine before these evolved and became industries unto themselves.
I agree; see # 91. NJ is in terrible shape; that is why Christie was elected (we’ve shed a lot of cops, teachers, and firemen since that glorious day).
The property taxes are horrible, but you have more control over them than sending THE SAME MONEY TO TRENTON. North Dakota isn’t voting to stop paying their cops and teachers; they are simply looking at paying them in a different manner (in which a lot of people can see their taxes go to other parts of the state as “pork”).
I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand. If NJ had a system like North Dakota is looking at, then Newark, Camden, and Paterson wouldn’t have been laying off cops (because they have more voters - not the same as taxpayers); the suburbs and rural areas would have lost those jobs instead (and still been paying for them).
“With the money they confiscate and waste, the streets could be paved in gold.”
Do you mean I should with the money they confiscate from me? Or can we expect that someone living in the home will?
Thank you, and I completely agree with you. We need to roll back the U.S. Government to its role and relative size in about 1905.
I see you are not understanding. You seem to think that there are only two possibilities: either have the crap taxed out of you on property taxes, or have the same amount sent to your State capitol, and in either case, the “services” rendered to you are invariant.
The third option, of course, is to switch all “services” to user fees so that they are paid for by those whom use them. This is what is done in Singapore, and is why that nation is consistently ranked as best for economic freedom.
“Also, my daughter will never, EVER set even one single toe in a public school”
Even if she did, I doubt her education would be worth the $18,000 per year your family is apparently paying in property taxes. Good grief.
3% Of the vote counted, 18% for the amendment, 82% against.
What I really don't like is the fact that the rest of us are paying for it. This proves that taxes against energy companies are too high when states are sending checks to citizens for no reason and considering eliminating normal sources of revenue.
“Until every service can be charged to the user, local property taxes are the closest we can get to that.”
No, a local sales tax is much closer. In fact stick it on a product corresponding DIRECTLY to the limited government service it relates too, and THAT’s the closet thing to a user fee.
When the state can take your home for taxes, you don’t really own it. Too bad it looks like this amendment will fail.