North Dakota Considers Eliminating Property Tax

[PonderThis]

simply put government is a consumer.

Not counting the facts they produce roads, maintenance on said roads, produce safety, produce freedom from crime and fire and invasion, and produce many other little things that help our society function more efficiently than it would otherwise. If you don't count all those things as things government actually produces for us, well, of course then they're only a consumer.

[Willie Krash]

They indeed are Ol. I used a Freeway overpass quite deliberately. I must say by and large the private sector gifts the road and really don't want the headache.

You have come full circle I see and must have read my many posts that the country's success is in a large part due to gov't/business partnerships. Welcome on board. Also the private sector pays SDC's, you should applaud this.

For SP, if the private sector can do it all could you explain why we have poverty and third world countries? Africa is resource rich. India has huge poverty issues. China has 90% of it people in abject poverty. These are old cultures I might add. Why did the USA excel?

It's not often you contradict yourself willie, especially within a few posts. If it wasn't for private sector there would be no government ANYTHING. Remember where taxes come from willie? We could have all the government in the world, but without taxes we have no funding, because simply put government is a consumer.

So we need taxes? Thanks. You are beginning to get it.
If the private sector can provides all the needs why do we have gov't?
We come full circle yet again.

[Simon Peter]

For SP, if the private sector can do it all could you explain why we have poverty and third world countries? Africa is resource rich. India has huge poverty issues. China has 90% of it people in abject poverty. These are old cultures I might add. Why did the USA excel?

Because someone saved a couple minutes using an overpass? Our poverty is greater than it should be because people have become dependent on gov't instead of making their own way.

[PonderThis]

Every time a semi truck has to stop from 55 mph, wait for traffic, and then get back up to speed again costs something like 5 or 10 minutes and probably $10 or more in real costs. Not having to do that at every overpass is just one example of a powerful way private industry profits from governmental expenditures on our behalf.

Not that I love government, either.

[Willie Krash]

For SP, if the private sector can do it all could you explain why we have poverty and third world countries? Africa is resource rich. India has huge poverty issues. China has 90% of it people in abject poverty. These are old cultures I might add. Why did the USA excel?

Because someone saved a couple minutes using an overpass? Our poverty is greater than it should be because people have become dependent on gov't instead of making their own way.

It is that very mobility that makes us great. This is why third world countries want loans. Airports roads. Heck SP trading is what we are. Even the Romans knew the power of mobility. Back to third world and loans, what can they offer to collateralize the debt? Well we get to take some natural resources or maybe even a vote we want cast at the UN.
They want what we will not take care of...our infrastructure.

Remember the importance of a transcontinental railroad? Accomplished during the civil war? What are O&C funds? Just to be closer to home. Why is j-ville the little town and Medford bigger. Think mobility and railways. Talk about property rights.

[Willie Krash]

Every time a semi truck has to stop from 55 mph, wait for traffic, and then get back up to speed again costs something like 5 or 10 minutes and probably $10 or more in real costs. Not having to do that at every overpass is just one example of a powerful way private industry profits from governmental expenditures on our behalf.

Not that I love government, either.

You are correct. The RVMPO just completed it's freight study. What is interesting is that a great deal of effort is to accommodate trucking. A great deal of road work is dedicated to trucks. Taking curves out of highways to alleviate wear and tear, removing stop signs etc....
The congestion of highways is a prime concern. Highway 62 for example is a real concern. All that grumbling about fuel tax and if they studied they would understand the benefits. You make a good point Ponder.

[orygunluvr]

simply put government is a consumer.

Not counting the facts they produce roads, maintenance on said roads, produce safety, produce freedom from crime and fire and invasion, and produce many other little things that help our society function more efficiently than it would otherwise. If you don't count all those things as things government actually produces for us, well, of course then they're only a consumer.

And we see how well that is working out with the private sector at an all time high in unemployment. So according to you the government produces their own revenue to spend? Why do they need mine then?

[orygunluvr]

Every time a semi truck has to stop from 55 mph, wait for traffic, and then get back up to speed again costs something like 5 or 10 minutes and probably $10 or more in real costs. Not having to do that at every overpass is just one example of a powerful way private industry profits from governmental expenditures on our behalf.

Not that I love government, either.

Your example is lacking in one key area, the over passes have at least 2 stop lights. Not real conducive to saving.

[PonderThis]

You are benefitting, and you don't even realize it. In all the ways previously mentioned.

And, I can't help it if construction people got swelled heads as to their values during the glory days for construction, the longest boom period without stop I'd ever seen in my lifetime. Sorry.

[orygunluvr]

Willie, the private develOper doesn't " gift" anything. It is part of development laws
that make them have to do it. Of cOurse we, as the end user, get the gift of ultimately paying for it when we occupy an establishment within the development, and in taxes.

[Willie Krash]

Willie, the private develOper doesn't " gift" anything. It is part of development laws
that make them have to do it. Of cOurse we, as the end user, get the gift of ultimately paying for it when we occupy an establishment within the development, and in taxes.

Gifting is the vernacular. There are a few subdivisions owned by the homeowner. If I was developing a subdivision I might find that it is a good selling point to say you own the streets. Now a ton of asphalt is pretty expensive and must be heated to spread but you own it. You and your neighbors decide if you will maintain it.*
You cold put up a toll station we don't care. A great selling point.

or
We gifted it to the public and it's a public street.

* many cities mandate you maintain the street to standards if you own it. Also you probably have to grant public access; your neighbor might insist his buddies have a right to visit him . Maybe deny all public access as by allowing it you may find you have an implied easement.

So the question becomes which can you sell?

I might add in most cases if the owners of a subdivision do in fact own the streets you will find that CC&R's are almost always attached.
Given this do you buy into a public street or a private street you can't keep the public off of....
You see gifting is something contractors benefit from but like the fuel tax grumble about.

So as a member of the public why should we build the streets in the subdivision?
Isn't it good enough the public will take the maintenance on for decades. We are doing you a favor.

BTW in Oregon subdivisions don't pay their way.

[bbqboy]

damn!
I thought Simon and OL would be packing their bags, and their luggage, for
North Dakota,but those Commies voted to Retain their evil property taxes.
Frickin' Socialist farmers probably don't even like donuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/us/nor...y-tax.html
Voters in North Dakota on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to abolish the property tax, turning aside arguments by advocates of the measure who say the tax has proved inconsistent and is in conflict with the basic concept of property ownership.
The result, which showed North Dakotans overwhelmingly opposing a property tax ban in unofficial returns, ended those advocates’ immediate hopes of making North Dakota the first in the nation to take such a step.

There, a powerful coalition of groups, including business leaders and public workers, strongly opposed the idea and raised significantly more money than the other side to spread a message that ending the property tax would mean chaos in the state capital, Bismarck, an increase in other taxes and an end to most decision making by local city councils and county boards.

Though the property tax ban failed, state lawmakers said they had grasped the depth of residents’ frustrations and were all but certain to tackle concerns about unfair property tax exemptions and rising assessments and tax bills.
continued.........

[PonderThis]

Unfair property tax exemptions. Is that like for churches?

[bbqboy]

somehow in ND,I doubt that...

[cletus1]

“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 can’t pay a tax.”

I understand exactly how this woman feels. There is something very comforting knowing you will always have a home to live in. Don't people that rent use roads, bridges, fireman and police? Many renters supported the Josephine County property tax Levy to fund the Sheriff's Department, a cost they would not pay even part of, how nice of them.

Now before you think I flipped and am now an anti tax Republican, I can assure that I am not. The answer to funding infrastructure and government services in my opinion is a dedicated sales tax and higher gasoline taxes so that more people that use government services and infrastructure help pay for it.

[bbqboy]

But the anti tax goons are against ALL taxes.
What if we had the Simon & OL tollroad between GP and Medford?
My guess is they'd have been shanghaied, just like old tollroad/ferry operators used to be.

[bbqboy]

Interesting. There was a religious thingie on the ND ballt yesterday, also defeated....
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separati...-amendment
Dakota Decides: Voters Reject Misguided Religion Amendment
Jun 13, 2012 by Rob Boston in Wall of Separation |

Giving people a near-ironclad right to trump secular law because of their religious beliefs would open a Pandora’s box. North Dakota voters nailed that box firmly shut.
North Dakota is the kind of state that often doesn’t get a lot of attention. But yesterday, voters there did something great, and they should take a minute to pat themselves on the back. The rest of America should thank them, too.

Voters faced a sweeping “religious freedom” amendment on the primary ballot. Americans United had concerns that this dangerous amendment might pass in conservative, largely rural state. We joined forces with other groups in the state to educate voters, but we braced for the worst.

Turns out we needn’t have worried. The amendment lost – big time.

This amendment wasn’t really about religious freedom. In fact, it was a power grab by influential religious special interests in the state. The so-called “Religious Liberty Restoration Act” (Amendment 3), was engineered by the state’s Catholic hierarchy and its Religious Right allies.

These clerical special interests claimed that the constitutional change was necessary to strengthen religious liberty rights that were allegedly being placed in jeopardy. In fact, the amendment would have gone way beyond that. It would have endangered the rights of citizens of the state in various ways, possible curtailing access to vital health services, shooting down the rights of LGBT resident and infringing on the rights of all North Dakota taxpayers by compelling the state to give public support to religious groups.

The fact is, Amendment 3 was so broadly worded we weren’t sure what it would do – except we knew for certain that it would stir up a lot of mischief and spark numerous court battles. North Dakota voters decided not to take the risk. They didn’t just defeat Amendment 3, they trounced it. The vote was 64 percent against to 36 percent for.

These results are even more remarkable when you consider that North Dakota’s political leaders placed the amendment on the June ballot deliberately, believing that would help it pass. They knew that more conservative voters tend to turn out in primary elections, and, since many Democratic races weren’t contested, they expected that Election Day would draw a heavy Republican turnout.

But even conservatives, it seems, weren’t willing to rubber stamp this monstrosity. They realized that giving people a near-ironclad right to trump secular law because of their religious beliefs would open a Pandora’s box. They nailed that box firmly shut.

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about religious freedom and what it means. The Catholic bishops insist that they have a religious freedom right to restrict Americans’ access to birth control and other necessary services – even when the institutions in question receive massive taxpayer subsidies and hire and serve plenty of non-Catholics.

The bishops, often backed by their Religious Right allies, go even further by insisting that even private employers should have the right to tailor their employees’ health care according to the employer’s sectarian ideology. So if you work in a restaurant and your supervisor happens to be Catholic, he can deny you access to birth control through the health care plan simply because he doesn’t like it.

Recent polls have shown that Americans are highly skeptical of policies like this, and yesterday’s vote show that they won’t fly even in a conservative state like North Dakota.

It was a nice win, but there’s more work to be done. A similarly dangerous ballot amendment on “religious freedom” is pending in Missouri in August, and Florida faces a sweeping attempt to water down its church-state provisions in November.

Let’s hope voters in both states decide to follow the example of the wise folks in North Dakota.

P.S. The scope of groups that opposed this measure was truly impressive, and AU was proud to work alongside them. They included the North Dakota Women’s Network, Prevent Child Abuse North Dakota, the National Association of Social Workers North Dakota Chapter, the North Dakota Western Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America and others. See more here.
Tags:
NORTH DAKOTA, AMENDMENT 3, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RESTORATION ACT
Issues:
OTHER FREE EXERCISE ISSUES (INCLUDING RFRAS, ZONING, ETC.), RELIGIOUS GROUPS’ INVOLVEMENT IN BALLOT INITIATIVES, MARRIAGE (INCLUDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE)

[Simon Peter]

I say let the donut shop burn. Simon can shoot a gusher of water to put it out like Jed Clampett. Good riddance.

Thanks for the heads up. If there are any unexplained fires we know who will be going away for awhile. Good riddance.

[bbqboy]

arson time? A wingnut like you doesn't believe in fire departments, right?

[Simon Peter]

arson time? A wingnut like you doesn't believe in fire departments, right?

For your sake lets hope a fire doesn't "happen". I do worry now though that you will do it. Anyone that would contemplate suicide would not think twice about harming others, especially after making the suggestion.