North Dakota Ballot Measure to get rid of Property Tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/north-dakota-voters-could-end-property-taxes-and-pour-gas-on-the-spark-of-a-growing-tax-revolt-f32ae8db

If the ballot measure passes, North Dakota would become the first U.S. state to end property taxes. Its passage could also add muscle to the push to eliminate the tax elsewhere, property-tax skeptics say. The idea has been floated in states like Texas, Nebraska and Michigan, while lawmakers in the Great Plains and Mountain West states say big reforms are needed quickly.

Property taxes are the “most egregious and least moral of all the taxes,” according to Rick Becker, chair of the organization that put Measure 4 on the North Dakota state ballot. The ballot measure would repeal residential, commercial and agricultural property taxes, he noted.

These taxes uses opaque formulas to make homeowners keep paying for property they already own, he said. They’re also based on the “unrealized” paper value of a home, he added.

How would no income tax and no property tax work?

No public schools, which is the end result they really want.

This is really going off topic at this point, its really better in Politics.

[Anonymous]

A quote from Forest Gump perfectly describes this effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I generally agree that property taxes are bad overall, as they tend to be utilized for richer areas to support more local services and thus not spread the tax revenue more widely.

But doing something like this without a connected income tax increase to balance out the revenue is insane.

Michigan significantly reduced local property taxes 30 years ago and increased income taxes by 50% at the same time to balance it out.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/a_refresher_on_proposal_a_and_local_property_taxes

Yup! The money for services has to come from somewhere. IMO, property taxes ensure (in most states) that your local schools are well funded (because you are paying for your local schools with PT) as well as police, library, fire, and other important services every one needs (and for schools you are paying for the benefit of society as a whole).
You can choose what type of home to live in and how much to spend (and consequently how much PT to be paying). If you don't like higher taxes, you are free to move to a smaller home.
I like that better than just increasing income taxes (or having any income tax at state level at all)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great way to end up with terrible schools, unless you make up for the lost revenue with another form of taxation.

Live in a no state income state. When we moved here (from DCUM), I was expecting property taxes to be really high (how else do you fund schools and such). Bought a home worth double, and my taxes were 75% of what I paid in HoCo. Schools are similar quality. However, current schools are severely underfunded and much of what makes them "great schools" is the local school foundation (donations from parents who know we need more $$$ to keep the schools great, to offer Art and Music in ES, etc).

So yeah, lower PT and no state income taxes is not the best idea---it works in some areas, but most where it works in our area have donations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On a small scale, property taxes are not much different than a wealth tax on unrecognized capital gains.

The only reason people don't freak out about property tax is because of just the fact that property taxes have been around for forever, and you aren't taxed on your house at 20% each year.

Two very different things. The Property tax is directly going to support your local services. Yes it's based on the value of your home, but it is a tax to support local services that everyone needs (or should want to be good in the area---good schools benefit everyone---I kind of like the concept of an educated population so I will happily continue to support that even though I don't have school aged kids). If you eliminate PT you have to find the money somewhere.

I like roads to drive on, Firetrucks/ambulances/Police to come in a timely manner if I call 911

[Anonymous]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

omething like this happened in the mid-2000s in a small New Hampshire town called Grafton. Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling, author of a new book titled A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, says it’s the “boldest social experiment in modern American history.” I don’t know if it’s the “boldest,” but it’s definitely one of the strangest.

The experiment was called the “Free Town Project” (it later became the “Free State Project”), and the goal was simple: take over Grafton’s local government and turn it into a libertarian utopia. The movement was cooked up by a small group of ragtag libertarian activists who saw in Grafton a unique opportunity to realize their dreams of a perfectly logical and perfectly market-based community. Needless to say, utopia never arrived, but the bears did! (I promise I’ll explain below.)

[Anonymous]

In North Dakota, taxes on real estate help pay for local services including schools, parks and roads. They are a primary source of revenue for both city and county governments. Property tax rates in North Dakota vary depending on where you live, but the average effective rate across the state is 0.9 9%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I generally agree that property taxes are bad overall, as they tend to be utilized for richer areas to support more local services and thus not spread the tax revenue more widely.

Vermont has a new system of some portion of property taxes being sent a statewide fund to proportionally dole out to school districts with the highest needs.

And as you might expect, people are pissed.

Good for them. I think you meant "rich people are pissed", to be accurate.

Well 50%+ of the reason your home costs more is because of the school district. People don't live in the top schools of Howard County or Montgomery County if they plan to use private schools (okay, most people don't). If you plan for private, you live elsewhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In NYC there is even something more cool. In Soho and Tribeca there is a handful of small older coop buildings where coop owns the first floor rental commercial property space.

The rental income is so high the building pays no monthly maint charges and in fact some get rebates every year. A coop includes, property taxes, heat, hot water, gas so those people only pay the electric bill each month.

They now sell for a lot but older people who bought have been free riding for 30-50 years

Yeah, but at least that's the market at work. Obviously one very clear benefit of the Co-op vs. the Condo structure (where in the Condo scenario the developer would still own the retail space and not share that with the Condo owners).

And one disadvantage of a coop---you have to follow all the rules that 6-8 older "owners" sit around and come up with. You get told who can sublet your place or not. You even have to get approval for your 25 yo kid to live there instead of you (and sometimes they say no). I'll take a condo any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great way to end up with terrible schools, unless you make up for the lost revenue with another form of taxation.

Live in a no state income state. When we moved here (from DCUM), I was expecting property taxes to be really high (how else do you fund schools and such). Bought a home worth double, and my taxes were 75% of what I paid in HoCo. Schools are similar quality. However, current schools are severely underfunded and much of what makes them "great schools" is the local school foundation (donations from parents who know we need more $$$ to keep the schools great, to offer Art and Music in ES, etc).

So yeah, lower PT and no state income taxes is not the best idea---it works in some areas, but most where it works in our area have donations

That sounds like a feature. The schools with wealthy kids can use private donations to stay on par with schools in higher tax states. The schools in less wealthy areas, on the other hand...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In North Dakota, taxes on real estate help pay for local services including schools, parks and roads. They are a primary source of revenue for both city and county governments. Property tax rates in North Dakota vary depending on where you live, but the average effective rate across the state is 0.9 9%.

Sounds like socialism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In NYC there is even something more cool. In Soho and Tribeca there is a handful of small older coop buildings where coop owns the first floor rental commercial property space.

The rental income is so high the building pays no monthly maint charges and in fact some get rebates every year. A coop includes, property taxes, heat, hot water, gas so those people only pay the electric bill each month.

They now sell for a lot but older people who bought have been free riding for 30-50 years

That's California writ large because of Prop 13.

And the schools suffer for it.

-signed a long time CA resident who grew up going to public school there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In North Dakota, taxes on real estate help pay for local services including schools, parks and roads. They are a primary source of revenue for both city and county governments. Property tax rates in North Dakota vary depending on where you live, but the average effective rate across the state is 0.9 9%.

Sounds like socialism

Capitalism means companies can offshore their jobs and not "bring back the jobs", and hire anyone they want to for as little pay as they want. Don't scream "capitalism" then when your job gets outsourced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I generally agree that property taxes are bad overall, as they tend to be utilized for richer areas to support more local services and thus not spread the tax revenue more widely.

Vermont has a new system of some portion of property taxes being sent a statewide fund to proportionally dole out to school districts with the highest needs.

And as you might expect, people are pissed.

Good for them. I think you meant "rich people are pissed", to be accurate.

Well 50%+ of the reason your home costs more is because of the school district. People don't live in the top schools of Howard County or Montgomery County if they plan to use private schools (okay, most people don't). If you plan for private, you live elsewhere

Uh.. lots of people in MoCo send their kids to private schools, which are located in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Terrible idea. Oroperty taxes are a great way to fund services. It encourages effective land use and is progressive, especially when paired with an exemption.

If you are against the whole idea of paying taxes, then you should have to combine your idea for tax reduction with explaining which services you are going to cut.