North Dakota Ballot Measure to get rid of Property Tax

[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.

[Anonymous]

Defund the public schools!

[Anonymous]

The problem is, where will the state get their money for public services?

Or is everyone going to be nickel and dimed for every service?

This hurts the poor, as usual. They don't own property, and now they're going to get fewer services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, yeah. We want to control who lives in our building. We sold the shares to YOU, not your kid. Your condo can turn into an AirBNB flophouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is, where will the state get their money for public services?

Or is everyone going to be nickel and dimed for every service?

This hurts the poor, as usual. They don't own property, and now they're going to get fewer services.

You pay for property taxes even if you rent...it's just thru your rent. If PT go up, your landlord will raise the rent accordingly.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is so strange as ND is a conservative state and conservatives have long advocated for consumption taxes instead of income taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fleecing the poor as usual.

The poor don't own property. (ALthough seniors on fixed incomes might).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, yeah. We want to control who lives in our building. We sold the shares to YOU, not your kid. Your condo can turn into an AirBNB flophouse.

A good condo building will not allow that to happen. I cannot rent my condo out for less than a 6 month rental, it's part of the HOA rules. Also, most condo buildings in our city have limits on the percentage of units that can be renters. That helps ensure enough owners actually live in the building and still care about day to day life.

And yes, if I own a 1 bedroom in any city (NYC, Chicago, SF, or elsewhere), I'd like to be able to have my own 25yo professional kid live there if they work in that city. I refuse to own a place where my kid would need to sit for an interview. Or really anywhere that I NEED to sit for an interview and provide references before I can be approved for "purchase".

I should not need to get approval for that. Hence why I don't own a coop, because I want to actually own my unit and renovate it as I see fit (within the basic rules of the HOA---such as flooring must meet noise reduction requirements).

[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?

Prayer and koolaid.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a truly democratic idea - have all current public school tax allocations evenly distributed throughout the state.

Or even better, evenly distributed nationally.

Have poor kids receive same educational funding as the rich neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleecing the poor as usual.

The poor don't own property. (ALthough seniors on fixed incomes might).

Umm, the poor have to live somewhere. Landlords base their rent on their total costs---if PT goes up, so does the rent