# Change in North Dakota property tax



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not up on this yet, but have read some about the proposed change in property taxes, in North Dakota. They would do away with the portion of our property tax that supports education. Instead they would do it through income tax, and sales tax would go up to seven percent. I don't know what the impact would be on my taxes yet, what do you people think?


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Sales tax only rapes the poor to pay for the rich not paying taxes


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

From what I have gathered, so far, it sounds good to me. The news here stated that 2/3 of our property taxes in town goes to public education. The way I look at it the current funding for education is primarily on the home owners shoulders. With this new approach, those that rent will be contributing to education also. Shouldn't people who rent also contribute? Their kids have or are going to school. Some schools have had to shut down because of lack of funding and this may help that. I say go for it.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

ej4prmc said:


> Sales tax only rapes the poor to pay for the rich not paying taxes


ej4prmc, are you looking for a free ride? Should we get into education tax credits? Are not most essential items exempt from sales tax? Give me a few examples of this rap you are talking about and how the rich elude taxes because of sales tax. The more you spend the more you pay.
.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ej4prmc said:


> Sales tax only rapes the poor to pay for the rich not paying taxes


So when you buy a Ford, and some rich guy buys a Mercedes your being raped?????? I don't know how much your willing to pay for a Ford but if it is even half of a Mercedes your getting screwed alright, but not by the tax system. Lets say $25 grand for a Ford and $75 for a Mercedes who pays the most taxes? It doesn't take a rocket scientist.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This bill was defeated in the Senate today.....45-2


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Try this..Plainsman, do some research on progressive and regressive taxes and you will understand the difference. That is the difference between the "rich and the poor" and to have or not have the same rate for both. It is the very reason why there is no tax on food in North Dakota. Flat taxes are very unfair taxes for lower income people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> Try this..Plainsman, do some research on progressive and regressive taxes and you will understand the difference. That is the difference between the "rich and the poor" and to have or not have the same rate for both. It is the very reason why there is no tax on food in North Dakota. Flat taxes are very unfair taxes for lower income people.


Rooster, I am a little confused here about what your trying to get across to me.

I think I understand progressive and regressive taxes, income tax anyway, but I will look further to see if anything conflicts with my understanding.

ej4prmc wrote:


> Sales tax only rapes the poor to pay for the rich not paying taxes


 I did debate that because the more you spend, the more tax you pay, so that makes the rich pay more.

As far as income tax taking over the portion of property tax that is for education we are talking state sales tax and that is not proposed to change. So I don't think the flat tax plays into this plan.

I may be missing a point you made. If so explain it to me again. Maybe I'm slow today.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Well, we will try this! In my opinion a good analogy with progressive and regressive taxes and with the rich and the poor paying the same rate of tax is to look at the price of a gallon of gasoline. When the rich and poor are paying the same rate for $1.90 gas and the price of gas goes up another 20 cents who does it affect the most, the poor or the rich? Sales tax does the same thing to lower income people who are paying the same rate as upper income people. The people who can least afford the tax have to pay the same rate as people who can afford a higher rate. That is why I do not like these kind of taxes and believe that we need to be very cautious about proposing increases in sales taxes. I am much more in favor of a progressive tax stucture and very concerned about proposing an increase in a regressive tax. I would be much more in favor of proposing a progressive change in our income tax rather than proposing a sales tax rate hike.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

And besides all that there are way more poor people than rich people so the poor would end up paying the bulk. 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How can you get anymore fair than paying the same thing? I guess I am looking at this strictly from a non biased view. I have no problem with the rich paying a little more in income tax, they can afford more. The reality however if we are talking fair in the strictest sense is everyone pay the same. Anything else is pure emotion. I will admit it, the rich can pay more income tax. Am I being fair? No, I am being selfish, but so be it.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Since the bill went down to defeat already, not much to debate. I figured out what the difference would be for our family; at least 33% higher on income tax, some dollars more based on the increased sales tax, but removed most of the school part of property tax. Result? about double my current overall tax bill. As to renters, an unseen part of their rent bill is the property taxes paid by the owner of the property. However, consider that many of the of higher earning job seekers (e.g computer programmers, hi tech in general) rent early in their careers rather than own property. If we are trying to limit out migration of our young educated youth, how would they react if their income tax bill went up 33% but they received no benefit since they pay no property taxes. Guess who is the winner? Farmers and large property owners.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport,

I don't believe it was a 33% increase of your total income tax. Or was it? Yes part of your rent covers property tax, but a much smaller portion. It all depends what assessments have been allocated to the building and its property and also number of tenants. No matter how I crunch the numbers I get no where near double my current overall tax bill. You also talk about migration of our young educated youth. Another way to look at it is this: a few graduates that work for me have been looking at buying their first home. A lower property tax could make a difference in some cases. It's sometimes these items (what we may believe to be minor) that shy them away. Being someone that left this state and then returned I believe the migration has more to do with the type of jobs (experience) and the pay.

This may have been defeated, but I think it's still worth the debate. I do like to see what others think.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport

It must be the megabucks you have that would have made your income tax higher. I wasn't strongly for or against the plan, my taxes would have remained the same. Oh, well it's water under the bridge now.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I don't think it is water under the bridge because it seems the talk is to take a look at it and possibly bring it back in the next session. The problem is really in how our present system funds education. That is why it was proposed in the first place.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

DJRooster

I agree. Our public school system doesn't rate all that high compared to other state systems. I think this is mostly because we don't have the funding to offer some of the more current technical and specific curriculum that other areas in the country have. I moved back to this state primarily because I think ND is a hard place to beat to raise a family.

.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Longshot said:


> ej4prmc said:
> 
> 
> > Sales tax only rapes the poor to pay for the rich not paying taxes
> ...


Sale taxes STEAL from the poor. You are asking people who only make 800$ a month GROSS to pay taxes? Every time that poor person goes to the store to buy diapers, tampons, laundry soap, toothpaste ect. they *MUST* pay a tax. These items I speak of are things that are ESSENTIAL to living in a civilized soc. but yet you want that poor person to pay taxes. A person making that kind of money should NEVER pay taxes. I will *NEVER* support poor people paying their UNFAIR share of taxes. I think if you make a 100 grand a year you should give the gov. 10-15% minimum.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ej4prmc

What country are you posting from. You are evidently young enough you have paid no taxes yet. Someone making 100K is going to pay a lot more than 10 to 15 % in taxes. A lot more.

I agree the rich should pay more. Am I being fair. No. Am I being selfish. I hate to admit it, but yes. Why? Because for everyone to pay their fair share they would pay the same percentage on everything. Anything else is a Robin Hood syndrome, rob from the rich to pay the poor. I am not rich or poor, I am in the middle. However there is nothing inherently good or bad about being rich. By that same token there is nothing good or bad about being poor. I am willing to rob the rich a little to pay the way for the poor. But I freely admit I am not being fair. So, I do not understand your skewed opinion of fair.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Ej4prmc
> 
> What country are you posting from. You are evidently young enough you have paid no taxes yet. Someone making 100K is going to pay a lot more than 10 to 15 % in taxes. A lot more.
> 
> I agree the rich should pay more. Am I being fair. No. Am I being selfish. I hate to admit it, but yes. Why? Because for everyone to pay their fair share they would pay the same percentage on everything. Anything else is a Robin Hood syndrome, rob from the rich to pay the poor. I am not rich or poor, I am in the middle. However there is nothing inherently good or bad about being rich. By that same token there is nothing good or bad about being poor. I am willing to rob the rich a little to pay the way for the poor. But I freely admit I am not being fair. So, I do not understand your skewed opinion of fair.


I don't see how I am "skewed" By the way the MOST a person making 100 grand a year is going to pay is less than 8% to the state, 8% to the feds not including medicare and FICA. You still never mentioned how my outlook is skewed. If you knew how to read you might see I live in the great state of ND. Why do you expect a person making 10,000 a year to pay a larger percentage of their income so a HOME OWNER (who obviously have a larger net worth) can get a tax break. look at it this way, A single dollar is a lot to someone making 10,000 a year, but a piss in the bucket to someone making more than 40,000 a year, and now you say THATS FAIR? NO it isn't!! and by the way I took almost a 40,000 a year cut just to move back to my home area. In 1987-94 my tax bill was more than 22,000 each of those years. I have also made minimum wage at one point in my life.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I understand where your coming from on the percentage now. I was considering income tax to be federal and state, and we are only talking about state aren't we.

I told you I don't mind the rich paying more taxes, but the truth is it can't be fair. Do you think blacks should pay more taxes? Do you think men should pay more than women? Should blue eye people pay more than those with brown eyes? Why do we punish the rich. Because we are not rich, so we punish them because we are envious. Would you like to be rich? Me too. I'm not, so I don't feel bad that the rich pay more in taxes. I am however realistic enough to know I am not being fair with them. I do thank them however. Hats off to all you rich guys, because of you I have more money for myself. I am not being a smart a$$, I sincerely appreciate every wealthy person on this site.

I also like and respect all those who have very little. I also sincerely hope something great will happen to all of them and they will have more. I guess I wish everyone wealth.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Plainsman,

It is good we have a real debate, this how things should work. I think(hope) you were being sarcastic when you were asking about blacks, men, brown eyed people paying more in taxes, but to answer your question No they shouldn't pay more. I am in no way a wealthy person in monetary sense's, but I do fight for things *I* feel are wrong. I have been into many things and have experianced many odd things in life. I understand the "rich man" fighting paying taxes(I hired accountants left and right when I had wealth to find me "loop holes") I find no reason someone deserves a tax credit for having a child. I find it hard to understand why someone who has a child gets money (in the form of a tax credit) while I as a single person(with dog) has to pay more in taxes than the single person with child. The person with child is using more of OUR tax money, because we now have to support that child through 12 years of schooling, so make them pay their fair share. I do want to pay taxes to help that child, just make it more of a level playing field. Good debate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the serious reply ej4prmc it is good to debate on a more friendly basis. I really appreciate that.

I wasn't my objective to be sarcastic (but perhaps was), but I was exaggerating to make a point. I was not insinuating that you would agree with these things, quite the contrary I was sure you would look at it just like me.

I agree with your assessment of it not being fair that a single parent gets the taxes you pay as a sing person with only a dog. I certainly don't mind helping people who need it, but many take advantage of the system. I know of people who can't find a job that pays as well as welfare so they don't work. I think everyone deserves a decent living so I think welfare should require them to work, but they could supplement income for people who are really hurting. It would cost us much less to add $2 an hour to someone getting minimum wage than pay welfare that equals $8 an hour.

Like I said I think it is ok that the rich pay more taxes, but at the same time I feel a bit guilty. I don't get welfare, but I directly benefit because I pay less. I'm not arguing for the rich, just trying to put things into my perspective of fair in the strictest sense.


----------

