Taxes a top legislative goal for Grand Forks
October 9, 2012 at 2:45 am in Grand Forks Herald
Grand Forks City Council members, city officials and local legislators met Monday night to begin developing the city’s positions for the upcoming 2013 state legislative session, singling out taxes and road and water projects as priorities. Continue Reading
We wouldn’t need property tax relief if the boneheads wouldn’t abuse the treasury every time some crazy project got mentioned.
Not the State’s responsibility to bail us out when our own politicians can’t say “NO” to wasteful spending.
School board = irresponsible
Park board = irresponsible
City Council = irresponsible
Like or Dislike:
21 
7
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, since I’m a renter and might not fully appreciate the long-term implications of rising property values (as reported yesterday: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/246493/ ), but it seems like times are pretty good for homeowners in GF, right? High demand for housing, low supply, increasing home values, and a steady property tax rate all suggest that the value of homeowners’ equity is increasing, right? While the rest of the country is in the opposite position…
So what exactly do homeowners need relief from?
Seems to me it’d be a better long-term investment for the city to either pay down debt (which I haven’t seen reliable figures for) or invest in infrastructure and education projects with a high likelihood of increasing the future tax base.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
You’ll have to fight to get accurate numbers for the debt load that Grand Forks is carrying.
Suffice to say that it’s ENORMOUS.
Our local politicians aren’t satisfied with raiding our own treasury, now they want access to State money in addition. There is not enough money on earth to satisfy corrupt politicians or the people who figure Government owes them their chosen lifestyle.
It will NEVER END until the voters throw ‘em out.
Like or Dislike:
17 
7
You make consistent and concerted arguments in favor of reducing taxing, reducing spending, and reducing debt, Schurkey. But they really lack teeth without hard numbers.
Like or Dislike:
13 
6
You will never get anything from Schurkey accept for a lot of opinions, hot air and assumptions. Most of us have learned this.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
It really isn’t that complex. The government has taken in more than it needs. I agree with Schurky that the appropriate action is to return the excess to the taxpayers. Unfortunately the usual response from our elected officials is to find something else to spend the tax collections on. Each of those dollars represent a dollar taken from someone else; these are not magical dollars that just happen to materialize in the state coffers. Most of the above responses are exactly what Schurky is complaining about, i.e. it is really easy to spend other people’s money. In the words of John F. Kennedy, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” I don’t think that statement was intended as support for the concept that government should be charged with the task of collecting as much revenue as it possible can from taxpayers.
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
A while back I made reference to Orwell’s Newspeak. Govts play with language in other ways. Hal Gershman asked if the city had money to help build a skateboard building. Problem is, the city has no money…it belongs to the citizens. This is one of the central problems: people on councils, boards, and commissions have the mindset that somehow once taxed, the money belongs to them.
Another one even more insidious, mainly because it’s couched in a positive context, is “The cuts will allow you to keep more of your money.” Sounds great. The truth is that the only entity that can validly allow another to keep something is the owner.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
You wouldn’t last long on Engage the Dorks. They would block you like they did Mr. Schurkey. They want advice on spending money, not saving money.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Exactly! And they justify it by implicitly viewing it as their money. As I said a while back, watch what happens to the mosquito spraying fund. It won’t be returned to those who paid in, the city council will find another use for it.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
There seems to be some confusion here, and it may just be me.
State government has a surplus, a result of production and extraction taxes on oil. The way I see it, that wealth came from the ground, not from individual tax payers, and so it should be used for the benefit of all North Dakotans. One-time infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, and dams are one of the best uses of one-time revenue receipts like these. This is not just my opinion; it was espoused by Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple last night on “Meet the Candidates” on NPR.
http://www.prairiepublic.org/radio/hear-it-now?post=45273
Property taxes, on the other hand, are assessed by local government bodies such as cities and counties. I don’t find it a prudent long-term investment strategy to take one-time revenue gains from the state and use them in lieu of recurring taxes assessed by local governments and call it “returning money to the taxpayer.” It’s not just robbing Peter to pay Paul, it’s robbing future generations of the benefits of wealth that our generation did not create.
TL;DR: we should pay our local property taxes with our own individual money rather than wasting one-time state windfalls that would be better invested in a way that benefits future generations.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Knoxjimbo, the only reason it is being proposed as a property tax refund is because if it were proposed as a state income tax refund the significant number of North Dakotans who don’t pay income tax would be screaming that the “rich” get all the breaks. Property tax refunds are perceived as being a way to distribute excess funds in a more even manner; of course people who rent are complaining that property tax refunds are not fair either. The bottom line is that the state took in more revenue in the form of individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, fees and extraction revenue. The excess should be returned. I’d be happy to accept your plan if the state first refunded every dollar of income tax. Your rationale ignores the fact that the state has revenue from multiple sources, not just natural resource extraction.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Ah taxes…Always a light hearted topic……..Fun, fun, fun….
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Marx’s theory of surplus value describes the theft of worker’s input that is skimmed from them in the form of profit. That means that the worker adds value to a product through his labor but it confiscated from him/her when the product is sold for more than the value of the workers input but the worker doesn’t get a return on the value he added to the product. It is taken by the owner. That being the case it is necessary to redistribute that stolen wealth to the have nots. The capitalist wants us to believe the worker is getting remunerated for what his labor is worth when in fact he is not. Libertarians fall/reinforce this scam in spades. The system is rigged by the capitalists. It is amazing to see workers fall for this and argue against their own interests by sticking up for Wall Street’s criminality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
If you figure that communism and socialism is the way to go, I invite you to go live in Russia, China, North Korea, or Cuba. Anyone can see how well off the people are there. But, don’t try to bring that form of government here to the USA.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I already suggested North Korea to him, but he politely declined.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Spearman, I enjoy your posts. I am still trying to figure out if you are serious or if you are just trying to start discussions. How will your utopia handle business ventures that result in a net loss, not profit; will workers be required to pay back some of the excess compensation that they received? Why will people be willing to place their capital at risk in a new business venture if they don’t receive any reward for that risk? Would every worker be required to place the same amount of capital at risk? If a third-party, such as a centralized government controls the capital, who gets to decide which ventures will be allocated capital and which will not? In my opinion, what is absent from your scenario is the element of risk and the corresponding reward. There would be little incentive to tinker in my garage at night hoping to invent the next Apple Computer if the product of my hard work would not result eventual profit; note I said little incentive recognizing that there are some individuals who tinker just for the sake of discovery. Many of the greatest discoveries have come from the hands of individuals seeking to strike it rich. Your system works very well for ants, but even ant colonies have queens.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0