North Dakota voters to decide on abolishing property tax

[MaineShark]

Good luck fighting the assessment on your property... talk about a conflict of interest, the people that say what the "value" is are the ones collecting the revenue. Even if the citizens bring down the rate, the powers that be just up the assessments.

In NH, the rate is set by dividing the total budget by the total assessments.

So, if the town's budget is $2M, and there are a thousand houses that are each assessed at $150,000 (ie, a total value of $150M), the rate would be $13.33/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $2000)

If the assessment goes up, the rate must go down.  If budget was $2M and they bumped each of those thousand houses up to $200,000, then the total value would be $200M, and the rate would be $10/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $2000)

If the budget goes down, the rate must go down.  If the budget was reduced to $1M, the rate would be $6.67/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $1000)

While they will steal the same amount each year, the assessment has nothing to do with that; the rate has an inverse relationship to the assessed value.

The problem that can occur is if one property is assessed incorrectly, so that particular owner is paying more than his neighbor with an identical house.  But that's illegal, and if you think they might be doing that, you should nail them on it; assessments are supposed to closely approximate market value.

But the bottom line is that property taxes, in absolute dollar terms, cannot go up unless the budget goes up.  The town is prohibited from taxing for more than the amount needed to raise the total budget.  The same goes for the school district and the county: the absolute dollar value they steal will come out to equal their total budget, so the tax rate and assessments are not really relevant, other than when comparing what one property owner pays, with what his neighbor pays.

If the budget stays the same and the assessments go up, the only result is that the rate drops.  As long as the assessments are "fair" in relation to each other (ie, a property that's worth half of what another property is worth, is also assessed at half the value), the actual assessments are irrelevant.  If my house is worth twice what yours is, and my neighbor's is worth twice what mine is, then we could be assessed at $2, $1, and $4, and the rates would be adjusted to match.  Similarly, we could be assessed at $2B, $1B, and $4B, and the rate would be reduced to make that work.  In either case, if your bill was $1000/year, mine would be $2000/year, and my neighbor's would be $4000/yr, regardless of what the assessed values were.

And, since the mugging is more important than the ritual they use, that's all that really matters to me.  If they try and justify stealing $2000 from me by saying my house is worth $100,000 and they have a $20/thousand tax rate, I'll be upset that they stole $2000 from me.  If they try and justify it by saying my house is worth $200,000 and they have a $10/thousand tax rate, I'll be upset that they stole $2000 from me.  Because it's the theft that's important, not what games they play.

[KBCraig]

In NH, the rate is set by dividing the total budget by the total assessments.

So, if the town's budget is $2M, and there are a thousand houses that are each assessed at $150,000 (ie, a total value of $150M), the rate would be $13.33/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $2000)

If the assessment goes up, the rate must go down.  If budget was $2M and they bumped each of those thousand houses up to $200,000, then the total value would be $200M, and the rate would be $10/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $2000)

If the budget goes down, the rate must go down.  If the budget was reduced to $1M, the rate would be $6.67/thousand. (and each property owner would be mugged for $1000)

While they will steal the same amount each year, the assessment has nothing to do with that; the rate has an inverse relationship to the assessed value.

I've tried explaining this to people who try to pick a town based on the tax rate, but I usually get the internet equivalent of a blank stare. They're used to other states, where the rate is more or less fixed, like sales tax rates, and however much revenue it generates is what the budget will be.

In other states, voters set the rate, which determines the budget; in NH, they set the budget, which determines the rate.

[MaineShark]

Yeah, I can understand the confusion, given how many places do it the other way.

The way NH town meetings work, the voters who show up are the legislative body of the town.  The town administrators (select board, budget committee, etc.) are the executive branch.  They will present a budget to the meeting, just as the President proposes a budget to Congress.  Then the townsfolk can (and often do) amend the budget as they see fit.  They can also specify how funding for particular items is to be derived (even if someone makes a gift to the town, the town cannot use it until it is put into the budget and the voters approve it).  One thing I'm planning to work on here in Grafton is, rather than trying to eliminate spending articles, just amend them to add a requirement that no tax funds be used.  "Okay, we've approved spending $10k on Boondoggle #1 ... feel free to do so, if you can raise the funds..."  I think it would be good for the bureaucrats to spend some time going door to door with a donation can, asking for money, instead of demanding it.

Anyway, after the budget is amended, it goes to the voters, who either approve or deny it (if they deny it, the budget defaults back to the last year's).  Depending upon whether the town is SB2 or not, there may be an additional meeting where it can be amended again.  In either case, after the budget is finalized, the total tax appropriation that was approved is divvied up among the property owners and they are sent threatening demands.  Oops, I mean "tax bills."

Every dollar by which the budget is reduced, is a dollar less that will be stolen.  I can fully understand why folks wouldn't want to vote for various candidates, if they feel that it would be an endorsement of that candidate's actions, but it would be great if more folks would show up and vote "no" on every spending item.  I'm fully behind telling the government not to steal from myself and my neighbors.  No one can claim that I endorsed any spending, because I voted no on every one.

Actually, if we got some of those "no taxpayer funds" articles amended, I might even vote "yes" on some.  There have been some projects proposed that I would actually like to see happen, so if I could grant them permission to carry out that project as long as they use only voluntarily-collected funds, then I'd be fine with that.  And, like I said, I think it would be healthy for them to spend some time collecting funds voluntarily.  Maybe some of them would gain a healthier outlook on life, if they learned how to say, "please," without following it with, "or else."

[Russell Kanning]

it is crazy all the oil booming in places
when guys are moving from texas to nd to get higher paying oilfield work .... you know you have a "rush"

bad thing is there are plenty of entitlement mentality farmers and such in ND

[KBCraig]

Same with NW Louisiana and the Haynesville Shale. The notorious political corruption in the state didn't help.