this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
108 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3170 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 53 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Enjoy your moonscape roads, non existing police, fire, and emergency services, and closing schools.

Fucking idiots lol.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago

"Why don't our hospitals have doctors and nurses?"

Because they have options.

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He said the Legislature could use earnings from the state’s $11 billion oil tax savings as well as millions of dollars he said go to “corporate welfare” for private corporations and special interest groups. The state also has better-than-forecasted revenues coming in, he said.

Becker has an argument here that I can't argue with.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing? It seems like they could reduce property taxes, see if the other funding sources can cover the difference, and measure how it impacts programs that were traditionally funded by these taxes. If they can prove it covers the difference with no impact, then think about reducing the tax rate further..

If they approach the change incrementally it would benefit everyone. If they instantly reduce the tax rate to 0% it most benefits the rich folks with expensive property.

[–] ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If they instantly reduce the tax rate to 0% it most benefits the rich folks with expensive property.

Think you just answered your own question

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Lol. Sad, true.

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

don't understand why it has to be all or nothing

I mean, you're talking about government. When do they ever think?

[–] mortalic@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm fine with property tax, but it can't just go up every year on a %. It should be reasonable.

Oregon has awful property taxes that effectively price people out of their homes.

Boring suburban houses with $9000 annual taxes should not be a thing. Then the next year it goes up by 4%. Has to be a limit somewhere in the system.

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In CA, Proposition 13 limits increases and you would think it would prevent drastic overall property tax increases and the tax revenue would be fairly stable. In reality the run up in prices after 2020 has been an absolute windfall for cities and has cost property owners big time. For example, LA's budgeted property tax revenue went up 14.6% from 2022 to 2024, an absurd increase far exceeding the general inflation level but something cities and counties have come to expect.

While I think property taxes (or some replacement) are absolutely necessary in a functioning society, in my experience they way they are implemented is ridiculous and the reason for this kind of initiative.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are some pros and obvious cons here. Property taxes are usually regressive (unless they had property tax brackets, which I've never heard of) so this could benefit lower incomes. They can also replace the property tax with something worse, like fixed fees, or not replace it at all. Property tax reform, rather than elimination, might've been better.

[–] sxan@midwest.social -2 points 3 weeks ago

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Alexander Fraser Tytler

I don't know that he's absolutely right, but he's certainly situationally right.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago

Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:

Wiki: reliable - The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://apnews.com/article/north-dakota-property-tax-election-ballot-measure-8cfb4588f2b066347fef44ceab7865d6
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support