No on Amendment D TV Commercial
This is brand spanking new, so I even haven't see it yet. Reader "Poliglut" was nice enough to send it to me.
(I have got to get a tv capture card for my computer)
(I have got to get a tv capture card for my computer)
Comments
NICE ad. Tight, fast, hits the message hard. Way better than the stupid No On E campaign.
Voting No on Amendment D is really about our children and keeping them here in South Dakota. If D passes it will be harder for first time homebuyers to attain part of the American Dream owning a home. Amendment D will drive our children out of the state when it becomes harder to buy a house. We need to be doing everything we can as a state to grow our economy. D will stifle growth.
Amendment D is not the answer and what's worse is that it would change the constitution. The Legislature has voted ideas like this down in the past. I'm voting no on Amendment D and I encourage you to do the same.
The increase isn't written. It's INHERENT.
How can you POSSIBLY suggest that taxes vaulting from 85% of an averaged like-value home to 100% of most recent sale price is NOT AN INCREASE!!?? As in 15%, just for starters?
This is 4th Grade math ... .
stablization? the tax and real estate markets would be in upheaval for 20+ years!
Of course the wealthy interests that are scamming the current system don't want to give up their great deal. They also don't want to stop shifting their taxes onto the people of South Dakota. All we want is a fair deal and they say, "No!"
Oh, and Steve, you sanctimonius simpleton, we understand it perfectly. You guys are the ones who pretend you can't grasp it.
Hey hey HEY ...
"Sanctimonius simpleton?" From an anonymous post?
Not only rude. COWARDLY.
C'mon. Use your inside voice. You're bringing down the dialog.
I am glad you are so confident about your opinions that you hide behind an anonymous post and levy insults at people who disagree with you instead of debating the issue.
The real tax shift that occurs is the one Amendment D will create for new property buyers in South Dakota.
Getting young people to stay in South Dakota is a major concern for small and large communities alike. All you have to do is speak with legislators and business owners in any of those communities.
Amendment D will make it harder for first-time home buyers to afford a home.
If you think only simpletons don't think D is a good idea then look at the State Legislature. They have voted ideas like D down during the session before because those ideas are bad tax policy. They certainly don't belong in the Constitution.
Do you think the legislators are simpletons for voting against laws and amendments like D anon 4:10?
The tax increases are written into law, 3% or rate of inflation, whichever is less, therefore, assessments have no effect on taxes.
If assessments go up 20% like ag did this year, so what, taxes only go up 3% or rate of...
If assessments go down, as in back to 2003 under D, so what, the dollar amont collected will increase by 3% or the...
The taxes collected will BE EXACTLY THE SAME, D OR NO D, PERIOD
THEREFORE, 85% or 100% based assessments are,so what,.....taxes will increase 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.
How is it that you and several others cant understand that the taxes collected,will be the same under amendment D ?????????
the "real tax shift" is the one that happens NOW. When property sells for a higher than the neighbors paid, the State shifts the taxes to the neighbors so the "new buyer" doesnt have to pay their fair share.
YES ON D FOR ME
Tax increases ARE NOT written into law in D. Increases in property assessments are.
D DOES NOT hold tax increases to 3% per year. Only increases in property assessments for tax purposes.
Tax RATES remain totally and completely flexible. If a taxing entity wants more money, it will increase tax (mil) rates.
You mention property assessments going down. D also limits the DECREASE in property assessments to 3% per year.
In a declining market, if real property value declines to below "D-limited" property assessment value, there will be constitutional crisis. The constitution today DOES NOT allow property to be taxed at an assessed value that is higher than real value.
It'll end up in court.
This amendment stinks.
"Tax increases ARE NOT written into law in D. Increases in property assessments are.
D DOES NOT hold tax increases to 3% per year. Only increases in property assessments for tax purposes.
Tax RATES remain totally and completely flexible. If a taxing entity wants more money, it will increase tax (mil) rates."
You are correct, the tax increases are already in law, D will just match our assessment increases, to the already in law, tax increases. I think that is a very good thing.
Also;
By holding the new assesment to the same rate as the increase in government spending, assuming no growth, the mil levy will be the same and the tax will rise by only a max of 3%, if there is no new growth. Where there is growth, the mil levy will continue down jast as it does now.
The decrease I was refering to was the roll back to 2003, a property may have experienced a huge increase in assessment during this time, therefore, as a result, the new assessments for 2007 may be quite a bit more than 3% less.
PLUS. I say again, The taxes collected under D will be the same amount if D fails !!
If taxes will be the same under Amendment D, then why even do it? If it's revenue nuetral, who are we helping by voting for Amendment D?
Obviously, if some people's taxes are going to "Stabilize" then someone's taxes have to go up. If we're taxing people out of their homes, and this Amendment will help that, who is going to bring the neutral to "revenue neutral"?
We have to be doing this for some reason, right? Somone's tax bill is going to be less in the long-run. Whose tax bill is going to be higher in the long-run?
everyones taxes will go up a little every year, instead of some going up so much they gotta sell.
With all the hype over eminent domain and what a monster that is, The State does exactly the same thing as eminent domain for economic development, except, it uses property taxes. The State says if you cant pay taxes like that rich guy, then sell and get out !! isnt that as bad as the monster of eminent domain ? Dont tell me you are for property rights and then say the current system for taxing property is fair.
D is about fairness and stability and it will accomplish that if it passes
Very Correct. The answer is first time home buyers, who could end up paying 2 or 3 time the amount of property taxes as a nieghbor with an identical home; a start up business who would end up at a competitive disadvantage with established businesses; a farmer or rancher trying to compete with joe millionaire to aquire additional ground to expand his operation; to name only a few.
Mayor Mike Levson(D) asked if it could be possible that some buyer of a home next to his, in 20 years, could pay $300 more per month in taxes than he does, Napoli and Hustad both agreed, but they said you would know that going into the transaction.
After being called on the carpet in an editorial in the Aberdeen paper, Napoli writes back saying $300 a month is ridicules.
Napoli you are right this is ridicules and you are a liar!
What "ideas like D" have the legislature voted down before during session??? Lets have a list now.
You claim you want to "get young people to stay in South Dakota." How long have we been hearing that? Not much luck during the last century, how are you doing so far in the 21st century? You chamber types have made a pigs breakfast of it.
Actually, Amendment D will make it EASIER for young folks to stay in South Dakota. They will buy their home for the same price it would be under the present system and they will know what their tax assessment will be for as long as they own it. 3% or less. No more double or triple digit tax increases. Pretty good incentive to settle down.....oh, that's right, the realtors don't want people staying in their homes.....it's bad for business.
The wisdom is in 10:33.
The obfuscation is in 10:43
Your mayor must be living in one fine mansion. Did he aquire it after he was elected?
It takes a market value increase way over double the South Dakota average market to get to the levels of taxation disparity claimed by the opponents of amendment D.
Assuming a 7% market, 2.5% inflation, assuming no growth, and 5% of all property sells per year. it takes 20 years for the taxes to be just double of the home that hasnt sold.
The only problem is, 7% market increases for 20 years has never happened in South Dakota. 7% is probably over double the average market in South dakota.
assuming a 4% market, 2.5% inflation and tewnty years later with no growth, and assuming 5% of all property sells per year. The taxes on a new sale versus never sold in 20 years is only 30% more in taxes. This is much closer to the South Dakota average.
puting real numbers in that formula =
20 homes at 98,340.00
total assessed value = 1,966,800.00
total taxes due = 34,969.70
mil levy .01778
20 years later with one home sale per year.
home that didnt sell, 2.5% per year = 157,211
new sale at 4% per year= 207,187
total assessed value = 3,622,233
taxes due = 55,904
mil levy = .015433650
taxes on home that hasnt sold =2,426.34
taxes on newest sale 3,197.66
thats a difference of 771.32,, 20 YEARS LATER, OR, 32%, OR, $64 A MONTH.
Now consider this, the market in Brookings between 2000 and 2005 was only about 1%, wanna see those numbers ?
72 divided by 7 equals 10.3 years. That is the number of years it takes to double the value, not the 20 years you were saying. Consequently the taxes would double on that land if sold then.
One other mistake, you said a 7% market increase for 20 years has never happened. Take a look at farm land. Twenty years ago $500 an acre is what land was going for in some areas. That same land is now bringing $2000 per acre. That figures out to a 7% average increase per year.
Now I wonder about all the rest of your assumptions and calculations.
You screwed these up, the rest can't be trusted either.
I said taxes to be double not the assessed value !!!
taxes go up max of 3% per year remember !!!the 7% maket goes like this
starting at 98,340 for both homes
20 yeras later the assessed value of one that has not sold would be 157,211 at 2.5% per year under D
20 years later; the house that just sold in a 7% maket, would sell for 355,649, over double under D.
taxes for first home = 1,802
taxes for second home = 3,906
even so you cant predict the future, my auto insurance is as high as my first house payment 23 years ago, would you have predicted that ? or 7 dollar cups of coffee 20 years ago ?
BRAVO !! yes, maybe some ares went up 7%, BUT I SAID AS A STATE AVERAGE!!! THE STATE AVERAGE HAS NEVER BEEN CLOSE TO THE RIDICULOUS 7% MAKET THAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THE SCARE TACTIC REMARKS BEING MADE BY THE OPPONENTS OF D LIKE YOURSELF.
HEY, IF YOU DONT LIKE MY NUMBERS MAKE YOUR OWN SPREADSHEETS, ITS EASY.
In fact if it is so easy, do the numbers and tell us what the AVERAGE South dakotan will experience uder D, theb tell us what will happen under the current system.
While your at it, figure out what it would take to be 3 or 4 times higher in taxes like some hysterical bloggers have claimed.
Oh that nice, just give them another reason to leave. You got to love the logic in that statement.
Try EXCEL it's a great program. Go on, you can do it.
Although, at the request of our local chamber gang, one of your guys tried it and found that D will do exactly what Napoli said it would. The comment was made "we can't show this to the public." and it was buried.
The trouble is, the opponents of D have already made outrageous claims that cannot be supported by analysis of a sreadsheet, now there is no way to back up from their insane remarks, lol. Like the the Sioux Falls chamber and the argus leader, they came out in opposition of amendment D before they had even read it, haha.
I would be happy to share my spread sheets as well
mostly very routine and necessary adjustments to state law, in other words, repealing sections of current law that would be in conflict with amendment D, etc. Also addressing the max levy funds like the schools capital outlay and pension funds. As well as new construction,homes built by owner and how to handle remodeling, etc etc.
I am sure that after D passes, this discussion wil begin in earnest. Should make the next legislative session lively
I just hope a lot of you realize that there are people that are really getting fed up with the tax situation in South Dakota. I guess this unrest probably brought about "D".
I takes a lot of money to provide the services that we demand from our State government. I complain about my tax bill, but I complain more when I don’t get the services I want! Just doesn’t make any sense does it.
I wish I had the answer to the tax concerns. But I don't! If I did, I would probably run for Governor!
Go to the website for amendment D
stop2006.org
there is information there you may find helpful, also dont be afraid to call a contact person for questions