Bought by out-of-staters
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12389) 12 years ago
Montanans voted to amend our constitution because a real estate developer from New York spent a couple of million convincing us it was in "our" best interest. Of course, we didn't find out who was paying for the campaign until after we sold this guy our souls.

Now two more of those groups that are ashamed to admit who pays them off to sponsor attack ads are suing to end the State's supervision of political groups. They claim that their attacks aren't political, they are "educational."

I firmly believe that donors--especially out-of-state donors--who are trying to buy my vote should be upfront and tell me who owns them before they own me.
Top
supporter
Posted by K.Duffy (+1822) 12 years ago
Of course there's not a chance that will happen..but it's a nice dream! I wonder how many people now realize what it was all about? There sure were a lot of pre-election signs in yards around town.
Top
Posted by Maryann McDaniel (+251) 12 years ago
Sorry, I missed how amended. Please inform me...Thanks
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12389) 12 years ago
The Constitutional amendment to prevent a type of tax being applied to real estate transfers. Now, I don't think taxes belong in the Constitution to begin with but this was funded by a real estate developer in New York.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+983) 12 years ago
Also there was no talk or motions or any type of action going on to start this type of tax. My guess is this developer has some plan in mind to swoop money out of the state in a rape and run and wanted to make sure no one could pass a tax when they saw what he was doing.
Top
supporter
Posted by Dona Stebbins (+821) 12 years ago
And all the instate realtors bought into it! I have a friend that is a realtor, and I explained to her why this was a bad idea, and she just didn't get it
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3714) 12 years ago
I get what Amorette is saying, and it would have been nice to know who supported the amendment, but the fact that some out-of-staters supported it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for Montanans does it?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Matt Smith (+796) 12 years ago
Dona...

I am a Real Estate Broker. I by default am a member of the Realtor organization. {Not a big fan of it}

You didn't see signs in my windows nor did you see me campaign for it.

So just to let you know not all people who belong to the MAR/ NAR bought into it.

Regards.
Top
Posted by Mindy B (+71) 12 years ago
I think it is bad due to the fact that we started limiting rights using the Montana Constitution. It leaves the door open to amend this all too valuable document for any and every tax. If I wanted to put a measure on the ballot now to stop something like "the red onion tax" just because I sell red onions I could. We could put all sorts of limits on what we can and can't do for everyone's special little project as long as you market your project right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4453) 12 years ago
Next you're gonna tell me the medical MJ initiative was 100% montana funded.
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3161) 12 years ago
So Amorette, you want a real estate transfer tax?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
There already is one.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+18250) 12 years ago
CI-105? Here's the info:

[f]BALLOT LANGUAGE

CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 105

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION.

There is no existing state or local tax on transactions that
sell or transfer real property in Montana. CI-105 amends the
Montana Constitution to prohibit state or local governments
from imposing any new tax on transactions that sell or transfer
real property, such as residential homes, apartments, condominiums,
townhouses, farms, ranches, land, and commercial property, after
January 1, 2010.

[ ] FOR amending the Montana Constitution to prohibit state or
local governments from imposing any new tax on transactions
that sell or transfer real property.

[ ] AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution to prohibit state
or local governments from imposing any new tax on transactions
that sell or transfer real property.[/f]http://sos.mt.gov/electio...CI-105.asp
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+588) 12 years ago
So silly to amend the constitution on tax issues like this. Especially when there was no need. Knee jurk reaction: Tax?-No! Just play on our fears and you can get anything..
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18269) 12 years ago
I voted against this, and it lost. But am I resentful that the average moron who qualifies to vote, voted for this, because they have feces for brains and drop all their paycheck cash at the keno machines, and thus were swayed by New York City big money advertising?

Nope.

The morons in the state of Montana deserve exactly what they get, because they are far too stupid to read about, learn, and debate the issues. That's why we all deserve higher utility bills, thanks to previous governments we have elected who passed deregulation.

As most people know, and if you haven't guessed it, I am one of those liberal elitists that the FOX News team continually rails against. Yes, I am smarter than you, and yes, I know more what to do, so why don't you quit voting and see if you can get ole Lil to give you another roll of free quarters?

[waiting for the Rickenhawk with his patented oblique RP statement and the rolleyes.....]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12389) 12 years ago
I don't want taxes IN the Constitution. That is NOT what the document is for. Plus this creates a huge drive for every special interest group in the state and out to start amending the Constitution just to make sure that "their" particular tax is not enacted.

Whether the tax was a good idea or not is NOT the point. Taxing powers belong to legislature and removing any tax in a panic to pacify some special interest group is not the way to manage the economy of a state. I can imagine the number of amendments that will come up next year in response to this.

I don't think over 50ish, women who are about 40 pounds overweight, near-sighted and have hazel eyes and straight brown hair growing grey should be taxed. I have just as much "right" to amend the Constitution to my personal special interest as some rich guy from New York has to do so.

And if you agree with that, we are doomed.
Top
Posted by Jay (+283) 12 years ago
For Gunnar who is so mush smarter than the rest of us.
Wa. St. Sold 370k of property. Paid a tax on the sale of 1.75% to the state.
This is on the sale price, not profit. Then comes tax on the gain to the feds.
Seems to me that what you voted agains't would save you a lot of money on the sale of your Trailer House.
What a stupid a$$.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15384) 12 years ago
Glad I didn't have to decide how to vote on that one. It would be a pretty conflicting decision.

I would have to vote against amending the constition. As Amorette points out, taxation should be a function of the legislative branch, not the constitution.

I don't have problem charging a tax on the sale of property to those who live out of state. Just think what Mr. Turner would have paid.

On the other hand, owing state taxes for taking money out of my left pocket and putting it in my right pocket is somewhat ill-conceived. There needs to be a way to deal with transfers of ownership, say within a family or from a INC to an LLC where the tax wouldn't apply.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/24/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9472) 12 years ago
For Gunnar who is so mush smarter than the rest of us.

What does the text of Bristol Palin's tramp stamp have do to with real estate taxes?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+18269) 12 years ago
Its a difficult cross to bear, being that mush schmarter than the rest of youse.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+588) 12 years ago
Jay just proved my fears.... He didnt read a word of the amendment.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6167) 12 years ago
I didn't know the word against was a contraction.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15384) 12 years ago
Well, if you vote to decrease the size of your tax bill you are contracting it.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+588) 12 years ago
There was no tax to 'contract'. Is Richard an 'out of state' interest?
Top
Posted by Jay (+283) 12 years ago
Make a typo, hung by the nuts.
Bruce: Enlighten Me.
Wendy; Please go away.
You all know the message that I am trying to get across.
Work hard to get ahead, and the Gov. steals it from you.
Tell me why that I should bust my ass to prosper only to have to share with someone that does nothing but live off the system and bitch about those rich white guys and their oil that pay the way for some twit to have a noname job in a noname town that is paid for by grants and taxes. Fish pond syndrom comes to mind.
I am not agains't taxes, only the way they are spent.
Now I know why I left MC some 40+ years ago. Small mind town, small town retort.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+588) 12 years ago
Big picture view for you: Montana has/had NO law on the books reguarding a tax on real estate transactions. Now we have an amended constitution addressing a 'problem' that didnt exist. Its not about taxes as much as its about the misinformation and plain old 'knee jerk' fear reaction that surround the word 'tax'.

This type of 'manuevering' can, and will, lead to disaster: Think California and Prop 9.
Top
Posted by Jay (+283) 12 years ago
Bruce: I see nothing knee-jerk about heading off a problem.
Could give a rats ass about Cal. I am in Montana.
Thanks for your response. More is invited.
Yours is the few that make any level headed retorts.
Thanks
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12389) 12 years ago
YOU DON'T AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION OVER A POSSIBLE SPECIAL INTEREST TAX!!!

The discussion is not about the tax. It is about abusing the Constitution for special interest groups that bought our vote. Well, one rich New York land developer who bought our vote.

You should be up in arms that your vote was distorted and misused by out-of-state interests in order to damage the State Constitution.

If you are opposed to a type of tax, take it up with the legislature. DON'T AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9472) 12 years ago
It's always nice to see Jay classing up a conversation.
Top