Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - $700 million in surplus

$700 million in surplus

Jun 19, 2008 - 06:36:58 CDT

By DALE WETZEL/Associated Press Writer

Estimates of North Dakota's budget surplus now total $740 million, and the state's budget director says the number is likely to grow still larger.

Pam Sharp told the Legislature's interim Budget Section committee on Wednesday that state budget analysts are crafting new estimates of tax collections. The numbers should be completed by mid-July, she said.

The new forecast is a normal step in the process of drafting Gov. John Hoeven's budget recommendations for the 2009 Legislature, Sharp said. Present tax collections are now compared to revenue forecasts that were published in March 2007.

Current estimates say North Dakota's general fund treasury, which is financed mostly by taxes on income, sales, energy, tobacco and corporations, should have a balance of $271.1 million when the state's two-year budget period ends on June 30, 2009.

A separate fund for surplus oil tax collections is expected to have at least $268.9 million. North Dakota's treasury also has a "rainy-day" fund that can be accessed during budgetary difficulties; it now has a $200 million balance.

Sharp described the oil tax estimates on Wednesday as "very much understated."

"Our forecast (in March 2007) was based on $44 oil. We're at $125 now," Sharp said. "Production (was estimated) at 116,000 barrels a day, and we're at over 150,000 barrels a day."

Drafting the new estimates involves consulting with Moody's Economy.com, a national economic forecasting company, and a "revenue advisory group" of North Dakota industry leaders and legislators who review the figures.

"We just talk about what is going on in their industries in the state, and we want to make sure that what they're seeing ... is the same thing that Economy.com is telling us," Sharp said.

From July 2007 through May 2008, sales tax revenues were running 9.4 percent ahead of initial estimates, with $441.5 million in actual collections, an OMB report says.

Individual income tax collections totaled $285.1 million during the same period, an increase of 25.8 percent over estimates. North Dakota's motor vehicle excise tax, which is a sales tax on cars and trucks, had $60.7 million, which was 18.6 percent ahead of expectations.

News > State

Printer friendly version $700 million in surplus

Comments

seven gone wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:12 PM:

" mot: yes, many (not all) of the uninsured DO choose to be uninsured. because they don't want to pay for premiums mostly. you're the one who needs to do the research. "

seven gone wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:04 AM:

" mot: what's the matter with you? did i say that only the uninsured make unwise health choices? no, only that the people who pay bills end up paying theirs because they choose not to when the bills come. maybe you should do the research.

look, i've worked at hospitals and seen patients for twenty years now, and i'm not about to get a lecture from some socialist with her moveon.org playbook of responses as to what the problems are. yet again ...READ THE QUESTION ... what is your answer to make socialist healthcare AFFORDABLE for the masses? sure, hmo's etc are top heavy ... what is your plan ... and your pal obama? to abolish them? good luck.

you seem to be so versed in fraud, perhaps i'm out of my league with you ... but again, how are you going to solve it? i think you come back to an argument of many previous that i've had with you, that the only way to reduce it is to reduce the "socialism" or "paternalism" by making all these stupid programs that people bilk. whether it's hurricane relief, or the farm bill (with your fiscally "frugal" and corrupt conrad), or health care ... the solution is self-determination. not the govt to do everything. has the govt under any admin managed the veterans with any responsibility and frugality. hardly ...

so do your only research before you blather on about nothing. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:30 PM:

" And for you to so arrogantly state that those who are uninsured CHOOSE to be uninsured just proves that you have absolutely no clue about the severity or scope of the problem. You may want to try researching THAT as well. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 7, 2008 6:31 PM:

" If you are suggesting that only uninsured people smoke and make poor healthcare decisions, than you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If you work in healthcare, then you should be familar with how insurance actually works. Insurance overbilling for administrative salaries, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse of funds through fraudulent billing practices by healthcare providers couldn't possibly be a foreign concept to you could they? Apparently so, if you are naive enough to blame the cost of healthcare on the uninsured. Maybe you should look at how much money is wasted on fraud and abuse and how much money could be saved by cracking down on white collar abuse. Why don't you also check with your white collar friends at Blue Cross and see how much their CEOs made last year, how many trips they took, and how many perks and bonuses they get. I bet you'd be suprised. Excellent example of Capitalism (coorporate fleecing) at work for such a socialist like me. I hope you do some better research before you respond again. "

seven gone wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:42 PM:

" and the uninsured are most definitely ones that contribute to pushing up the cost of healthcare. because they engage in self neglect and then present to e.r. with larger problems that they don't want to foot the bill for. the hospital then eats the charges to care for them, and that cost is passed on to the regular customers. then you complain things are not "affordable"???

all of which is why you need to specify just how you're going to make health care "affordable". whose toes collectively get stepped on to accommodate your lovely socialist notions? "

seven gone wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:38 PM:

" and again, to the issue of the "uninsured" ... many of them are actually uninsured because they choose to be. they want to spend their money on other tangible things like vacations and cigarettes etc and don't want to pay premiums because they don't want to.

then they sit around and cry when something happens. strikes a more general chord with insurance though, if people choose not to insure themselves, or can't get insurance because of dangerous lifestyle habits they've chosen to pursue, or even for property damage hurricanes etc ... everybody seems to want the govt to run in with bales of money and make everything good.

that is most definitely not the role of government, in my view. "

seven gone wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:15 PM:

" mom of teens: i think you're partly right, but only headed in the right direction ... as i work in healthcare, i think i can tell you of something relating to "cya", and the influence of lawyers and ambulance chasers like edwards -- ?a democrat?

the evil influence of lobby covers both parties territory quite handily, oil or pharma or whatever else ...

constituting what would be affordable and how one would attain that however it appears you have no concept of. what's your magic plan ... price controls? salary controls? capitation? it's one thing to propose some hypothetical notion, it's quite another thing to go from calling it "affordable" to making it so ...

that's one of the probs i have with your pal obama, and by deflection hillary ... to talk of something, whatever "time for a change" gee that's what the people seem to want to hear. but you can change for the worse, just as you can change for the better. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:08 PM:

" There's a big difference between socialized free medicine and affordable health care; making something affordable doesn't have to mean breaking you and your Republicans friends' bottom line as long as wasteful spending is under control. You want to blame someone for the rising cost of healthcare? Blame the insurance companies, the drug manufacturers and big medical corporations who by the way are the second biggest lobbyists in the country. The uninsured or the UNDERinsured generally don't seek medical treatment unless they ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO; because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO, so they are not the ones pushing up the cost!! Affordable doesn't MEAN socialized; there is a common sense way of doing things if Republicans could fathom the thought or embrace the idea! "

seven gone wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:20 AM:

" no, mom of teens, but you're close to identifying one of the reasons/differences. oh how demure, "society as a whole" ... and of course only the democrats can decide how that phrase is interpreted. and for that matter, who the money is taken from to give to "society as a whole". repubs, excluding bush and his spending, think the money beyond a basic minimal deduction for the running of society should be left to those that earn it. dems feel it's the responsibility of anybody making money to pull the cart for anybody who "doesn't".

as i said before, when some stupid financing effort like the federal initiated drug plan or the democrat lauded socialized healthcare system comes to bear, where do they want to go to finance all that nonsense? take a big guess ... btw,
anybody rooted in the real world knows that socialized medicine is a failure; i've lived years in both canada and the u.s. and i can tell you that more people speak highly of the american system than the rationed canadian system. i had better coverage overall in the states than i've had while living in canada. but the socialists KNOW WHAT"S BEST FOR EVERYBODY instead of letting people determine matters for themselves.

so if they elect obama, whatever, i really don't care. because as a minion, you and i have no sway for any of this anyway. but if you think things are bad under bush, if you think the way to solve the riddle is with more taxation and frivolity, you're in for a big surprise. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 4, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Perhaps you should consider that when Obama gets elected...... You act as though only Republicans work and pay taxes and "contribute to society". What exactly do you think your AND MY tax money goes for? CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY!!! SOCIETY as a WHOLE; not just people YOU think should benefit; that's the big difference between a democrat and a republican.
. "

seven gone wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:54 PM:

" mom of teens: hardly ... you're party isn't interested in paying taxes. only in jacking them up for the people that work and contribute to society.

but i would disagree with your underlying premise that i wouldn't want you naive socialists to go somewhere else ... anywhere else for that matter. i sure would ... all of you that feel and express your standard garbage about bush being the worst president, lack of freedoms and liberties, patriot acts, wars here you want us to get involved in //eg//the rwandan genocide, wars you don't want us to get involved in, nothing , but NOTHING is right for some of you leftist clowns.

for all that you collectively seem to be tortured to live in the state, and live in the country, you should go somewhere else like venezuela and experience what civil liberties under socialism are REALLY like. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:52 PM:

" Seven gone, I explained the difference between throwing money at something and INVESTING; since you still obviously don't know the difference; you and I will just have to agree to disagree; as for the Venezuela comment; I would think a die hard republican like yourself wouldn't WANT me to move; after all, it is YOUR party who is getting rich off the rest of us, isn't it?? "

seven gone wrote on Jun 29, 2008 3:45 PM:

" mom of teens: throwing money at programs just to think you're doing some investing is utterly foolish. for all the whining you socialists do, why don't you take the advice of "economic conservative" and just move somewhere else like venezuela where you'd feel so much more comfortable with your socialist throng? "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:38 PM:

" And one more thing, call me a socialist all you want; but I would rather be consistent with my beliefs and where I stand than be a socialist only when it SUITS me; like you are! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 28, 2008 1:35 PM:

" And you seem to think that INVESTING in education is a bad thing; while at the same time, thinking that you DESERVE a tax cut when there are programs that CAN be improved with a part of the surplus; You confuse throwing money at something with INVESTING! Again, you need help with your definitions! Throwing money at something would be like giving tax rebates to people to blow on stupid things just to TEMPORARLY stimulate the economy and then end up with nothing to show for it. INVESTING would be PUTTING MONEY TOWARD economic development, educational programs and facilities, scholarships, etc. that would have LONG-TERM benefit for ND and the residents. You obviously still don't understand the difference. You also assume that I am and HAVE been in favor of all government spending over the years, and since you no nothing about me, except that I am articulate and show common sense when I post, you really don't KNOW what programs I have and have not supported over the years. But I would like to think that ND took a lesson from the federal government and won't just give away the surplus foolishly and then have no money when they REALLY need it. And as someone already MENTIONED, we all just RECEIVED a tax credit on our income taxes for property tax relief; not enough for you huh? 10% is a decent amount in my opinion. Simple concepts; but apparently DIFFICULT for you to understand. "

seven gone wrote on Jun 28, 2008 11:55 AM:

" INVESTING???? you, a socialist! lol, oh please ........ just because you throw money at something doesn't make any program better. it just gives it more money. you think a jet plane the govt spends 500m on flies any better than one they spent 250 m on 5 years before? you think a-rod or barry bonds hits or anyone pitches any better than they did before they sign their hundred million contracts? usually worse.

maybe you should learn something about economics yourself. you seem to have a problem with your definitions. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:54 AM:

" And to seven gone, just because education didn't take for "some people", doesn't mean it's not a good thing for everyone else. I would RATHER see SOME of the money (SOME NOT ALL) invested for education than have it go to people who have the "me me me" attitude and think they are entitled to it. It's not giving the money away for people to squander, it's INVESTING in our young people, the economy, and salaries. I have a Webster if you would like to look up the definitions of spending and investing; there is a big difference! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Seven gone, you are obviously the one in favor of the state having a deficit since you seem to think the governor should do what Bush did and give away the surplus, then when something happens and the state needs the money, it won't be there. My view on the state saving the money is not promoting a budget deficit, in case you haven't figured that out already. You would think the Republicans would have learned from Bush's bad example, but obviously you want business as usual and borrow borrow borrow to finance everything. You just don't get it and never will. "

NN wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:37 AM:

" Seven Gone: I never said anything about increasing taxes, in fact I'm all for lowering our most problematic tax, property tax. I think that if you polled most people, that's the tax that they would like to lower the most. I think a big chunk of the $700M should go towards accomplishing this. And yes, I do think that we should save some....since when is the government any different than an individual. Saving some is a good thing...when we have hard times, it will come in handy, and until then, we can get millions interest to use for other projects, programs, etc. Also, there are a lot of infrastructre projects that need to be done, so if we have the money, and can improve the state, why not? Just my opinion. "

seven gone wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:32 AM:

" NN: truly brilliant. right from the democratic left wing stockpile, lets start stockpiling it all up --- in fact, lets go out into a recession, up the taxes on anyone (other than the socialists) so that we can promote for the future. in fact, we can even increase spending future - well said , huh, mom of teens, the same one who complained about bush, spending and budget deficits , remember all those postings? i figured, you forgot, yeah. so, then, lets spend and spend --- lets increase the number of schools we have ... and increase the salaries of the teachers too ... like that will do anything at all for the iq of anyone in the state.

can't have it both ways, hypocrite. and the next time there's a deficit, they can come and take it out of you, because you seem to be all for this kind of stuff. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:11 PM:

" NN, very well said! "

NN wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Here's what I think about the surplus: Most of the surplus is not attributable to the regular taxpayer, instead it's from all the oil companies that have come to ND, so I really don't feel that I am entitled to the money. Second, I think that most people should look at what's been happening in most other states, and that is very large deficits...and once oil isn't booming, look for ND to fall into that category. If we vote to lower taxes it will be bad for ND. We don't pay very much in income taxes as it is right now. I can't stand all the people complaing about property taxes, how quickly we forget that a 10% tax credit was just given out for 2007 and 2008, and if you listened to the govener's idea about lowering property tax by increasing funding to schools, which would lower property tax by an estimated 50%, you wouldn't want to lower income taxes because that's not where people are overtaxed. If we vote to lower income taxes, forget about property tax releif, saving some of the money for when ND is not in such good times, and forget about all the infrastructure issues currently facing ND. Let's be smart about this. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:26 AM:

" You're implying that I don't pay taxes, which couldn't be farther from the truth. But just because I'm in the paying taxes club doesn't mean I feel entitled to a cut of the money. I would just as soon see the money invested in better school facilities, quality summer programs, art and music programs, and quality education for the young people of the state. Apparently spelling and grammar seems to a be problem here also.... "

seven gone wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:44 PM:

" oh bravo, mom of teens ... all this time govt was supposed to be by the people, for the people, of the people, or some such "garbage" like that. no a deficit that they come to the people for to fund thru taxes, is funded by the people. a surplus when they over charge is no longer of the people, it is of socialist overlords like you who complain about whiners like us (*that actually , ahem, pay taxes, not like you) who actually want to keep some of our money.

why should i bother to read all of your posts? i don't think you read them even as you write them (you sure don't use your brain as you manufacture them). "

Nuttin rong with Mom of teens wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:49 PM:

" She thinks money should be spent on government functions like, say education? Below you will see one of your fellow citizens thinks $700 million is enough to make us all millionaires. Maybe some more money for education might not be a bad idea. "

kk wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:05 PM:

" mom of teens does not get it and it is not worth the effort trying to change her "

Mom wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:53 PM:

" to JB; My 'opinion' is that there should be no state run businesses that compete with the private sector (that includes those that have been around for 80 years). "

Economic Conservative wrote on Jun 26, 2008 6:06 PM:

" Me thinks mom-of teens would do well living in Venazula and working for Chavez. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 26, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Seven gone, I'm not going to go into yet another lengthy discussion about my position. I already stated it several times; state money is state money; we don't necessarily get to dictate where it goes; if you pay child support do you get to come into your ex's home and dictate where it goes??; I don't think so. Revenue to the state is state money; not your money; not my money. And if you had actually read ANY of my posts, you would have noticed that I'm not in favor of the state government wasting the money on "crap." I posted some of the things the state could spend the money on already. I also don't think that the state should waste money giving tax breaks or rebates to a bunch of whiners like yourself who think they are entitled to the money; JUST because you are a taxpayer. How exactly is THAT not socialism?? There are plenty of other ways to benefit from the money without it going directly into YOU pocket! You are one of the many hypocrits who likes socialism only when it DIRECTLY benefits you. So, why don't you give ME a break?? "

JB wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:40 PM:

" To seven gone: All, and I do mean ALL, government is socialism. You can't get around it. "

seven gone wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:01 PM:

" mom of teens: just how naive can you really be? a surplus in budget is a surplus. every thing that is tax (and even to you, a dedicated socialist) goes into the pot to contribute to that surplus. sales tax, income tax, gas tax, etc etc etc etc (and all too many etc in my opinion). even the new buzz word carbon tax ... give me a break. a tax is a tax is a tax.

money that is in excess is the property of the taxpayer. the last thing i would want(though obviously not a socialist like you) would be for the govt to expand its largesse and waste it on other crap, which like the rest of govt simply expands and expands in domain as the years do pass.

give it back to the people who it belongs to. "

Just Curious wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:04 AM:

" p.s. The following link is for those who think ND state and local taxes are too high. ND ranks #39 in state and local taxes. Only 11 states have less of a state and local tax burden. I must admit I was somewhat surprised at our federal ranking though.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/473.html "

Just Curious wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Let us not forget that there are two measures on the ballot this upcoming fall.

The first is to reserve everything above $100 million from the oil tax revenue.

The second is to slash state income taxes on individuals by 50% and corporate income tax by 15%.

The state could likely afford to pass one of these measures, but to pass both of them will have the Jesse Ventura effect on ND's state budgets. Those of you who live in the Valley probably best remember Ventura giving back all of Minnesota's surpluses in his first two years, then really struggling with govt deficits for the remainder of his term. It wasn't pretty.

I always recommend budget cuts by identifying the programs or infrastructure that you are willing to go without as opposed to just taking the money away without giving some guidance on how to do the same with less money.

I mean seriously, who here says I am going to live on less by just going out and getting a lower paying job? Someone, anyone????? OF course you don't, you say I'll keep this great paying job and stay out of the bar this week, go to fewer movies, etc, etc.

That's my suggestion. ND made the mistake in the early 1980s of thinking high oil revenue was here to stay. Then the oil money disappeared over the course of a couple of years. It sucked! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:46 PM:

" JB, I'm sorry. I re-read afterwards, and realized that. I apologize very much. "

JB wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:18 PM:

" To Mom-of-Teens:

I wish people would read MY posts carefully before commenting.

I specifically stated I was addressing my comment to "Mom" not you. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:01 PM:

" JB, I really wish people would read my posts in their entirety before commenting. I said nothing about the Bank of North Dakota. I am trying to limit my comments to the $740 million dollar surplus that so many people feel they should get a check for. Yes there are state run businesses, but that is not the issue. The issue is that tax money is not money that "belongs" to the taxpayer. The state of ND has a surplus NOT just because of taxes but also because of oil revenue and other things. HAVING A SURPLUS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE THE TAXPAYER TO A REFUND OR REBATE JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY SHOULD GET ONE! There are other more intelligent ways to invest and spend the money, plain and simple. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:57 PM:

" kk, You missed by point entirely. I'm not SAYING that the government is our employee; I'm saying that just because we pay money into the state doesn't mean we "own" that money and get to have a cut. I've been pretty clear on that point. I understand that you feel you are being overtaxed; that is not the issue that I am disputing you on. I am disputing the fact that I don't think that refunding money back to the taxpayers (which includes MYSELF) is a good investment when there are so many OTHER things that can be done with the money. I think you are the one who doesn't understand, you are entitled to your opinion, I just happen to disagree that having a surplus "entitles" us to get a cut. "

JB wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:39 PM:

" I have to differ on one point with "Mom" (not "Mom-of-Teens.")

We've had two state-run businesses for 80 years (the Bank and the Mill). They both compete with the private sector, and always have. It's a little late to object to it now, isn't it? "

kk wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:08 PM:

" to MOM OF TEENS~ I do not know what you are trying to say??? Are you saying that the STATE is our employee??? I think you are really missing the WHOLE POINT and I am tired of trying to make you understand~ we all get it~ except you~

We are over taxed~ whichever way~ income property~whatever~ the state of ND is obviously overtaxing us since they are the only state that has such a huge huge huge surplus ~ plain and simple

they the politicans are getting paid~ heck they are begging for raises~ why not give back to us???? "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:56 PM:

" The state ISN'T a "profit making entity". But it needs REVENUE to conduct business and provide state funded programs. They can't function if they give all the money away to taxpayers for them to spend on themselves. I have tried to explain that in many of my posts. Taxpayers benefit from state tax dollars in lots of ways. I doesn't need to be a check or a refund per say. For soldier, that is true; when you are overpaid with your employer, the money should be refunded. Technically it would be theft to keep that money; however, that is a different situation than paying taxes; you may FEEL that you are overpaying in taxes, but if you are paying according to the tax laws and tax codes, then there is nothing illegal or no theft on the part of the state. That situation doesn't apply just because you think it should. And I agree with the whole teachers salaries and better schools thing too. I think that would be a good investment. Investing in education is always a good thing, businesses, salaries to keep people in the state; that would all be better than giving someone a rebate check to spend. Better in the long run. I can think of one school in particular that could use a new building that has been overlooked and a school that is not condusive to quality learning; Jeanette Myhre. Pretty tough to learn in a school with no walls, lots of noise, and no decent equipment or library facilities. I'm done now. "

Mom wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:23 PM:

" I'd like to see some increases in school funding and teacher's wages. To Mom of Teens; I understand where you're coming from but I have to say that the state IS us, so yes, it is our money. The state should not be a profit making entity, nor should it be in competition with private business. The funds should go towards the people in some fashion or another. Hopefully the elected people will choose wisely in what they spend 'our' money on. How about a way to put some money towards helping people pay for their medical bills, or prescriptions costs? Whatever it's spent on I hope it isn't spent frivilously on huge rest stops or such. "

Soldier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:28 PM:

" I can honestly see where everybody is coming from. However, I would like to point out on minor detail with Mom of Teens last post. She stated that when an employer gives you money it is no longer his money. That is not exactly true. I remember receiving a paycheck (direct deposit into my bank account) that I wasn't supposed to receive. Basically I was over paid and had to pay it back to the employer. No problem, mistakes happen. Same should happen when a state receives too much in taxes from the residents of the state. The state is not here to make money they are here to provide for the people. They were overpaid and it needs to be returned one way or the other. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Law, I realize that but the point I was TRYING to make was once the money goes to the state; it BELONGS to the STATE! I don't consider state money to be MY money; nor do I expect a refund or a rebate of the surplus. Taxes are revenue to the state; that money does not "belong" to the taxpayers, it belongs to the state. When you earn money (revenue) and you put in an bank account; the money is yours; when you give the money to the state (revenue) and they put it in a bank account; the money is NOT yours; it belongs to the state. When your boss gives you a paycheck, that money no longer belongs to him; when we give the state money; that money no longer belongs to us! I don't know how many different ways to say it; but I'm pretty sure I'm being as clear as I can be; those who still don't understand that; well, that really isn't my problem.... "

to this is nuts wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Well last time I looked even with three kids I paid in a pretty penny in state taxes. Not sure why it seems to you people barely pay state taxes? could this be based on wages maybe? "

Law wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:07 AM:

" The state has overtaxed its people therefore there's a surplus. Cancel the income tax and use the excess oil tax revenue to replace it. There is still plenty of oil tax money and sales tax money to run the state and cover the infrastructure costs associated with the oil boom. Mom of teens, workers earn their money, the government doesn't. Once you earn something it is yours. "

This is nuts wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:52 AM:

" This forum is dripping with self centered greed. When each of you go take a look at what you actually paid in State taxes maybe you will understand that the surplus was not generated fromYOU!!!

Why should it then be refunded to you, or do you think that since some industries are generating enormous revenues for the State that it should be used to lesson your tax burden instead of being reinvested in the State.

Where revenues are created there are many not so noticable infrastructure costs directly associated with them. Some of the tax revenues should be reinvested in the areas that generated them. Get real it is not my money either!!

It is a real opportunity for the State to save rural North Dakota; if it wasn't for that self centered greed problem! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:09 AM:

" kk, so everyone who makes money from their employer then, means the money isn't yours, it's your employer's money? Is that the stand you are taking? Even though you earned the money and it's in your bank account, the money belongs to your employer because the money CAME from THEM?? That's apparently the logic you want to use; so I guess "what's mine really ISN'T mine" and "what's yours really isn't yours" even if you earned it. Yes, the money CAME from taxpayers, but is also came from oil production and other things. I would venture a guess to say that your "cut" and Mat's "cut" and Vetter's "cut", and soldier's "cut" is just a drop in the bucket. I maintain that the money belongs to the state, not to individual taxpayers; the oversight of the money needs to entail fiscally responsible; not overspending on nonsense. "

kk wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Geesh MOM OF TEENS~ do you think the state makes the money???? WHERE DO YOU THINK IT COMES FROM????? Get real here~ they get some of it from us the TAXPAYERS and they are hoarding it so that THEY can decide HOW TO SPEND IT~ no democracy here that is for sure "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:23 PM:

" But Mat, that is exactly my point. State money is not YOUR money; it's not MY money either. The money belongs to the state fund and should be used to fund programs that benefit and better the state. This will indirectly benefit taxpayers; you don't have to have a check in your hand from the state to prove that this money can benefit you as a taxpayer. That's been my point all along. Sorry that some of you don't understand that. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Just because I don't expect a refund from the state doesn't necessarilly make me well off, I just think there are better ways to INVEST the money. Doesn't make me a socialist either; if I was a socialist I would say yeah give ALL the money back to the taxpayers so they can blow it all. Vetter confuses the words socialist and common sense.... "

kk wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:35 PM:

" seems like MOM OF TEENS has a few friends that do not get it either "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:45 PM:

" There are plenty of ways to give money back to taxpayers without actually cutting them a check for a measely grand. Through social programs, schools, etc; why do people assume that the government cutting them a check will solve all their problems; it didn't work with the Bush administration and it won't work with ND. Hopefully our leaders here will be smart enough to realize that. 200 million is NOT that much money when you think about all the programs that could benefit; giving away 500 million dollars for taxpayers to spend is just stupid. Investing the money, so that the money ACTUALLY LASTS and doesn't run out any time soon is SMARTER. What don't people understand about that. You don't need a degree in economics or accounting to know that the more you have the more you spend; and the reason the country is a mess (and INDIVIDUALS also) is from overspending! Being smart with money and actually using the common sense that God gave me doesn't make me a elite socialist; but it does differentiate me from Vetter apparently. "

mat wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:17 PM:

" WE can argue all day and night about what to do with the money, it is an idealogical dispute. I get that and even if I totally disagree, I can respect your opinion.
What is really scaring me is that a few posters on here seem to think that they know what others are going to spend thier money on, and more importantly feel that they should have a say on how it is spent. My money is my money, I will spend it how i please (legal activities). These are the freedoms we enjoy (along with all of us being able to put our two cents in). "

Vetter wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Mom of teens is an elite socialist, she'll never get it. "

Dantes Inferno wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Giving the money back is dumb! Are you people with your Hummer H2's and your Duley pickup trucks, who go mudding and tearing around on 4-wheelers for fun SERIOUS? That is what you are going to sped the money on. GAS!! For your gas guzzling noise making machines. You people could not save a penny to save your lives. And if you do Spend it...guess what - you'd sped it on E-bay or mail order crap because you can't buy anything good in North Dakota. Why? Because businesses fail around here if they are owned by people out of town. Get over yourselves North Dakota...to you i have a sixth sense. I see people beyond our borders...ooohhh scary. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Jun 24, 2008 1:46 PM:

" You know, 700 million dollars is not that much money. This challenged leader of ours has manage to spend 500 million dollars on a radio station [Alhurra] in Iraq that somehow spews hatred and anti American rhetoric 24/7. Heck of a job georgey! I'm still waiting to hear what happened to that missing 12 billion dollars [ an amount so large it could be seen from space] Now how are the republicans better with our money? They always rail against us that......"Throwing money at a problem will never solve it.''.... except when it comes to the Pentagon, Haliburton,Bektal and Iraq. Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Not one more dead soldier!!!!!!!!! "

kk wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:33 AM:

" MOM OF TEENS~ you are fighting a losing battle here~ we all see that giving the taxpayers some of their hard earned money back is a good thing and it does stimulate the economy a bit BUT more importantly WHY SHOULD THE POLITICANS BE IN CHARGE OF OUR MONEY AS A SAVINGS PLAN??? What are they waiting for???/ Create jobs NOW~ even if they gave money back and still had 200 million that is MORE THAN ENOUGH

Start paying attention or your teens will be leaving this state and you will be crying "

Soldier wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Mom of Teens: I know a lot of people that an extra $1000 would make a big difference to. Not everybody is as well off as you. Regardless of what the state chooses to do with this massive surplus, I am just stating what I think should be done with it. If they choose not to give out refunds, I am fine with that too. Ideally I would love to see them help lower the property taxes for the entire state even if it is just a little bit. That extra $1000 would cover a lot of my property taxes. It would also help me get closer to being debt free. But hey, that is just my opinion. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:20 AM:

" Mat, I'm not confused about anything, just stating my opinion that giving money to people to spend on frivilous things isn't necessarily a good investment. Look at our economy and you will see that. Most people are over their heads in debt; if they had money saved they wouldn't BE asking for handouts from the government! And how is expecting a tax rebate NOT expecting a handout from the government?? I think maybe you are the one who is confused. "

mat wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:37 AM:

" mom-of-teens:
Are you serious? If you give money (tax dollars that taxpayers paid in) back to the taxpayers, they will spend it!!! That is good. That means taxes will be collected on the goods they bought, and gov't gets more $$$. That is the whole premise behind refund checks. the Feds didn't give (return) us money back so we could save it. They gave, (umm sorry, returned) it to us to spend.

Here is an econ lesson for you. When you BUY goods taxes are collected, govt runs on the taxes. The more money spent, the more taxes collected for govt!!

Who are you to say how your friends, neightbors, etc are to spend money (i can "blow my money on something stupid" if i want to). The key is that we all take personal responsibility so that when we are broke we don't whine to govt for a handout (welfare, not tax refunds). I could sense your confusion about the two. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Soldier, I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. Less than a thousand dollars a person is hardly enough to made a huge difference in any one person's life, and it wastes 500 million dollars. I just don't think that is wise, practical, or necessary. Some people might pay down some debt or put gas in their vehicle, but how many people do you think will blow the money on something stupid that they don't need? The money is better served invested for long term growth, so that our state will never run in the red, and to fund programs that are needed, but have had severe federal or state budget cuts. The way I see it, that's the smartest way to use the money. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:12 PM:

" kk, and where exactly did I say I didn't OWN anything? You made that assumption yourself. My original question was, why is it whenever there is a surplus, people automatically think they should get a cut of the money. It doesn't always work like that and it shouldn't always. People don't save like they should anyway, so what happens when they get extra money in their pockets, they spend it. I was merely stating that refunding money to taxpayers isn't necessarily the best investment; morally right or not. "

Online Editor wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:52 PM:

" To haze: We're working on it. "

Soldier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:38 PM:

" I still believe that atleast part of this refund should be given back to the residents of North Dakota. Just doing a google search I was able to find out that there are approx 514,000 people aged 18 and over in North Dakota. If you take say $500 million of the surplus you can divide that amongst the population and each individual would receive approx $972.76. That would still leave $200 million for a rainy day or whatever is needed. "

DuWayne Hendrickson wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:02 AM:

" As a Independent Governor candidate I have been thinking of many responsible ways, and a few things that people may say is irresponsible ways to give this back to the citizens. One of my first suggestions would be to raise teacher pay.. I still think that these people get underpaid for the job THEY do to teach OUR kids a lot of what they will need in the real world. Another would be to use it for the school portion of our property taxes.If ND continued as it has I would use it to eliminate property tax. There are many other ideas out there by common sense people. As for a tax rebate I am still trying to analyze the good and bad from that...Oh and I almost forgot, we could always spend 150 million on that new NDSFairplex facility to bring in a whole new dimension of things to do in ND, and more reasons for tourists to come here....And as for a statement made about the Tribune not covering stories they are right. Being a former resident of Bismarck, I attended Simle and BHS.I am also running for Governor of ND.Does the Tribune run a story. No.Why Not. John Hoeven supporters is probably the reason. I wonder if they will take advertising money. Check out www.dakotapolitics.com and read my press release for my Governor campaign. The Tribune wont run it. "

kk wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:30 AM:

" by the way I have re read all of my blogs and I do not See where I am saying spend spend spend????? I said refund some money back to the taxpayers~ that is fair~ why should we keep paying in so that the state can stock pile and then choose what they want to spend it~

There are alot of people that could use this break~ and there would still be plenty for roads ~ mind yoU~ taxes are NOT going down so the money will keep piling in~ "

kk wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:27 AM:

" to MOM OF TEENS~ give me a break~ look who is making judgements! I want to spend??? I want the people to get some of their hard earned money back~ not sitting in coffers that the politicans have set up and think they can spend whenever~

and as far as owning and not owing~ I own farms businesses and homes~ free and clear so you wanna match dollar for dollar here???? "

Why Oh Why wrote on Jun 22, 2008 9:22 PM:

" With all this talk of surplusses and whatnot...why isn't the Tribune discussing the ethics investigation that is currently being conducted on Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenejhem? Pot hole Bob's alleged philanderings are potentially the biggest story of the year for the Tribune yet all is quiet. What's up? "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Traveler, I'll give you that, but how is government spending solved by giving away a huge surplus back to the taxpayers for them to squander on big screen tvs at WalMart, etc and then not have money in a fund when they really need it?? Our federal government is the perfect example of that and ND should learn from that huge mistake. The surplus was given away and squandered and then 9-11 happened and we went to war and had to fund the war by going into debt. How was that a good thing for the country? Look at the mess we are in now. How many states can actually say they have a surplus? I'm curious if ND is not in the minority; it wouldn't suprise me. How is our state government irresponsible with money in your opinion?? Obviously they were responsible enough to amass a surplus so great that taxpayers want a piece, and other states are probably envious. Now what they need to do, is invest a portion of the money to generate income for the state; and use some of the money to programs that are suffering; giving the money back to the taxpayers won't solve anything, won't create long-term wealth for the state budget, and won't fund needed programs. It's just foolish. Did most people save their federal rebate? I doubt it very much. "

Traveler wrote on Jun 22, 2008 8:08 AM:

" mom of teens wrote: "Refunds to taxpayers why?? Didn't we just GET a rebate from the federal governement?? Is everyone broke again?? Alot of good it did then huh!! LOL! That's the problem..."

No; it isn't the problem. The problem is government spending is out of control.

The basic question is do you trust the governmment to be a better steward of your money than you are? I don't. By the design of our system, the government does needs a certain amount of money to maintain solid infrastructure like highway systems and core education. Beyond that, much of our money is simply squandered on highly questionable special programs and pass-thru's to special interests; 'pork', if you will.

Any true surpluses that accumulate only invites governmental entities to search for ways to spend the money. I'll bet breakfast for everyone on this forum that as soon as the news came out about the surplus in ND, people started thinking about how to get a piece of it for their pet projects or agencies. That's not saving because you have extra, that's spending because you have extra. And once you've raised the bar on that 'needed' amount, good luck trying to cut it from the budget next cycle. "

ND permanent fund wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:30 PM:

" ND PERMANANT FUND- anyone who has a little common sense knows if you invest and spend the interest we will have money for ever for public projects as well as a refund every year for ever "

JB wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:08 PM:

" The best course of action for spending it does appear to be roads, probably built and rebuilt in oil country where the traffic is heaviest. Maybe spend some on some wind turbine research too. Send the rest to the Expatriate Retirement Fund c/o my P.O. box.

If you're going to save it, you can't spend it on ANYTHING soon, no matter what. Which is a good solid ND idea too. "

NoDak John wrote on Jun 21, 2008 5:27 AM:

" W. I totally agree. Putting money into needed roads and bridges benefits all the working people and industry in North Dakota. Pouring money into what I call the touchy feely projects, in truth, benefits no one and is nothing more than a transference of wealth.. For that road to stand up to heavy traffic for 50 years is surely something to behold. A 10 year road life, in some states, is considered a good working figure. It would appear that your piece of road was built by a contractor who had some pride in his work. Must have been a North Dakota company. Hopefully the replacement will meet those same standards of quality. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:31 PM:

" "Clearly mom of teens owns nothing so she does not get it"

UH, no clearly mom of teens OWES nothing; she does get it; she gets that a surplus is a good thing; it's the DEBT that kills us... "

W wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Sorry boys and girls but you do not need a tax rebate and that includes me. Rebuild some highways in this state. I live close to a highway that leads into SD that is heavily traveled. This road was built in 1958. It served its purpose for a long time but it needs rebuilding. There are no shoulders and the pavement is so rough in places that you must slow down for fear of ending up in the ditch. Rebuild now because it looks as if things are not going to get any cheaper. "

LJK wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Save it for a rainy day- there are sure to be some downpours coming soon. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:27 PM:

" To change, squandering a surplus isn't my idea of "change". And no, I wouldn't give it to Kent Conrad, but I wouldn't give it to YOU either; sense of entitlement attitudes really bother me; clearly you have the attitude "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine". Sounds like someone needs to grow up to me. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:23 PM:

" kk, clearly YOU have nothing SAVED since your attitude is spend spend spend. Don't make assumptions about me; the reason I OWN things is because I save and I don't go into debt to buy things; if you believe that a surplus should be squandered, that sounds like a personal problem to me. "

This is nuts wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:47 PM:

" This is great! I believe some of the money would be best spent not only improving the infrastructure in the rural area of the state but also provide funding for rural economic development.

We have enough Sykes and other big box call centers in the cities, creating tons of low paying jobs and sucking the rural towns dry. Money needs to be invested in micro-manufacturing in small town North Dakota. We need to reverse the trend of creating ghost towns and redefine what economic really deveopment is.

I know many of you that feel this revenue, which is being generated from rural North Dakota, should be used for your benefit rather than the benefit of rural North Dakota. Unfortunately, the Gov. would probably agree with you. "

Oil Impact County wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:47 AM:

" This huge surplus is mostly generated from the 16 oil producing counties. What needs to be done is to give more of the dollars back to the counties where they came from. We have roads and bridges that need maintainance. Our infrastructures when they were built, weren't built with this kind of traffic in mind. It wasn't even imagined. Now, our roads are in shambles and the bridges need replacing. The counties do get some of the oil royalty dollars back, but not enough or in a timely manner. What we need now, are dollars to help with the added expense of this oil boom. The oil is a tremendous asset to the state, but I hope it doesn't have to be at the expense of western North Dakota. "

to kk from change wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:17 AM:

" well reading the other blogs kind of sounds like she would like to give it to Kent. HA. I agree we put our money and our taxes are very high not just property. I do agree we need a surplus for rainy day but not 700 mil. somebody needs to do better math and get this balanced to a reasonable amount. back to the road and bridge thing.. that is already figured in to projects that we as tax payers are already paying fo so you are telling me you want to pay double for the same project? when a road or bridge needs repair they do it and figure that into the budget. "

Socks wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:53 AM:

" Check and repair the roads, bridges and levies/dams. "

kk wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:22 PM:

" clearly mom of teens owns nothing so she does not get it~ I agree~ PROPERTY TAX RELIEF!!! Burleigh COunty is the highest county in the State of ND and ND is one of the highest states for property taxes~

And by the way MOM OF TEENS~ why shouldn't we get money back???? It is OURS that we put in~ why should it go to politicans or something else????? "

mom-of-teens wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:31 PM:

" Refunds to taxpayers why?? Didn't we just GET a rebate from the federal governement?? Is everyone broke again?? Alot of good it did then huh!! LOL! That's the problem; God forbid money ever be saved; always has to be spent! Why is it everytime there is a surplus; people automatically assume they should get a piece of it? A state or a COUNTRY for that matter having a surplus of cash is a GOOD THING; not a bad! Being in DEBT is the problem. DEBT bad; SURPLUS good..... DEBT bad; SURPLUS good, uuumm k?? "

dante wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:05 PM:

" we got a surplus? lets start a war. give no-bid contracts to our pals, and watch us get richer...oh, wait a second, that's already being done, and the surplus is long gone, and only a select few are getting rich?... never mind... "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:35 PM:

" PROPERTY TAX RELIEF NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! State government is not in the business to make a profit. Wake up Hoeven!!! "

kk wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:03 PM:

" send out those refund checks! "

NDGuy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:24 PM:

" I did not comment on this article (yet). Someone used ND Guy not NDGuy. Please do not confuse this with me. IMHO we need to take the surplus, improve the infrastructure (public buildings, roads, sewer, water, schools, etc.) of our State and not add one dollar to the state legislature's paychecks. Let's add some for the state employees, they are underpaid. Lets get some to our teachers and our road maintenance crews. Get some to the guy that drives the snow plows (heroes) and our police and Highway Patrol (great folks all). But not one dollar to our legislature or government officials. We need to take care of what we have and the people who take care of it. We don't need to take care of professional politicians. "

To Hootie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:21 PM:

" You are a hoot. I don't think it would make everyone in ND a millionaire, but maybe everyone in Wishek! or Lisbon! or New Rockford! or Lincoln! or... me! "

Traveler wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:37 PM:

" The idea of banking the surplus for a time when it is 'needed' has some merit. Unfortunately, the reality is that government can't keep their hands out of the pie. Special projects, special programs, special interest handouts - all start as great ideas and usually end as boondoggles since politics and money are involved. Do something with at least a large part of the surplus that reduces the already high taxes and living expenses for everyday people! The best government is the least government to all but the career bureaucrats. That includes money management. "

Lucky Lotto wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:00 PM:

" I want to bank mine on 1000 lottery tickets, then I could really get rich! You can't win if you don't play. "

Hey Hootie. wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:31 PM:

" Check your math. $740 million is enough to make us each a thousandaire. "

Razors Edge wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Wow 700 million huh. You know if we got a 10% return on our money we'd get 70 Million back every year. After 10 years we'd be saving money. I think the state will be around 10 years from now, but who knows. If we waited another 6 months or so it will be at a trillion, and that'd be 100 million a year back. If you really wanted a refund you could get one every year based on the interest. 100 million / 635,867 = $157. That would only buy you another 3 gallons of gas per month at $4/gallon, but at least you'd get it every year instead of a one time deal. But that would require our politicians not spending like drunken sailors. Do you think they are sober or drunk from money? "

JMV wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Jimmy,

56% of your property tax dollars go twards public schools, 22% to the city of bis, 13% to the county and 9% to parks & rec. Over the years the State was funding schools 70% and now its around 40%, leaving the tax payers to pick up the balance in the way of property taxes. "

Forward Observer wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:50 PM:

" The population decreases and taxes (especially property taxes) keep going higher. Brace yourselves....with every high, there is a low and ND is going to suffer an economic crash. The crashes have happened before and will happen again..... "

JimmyCrackedCorn wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:19 PM:

" I was thinking that same thing Hootie. A little more if you want some general info, I know it's Wikipedia but it gives value and history accurately.
Payout was 1600 or so dollars per person last year, and no state taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund "

JimmyCrackedCorn wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:14 PM:

" I'm currently paying over $5000 a year in property taxes in Bismarck, and as much as I'd like to have that reduced, it is in fact a city issue not so much a state one. (By the way if anyone knows where my 5g goes by percentage or where I can access that info I'd love to know.) Since a large portion of this revenue is generated from a finite source I think it should be invested in some manner. One must be leary of things like state owned operations, private industry exists and should not be infringed upon by the state. It would be nice to see teaching salaries lifted out of the depths as well. In the end if we are unable to find investment, perhaps an overall reduction or elimination of the state's income tax would be the fairest for all. If nothing else, we could loan the money to Conrad for apartments to buy, I understand he has great credit, maybe he'll call Hoeven to get the loan, it should be low risk, give him a great rate.
p.s. I'm probably a little bit on the republican side, but isn't two terms enough for a governor. Fresh ideas, new faces. Power and government can get to a person despite the best efforts to prevent them leaching in. "

Hootie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:10 PM:

" Permanent Fund Dividend.
https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/
$740mil is enough to make each and every citizen of North Dakota a millionaire. "

coming back wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:57 PM:

" This is our chance to really develop and mold the state into what we want. We need to focus in on our key assets and build on that. "

FlyOnTheWall wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Racist Biker (and all others): if you really want to save for the future, vote YES on Measure 1 this November. By doing so, you'll take some of the largesse that we are receiving now due to big-time oil production and invest it for future generations, rather than letting the governor and legislature spend it all now.

Again, vote YES on Measure 1, the "Permanent Promise" for oil revenues. "

to racist biker from change wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:38 PM:

" I agree alot of the money will come from oil. SO? That is a benefit to the citizens is it not? not sure about you but last time I checked they were making alot of money off of me. about time some of that money comes back.... To add even without the oil money there would still be a huge surplus just from regular taxes. I do not agree that the money should be spent on projects they have enough of them going on and are already figured into the budget so why spend more money on stuff we are already paying for? can't figure that one out? I also agree a surplus of money is a good thing but to what extent? 700 million is beyond excesive it has waht almost doubled in a year or two? goes back to me saying people are not doing there jobs. "

Racist Biker wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:56 AM:

" No this is NOT 'our' money it is really the oil companies footing the huge surplus. If we wanted to 'fair' it should go back to those that paid it. As much as I'd like to see about an $1100 refund check (700 mil / Est. 2007 pop. 639,715) in the mail, I would rather see this surplus go into some sort high interest saving account and saved for when the bust comes (which it will). Then it be used to keep our taxes the same for how ever long it takes to use up the money. I know I'm dreaming that won't happen they will increase spending and refunds to property owners instead. No one ever thinks about the future. "

ND Citizen wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:55 AM:

" I think the public has spoken - just read thru these comments. Sounds like we want an immediate refund to tax payers. You can just tell the comments that have come from the government sector - they all want to keep the money! We don't need more government projects controlled with our money. The private sector always does a better job handling projects anyway! "

From the South West wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Surplus is a good thing folks ---- such a problem I am sure many States would like to have---- refunding to tax payers is maybe good -- but there are many projects around the state that need attention : for example bridges, roads, State Parks, elementary and High-schools, international Peace Garden, etc. I would not like to see the money used for pay raises for state officials, but for things to benefit all, and maybe to keep property taxes steady, if not lowered, at the very least. "

middle of the road wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:40 AM:

" Wow! It sounds like all of this surplus came right of of the pockets of some of you posting comments. Fact of the matter is, it's coming to all North Dakotans because of the blessings we have in natural resources. I'm all for lowering our property taxes, and possibly our income tax or sales tax rate could be adjusted, but I'm also not ready to give up the services we have like good roads and schools. North Dakota is a good place to be right now and for many reasons. If you don't like living here, there's 49 other state governments to go live under. "

change wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:24 AM:

" I voted for Hoeven and he has had plenty of time to change this huge surplus. He will not get my vote again. We as North Dkoatans need to take a stand and let our ELECTED officials realize they need to work for there pay! Including the other three. I don't know about the rest of you but if i don't do my job I get fired. And obviously having this big of a surplus somebody is not doing there jonb. Don't get me wrong a surplus is good but 750 million dollar surplus is not good and can have an effect on the economy. "

Millie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:07 AM:

" How about investing it in a refinery in ND and lowering the fuel costs by doing so? This would make more sense than giving us a one-time tax refund. "

Economic Conservative wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:00 AM:

" To Grumpy: The only thing I have seen as of late suggesting a use for some of these surplus funds is to raise the incomes and per deims for the Republican (?)controlled legislators. I know, I for one, am really tired of having to pay over three times the national average for property taxes while receiving minimal services for my tax dollar. I would imagine that a large part of that surplus is going to be needed this winter for public assistance given the fact that in our great state, according to DHS, you can't feed, clothe or house your family of four under the Republican (?) leadership if your income is less than $38,200.00 per year. yes, I think you are right, the leftie leadership of Hoeven and the Republicans (?) will surely find a way to waste this surplus given the economic climate of rural North Dakota. "

In the Know wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:57 AM:

" The last time our Republican legislature met, they could not wait to spend all of this "extra" money. I will not be voting for any Republicans in any election unless we get significant tax relief soon. "

Nickel Trophy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:57 AM:

" woohoo! Now the North Dakota Higher Education Board can get that 5000% raise in their budget that they were asking for a few months ago!!!!!!

:) "

kev wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:35 AM:

" The entire amount should be refunded back to the citizens. Most of us will use the refund to buy goods and services. So, the state will still end up with a big chunk of it back after sales taxes and such anyways. "

WhatTha wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Legislature: it's OUR cash, not yours. This $$$ needs to go back the the citizens of North Dakota! The governor should call a special session now to reduce taxes instead of spending the surplus, or at least propose a BIG tax cut for the next session. "

Traveler wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:20 AM:

" This surplus is great and I want to see the plan for refunding this to the people. With gas approaching $5 per gallon I can use it a lot more than having state government waste it or pass it to insiders. As someone noted, there are some big elections coming up! Let's see the plan. "

Common Sense wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Great to hear! Legislature: let's start getting some of that back into taxpayers' hands and subsequently, into our economy...big elections in 2008 and 2010.... "

Soldier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:35 AM:

" I would like to seem them take this surplus and lower the taxes for everybody. It would be great if they could find a way to lower the property taxes. "

My Opinion wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:34 AM:

" Return the surplus to the people - we need it - we won't be able to heat our homes or eat this winter with fuel prices what they are so send it back to us. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:00 AM:

" Here come the lefties...there will undoubtedly be many posts offering up great ways to blow this surplus... "

ND Guy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:38 AM:

" There should be an immedaite refund to taxpayers of a large amount of this surplus as it is realized. A lowering of tax rates at the very least. Left in the hands of state government, you can count on much of it being squandered on 'special projects' and 'rainy day funds' of questionable value. The usual 'special interests' will be lined up at the trough for big handouts. Just look at what has happened in the past to see what will happen in the future. Legislatures and government are not the best stewards of the people's money. The people are. Keep enough to operate the state at current levels and refund the rest for the direct benefit of the citizens. This will be a voting issue for me. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.