Quite the reverse. Some are proposing having more things covered under sales taxes to bolster revenue that way (while simultaneously trying to limit property tax). They realize they can’t raise the sales tax rate but they try to cover more services under a sales tax umbrella.
And, for what it’s worth, the politicians aren’t totally dumb. They realize most proposals won’t actually decrease property taxes but they’re hoping to curb the rate of increase.
If Texas had an income tax, that could help balance things out better, but we’re stuck with property and sales taxes and that’s an unstable mix.
This is low-hanging fruit. Don’t property taxes fund public schools where the poor and other undesirables get an education the state is forced to provide to them?
Well, if the property tax is lowered landlords will pass the savings on to their tenants by way of reduced rent, right?
Right?
Prit’ near every time a school levy or bond issue comes up for a vote there are howls that only property owners should be allowed to participate. I guess I’m a right old Scrooge, because when I was a (reluctant) landlord I factored property taxes into the rent. Mea culpa.
If I had to guess, it’s low hanging fruit because homeowners, landowners, and business owners disproportionately vote vs. lower income apartment dwellers. So reducing property taxes is a fairly targeted way of giving voters what they perceive as relief.
Another thing… property taxes are at the county and school district level- statewide property taxes are forbidden by the state constitution. IMO, if we could have a statewide tax it would go a long way toward evening out a lot of the inequity we see in education and other services.
So whatever Abbott is proposing, it’ll most likely be kind of weird in the execution as a result.
In Texas? That’s absolutely a non-starter! The only aid they’re going to give them is a hand onto the bus going to DC or Chicago or Martha’s Vineyard or…
Well, duh. I didn’t say they’d DO it. I said it was one of the many ways that they could do Good Things with the money, also noting that Doing Good is too much like Socialism and the kind of malarkey that libruls indulge in.
The thing is, a lot of the things they’re doing aren’t necessarily fundamentally incompatible with conservatism, at least how it classically has been. Stuff like funding special education, caring for the disabled and very elderly, etc… at least to me, seems political affiliation neutral. Where’s the political argument in working to help a kid with disabilities or severe medical issues? This isn’t some sort of religious nonsense like their persecutory behavior toward the LGBTQ community, but rather outright callousness.
But the Texas GOP seems determined to go seal clubbing every year in the budgetary process, because those groups are expensive targets without a lot of political clout, and they get a lot of kudos from the average red voter for reducing state spending.
It’s almost mustache-twirlingly bad- “Let’s go yank our funding from those kids in wheelchairs and those mentally disabled kids. There aren’t that many of them, and most of their parents are nobodies. Meanwhile, we can trumpet our savings as reducing the budget. And if we spin it right, we can make this look like a blow against creeping socialism! Win-win!”
Sub in disabled people, institutionalized elderly, extremely impoverished, etc… and the thinking and result seems to be the same. Same goes for state worker pay- let’s put the screws to our own employees so that we can look good to the voters!
As a percentage of budget, no, they’re not expensive targets. On individual case-by-case basis, they can seem very expensive to the average person who doesn’t have to deal with those problems. “Why do they have two Special Ed teachers at that school?” Because you need people who understand their needs, not just baby-sitters. So, they fire one teacher, bring in 1 aide, and crow about saving money; meanwhile, the kids aren’t progressing like they should.
It’s just a hop, skip, and a jump to “after all, those people will never be wage-earning productive members of society” even if they make it to adulthood, so why spend all that money on them that we could have used for the deer lease, the trip to Aspen for the kids, or that decoratin’ that the missus wants to do at the beach house. /s
Oh gosh no, I didn’t mean to imply that cutting property taxes is their only option, rather that it’s the most “convenient” way to placate their most likely supporters and voters.
South Dakota has a similar discussion about reducing their sales tax. Unlike here in Minnesota where many essentials are exempt from sales tax (food, clothing, medicine, professional services, etc.) in South Dakota they apply sales tax almost every time money changes hands. The pushback in SD is it would cost the state something like $100 million, which seems like a pittance, but that amount goes back to poorest people, so we can’t have that!
Our last two governors were Greg Abbott and George W Bush. Clearly sense and governance have had little to do with one another in this state for a long time.
Great catch! I, like many people, would like to forget entirely about Rick Perry.
Nobody expects the Texan Inquisition! Our two last governor’s were Greg Abbott, Rick Perry, and George W Bush. And showing an almost fanatical devotion to Donald Trump
Texas GQP and the Conman. Brisket/BBQ vs. well done steaks covered with ketchup. That should have disqualified Oranganus from consideration besides being a NYC Elite.
Another of Abbott’s cronies comes out smelling like a slightly crumpled rose… but a rose nonetheless.
Four former aides to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have settled a suit against his office in which they claimed they had been fired in retaliation for reporting him to authorities for alleged corruption crimes.
According to the settlement agreement obtained by Hearst Newspapers, Paxton will pay $3.3 million total to the whistle-blowers. He will also remove a news release from his website that had been critical of the employees, and he will state in the agreement that he “accepts that plaintiffs acted in a manner that they thought was right and apologizes for referring to them as ‘rogue employees.’ ”
Paxton, a Republican who was re-elected in November, said Friday that the settlement “put this issue to rest.”
…
The settlement will likely be paid for using taxpayer dollars, as has Paxton’s defense thus far. As of last spring, taxpayers had paid about $200,000 of Paxton’s legal fees. Hearst Newspapers has asked the office for an updated figure.
The agreement states that it is contingent upon all necessary approvals. The Legislature will need to agree to appropriate the funds. At least one Republican lawmaker has raised concerns.
“I am extremely troubled and concerned that hardworking taxpayers might be on the hook for this settlement between the attorney general and former employees of his office,” Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, told the Texas Tribune. “I’ve spoken with the attorney general directly this morning and communicated in no uncertain terms that, on behalf of our constituents, legislators will have questions and legislators will expect answers.”
…
Post-Ulvade, you’d think they would be kicking some money to school security. Extra funding for locks, cameras, and monitors. Even better, more school counselors and social services and counselors. But nope.
