96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I do agree there should be some sort of offset from the comparable sales prices especially as more time has past since the purchase. It assumes every single house is ready to sell as is at the same rate as a house that just sold, with likely a fresh coat of paint, a bunch of little things fixed here and there, a new roof, and other things needed to get a property sold 15 years after it was previously purchased.

B-1 83 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The full quote was:

Quote:

---

The right to vote should be stripped of all felons, and those who do not pay into not contribute to the entity that is the subject of an election.

Same for property taxes. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we use. That said if you're somehow exempt or yours are frozen, you cease voting in elections that determine how their spent/allocated or raised.

---

There is a valid argument that only people who pay taxes and/or own real property should be allowed to vote. The rationale being, those with an invested stake in the state who pay it's finances via taxation, are the ones who are most interested in the management of the government, and taxation rates/policies.

I am not sure why your grifter father's exemptions are expiring, but it sounds like you, and perhaps he as well, are quite interested in changing the government's tax policies, and I would support your continued rights to vote, though I think we should be making voting much harder for a lot of people. I am not sure what the right answer to property tax reform really is, but I don't think Texans are going to get rid of it, anytime soon. Ultimately, 'the king will always get his share.'

---

1. I know of nobody who pays no taxes. There is nearly $.40 a gallon on gasoline, sales tax, taxes on cable TV, taxes on your phone….. "If you stand too long, I'll tax your feet…….'cuz I'm the tax man…"
2. Dad died. His exemptions died with him, as they should.

---

Sorry for your loss, and that your dad will now be voting for Democrats. I don't agree at all with the gasoline tax structure, either. If we tax things, it is to disincentivize it, and I would prefer taxes always be prominently shown, ideally at least daily, to everyone paying them. RE: Gas tax, at least make the pump show the price paid per gallon to everyone filling up, and also tax the heck out of electric vehicle drivers. I think property taxes, like income taxes should be something paid directly by owners, not via escrow etc., at least monthly, to keep people aware of it, all year. Also, the state and federal governments should send reports to tax payers annually about their expenditures/where the damn money is going/being borrowed/printed, and list their reps/senators votes as such. If the government at any level runs a deficit, no current legislators should be allowed to run for re-election.

/rant, for now.

96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I've thought about that in the past.

But there might be an unintended consequence. I'd think this would cause the real estate market to grind to a halt.

I pay hundreds and hundreds more in property taxes, than when I purchased. If this rule was in effect, and I was considering moving/upgrading, it would be a massive jump in cost for me. I'd not only be paying the increased taxes for a new property, but I'd have to make up the difference in taxes that I hadnt experienced all the years I owned my existing home.

I would think a lot of people, who might otherwise move, would opt to stay put because of the massive tax savings.

Husky Boy Jr. said:

---

The most equitable way to tax is a state income tax but that is a non starter for the state GOP.

---

In theory, I agree here. When your income goes up, so does your taxes. You didn't have any income? Little to no taxes. Senior citizens can stay in their homes they've bought with meager wages.

BUT, very few states have the self control to implement just income tax or property tax. Now or into the future. So while I hate the idea of property taxes, I at least appreciate the constitutional amendment to forbid income taxes. And the law now to cap taxing authorities at 3% per year without a vote.

Wouldn't a lib or CM be in favor of him paying the maximum taxes since it's unfair for him to own land in the first place, and not pay "his fair share" in the other?

Gotta disagree with people on here.

Taxation is theft but we have to have it for a functioning society.

I prefer the property tax to income or sales because
1. It is negotiable - or fight your value. Income sales and worst of all vat are not negotiable. One formula that's it
2. Local control - ALL of your property taxes are levied by someone who most likely lives in your county and many times by you when you vote for a bond. Income sales and the vat all go to a higher jurisdiction that throws it into a pot you may or may not get back

New sales taxes to be replace property taxes will broaden the base and most likely be levied on house transactions- that's terrible

VAT - taxes professional services and every time an item changes hands - truly the worst tax ever

Also property taxes, for the most part, stay local. Every time you send a tax payment to a higher jurisdiction they always redistribute.

So no matter what changes you make you will be paying more in taxes for less services.

B-1 83 said:

---

BobaFettsClone said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

YOU ONLY RENT YOUR HOME from the county, schools district, etc…….

I also paid all the ranch taxes for my grifter dad. He had senior citizen and various VA/veteran's discounts (WW2, Korea, 2 tours of 'Nam). That's coming to a screeching halt next year. He shouldn't have been allowed to even vote according to a couple of posters.

Texas needs a tax overhaul. VAT or sales tax to replace property taxes.

---

I'm all about switching to a sales/consumption tax, not so much a VAT. Hell, I'd support a national sales tax to replace income tax. Of course, with a consumption tax likely comes a luxury tax, you know, gotta make sure the "rich" pay their fair share.

---

They "consume" more to make up for it, as a general rule.

---

That was my tongue in cheek nod to our 'eat the rich' crowd.

I may be the only one that likes property taxes.

In a relatively constrained market property valuations are not based on some innate value but rather what people can afford to pay on their mortgage and taxes. If that number is 30% off your take home pay, higher taxes means you can only afford a smaller mortgage and the property value will decline to match it.

In 2008 when house flippers in Phoenix we're seeing 500% annual gains, Texas was immune from the bubble. Why? Because a 3% tax adds risk to speculative buying.

Texas is a work friendly state and having affordable residential property for the workforce is in Texas' interest. Having no income tax is also in the worker's interests.

We don't want to be Kalifornia with sky high property valuations, interest only loans, and high personal income taxes. However once you retire and your income drops, those socialist states with high income taxes and low property taxes become much more attractive.

The moral of the story is be careful what you wish for, our prosperous economy is built on a foundation of low regulations, low (zero) income taxes, and modest consumption taxes. Alter that foundation and you alter the larger economy.

Property taxes are fine. No one would want income taxes, because that is what you get without property taxes. Sales tax/VAT will not cover it.


Land should be productive, and property taxes encourage that behavior.

AgGrad99 said:

---

96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I've thought about that in the past.

But there might be an unintended consequence. I'd think this would cause the real estate market to grind to a halt.

I pay hundreds and hundreds more in property taxes, than when I purchased. If this rule was in effect, and I was considering moving/upgrading, it would be a massive jump in cost for me.

I would think a lot of people, who might otherwise move, would opt to stay put because of the massive tax savings.

---

I don't necessarily see that as a net negative. More cash, less financing is a good thing.

B-1 83 said:

---

Wouldn't a lib or CM be in favor of him paying the maximum taxes since it's unfair for him to own land in the first place, and not pay "his fair share" in the other?

---

Maybe many would, but from my experience on here, many libs or CM's would just mock conservatives and accusing them of arguments they never make. I have never seen anyone on here make the argument that anyone who receives any type of govt benefits should be barred from voting. Not once, and I've been on here since 1999. Not saying it has never happened, just never seen it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I've thought about that in the past.

But there might be an unintended consequence. I'd think this would cause the real estate market to grind to a halt.

I pay hundreds and hundreds more in property taxes, than when I purchased. If this rule was in effect, and I was considering moving/upgrading, it would be a massive jump in cost for me. I'd not only be paying the increased taxes for a new property, but I'd have to make up the difference in taxes that I hadnt experienced all the years I owned my existing home.

I would think a lot of people, who might otherwise move, would opt to stay put because of the massive tax savings.

---

California tried something similar 20+ years ago. They cut property taxes but created a sales tax on all real estate transactions. Big businesses, i.e. Wal-Mart, quit buying property to build new stores and started doing long term leases instead. Revenues plummeted.

B-1 83 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Police, fire protection, courts, and other city and county services have to be paid some way or another. Property taxes are a fair way doing that. If you want to minimize property taxes, go find a a chunk of unincorporated land away from everything and live there.

---

That's not how it works……that's not how it works, at all. My ranch is miles from incorporated areas.

---

Dispersed costs, concentrated benefits

Good thing Huffines will eliminate ALL property taxes because he is a TRUE Republican /s.

We still have a mortgage, but we don't escrow. Sent the taxes in on Monday. I'll cry when the money leaves my account.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Taxation is theft.

---

Look, I Have been a diehard conservative since my youth, but this concept of taxation is theft is a bit ludicrous. There are certain spend items that benefit the entire country : military and highways being just a start. Now if you want to say that unaccountable spending is theft, I'll be all onboard

lobopride said:

---

Good thing Huffines will eliminate ALL property taxes because he is a TRUE Republican /s.

---

It sounds great, but what do you replace it with?

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

New sales taxes to be replace property taxes will broaden the base and most likely be levied on house transactions- that's terrible

---

Good point. It would only make sense to buy a home if you plan on living there for a long time. It would impact the RE market substantially in a bad way.

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

lobopride said:

---

Good thing Huffines will eliminate ALL property taxes because he is a TRUE Republican /s.

---

It sounds great, but what do you replace it with?

---

Rainbows and Unicorn farts according to his website.

96ags said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I've thought about that in the past.

But there might be an unintended consequence. I'd think this would cause the real estate market to grind to a halt.

I pay hundreds and hundreds more in property taxes, than when I purchased. If this rule was in effect, and I was considering moving/upgrading, it would be a massive jump in cost for me.

I would think a lot of people, who might otherwise move, would opt to stay put because of the massive tax savings.

---

I don't necessarily see that as a net negative. More cash, less financing is a good thing.

---

I can sell my house, and move the equity to another. So there doesn't necessarily have to be more financing. Often times, less to finance, if your property value improved well.

If anything, with the massive jump in the new tax burden, if you move...it might push people to finance more, so they can retain some of the cash.

B-1 83 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Police, fire protection, courts, and other city and county services have to be paid some way or another. Property taxes are a fair way doing that. If you want to minimize property taxes, go find a a chunk of unincorporated land away from everything and live there.

---

That's not how it works……that's not how it works, at all. My ranch is miles from incorporated areas.

---

Still he has a point. You call 911 expecting fast service without them asking first for your credit card number. You don't drive up to every county or state road and have a toll sticker scanned

B-1 83 said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Police, fire protection, courts, and other city and county services have to be paid some way or another. Property taxes are a fair way doing that. If you want to minimize property taxes, go find a a chunk of unincorporated land away from everything and live there.

---

That's not how it works……that's not how it works, at all. My ranch is miles from incorporated areas.

---

Congratulations on already optimizing your tax burden.

Here's another twist to the "taxpayers voting" concept………..

The 4 heirs to the family ranchito all live outside of that county. We pay taxes there, yet cannot vote on issues impacting taxes there. How do we solve that little pickle?

Just curious has anyone in College Station, ever seen a decrease in their taxes?

According to CS Mayor "we have a lot of money in the budget that we need to identify areas that it can be spent."

How about a rebate?

https://www.kbtx.com/app/2022/01/10/mayor-mooney-college-stations-next-big-project/

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Taxation is theft.

---

Look, I Have been a diehard conservative since my youth, but this concept of taxation is theft is a bit ludicrous. There are certain spend items that benefit the entire country : military and highways being just a start. Now if you want to say that unaccountable spending is theft, I'll be all onboard

---

You are talking about the free rider problem. 1) It's more or less a myth, 2) Everything the government does can be privatized, and 3) Even if the free rider problem were legit, it still doesn't justify government stealing money from people.

The entire basis for the legitimacy of government is social contract theory, which is complete and utter nonsense.

B-1 83 said:

---

Here's another twist to the "taxpayers voting" concept………..

The 4 heirs to the family ranchito all live outside of that county. We pay taxes there, yet cannot vote on issues impacting taxes there. How do we solve that little pickle?

---

Move there or sell the land

AgGrad99 said:

---

96ags said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

96ags said:

---

I don't mind the property tax system, but it should be based on your purchase price not a annual valuation.

As long as you don't add to or change the use of the property, the valuation should not change.

---

I've thought about that in the past.

But there might be an unintended consequence. I'd think this would cause the real estate market to grind to a halt.

I pay hundreds and hundreds more in property taxes, than when I purchased. If this rule was in effect, and I was considering moving/upgrading, it would be a massive jump in cost for me.

I would think a lot of people, who might otherwise move, would opt to stay put because of the massive tax savings.

---

I don't necessarily see that as a net negative. More cash, less financing is a good thing.

---

I can sell my house, and move the equity to another. So there doesn't necessarily have to be more financing. Often times, less to finance, if your property value improved well.

If anything, with the massive jump in the new tax burden, if you move...it might push people to finance more, so they can retain some of the cash.

---

Yes, but theoretically, your equity would be much higher because your dollars went to pay down the mortgage as opposed to property taxes.

However, in reality your taxes wouldn't really change under what I am suggesting because all of the taxing entities would increase their rates. Your net taxes would probably be the same, it would just be due to an increasing tax rate instead of some arbitrary combination of tax rate and appraised value.

Texas property taxes have always been outrageously high and high even when compared to other states that do not have an income tax such as Florida.

A significant component of the cost in El Paso when I owned a house there from 1999-2005 was the funding for R.E. Thomason hospital which served as the free-clinic for a significant portion of Juarez population. The corrupt local government just looked the other way and knew that Thomason was providing routine non-emergency healthcare for non-citizen non-residents that was just going to be a write off.

The public schools also cost double what they should because of the huge number of non-resident that commute across the border to attend EPISD and YISD schools. The open secret to walking around residency requirements for attending public schools was to get an extra phone line installed in the house of a friend living in El Paso. The landline phone bill used to be the most common document used for residency verification in El Paso. The local government refused to address the problem. The Mayor of El Paso's niece was a resident of Juarez who attended Coronado High School and nobody would ask the obvious question of why a non-resident non-US citizen was attending an EPISD school.

Getting property taxes cut depends on the willpower of Texans to stop paying for public services for non-residents by not electing politicians who allow the gravy train of free public services for non-resident patrons to continue.

Somehow, Tennessee manages to finance state government and services with no income tax, significantly lower property taxes, and only a slightly higher sales tax.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Taxation is theft.

---

Look, I Have been a diehard conservative since my youth, but this concept of taxation is theft is a bit ludicrous. There are certain spend items that benefit the entire country : military and highways being just a start. Now if you want to say that unaccountable spending is theft, I'll be all onboard

---

You are talking about the free rider problem. 1) It's more or less a myth, 2) Everything the government does can be privatized, and 3) Even if the free rider problem were legit, it still doesn't justify government stealing money from people.

The entire basis for the legitimacy of government is social contract theory, which is complete and utter nonsense.

---

The government does too much, but to privatize basic things like fire and police is extremely dumb. Anyone who has picked up a history book knows why.

rgag12 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Here's another twist to the "taxpayers voting" concept………..

The 4 heirs to the family ranchito all live outside of that county. We pay taxes there, yet cannot vote on issues impacting taxes there. How do we solve that little pickle?

---

Move there or sell the land

---

So I should have a vote in some of my property tax impacting areas, but not others? Ok…..

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Husky Boy Jr. said:

---

The most equitable way to tax is a state income tax but that is a non starter for the state GOP.

---

In theory, I agree here. When your income goes up, so does your taxes. You didn't have any income? Little to no taxes. Senior citizens can stay in their homes they've bought with meager wages.

---

Agree on the income tax.


Texas has a problem in major cities. Taxes on small pieces of land with no ag exemption is an issue. It encrouages crap production of houses to stop paying 2-3k per year for dirt. The cycle is to hurt land owners until they sell or build. Why not just leave the green space????

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Keller6Ag91 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Taxation is theft.

---

Look, I Have been a diehard conservative since my youth, but this concept of taxation is theft is a bit ludicrous. There are certain spend items that benefit the entire country : military and highways being just a start. Now if you want to say that unaccountable spending is theft, I'll be all onboard

---

You are talking about the free rider problem. 1) It's more or less a myth, 2) Everything the government does can be privatized, and 3) Even if the free rider problem were legit, it still doesn't justify government stealing money from people.

The entire basis for the legitimacy of government is social contract theory, which is complete and utter nonsense.

---

You don't really believe that, do you?

Do you?

B-1 83 said:

---

Here's another twist to the "taxpayers voting" concept………..

The 4 heirs to the family ranchito all live outside of that county. We pay taxes there, yet cannot vote on issues impacting taxes there. How do we solve that little pickle?

---

This keeps power in the hands of the residents versus allowing someone to buy small parcels of land in every county and have a say in every voting cycle. Counties with very few residents could easily be overwhelmed and silenced by a majority of outsiders who own property but do not live there. I don't think that's a problem you want solved as the consequences of such a rule would create a whole new set of problems.

evestor1 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Husky Boy Jr. said:

---

The most equitable way to tax is a state income tax but that is a non starter for the state GOP.

---

In theory, I agree here. When your income goes up, so does your taxes. You didn't have any income? Little to no taxes. Senior citizens can stay in their homes they've bought with meager wages.

---

Agree on the income tax.


Texas has a problem in major cities. Taxes on small pieces of land with no ag exemption is an issue. It encrouages crap production of houses to stop paying 2-3k per year for dirt. The cycle is to hurt land owners until they sell or build. Why not just leave the green space????

---

Its even more insidious if you believe that gentrification is a bad thing.

Property taxes push out poor property owners on newly valuable pieces of land before they could potentially want to sell. So while property taxes keep properties on track for the highest and best use (except golf courses which get an exemption), they are not helpful to the person who owns the property.

We have some friends who have lived multi-generationally in a home in a bad part of town, it is now an up and coming yuppie place. They are poor, hardworking large family. Property taxes stretch their ability to enjoy their own home and sell when they want to. They will probably have to sell in 2-3 years instead of letting their disabled son keep a good close spot to his job downtown his whole life.

Sidenote, I don't think gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing but all the underlying cons tie back to property taxes.