Pizza said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

Pizza said:

---

What's funny is that you have active/current legislators that own Property Tax Agencies/Companies.

They are behind the legislation for increases in exemption amounts (I believe bettencourt is behind the 140k increase in HS exemption), but eliminating property tax all together is something they DO NOT support, as this would eliminate the businesses they own.

So in order to eliminate property taxes homeowners in Texas have many things to consider. Two of the bigger points are:

1) if property taxes are eliminated how does the state make up an ~80Bil loss in revenue.

2) if influential legislators own property tax agencies/companies, what is the best way to go about voting them out of office; as they will most likely oppose the elimination of property taxes due to their conflict of interest

---

Tariffs. The state could impose tariffs on all imported goods...

---

That is an option, but when costs increase for a supplier, sales prices of their goods/services inevitably increase, so the consumer is still effectively taxed

It isn't an easy problem to solve, and will take an enormous amount of time to do properly imo.

---

They will not solve it because they are weak and have to many personal interests

What? The State of Texas cannot institute a tariff, and even if it could, how does it fund like Fayetteville ISD, or an emergency services district in Llano County, or The Woodlands?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains, which I thought Republicans were against.

---

I will agree to freezing property tax assessments when the IRS starts disallowing 1031 exchanges

samurai_science said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains, which I thought Republicans were against.

---

It is but the rate is extremely low. The alternatives will be more invasive to those already paying the majority of taxes. The average Texan pays less than $4k in property taxes. I mean how low does it need to be?

---

I don't care if I only paid $1,000 a year on property tax, I still don't think it should exist. I believe in property ownership and you don't own your property if you have to pay the government to live there.

---

And your suggestion to fund the state government?

---

Cut spending, a lot

---

Again, how do you fund what is left after the cuts?

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Contrary... No freezes or exemptions for seniors. If they can vote for the bond or budget they can pay full freight.

If anyone wants to carve themselves out of the fees, then surrender your vote

---

This. My house's former owner was a senior and I used to get post cards addressed to her from the ISD telling her to vote "yes" in the next bond election , and to not worry since her taxes were frozen and would not increase.

Such BS

JJxvi said:

---

Pizza said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Bettencourt is anti-tax and is one of the few morons that get themselves elected that actually understands the system. I fear what we'd end up with if he were voted out by a "get rid of property tax" movement.

I am in the same business, so you can dismiss my opinion safely though.

---

Of course. It's biased, which is completely understandable.

I don't think bettencourt is going to support eliminating property taxes, given that there would be an adverse impact to his business.

If property taxes were eliminated in such a way that he could restructure his business to meet the needs of property owners with whatever new system was in place however that might make sense.

---

Is it a "conflict of interest" for a lawmaker to vote for the elimination of property tax because they "own property"?

---

I don't believe that's an apples to apples comparison though, despite logical similarities. This is due to the specific benefits resulting from each of the 2 situations.

1) a legislator wants to eliminate property taxes so they don't have to pay them. Slightly Beneficial

2) a legislator wants keep property taxes in place so their business continues to thrive, while slightly reducing the burden on those they make money off of. Very Beneficial

Point 2 seems more egregious, because it takes advantage of a position of power for significant personal benefit.

Legislators who fall under point 2 will fight much harder than those under point 1 imo.

Prefer a higher consumption tax as I can control my spending. Also would prefer income tax as I can control my income. I cannot control the annual increase in the value of my house and my property taxes - unless I move to a less desirable neighborhood.

Tom Fox said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains, which I thought Republicans were against.

---

It is but the rate is extremely low. The alternatives will be more invasive to those already paying the majority of taxes. The average Texan pays less than $4k in property taxes. I mean how low does it need to be?

---

I don't care if I only paid $1,000 a year on property tax, I still don't think it should exist. I believe in property ownership and you don't own your property if you have to pay the government to live there.

---

And your suggestion to fund the state government?

---

Cut spending, a lot

---

Again, how do you fund what is left after the cuts?

---

Give me the list then we can go line by line and figure out if it's covered by sales taxes or not

Pizza said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Pizza said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Bettencourt is anti-tax and is one of the few morons that get themselves elected that actually understands the system. I fear what we'd end up with if he were voted out by a "get rid of property tax" movement.

I am in the same business, so you can dismiss my opinion safely though.

---

Of course. It's biased, which is completely understandable.

I don't think bettencourt is going to support eliminating property taxes, given that there would be an adverse impact to his business.

If property taxes were eliminated in such a way that he could restructure his business to meet the needs of property owners with whatever new system was in place however that might make sense.

---

Is it a "conflict of interest" for a lawmaker to vote for the elimination of property tax because they "own property"?

---

I don't believe that's an apples to apples comparison though, despite logical similarities. This is due to the specific benefits resulting from each of the 2 situations.

1) a legislator wants to eliminate property taxes so they don't have to pay them. Slightly Beneficial

2) a legislator wants keep property taxes in place so their business continues to thrive, while slightly reducing the burden on those they make money off of. Very Beneficial

Point 2 seems more egregious, because it takes advantage of a position of power for significant personal benefit.

Legislators who fall under point 2 will fight much harder than those under point 1 imo.

---

Also number 1 benefits his voters

They may tinker with caps, exemptions, mil rates, etc. But they will never make a significant reform that limits their take.

A consumption tax is acceptable but no exemptions.

I have a feeling for a lot of Texans the property tax bill will be lower than the consumption tax bill.

The non starter is an income tax.

Tom Fox said:

---

A consumption tax is acceptable but no exemptions.

I have a feeling for a lot of Texans the property tax bill will be lower than the consumption tax bill.

The non starter is an income tax.

---

I will take that risk

Will the bill pass….?

JJxvi said:

---

The issue is still politicians using value increases as budget increases rather than lowering their rates and trimming down, and will always be that. These exemptions are just relief valves to claw some of the tax increases back that result from rates not being lowered when values go up.

---

Values should be headed lower in many parts of the state...certainly housing prices have been declining a bit in many areas.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Contrary... No freezes or exemptions for seniors. If they can vote for the bond or budget they can pay full freight.

If anyone wants to carve themselves out of the fees, then surrender your vote

---

Can we apply that to income taxes at the federal level as well?

WestAustinAg said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

The issue is still politicians using value increases as budget increases rather than lowering their rates and trimming down, and will always be that. These exemptions are just relief valves to claw some of the tax increases back that result from rates not being lowered when values go up.

---

Values should be headed lower in many parts of the state...certainly housing prices have been declining a bit in many areas.

---

Depends on the comps they use

WestAustinAg said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

The issue is still politicians using value increases as budget increases rather than lowering their rates and trimming down, and will always be that. These exemptions are just relief valves to claw some of the tax increases back that result from rates not being lowered when values go up.

---

Values should be headed lower in many parts of the state...certainly housing prices have been declining a bit in many areas.

---

My value in Bastrop dropped 12.4%. Market here is extremely slow relative to 2023.

chjoak said:

---

Only real solution....... Homestead exemption is an actual exemption.... ZERO tax paid on your homestead except when purchased. Residential rental properties, commercial properties, etc..... still taxed. If the county needs to make up funds either stop giving huge corporations tax breaks or slightly raise sales tax.

---

Exactly.

People complaining about property taxes probably don't realize how far DOWN their tax rate has gone as their valuations have gone up. The hit on them is minimal while commercial properties are paying 30-50% more since 2019.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains, which I thought Republicans were against.

---

Republicans don't run the Texas House.

hth

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Property taxes are a tax on unrealized gains, which I thought Republicans were against.

---

Republicans don't run the Texas House.

hth

---

Exactly. Democrats are getting exactly what they wanted out of their deal with Burrows. Those idiots that have an R next to their name that voted for Burrows need to be run out of office covered in tar and feathers in the primaries next year.

The problem is the appraisal boards. For instance, my ranch in Kendall County is in one of the most multi-year severe droughts ever, with empty stock tanks. The local appraisal board seemingly doesn't know this, or doesn't care, raising taxes every year. Ag Value ain't what it used to be.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Contrary... No freezes or exemptions for seniors. If they can vote for the bond or budget they can pay full freight.

If anyone wants to carve themselves out of the fees, then surrender your vote

---

I'm a senior and have a tax freeze. I always vote against each and every bond proposal.

We have no tax issue in Texas. We only have a spending issue. Cut spending.

I Don't like high increases in property values/taxes, but as local govts keep spending, and Feds keep printing money causing inflation. Inflation keeps housing values high. Right now local govt. is trying to catch up on the past three years of annual 20+% inflation. Sad but true.

Property taxes are a great taxing mechanism.
- Property taxes encourage property to productive. The State should encourage private property to be productive. Whether it is a lot in downtown Houston, or a farm in the middle of nowhere. Property taxes encourage you to do something with the land. If not, a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out. Far fetched, but without property taxes, we would have a limited number of land owners and most people would be renting from these few landowners. Why would they ever sale.

Also, don't make the argument about never owning land, just "renting from the Govt". If you do not pay your sales tax or income tax, the govt will still come after your assets. ie your land/house

samurai_science said:

---

Pizza said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Pizza said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Bettencourt is anti-tax and is one of the few morons that get themselves elected that actually understands the system. I fear what we'd end up with if he were voted out by a "get rid of property tax" movement.

I am in the same business, so you can dismiss my opinion safely though.

---

Of course. It's biased, which is completely understandable.

I don't think bettencourt is going to support eliminating property taxes, given that there would be an adverse impact to his business.

If property taxes were eliminated in such a way that he could restructure his business to meet the needs of property owners with whatever new system was in place however that might make sense.

---

Is it a "conflict of interest" for a lawmaker to vote for the elimination of property tax because they "own property"?

---

I don't believe that's an apples to apples comparison though, despite logical similarities. This is due to the specific benefits resulting from each of the 2 situations.

1) a legislator wants to eliminate property taxes so they don't have to pay them. Slightly Beneficial

2) a legislator wants keep property taxes in place so their business continues to thrive, while slightly reducing the burden on those they make money off of. Very Beneficial

Point 2 seems more egregious, because it takes advantage of a position of power for significant personal benefit.

Legislators who fall under point 2 will fight much harder than those under point 1 imo.

---

Also number 1 benefits his voters

---

That can't be overlooked lol. The general public is fickle though, and any boost someone gets one year will be trumped by next years complaints.

Signel said:

---

Grok says

Gambling Revenue Estimates:

• Casinos: A 2021 study by the Texas House Research Organization estimated that legalizing casinos could generate $1.4 billion to $2.6 billion annually in tax revenue, depending on tax rates (e.g., 15-25%) and the number of licenses. Las Vegas Sands has projected up to $4 billion annually with destination resort casinos.
• Sports Betting: The American Gaming Association estimated in 2023 that legal sports betting could yield $500 million to $1 billion annually in Texas, based on a 10-20% tax rate and market size (Texas' population and sports culture suggest high demand).
• Expanded Lottery: Adding more games or online lottery options could boost revenue. The Texas Lottery generated $2.4 billion in 2024 for public education and veterans' programs, but expansion could add $200-500 million annually, per legislative estimates.

These funds could be earmarked for property tax relief, such as funding school tax rate compression or increasing homestead exemptions, reducing homeowner bills without an income tax.

---

Texas lottery says hello...

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

They also leech off of the security that big brother to the north gives them. We spend over 3% of our GDP on defense. Canada is 1.3% and Mexico is 0.9%.

---

I'm actually kind of good with those numbers.... Just saying...

Guess I'll point it out again...until you change how public schools are funded in Texas then you are not getting changes to property tax.

Half of our property taxes go to the local ISD. Go f* with that funding stream and see what happens.

Property tax reform is a pipe dream.

MAROON said:

---

Prefer a higher consumption tax as I can control my spending. Also would prefer income tax as I can control my income. I cannot control the annual increase in the value of my house and my property taxes - unless I move to a less desirable neighborhood.

---

You control what house you buy and where… how is that different than "I control what I buy and when" and you can control your income"

HDeathstar said:

---

Property taxes are a great taxing mechanism.
- Property taxes encourage property to productive. The State should encourage private property to be productive. Whether it is a lot in downtown Houston, or a farm in the middle of nowhere. Property taxes encourage you to do something with the land. If not, a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out. Far fetched, but without property taxes, we would have a limited number of land owners and most people would be renting from these few landowners. Why would they ever sale.

---

cant remember if it was you or someone else i argued with about this subject

I take issue with part of what your saying when it comes to rural land





It is not good for every acre of land to be developed nor should it be. There is immense value in undeveloped natural land and an owner ought not be punished for preserving it as such.

FriendlyAg said:

---

MAROON said:

---

Prefer a higher consumption tax as I can control my spending. Also would prefer income tax as I can control my income. I cannot control the annual increase in the value of my house and my property taxes - unless I move to a less desirable neighborhood.

---

You control what house you buy and where… how is that different than "I control what I buy and when" and you can control your income"

---

It's a nonsensical statement for those that aren't wealthy enough to check out. Why would anyone purposely want to make less money who still needs to?

A tax on unrealized gains would be paid once on the unrealized gain and the tax on new value of the asset would be fully taxed and paid

You are paying a wealth tax that just by the status of owning a $500,000 home you get to pay the tax every year you own it
It does not matter what you paid for it the wealth tax is based on the CAD assigned value

Exemption increasing by $40k only means appraisal districts will be more aggressive to bring values up.

HDeathstar said:

---

We have no tax issue in Texas. We only have a spending issue. Cut spending.

I Don't like high increases in property values/taxes, but as local govts keep spending, and Feds keep printing money causing inflation. Inflation keeps housing values high. Right now local govt. is trying to catch up on the past three years of annual 20+% inflation. Sad but true.

Property taxes are a great taxing mechanism.
- Property taxes encourage property to productive. The State should encourage private property to be productive. Whether it is a lot in downtown Houston, or a farm in the middle of nowhere. Property taxes encourage you to do something with the land. If not, a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out. Far fetched, but without property taxes, we would have a limited number of land owners and most people would be renting from these few landowners. Why would they ever sale.

Also, don't make the argument about never owning land, just "renting from the Govt". If you do not pay your sales tax or income tax, the govt will still come after your assets. ie your land/house

---

I keep trying to make my home productive. I rent it to my wife, she opened a small convenience store in it but all our neighbors did the same thing to try and make their property productive so nobody has any customers.

It is hard to take seriously anyone who thinks "...a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out."

one safe place said:

---

HDeathstar said:

---

We have no tax issue in Texas. We only have a spending issue. Cut spending.

I Don't like high increases in property values/taxes, but as local govts keep spending, and Feds keep printing money causing inflation. Inflation keeps housing values high. Right now local govt. is trying to catch up on the past three years of annual 20+% inflation. Sad but true.

Property taxes are a great taxing mechanism.
- Property taxes encourage property to productive. The State should encourage private property to be productive. Whether it is a lot in downtown Houston, or a farm in the middle of nowhere. Property taxes encourage you to do something with the land. If not, a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out. Far fetched, but without property taxes, we would have a limited number of land owners and most people would be renting from these few landowners. Why would they ever sale.

Also, don't make the argument about never owning land, just "renting from the Govt". If you do not pay your sales tax or income tax, the govt will still come after your assets. ie your land/house

---

I keep trying to make my home productive. I rent it to my wife, she opened a small convenience store in it but all our neighbors did the same thing to try and make their property productive so nobody has any customers.

It is hard to take seriously anyone who thinks "...a few rich people could buy the whole state and kick everyone out."

---

It makes it unprofitable to speculate and have holdings forever.

pacecar02 said:

---

I take issue with part of what your saying when it comes to rural land

It is not good for every acre of land to be developed nor should it be. There is immense value in undeveloped natural land and an owner ought not be punished for preserving it as such.

---

I will agree completely, as long as that property is open to the public. Otherwise the public good is ephemeral. And if you or your family owns such a place, it is likely due in part to the cost of ownership for the previous owner (property taxes).

Logically there should be a cost to holding tracts of land in private hands-- if there is a tax based on property values and if the property in question exceeds the homestead amount.

Personally, I don't see property taxes going away; schools, their employees, and people screaming "what about the children?" make their elimination very unlikely.