Over_ed said:

---

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.

---

This sounds like communism

Taxation is theft

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.

---

All true. If you pay a consumption tax, you had the money with which to consume, i.e. purchase. If you pay an income tax, you had the income with which to pay the tax. A tax on the value of an asset gives no consideration to the fact that you realized nothing with which to pay the tax.

FriendlyAg said:

---

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.

---

I am fine with someone purchasing real estate and holding it forever, if they so choose. Same as them buying stocks, bonds, gold, diamonds, artwork, or classic cars. Hold it as long as they like. It should be their choice to do with that which they own, not the government's nor anyone else.

Do you favor taxing all assets people own, or just real property?

My property value goes up higher than my spending or income most years. I shouldn't have to move to a worse part of town because I'm getting taxed on unrealized gains.

Yep. And if I lose my job, the county and city say "FU Pay me".

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

---

Republicans have been in charge of Texas for over 30 years.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

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

---

Republicans have been in charge of Texas for over 30 years.

---

Not in the house. Speakers Joe Strauss, Dade Phelan, and now Dustin Burrows have worked with dems in every session to make sure the top R priorities never quite get done

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"

---

Is this actually a real question? You don't control the ****ing CAD's appraisal of your house, bro.

If they wanted to change this they would've by now. They clearly don't and won't. But it is completely out of hand at this point.

txags92 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

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

---

Republicans have been in charge of Texas for over 30 years.

---

Not in the house. Speakers Joe Strauss, Dade Phelan, and now Dustin Burrows have worked with dems in every session to make sure the top R priorities never quite get done

---

Those guys are Republicans, right? If so, the Republicans have been in charge and how they act is still controlled by the GOP.

OH NO, I AM A COMMUNIST!!!! Really guys, at least try to follow the discussion instead on name-calling.

Pacecar was saying that some rural land should not be taxed because of the general benefit undeveloped land has for people.

Really??? Well then my fine choices in landscaping has a general benefit for my neighborhood, and I should not be taxed, right?

No disrespect to PaceCar, but let's just say I don't find his arguement presuasive, and instead made a suggestion (open to the public) where I would agree that the "public benefit" was worthy of not being taxed. And, in fact, is why some land (specifically conservation easements) gets lower taxastion, becasuse there is TANGIBLE public good.

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?

---

How about ****ing zero? Taxation is Theft.

Simply Howard Jarvis the matter and quit the *****ing. Get your own Prop 13 rolling.

Oh... then you'll ***** about sales tax. Better that than being taxed on unrealized gains.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

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

---

Republicans have been in charge of Texas for over 30 years.

---

Not in the house. Speakers Joe Strauss, Dade Phelan, and now Dustin Burrows have worked with dems in every session to make sure the top R priorities never quite get done

---

Those guys are Republicans, right? If so, the Republicans have been in charge and how they act is still controlled by the GOP.

---

In name? Yes. By action? No. They run as republicans to get elected, then court enough support from democrats to get elected speaker and spend each session thwarting the will of republican voters. Burrows was one of the guys who wrote the republican party rules saying you had to vote for the candidate for speaker selected by the caucus for speaker. Then when it became clear that neither Dade nor he would get the vote of the caucus for speaker, he went to the democrats and cut a deal with them instead. Guys like Stan Gerdes and others took large donations from Dade Phelan during their campaigns and joined the democrats voting for Burrows.

So to answer your question, Burrows broke the rules he helped write about what was required to be a republican in the house and he was elected with more democrat votes than republican votes. So no, in my mind he is not a republican and if the party has any testes, they will not allow him to run as one next election.

agwrestler 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?

---

How about ****ing zero? Taxation is Theft.

---

I'm ok with that, but I ask loudly for the cheap seats, what taxing mechanism should be used to collect taxes in lieu of property taxes?

Only a fool believes we will not have some form of state and ISD taxes.

Tom Fox said:

---

Again, how? Why is it so difficult to state your alternative!

---

I've never had difficulty stating my alternative. Cut spending and fund everything through flat income and VAT. Nobody gets a free ride and when you have property you own it rather than lease from the State. It's simple, fair, and ethical.

FIDO*98* said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Again, how? Why is it so difficult to state your alternative!

---

I've never had difficulty stating my alternative. Cut spending and fund everything through flat income and VAT. Nobody gets a free ride and when you have property you own it rather than lease from the State. It's simple, fair, and ethical.

---

What rate of flat income tax?

News flash.. You can reduce stupid government spending if you elect the right people, add a revenue stream for taxes, AND reduce property tax dependence all at the same time. You can also not have a state income tax, and give incentives to non-woke businesses so they create jobs and build the economy.

Imagine if you will, a government that doesn't suck.

So a consumption tax?

Tom Fox said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Again, how? Why is it so difficult to state your alternative!

---

I've never had difficulty stating my alternative. Cut spending and fund everything through flat income and VAT. Nobody gets a free ride and when you have property you own it rather than lease from the State. It's simple, fair, and ethical.

---

What rate of flat income tax?

---

Baseline funding is Spending = (Total incomes x % of income needed). Local districts can +/- consumption taxes as needed. Best guess is it lands at 1-2%

FIDO*98* said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Again, how? Why is it so difficult to state your alternative!

---

I've never had difficulty stating my alternative. Cut spending and fund everything through flat income and VAT. Nobody gets a free ride and when you have property you own it rather than lease from the State. It's simple, fair, and ethical.

---

What rate of flat income tax?

---

Baseline funding is Spending = (Total incomes x % of income needed). Local districts can +/- consumption taxes as needed. Best guess is it lands at 1-2%

---

2% would be a 80% state tax increase for me but acceptable. Anything over 2% would be a non starter.

I do not understand why you want to increase state taxes. 2% + a an additional consumption tax will be an increase for those already paying the lion's share of income taxes already.

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.

---

I don't even think it would require much of a raise in the total sales tax, if at all. What it comes down to is the state not being willing to give up any of their sales tax.

8.25% total sales tax in a city. The state gets 75% of that tax revenue, sits on a multi billion dollar surplus, and then brag about cutting property taxes because they know it doesn't hurt them at all in Austin because none of their revenue is generated from property taxes.

If they would just start allowing more of those sales tax dollars to stay local, property taxes could come down significantly. But we know they aren't going to take any money out of their own pocket.

My property tax is 3.3% of my income. A 2% income tax is a net savings. Regardless you eliminate something when it's not constitutional or moral and let the cards fall where they land. Not about what benefits Tom Fox or FIDO

FIDO*98* said:

---

My property tax is 3.3% of my income. A 2% income tax is a net savings. Regardless you eliminate something when it's not constitutional or moral and let the cards fall where they land. Not about what benefits Tom Fox or FIDO

---

Property taxes are less than 1% of my income. And money is fungible. I already pay over $300k in taxes now. It is absolutely about me.

If your property taxes are too high, move. Texas property taxes are extremely low and almost any other system will result in those already paying the majority of taxes, paying more.

If the feds moved to a consumption tax and so did the state, that would be acceptable. But I am more worried about my total tax outlay than the mechanism the government uses to steal it from me. The fed progressive income tax is highly immoral, more so that state property taxes.

nm, misread the post

Tom Fox said:

---

If your property taxes are too high, move

---

Sell the home I built, raised my kids in, and all the memories that go with it. Great solution. How about when you retire? You're still paying property tax. My solution doesn't punish you for life

Ghost of Andrew Eaton 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?

---

Tax the value I bought my house and then tax the actual gains when I sell it.

---

No, this is a giant wealth transfer from the young to the old as it locks them out of the housing market


This is how you get a Californian housing market

Reduce the tax rate and stop picking winners and losers with tax exemptions

I'll still be making that much in retirement through investments.. That is not a solution, but if I couldn't afford my house, I would sell it and downsize. If I couldn't afford the consumption tax, I would cut my spending habits.

Quote:

---

Texas property taxes are extremely low

---

8th highest property tax burden of all states is not low. We also have the 12th highest sales tax burden, combined with 0 state income tax gives us the relatively low total tax burden that is ranked 37th.


How the 50 States Rank By Tax Burden - CPA Practice Advisor

all we are talking about is how to divide up the where the money comes from - which is part of the problem. We should be demanding lower expenditures AND lower taxes.

I'm negative property taxes because it's based on a made-up number by a government authority. A number that provides $0 to my cash in-flow but adds to my cash outflow.

MAROON said:

---

Quote:

---

Texas property taxes are extremely low

---

8th highest property tax burden of all states is not low. We also have the 12th highest sales tax burden, combined with 0 state income tax gives us the relatively low total tax burden that is ranked 37th.


How the 50 States Rank By Tax Burden - CPA Practice Advisor

all we are talking about is how to divide up the where the money comes from - which is part of the problem. We should be demanding lower expenditures AND lower taxes.

I'm negative property taxes because it's based on a made-up number by a government authority. A number that provides $0 to my cash in-flow but adds to my cash outflow.

---

It is based on two numbers. The first and most important is indeed a made-up number by a government authority. Its not the value of your property, it is that authority's budget.

Then everybody within the boundaries of that authority has to pay for it. We're not talking about taxing you more because your value is more, but thats how everyone understands it. We're talking about dividing the budgeted amount of tax up among property owners based on how much property each owner within the district owns. You dont pay more because property values went up. If everybody's value went up proportionally and the government authority set the same budget, then everybody's tax would stay exactly the same. However, government is able to raise taxes when property values go up and pretend that they arent, and luckily for them the blame falls on the appraisals, which I'm sure is how they like it.

Thats not to say that appraisal isnt a problem, it is but moreseo because its kinda hard to appraise all property in entire counties. Its impossible to know everything you need to know about every property to do so accurately even in the smallest counties, which also also are going to have a tiny budget.

Tom Fox said:

---

I'll still be making that much in retirement through investments.. That is not a solution, but if I couldn't afford my house, I would sell it and downsize. If I couldn't afford the consumption tax, I would cut my spending habits.

---

You and I have similar incomes. I choose to hold my assets in property, you chose other investments. How about we start taxing your portfolio annually? Thats what you're asking of me. Thats fair right?

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 'market value' from 2024 to 2025 went up 65%.

So I'm eating a 10% hit this year with over 5 more already lined up if I can't get them down.

When talking about schools, the state also participates in this, because property rich ISD's cant lower their rates even if they wanted to, they have to keep them up at a certain level and pay the state recapture. Ostensibly this allows the state send the money to property poor districts, but in reality the payments out stay mostly the same and the state treasury gets tons of money from the districts paying recapture. Thats part of the reason why there is this huge surplus and they keep buying down the school tax rates, because the main beneficiaries of values going up and up has been the state itself.

If there were an aspiring Gov candidate that ran on the promise to bring in a Doge-like team to analyze state level spending and get rid of waste..... I'm thinking they would win in a landslide. Same could likely be said of a larger city mayoral or Co Judge candidate.