State should get vetted offers on properties they want to raise the appraised value on. If the owner doesn't like the amount the state says it's worth, they can sell.

If the buyer can't perform, the state buys it.

Or the value stays the same.

State will not agree. They only want the tax (free) money.

You're saying an owner has to make a yearly election as to whether he sells his property to a third party or the state? Nah, I'm good.

So basically the state becomes a We Buy Ugly Houses business.

Increasing the volume of government-owned housing seems like a very good idea ...

The State doesn't set or collect property taxes. Local jurisdictions do

Wanna fix it? Auto-reduction of each jurisdiction's tax rate when assessments increase. Bond language must specify the tax rate increase that's proposed baselined off of the scheduled adjustment - not the last year. Require 3/5 voter approval for tax increases.

So in order to lower your taxes you want your tax dollars to be used to buy properties that have an over-inflated appraisal?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So basically the state becomes a We Buy Ugly Houses business.

---

I don't think it is in the public interest for the state to be flipping large volumes of real estate. Besides, this is a local issue, not a state issue. Local governments are doing the appraisals and setting the tax rates.

Whenever I hear "common sense" solution, I immediately know it's a terrible idea without even knowing what the idea is.
This idea is no different.

We already have a system in place kind of like this. If you are Adam Ant your property is valued to high, don't pay your taxes. The county will then sell it on the courthouse steps for you where you have the opportunity to buy it back at fair market value.

Stand and deliver.

This idea, it is terrible.

Change homestead exemption to a percentage and make it fixed for whole time of ownership. Should know what you're paying every year as long as you don't move.

Need to drastically change the Ag exemption. Millions of acres in Texas are taxed like they're family farms when in reality they're recreational properties that let the neighbors run cows on them.

Will increase rural communities revenue and we can end Robin Hood.

Bottom line is Perry - Abbot have done zero to reduce the scope of the state government and budget over the last 20 years. The Texas GOP has basically no opposition and has failed to make this a low tax state

Simpler idea: Replace property tax with a land value tax.

It's the tax abatements approved by our local school districts and counties/ cities that make me angry.

So for economic development projects like solar farms and warehouses no taxes are owed or paid for a certain amount of years upon being built. Our Texas legislature enabled this BS by passing laws to make it possible. So of course every company now wants the tax abatement on new projects.

Imo, 90 plus percent of these projects would be done without the tax abatements. It's all about location and price, not the 1.5- 3 percent annual property tax.

MightyKC said:

---

The State doesn't set or collect property taxes. Local jurisdictions do

---

Local jurisdictions are subdivisions of the state and derive all of their authority from the state. It's not a federal government vs. state government situation like at the federal level. The state can do whatever it wants with the property tax system and the local jurisdictions must implement it.

Mas89 said:

---

It's the tax abatements approved by our local school districts and counties/ cities that make me angry.

So for economic development projects like solar farms and warehouses no taxes are owed or paid for a certain amount of years upon being built. Our Texas legislature enabled this BS by passing laws to make it possible. So of course every company now wants the tax abatement on new projects.

Imo, 90 plus percent of these projects would be done without the tax abatements. It's all about location and price, not the 1.5- 3 percent annual property tax.

---

The abatements went away for renewable energy projects in the 2023 legislative session. They still exist for other things.

State and Local Sales Tax to cover what Property taxes cover now…

It's the only way you can have any level of control over how much you pay n taxes…

I like the idea of a land tax vs property tax.

I can understand taxing land within a state.

I can't understand taxing the value of the house on the land that I paid to build and paid state sales tax on each piece of wood, nail, brick, wire, etc in it.

Basically the state is saying, hey thanks for improving the land, here's your annual bill based our arbitrary determination of what it's worth.

I see people say we can increase the sales tax to make even or above the tax dollars we have now. I think it's shoddy to start with, anyone have a reason why it wouldn't work with numbers?

Sumlins Pool Guy said:

---

Change homestead exemption to a percentage and make it fixed for whole time of ownership. Should know what you're paying every year as long as you don't move.

Need to drastically change the Ag exemption. Millions of acres in Texas are taxed like they're family farms when in reality they're recreational properties that let the neighbors run cows on them.

Will increase rural communities revenue and we can end Robin Hood.

Bottom line is Perry - Abbot have done zero to reduce the scope of the state government and budget over the last 20 years. The Texas GOP has basically no opposition and has failed to make this a low tax state

---

I like this proposal.

For residential properties, it should be a fixed percentage based on your square footage. The percentages can be adjusted statewide every legislative session. Local entities can still set the tax rate. Take away all exemptions, but still allow the senior deferment.

This will never happen because protest companies that are owned by politicians are a million dollar industry now. I don't ever see Paul Bettancourt voting for any meaningful property tax reform.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

I like the idea of a land tax vs property tax.

I can understand taxing land within a state.

I can't understand taxing the value of the house on the land that I paid to build and paid state sales tax on each piece of wood, nail, brick, wire, etc in it.

Basically the state is saying, hey thanks for improving the land, here's your annual bill based our arbitrary determination of what it's worth.

---

They will raise the value of land to make up any difference. It's the same thing.

Get rid of property tax and go with just a consumption tax. Everything is already in place and states will save a ton on the whole property tax apparatus.

Science Denier said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

I like the idea of a land tax vs property tax.

I can understand taxing land within a state.

I can't understand taxing the value of the house on the land that I paid to build and paid state sales tax on each piece of wood, nail, brick, wire, etc in it.

Basically the state is saying, hey thanks for improving the land, here's your annual bill based our arbitrary determination of what it's worth.

---

They will raise the value of land to make up any difference. It's the same thing.

Get rid of property tax and go with just a consumption tax. Everything is already in place and states will save a ton on the whole property tax apparatus.

---

Property tax is a consumption tax on large or luxurious real estate. If you don't like paying tax on an expensive home, live in a lesser home. If you don't like paying tax on unrealized gain, buy Berkshire Hathaway stock.

Zero property taxes on a homestead.
Continue ag exemption.
End roll back taxes.

When you buy/sell? Not ongoing ownership?
Not sure of your point.

Edit - what if you or your parents or your siblings own a home for decades in an area that rapidly increases in value, based on location vs home expansion/improvement?

Second edit - Should you be penalized for investment in your own real estate? Expansion or improvement?

I ask because I have an 84 year old mom (father deceased long ago) whose house has not changed SF since my youth, but has been improved for maintenance. However, her home's value is through the roof. Should she sell and live in a less desirable area for property tax expense management? Because….she should own a stock vs real estate?

Seems poorly reasoned.

Instead, how about this:

The taxable value of the house never changes. It's based on the actual sales price for perpetuity until sold again.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

REIGN IN YOUR LOCAL TEACHING AUTHORITIES PENCHANT FOR UNCHECKED SPENDING!!!

ktownag08 said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

It's the tax abatements approved by our local school districts and counties/ cities that make me angry.

So for economic development projects like solar farms and warehouses no taxes are owed or paid for a certain amount of years upon being built. Our Texas legislature enabled this BS by passing laws to make it possible. So of course every company now wants the tax abatement on new projects.

Imo, 90 plus percent of these projects would be done without the tax abatements. It's all about location and price, not the 1.5- 3 percent annual property tax.

---

The abatements went away for renewable energy projects in the 2023 legislative session. They still exist for other things.

---

I think that was the year two solar farms went in nearby my property. Not sure if they ever paid the roll back taxes for taking the land out of Agriculture use valuation. With tax abatements from our " Broke" school district and County. While industrial properties like salt dome storage plants, pipeline valve stations, etc are on the tax roll for 10 percent of their actual values.

So strange how the Texas state comptrollers office " audits" home values but never audits commercial properties or roll back tax assessments.

Seamaster said:

---

Instead, how about this:

The taxable value of the house never changes. It's based on the actual sales price for perpetuity until sold again.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

---

Brilliant. Older couples who are doing well financially pay very little tax on a house they bought 30 years ago, while a young couple just starting out pay three times as much on a house of equal (or lesser) value.

I think not.

This just isn't so

I couldn't live in a much more modest home. Home built in the 50s, 3/2

Taxes are outta control at every level

Martin Cash said:

---

Seamaster said:

---

Instead, how about this:

The taxable value of the house never changes. It's based on the actual sales price for perpetuity until sold again.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

---

Brilliant. Older couples who are doing well financially pay very little tax on a house they bought 30 years ago, while a young couple just starting out pay three times as much on a house of equal (or lesser) value.

I think not.

---

With the homestead law in Florida, in kind of ends up working like that. Strange that you can end up paying significantly more or less than your neighbors do in the same neighborhood for the same size of house, but it helps protects longstanding citizens. And new purchasers know what they're getting into and will ultimately realize the same type of benefit over time.

Side benefit, Airbnb and other hosts pay significantly more because they can't qualify as homesteaders. BIG SMILEY FACE HERE!

Notwithstanding the fact that I think the whole concept of property taxes is abhorrent, if increases in property taxes were capped at the rate of inflation In Texas, it might work.

Martin Cash said:

---

Seamaster said:

---

Instead, how about this:

The taxable value of the house never changes. It's based on the actual sales price for perpetuity until sold again.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

---

Brilliant. Older couples who are doing well financially pay very little tax on a house they bought 30 years ago, while a young couple just starting out pay three times as much on a house of equal (or lesser) value.

I think not.

---

California did this with Prop. 13 50+ years ago, and it has exactly the effect you described. It also means those people who've lived in a house for a long time are unlikely to sell, simply because they couldn't afford the taxes on a new house, even if it was smaller and they paid cash. So they either stay put, or they take their cash and move somewhere like Colorado and Californicate the place.

My parents bought their house in Livermore, CA in 1972 for $36k. Because Prop. 13 limits how much the assessed value can be increased each year, the current assessment is just a shade over $90k.

My mom had the house appraised after my dad died in April (for tax reasons, I think so my sister and I don't get slammed with capital gains when my mom passes.)

$1.27 MILLION. For a basic, 1600 sq ft ranch on .33 acres, built in 1968.

But if my parents had sold the house when my dad retired in 2002, say for $700k, and bought a smaller house somewhere else in CA for maybe $350-400k, their tax bill would have gone up enormously.

It takes a lot of turnover out of the housing market, because after a number of years, people can't afford the taxes associated with moving to a different house.

I've been saying this for years, Something along the lines of a Howard Jarvis revolt. Google it... look it up and tell me... us... why it wouldn't/couldn't work in Texas.

Do some research.