Austin
Sponsored by

Voted

1,666 Views | 12 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by BiochemAg97
chipotle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Against on everything but that retiring service dog thing. No lines....oh but Lines at Popeyes was crazy.
tamc93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
FJB, FPA, and FAZ
Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
tamc93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
You are entitled to your opinion and your vote.

Supporting may have been strong, but how about being more permissive in the future? Texas has been fine for years by showing fiscal constraint and now was the time (IMO) to provide more restrictions.
FJB, FPA, and FAZ
Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
You are entitled to your opinion and your vote.

Supporting may have been strong, but how about being more permissive in the future? Texas has been fine for years by showing fiscal constraint and now was the time (IMO) to provide more restrictions.
Before this amendment it already took a statewide vote to create an income tax, just like it will after this goes into effect. A vote NO was NOT a vote in support of an income tax, despite what you think.
tamc93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
You are entitled to your opinion and your vote.

Supporting may have been strong, but how about being more permissive in the future? Texas has been fine for years by showing fiscal constraint and now was the time (IMO) to provide more restrictions.
Before this amendment it already took a statewide vote to create an income tax, just like it will after this goes into effect. A vote NO was NOT a vote in support of an income tax, despite what you think.
I think I understand that part fairly well. I prefer that my YES vote made it more restrictive in the future and glad to see that it will pass.
FJB, FPA, and FAZ
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
You are entitled to your opinion and your vote.

Supporting may have been strong, but how about being more permissive in the future? Texas has been fine for years by showing fiscal constraint and now was the time (IMO) to provide more restrictions.
Before this amendment it already took a statewide vote to create an income tax, just like it will after this goes into effect. A vote NO was NOT a vote in support of an income tax, despite what you think.
I think I understand that part fairly well. I prefer that my YES vote made it more restrictive in the future and glad to see that it will pass.
i voted against the income tax prop. i didn't like the change from "natural persons" to "individuals".
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure why anyone would vote no on prop 5
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveBott said:

Not sure why anyone would vote no on prop 5


From what I saw, there has already been money that's supposed to be dedicated to states and parks, but the state has just been mismanaging it for years. This vote made them super promise to allocate it to the right location, but increased the pool of money they would have to play with.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes we are already being taxed and that was sold as a way to fund our parks etc. but the lege skimmed from from the beginning. Sometimes as much as half. Our parks are so poorly funded that several large ranches have been donated to the state and citizens cannot use them since there is no money to open them up and maintain them
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveBott said:

Yes we are already being taxed and that was sold as a way to fund our parks etc. but the lege skimmed from from the beginning. Sometimes as much as half. Our parks are so poorly funded that several large ranches have been donated to the state and citizens cannot use them since there is no money to open them up and maintain them


That's the point though. Giving them more money isn't going to make them honest. They should spend responsibly before asking us for more money because their mismanagement has led to the situation in the first place.
SteveBott
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They did ask for money. We forced them to spend what they were already getting but not using it for what we voted for
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveBott said:

They did ask for money. We forced them to spend what they were already getting but not using it for what we voted for


I'm not disagreeing with you, just offering some reasoning as why people would be opposed to it.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

Martin Cash said:

tamc93 said:

To each their own, but surprised these would have any opposition (early voting is even saying otherwise, but hopefully the trend will change):

Prop 4 - A vote of NO was basically supporting a state income tax.
Prop 5 - A vote of NO was basically taking away allocated sales tax for parks and wildlife.
Horse*****
You are entitled to your opinion and your vote.

Supporting may have been strong, but how about being more permissive in the future? Texas has been fine for years by showing fiscal constraint and now was the time (IMO) to provide more restrictions.
Before this amendment it already took a statewide vote to create an income tax, just like it will after this goes into effect. A vote NO was NOT a vote in support of an income tax, despite what you think.
I think I understand that part fairly well. I prefer that my YES vote made it more restrictive in the future and glad to see that it will pass.


Your vote yes means if a state income tax every passes, it can be in addition to property tax instead of 2/3 going to offsetting property tax.

But hey, going from a simple majority to a 2/3 in the legislature will make all the difference.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.