PO, Ferd and other Texans

[Esther]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Rick Perry is doing a good job, I am sticking with him. The freeway deal will be decided by economics. Great roads are what drive a great economy, and you can't stop progress, Texas will remain a great economy if we don't imped the development of highways. I don't like paying tolls, but the Dallas market would not be near what it is without the George Bush Freeway. Time is money and I love the tollway.

Medina and Kay cannot overcome Perry's popularity, otherwise Kay would have left the US Senate, she knows it is not going to work.

My issue with the toll is an example in Houston, where the toll was only supposed to have been for 10 years at a certain rate. Then they raised the rates 4 times and it has been over 20 years AND they hired a private company to run and maintain the toll. Which probably means there will always be a toll on that road.

It should be illegal to have the citizens vote for something and then change then change the game after the vote.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Esther

My issue with the toll is an example in Houston, where the toll was only supposed to have been for 10 years at a certain rate. Then they raised the rates 4 times and it has been over 20 years AND they hired a private company to run and maintain the toll. Which probably means there will always be a toll on that road.

It should be illegal to have the citizens vote for something and then change then change the game after the vote.

Can't argue with that, pols should be held accountable to what the agreement was/is.

I also believe tolls should be until the road is paid for and the removed. I know that was done on the old DFW Turnpike, but I don't know if it is in the plan for the new roads?

But if there is a choice of no tolls or no roads, my vote is for the roads. One thing about it the folks using the roads are the ones paying.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Rick Perry is doing a good job, I am sticking with him. The freeway deal will be decided by economics. Great roads are what drive a great economy, and you can't stop progress, Texas will remain a great economy if we don't imped the development of highways. I don't like paying tolls, but the Dallas market would not be near what it is without the George Bush Freeway. Time is money and I love the tollway.

Medina and Kay cannot overcome Perry's popularity, otherwise Kay would have left the US Senate, she knows it is not going to work.

I noticed that Perry got a slight bounce after the second debate. Kay's numbers went down and Medina's went up. Medina is getting the Kay supporters. I don't think Medina can overcome Perry's popularity either, but if she does, it will still be a win for Texas. Still voting for Perry.

[pieinthesky]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Ferd,
I have a question for you on Medina wanting to abolish the Property Taxes in Texas. She is speaking of a consumption tax, which I am thinking she is getting that from the Fair Tax plan.

She is saying that if the current sales tax base is used, then the
sales tax rate would need to be around 14.5 percent in order for the
property tax repeal to be statically revenue neutral.

Here are some of the Texas statistics she cites in the pdf file (40 pages). I am wondering with these statistics and running on a platform of abolishing Property Tax, is this plan workable or could it even be a possible consideration?

Who would a sales tax at 14.5% hurt the most?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pieinthesky

Who would a sales tax at 14.5% hurt the most?

As in our mortgage, the property tax is included. That is a spread out over the year. My question would be, if the counties/districts set the property tax, how can the increased 14.5% sales tax be fair to all? Not all property taxes are the same. Some are higher and others are lower. Would the 14.5%, and that is only projected, cost someone more at the end of the year than their property tax? It's supposed to figure out the same, but will it?

I am not against abolishing the Property Tax. It hurts the retired and elderly more than anyone. That is why I won't rule out Medina. She has good ideas. I just want to make sure I am voting for something that can and will work and not just political talking points. At this point, I'm still not sure.

[Pressing-On]

"The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) released a study in April, 2009 showing that simply expanding the sales tax base to include categories of goods and services that are not currently taxed in Texas, but that are taxed in other states, would replace almost all the revenues currently collected by the property tax. Examples of some services that we currently do not tax include mining services, drilling services, legal services, limousine services and others.

By also adding in a one-time sales tax on the sale of property (as opposed to an annual tax on property ownership), the TPPF study showed that we could replace the entire property tax revenues with a modest increase in the sales tax rate to 8.8 percent."

"First, we would ensure that items such groceries, medicines, basic health care and other basic needs continue to be exempt from the sales tax. It’s the disproportionate percentage of such families’ incomes spent on such items that makes the sales tax regressive, and we would actually work to expand this exemption to make sure that those individuals and families are not disproportionately impacted by reform. "

http://www.medinafortexas.com/issues.php

[Pressing-On]

Ferd, Digging, Esther, What do you think about this comment I ran across?

To the commentators above, I should gently point out that sales taxes are technically regressive, since they cannot be adjusted for income. I learned this first back in my intro economics and poli-sci classes. Property taxes affect the wealthier more often. While it is true that Texas has a fairly regressive property tax system, we can adjust property taxes more progressively. That cannot be done with sales taxes, unless we require people to start stating their annual income at the cash register.

The point is, if you think you are getting ripped off under our current tax system, just wait until you live under a system that uses only sales taxes. Most Texans would likely file for bankruptcy under that system. Underpasses would become quite crowded.

[Digging4Truth]

To the commentators above, I should gently point out that sales taxes are technically regressive, since they cannot be adjusted for income. I learned this first back in my intro economics and poli-sci classes. Property taxes affect the wealthier more often. While it is true that Texas has a fairly regressive property tax system, we can adjust property taxes more progressively. That cannot be done with sales taxes, unless we require people to start stating their annual income at the cash register.

The point is, if you think you are getting ripped off under our current tax system, just wait until you live under a system that uses only sales taxes. Most Texans would likely file for bankruptcy under that system. Underpasses would become quite crowded.

First... the final 2 statements are ridiculous.

Second... the main point in this issue... to me... is freedom. No man owns his land as long as there is a yearly tax put on it.

Third... While no system of taxation is, or ever will be, perfect the sales tax concept is not as regressive as this poster puts on. No ones food is taxed. The poor spend on food and little else so they will be taxed very little. The rich buy lots of expensive things so they will be taxed more.

The more one has to spend on things outside food & utilities the more they will be taxed.

It isn't something I would write songs about and sing of it's wondrous glory... but this persons statements are not true to reality IMO

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

First... the final 2 statements are ridiculous.

Second... the main point in this issue... to me... is freedom. No man owns his land as long as there is a yearly tax put on it.

Third... While no system of taxation is, or ever will be, perfect the sales tax concept is not as regressive as this poster puts on. No ones food is taxed. The poor spend on food and little else so they will be taxed very little. The rich buy lots of expensive things so they will be taxed more.

The more one has to spend on things outside food & utilities the more they will be taxed.

It isn't something I would write songs about and sing of it's wondrous glory... but this persons statements are not true to reality IMO

A couple of more comments:

How high does her data suggest the sales tax would have to increase to cover the loss of the property tax? What would she do in a scenario like the state now faces with decreased revenues, particularly since an increase in and spreading of the tax will result in a further and more abrupt decrease in sales (especially for Texans near enough Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico borders even in good times)? What cuts would she make to offset revenue decreases and to pay for her increased border patrols, deputies, etc.? No numbers pulled out someone's backside like the administration does about jobs it's "saved," I want some real numbers.

It's one thing to have an appealing and exciting message to a certain segment of voters (not everyone is going to be thrilled with her heated rhetoric about immigration and sovereignty -- not even all Republicans), it's another to have substance and real experience. I hope Texas Republicans don't make the same mistake the nation did in 2008 electing someone on the basis of sound delivery of platitudes rather than on an ability to handle the tasks of the job.

Her views on property tax cuts are a bit oversimplified on her website. I would caution her to promise a number of new jobs simply by cutting property taxes. Also, cutting one tax just to raise another (sales tax) is robbing Peter just to pay Paul. The report she cites is written by Dr. Laffer (of Laffer Curve and Supply Side Economics fame) who many leading economists think is a bit off his rocker and Donna Arduin, who has served as Director of Finance for California, Florida, New York and Michigan. Those states aren't exactly shining beacons of economic prosperity these days.

[Pressing-On]

Another set of questions:

Voters really need to ask Medina the following about her revolutionary changes in tax policy:

1. How do you intend to initiate such sweeping reform given the fact that you have to get it through a legislature which will resist such change and in the context of a Byzantine state constitution which will require voter approval to amend for these changes? Is the office of governor powerful enough to do this, or would you be better off as lieutenant governor since that office wields a lot more power in our state?

2. When you try to sell Texans on the idea of eliminating property taxes, are you going to be honest and candid about how much things will cost them at point-of-sale when it passes? If we accept for sake of argument the "Tax Reform" PDF (Arduin, Laffer, & Moore) on her site, to remain revenue-neutral (statically) we'd be looking at more than doubling the state rate to 14% on existing taxable items and at least another 2% for other entities (which would have to rise significantly more than 2% since some of the entities are almost entirely dependent on property taxes for their revenues). So we're already looking at a minimum 16% sales tax rate at point-of-sale if the tax isn't broadened to include other goods and services.

3. What guarantees would her proposals have to keep government from raising rates and/or expanding the base of the tax? Would her initial proposal include currently untaxed goods (like food) and services? Will there be any restrictions on government's abilities to raise rates to try to recapture lost revenue during periods of economic downturn (as we're currently experiencing)? Will government be able to adjust rates "on the fly" and how so since our legislature only meets a few months every couple years? How many special sessions will a governor be allowed to call to handle revenue issues between regular legislative sessions?

4. What will she do to save jobs and recapture tax revenue lost from Texans living near enough state borders where they'd be able to shop at significant discount? I'm thinking of places like Texarkana where one WalMart in Texas doesn't currently tax food items but one about four miles away across the Arkansas border does. Think of how many people on the Texas side will choose to drive four extra miles to purchase a $500 set of tires to save about $50 in sales taxes. I wouldn't want to work at the Texas store because the one four miles away will get a surge in business (for what it's worth, people living on the Arkansas side of Texarkana are exempt from Arkansas' income tax) and the Texas store will eventually close. I also wonder what her plans are regarding the loss in corporate franchise fees, etc., when stores in towns along state borders move to states with more competitive tax rates where their customers will be shopping with their new-found wealth after they stop paying a couple grand in property taxes. I smell the death of many small towns along state borders if a proposal like this passes. Yeah, that affects only a couple cities like El Paso and Texarkana, but there are smaller towns that won't be able to absorb the losses in their tax bases.

5. Would her proposals also tax Internet purchases? How would she enforce such a tax when she lacks interstate commerce authority? How would she recapture lost revenue from Texans who purchase more items online to evade such a confiscatory state sales tax rate?

6. On the spending side, what specific items/programs would she cut and by how much?

7. How would she make up the difference she would have to forego in federal funds that have "strings" attached when she declares Texas' sovereignty? Does she have an idea yet of how much that would affect Texas' revenue situation or is she still too busy spitting out platitudes?

8. How would she get around Supreme Court decisions requiring certain required expenditures? Her website seems to lack familiarity with certain decisions which make her campaign promises untenable, especially as they relate to services ("social and welfare enticements" as she puts it) to illegal immigrants.

Republicans, please don't let this candidate have a free ride with empty rhetoric like Obama got. Hold her accountable and make her give details about her plans. It's not enough to be outside the mainstream or to be pi**sed off at the status quo. If you don't have a real plan, you're going to be in over your head and things will not improve. We already have to deal with consequences of that at the national level. Learn from such mistakes, don't repeat them.