Replies

I gave you the reference I used. Medina’s own answers, not “propaganda.” The gambling surprised me.
Conservatives recognize the need for some laws, because some activities do harm. I’m sure that you agree that there is a difference between good and bad, otherwise you wouldn’t argue any question at all, would you?
We’ve held the line on legalized casino gambling because it is immoral for the state to endorse and costs local neighborhoods and communities more than it brings in. Our Platform comes out strongly against it.
The state licenses marriage and our courts decide divorces, because we recognize the benefit to our communities that comes from encouraging and strengthening the basis unit of society.
I know several people who were severely harmed by the so-called “no fault” divorces which are really “no choice” divorces. We have as much protection in Texas as we can from same-sex marriage, but will soon find our selves fighting a Constitutional battle over recognizing out of state “marriages.”
Show me how you’re going to keep those taxes local for local use or how it will benefit my Sheriffs’ office or school district to have to compete with the chubbers and runaway dems for a “fair” share of my taxes. For that matter, show me how the collection and rebates for the poor won’t become one of the biggest boondoggles.

That might be a good cause for Medina supporters: get their lawyers and lobbyists to write and fine tune the legislation and find a Senator and Representative to carry it in 2011.

It's propaganda in that it infers that she is pro gay marriage. You're worried about the morality of gambling when Texas has a state sponsored lottery and Texans flood across the border to Baton Rouge to gamble on the river? There's no appreciable difference in letting gambling occur on Texas' side of the river. Harmed by no fault divorce? They would be harmed either way. Clearly, you're intent on legislating morality while Medina is being consistent with those positions.

From her website:

Why would you want to abolish the property tax in Texas in the first place?

Private property ownership is central to a free society. Without freedom to own and defend the fruits of your labor, most other rights mean very little. The freedom to own and be secure in your home is central to many of the issues Texans have faced over the last several years as special interests and establishment politicians have continued to seek to increase their wealth and power at our expense. The property tax, by requiring that we either pay perpetual fees on the land we claim to own or face prosecution, ensures that we never really own it at all. The message is clear: we live on our land at the government's mercy.

The tax on real and tangible property represents one of the most inefficient, anti-family, anti-job forms of taxation available to government. It punishes businesses and industry with taxes that stay more or less the same regardless of whether they’re making money. It gets applied unevenly from taxpayer to taxpayer, and requires the creation, staffing and funding of bureaucratic fiefdoms throughout the state in which tax assessors exercise near-absolute control over who does and does not receive favorable treatment. It in effect turns property owners into squatters in their own homes, requiring over the course of their lifetimes that they pay the entire value of their property to the government for the privilege of living there. It drives the elderly out of homes for which they have cared and saved their entire lives. It depresses the value of real property and imposes a disproportionate burden on capital-intensive industries, thereby retarding growth in the very industries that are best able to generate Texas jobs. It hurts our economy, it hurts families, it breeds disrespect for State government, and it disenfranchises Texas citizens who lack the connections or the resources to fight the appraisers’ relentless grab for more revenues.

But is it really possible to completely replace property taxes in Texas by expanding the sales tax base?

Yes. 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 saleof 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.

That’s an increase in the sales tax from the current top rate of 8.25%. I thought you were opposed to tax increases?

We are. If we can’t finance our current level of government spending by collecting 8.25% tax from all taxable sales in Texas, then our State government is simply spending too much. Like every other Texan these days, the government will have to take a hard look at how it spends its revenues and find ways to live within its means. In the worst case scenario, we could phase reform in over time while restraining the growth of government; this would give us an opportunity to grow into a revenue neutral position. But one way or another the property tax has got to go.

How are middle and low-income families helped by expanding the sales tax – isn’t that a much more regressive tax than the property tax?

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. Second, it’s not at all clear that the property tax is in fact less regressive. Although the recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study showed the distribution of the Texas property tax burden to be fairly neutral across income groups, this study ignores the “invisible” burden borne by renters for their landlords’ property taxes, and the “stealth” property tax passed by Texas businesses to their customers in the form of higher prices. Once those factors are taken into account, and once we realize the dramatic expansion of opportunities for Texas workers to earn a decent living and to feed, clothe and shelter their families, we believe that middle and low income earners will be foremost among this reform’s beneficiaries.

Doesn’t your proposal take away local control over schools, hospitals and local infrastructure?

Local taxing jurisdictions already can and do set local sales taxes in many cases, the revenues from which are simply returned to the local jurisdiction within a few weeks after collection by the State Comptroller. And Texas already has several revenue sharing plans in place to support local school districts, the newest of which was implemented as part of our 2006 state-wide school finance reform. That particular reform allocated State sales tax and other revenues to enable local school districts to reduce their maintenance and operations property tax rates by 11% in 2007 and 33% in 2008. We also have two so-called “tax rate equalization programs” -- the Instructional Facilities Allotment program and the Existing Debt Allotment program -- both of which assist less wealthy districts by providing revenues to enable them to issue new bond debt or service existing bond debt. And under the Foundation School Program, which has been in place since 1949, the bulk of funding for all of Texas’ public schools comes from a mix of state revenues and local property tax receipts, which are allocated in accordance with specified formulas to help meet the needs of Texas schoolchildren wherever they happen to live. All of these programs allocate State revenues to local districts to make up for differences in their property tax bases, or to enable them to grant limited property tax relief to their residents and local businesses, without compromising local control over local education. Our proposal would simply build on these programs so as to eliminate local property taxes altogether. Sharing formulas would take account of local economic growth, population demographics, historical tax receipts, and current and projected debt service requirements, but the key is that we already have such programs in place right now. We strongly believe as a matter of principle in keeping as much control over local affairs at the most local level of government possible, and this reform would be implemented with that principle as our guide. "