Posted on 09/02/2009 7:11:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On Monday evening I had the double pleasure of attending my first Log Cabin Republicans meeting (and dispelling a world of biases!) and hearing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina speak. One of the major topics that Mrs. Medina spoke on was her stance on personal property rights and gun rights, which drew a strong, supportive applause from the attendees.
However, after asking her a question on the topic, and further discussing with Jerrod Atkinson, a big Ron Paul and Debra Medina supporter, afterwards, I am still not convinced that her position is the right one. First of all, it is a straight-up Libertarian position which holds to the philosophical belief that property taxes equate property ownership to "leasing" property from the government, not truly owning property outright.
Now, I should state for the record that I am somewhat Libertarian-leaning and am mistaken for a Ron Paul Republican all the time. The distinction that I draw, however, lies in the role of the State governments. Basically, within their own borders and for their own purposes and without interference by other States, the States may do pretty much anything they want to. Libertarians, in my opinion, have a hard time distinguishing one level of government from another, preferring as little government as possible, resulting in a borderline-anarchy approach to the role of government.
I differ.
Medina's contention was that we need to do away with property taxes of all kinds in the State and institute a system of sales and consumption taxes instead. My problem with this, first, is the fact that you give up local control over evaluation, appraisal of property and the assessment of taxes and send these to Austin. So my first question was whether this wouldn't be less efficient than our current system?
Medina's first response was basically a restatement of her assertion that we have Constitutional rights to property ownership that are somehow done away with through a property tax system. So I asked again if giving up local control for statewide control wouldn't result in a less efficient system. I decided not to push it and ask a third time or delve into related areas with my questioning.
However, Mr. Atkinson, seated directly next to me at an adjacent table, was quick to leap to Medina's defense. Atkinson is an intelligent, articulate and well-educated individual, so I value his input, and speaking to him on the matter would be pretty much the same as speaking with Medina, so I now shift my conversation to the "number 5" Ron Paul Republican in the State!
Jerrod and I discussed issues such as the apportionment of revenues of certain cities between sales taxes, property taxes and other fees. For example, Mesquite, according to his numbers, only collects 20% of its revenues from sales taxes, where Plano collects around 33%. In this situation, the Plano's would hate a sales tax-only system because they would, in effect, be subsidizing the Mesquite's, who would love this system because they would be receiving more than was being spent within their borders.
Now, could this system be implemented by the State? Sure--heck, it's even on the Republican Party of Texas' Platform! The problem is that we have had property taxes for long enough that many cities have set themselves up for development in a certain way that is not conducive to such a program. For example, Addison and Farmers Branch have small populations but large industrial and commercial tax bases. Under the new system, the "rich" become poor because now they receive a percentage of sales taxes commensurate to their population, not property taxes from the office buildings and warehouses that have made them two of the best-funded cities in the State.
It behooves a city to have a large population with significant retail development. In other words, Frisco becomes the envy of the State! For they have plenty of undeveloped land that can be rezoned residential--even high density residential like multi-family!--and significant retail development to serve the same. Under a property tax system, the Hall Office Complex north of State Highway 121 and on the west side of the tollway doesn't benefit Frisco except to attract businesses who would inevitably spend lunch dollars at local restaurants.
I will discuss more detail surrounding this matter in a subsequent article. That should be enough detail to make some heads spin for now! I'll also wrap up my conversation with Mr. Atkinson later.
But suffice to say, I believe Ms. Medina's proposal to move to sales taxes is a bad proposal. And being my first time to actually hear her speak publicly, in-person, and given her adamant stance on the issue, I would have to say this was a strike one for me personally.
Freepmail me or ping me from the original thread to get on/off the 2010 Texas Governor's Race ping list.
FYI
It’s a pretty simple concept. Don’t pay your property taxes and see who ends up owning your property.
It’s a pretty simple concept. Don’t pay your property taxes and see who ends up owning your property.
I see no discussion. I see people who think that they have some right to a portion of what Texan's rightfully own. Just another commie acting like a conservative. Local pols need to cut cut cut, just like the Fedzilla needs to do.
I didn’t mean that there was good discussion in the article itself. I meant that it contained some good discussion points for us to toss around. I should have made that more clear.
Ms Medina has about three loyal followers who continually spam the comments sections of news stories, and forums with anything they can about her. So, let me say to those folks: IT’S A BIG OLE WASTE OF YOUR TIME!
Got it. Here's a question. By what right does ANY entity have to a portion of Texan's property (i.e. life)?
Fedzilla, lol
By her logic, any sales or consumption-based tax then deprives us of our constitutional right to engage in commerce.
In actuality, none. Texas has the highest property taxes in the nation. I pay approximately $6500 every year on my one acre with a homestead exemption. Cash out of pocket.
I can understand the need, I suppose, to fund the school district and a few other local needs, but they’re bleeding me every year.
I don’t want a state income tax, but I don’t want sky-high property taxes either. There has to be another solution.
Our combination of property-taxes and sales-taxes actually does a pretty good job of balancing the revenues and power between state and local government entities. Since the state constitution prohibits a state-level property tax, this provides local authorities (counties, cities, and school districts) with a vehicle for funding their budgets. Cities also have some latitude and control over a portion of their sales taxes. Keeping the sales tax as the primary source of state tax revenue helps keep the rate of growth of state government in check.
It sounds to me that Medina’s proposals would be a move in the wrong direction.
However, I have problems in that Georgists tend to think that there is no right to own land, and it can cause significant issues with agricultural land. But it does have benefits such as encourage the development of land, which would help to prevent slums.
I see a little bit of a difference between the two. I can't choose the amount of money I spend on property taxes every year. It's established for me. If I don't pay it, the state/bank can take my property from me.
I can choose to spend as much or as little as I want through sales tax or consumption tax. Once I pay those taxes, I'm done and I own those items. The state/bank can't come back and take them from me. (Loan defaults aside.)
Yes, I think the author raised some good points about that too. I’d like to see more from Medina on how a sales tax system would provide the same local control.
The solution is to destroy any and all un-constitutional programs and to recognize the freedom necessary for schools to compete in the private market place. Why is it that the government decides what is appropriate for children to learn? Sales taxes should provide plenty of money to run the government of Texas. If not, they're spending too much.
Actually it is not a good discussion at all. It is a one-sided biased defense of local governments who would lose clout.
Woe is fricking us now! We got to put those governments ahead of freedom!
What Mr. David Smith intentionally overlooks is that abolition of property taxes would spur businesses to relocate to Texas and for those already there to expand as the tax reform creates economic growth. This is completely left out of the discussion!
Instead he focuses on what would befall those poor local governments and especially those already plugged in and addicted to commercial real estate property taxes.
But nary a word as to how local businesses and property owners would react to abolishing a system of taxation that penalizes them for owning property.
You can choose what kind of property you invest in, and do things to impact the taxable value of that property. You can choose to buy property in a locality that has higher or lower property taxes. You can impact the property tax rates by getting involved in the local government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.