Posted on 10/25/2023 8:38:23 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius
I don’t think they can raise the tax rate beyond a certain level without voter approval.
Over 65’s are losing their homes due to the exorbitant property taxes, of which a good 50-60% are school taxes; they get no benefit whatsoever from paying those.
As opposed to county, city, and college; those are used/can be used by over 65s (and everyone).
There’s a calculator where you can look up your new taxes and see the effect of prop 4; many folks stand to have their taxes drastically reduced, and some may hardly pay any at all.
Link here:
“
Go to http://texas.gov/ and look for “Resident” on the top white tab. Then click on “Property Tax Transparency.” Scroll down to “Find your county’s website.” Click on your county’s name.
If, for some reason, that doesn’t work, enter the site by going to http://texas.gov/propertytaxes and click on “Property Tax Transparency.”
Once you’re in your county, enter your property address, your property’s tax ID or your name. If you enter your address and it doesn’t come up, delete the words Lane, Drive, Street, Circle, Court, etc. That’s a flaw in the software that counties are using.
“
I’m certainly not willing to pay for city parks in El Paso.
No on 5 - no money for woke indoctrination via higher education.
No on 6 - looks like something lobbyists would buy to line someones pockets at taxpayer expense.
No on 7 - unlike 6, this was obviously bought by lobbyists to enrich the rich further at taxpayer expense.
No on 8 - see 7.
No on 9 - at least we know who hired the lobbyists for this one.
No on 10 - See 6 or 7 - private enrichment at Taxpayer expense.
No on 11 - Already mentioned. Let the Democrats in El Paso build their own parks
No on 12. Sounds like a personal vendetta. Settle it with a duel on the beach at dawn. Don’t drag the whole state into what looks like a personal fight.
14 - Suspicious of who is going to end up with the money. Also wonder if this has anything to do with Little P’s plan for the Alamo.
Interesting juxtaposition here. No on 5 because no money for woke higher education. But Yes on 4 which removes spending caps on K-12 education.
I also don't understand your opposition to 12. It is an explicit effort to reduce the size of government in order to save money, yet you're opposed.
I also understand that people like you and BLM who argue for preferential government policies for their favored special interest groups think that they have good reason for those preferential policies.
Where did I say ‘yes’ on anything in my post?
I will add a “NO” on 2. Looks like more shifting of tax burdens from favored folks to everyone else.
I’ve yet to locate an honest to goodness concise analysis of these Amendments.
Where does prop 4 remove spending caps?
I am —for— people, especially those on —fixed incomes—, not losing their homes to exorbitant property taxes.
Source: Texas Legislative Council; page 14
You really are married to the idea that government policies should benefit certain groups of people over others. The only difference between you and BLM is which groups you want to have preferential treatment.
Jane’s post in #19 here seemed pretty quick and clear on them.
Yes on the first 4. Definite NO on 13, I have been in too many courtrooms with older judges who should already be retired.
Yes on the 2 county specific ones. No on all the others.
Why would it be on my ballot if it doesn’t impact me? My city builds its own parks without the rest of the state voting on it. I remember something on the ballot a few years ago where someone in El Paso was going to line their pockets at taxpayer expense.
No, he’s just a “former” Beaumont Democrat.
s
Ahhhh.....
Anything coming out of Harris is subject to a minimum of double secret scrutiny.
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.