PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on November 07, 2017, 08:01:09 AM
-
Gotta vote today. Prop 1: give property tax breaks to partially disabled veterans. Yes! Opponents say that's favoring specialized groups whereas we should lower taxes for everyone. Oh dear, the special groups problem.
Going to have to study up both sides on all these before I go vote. Be informed.
-
Oh dear. Another one. Prop 6: tax exemption for surviving spouses of first responders killed in the line of duty. Of course!!! Poor woman the last thing she needs is for her tax bill to go up. (I think this is an extension of an exemption the first responder is getting?) Opposition, that just raises the taxes for the rest of us, to make up the difference. Once again, it's a specialized group.
Well I suppose you can invent more and more and more specialized groups so in the end most of us belong to one or another and we can shift the tax burden entirely onto a tiny percent of homeowners.
I am basically against the idea of specialized groups entirely. But in the cases of veterans and first responders, I tend to support. I am of the belief they don't get paid enough to begin with.
But I think the opposition to these amendments is trying to say, we shouldn't base taxes on a set of exceptions for special groups, we should look to lower them evenly for everyone. For example, a ditch digger may earn the same income as a first responder but he gets no tax break, in fact, his tax will go up to make up the difference in giving a first responder a break.
Not sure I follow that logic completely. There are unintended consequences, both good and bad. If you give first reponders and vets a tax break, that gives people incentive to go into these fields in the first place which benefits all of society. But if you lower taxes across the board for everyone, that encourages economic growth, which again benefits all of society, including the vets and first responders.
And who says the ditch digger isn't also contributing just as much? His ditch digging job may well be as much benefit to society as a first responder. Maybe his ditch will carry a water line to create more housing in a community and lower housing cost? Or an internet line to connect rural people? Whey shouldn't HE get a tax break too?
-
Just like in every tax relief question, those protesting it NEVER consider reducing spending to reflect income...
Maths is not only racist but hard.
-
Veteran here; Used to be a first responder(vol fire dept, now I"m too old).
Against both and all other types of tax shenanigans. If you live in the US, you pay taxes. The object of a tax is to pay for NEEDED services to the public. If they are living in a state/community, then they pay tax just like everyone else. Set asides for special interest groups just sets up a bad precedent.
-
Just like in every tax relief question, those protesting it NEVER consider reducing spending to reflect income...
Maths is not only racist but hard.
That is what bothers me about both sides. Neither suggests reducing spending.
-
What's even more scary is that the public is voting on amending a state constitution. Has Texas suddenly turned to a democracy and no one thought to mention it? Does the state not elect some kind of assembly(knowing they do) which debates and forms policy, which is then voted by the assembly to modify the constitution of the state?
-
What's even more scary is that the public is voting on amending a state constitution. Has Texas suddenly turned to a democracy and no one thought to mention it? Does the state not elect some kind of assembly(knowing they do) which debates and forms policy, which is then voted by the assembly to modify the constitution of the state?
Yes. It doesn't go to a public vote unless two thirds of BOTH the house and senate have passed it.
-
Yes. It doesn't go to a public vote unless two thirds of BOTH the house and senate have passed it.
Excellent, but really doesn't answer why it would still be on a ballot. Seems to me still rather like mob rule. It is either right, or wrong policy, and once debate in the state houses has ended, if it were constitutional, it would become part of the state constitution. To equate some tax policy to the level of a constitution doesn't strike me as a good way to go. Constitutional policy on taxes should go something like this: 'The state legislature shall have the power to levy taxes, and taxes throughout the state must be apportioned equally. Revenue from taxes within the state must be spent in greatest benefit to all state residents, and so as not to create an unequal burden or to create a windfall for any individual, group, or party."
-
Most states can amend their constitution the same way as Rush described. The vote of the people serves as a ratification of the legislature's actions. The Governor is not involved as he would be in passing a statute.
-
Excellent, but really doesn't answer why it would still be on a ballot. Seems to me still rather like mob rule. It is either right, or wrong policy, and once debate in the state houses has ended, if it were constitutional, it would become part of the state constitution. To equate some tax policy to the level of a constitution doesn't strike me as a good way to go. Constitutional policy on taxes should go something like this: 'The state legislature shall have the power to levy taxes, and taxes throughout the state must be apportioned equally. Revenue from taxes within the state must be spent in greatest benefit to all state residents, and so as not to create an unequal burden or to create a windfall for any individual, group, or party."
That did occur to me, being a new Texas resident I don't know much about how the state is run, but these propositions did strike me as odd. This has made me look it up, interesting article, here's a paragraph:
Another reason for the difference between the two constitutions lies in the different philosophical approaches the framers of the constitutions had about the role of government. The U.S. Constitution sets out the responsibilities and powers of government, and then grants Congress the “power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying” into being the powers granted in the rest of the document. This, the Necessary and Proper Clause, is the justification for a wide array of federal powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution itself.
There is no equivalent to that clause in the Texas Constitution. Instead, the powers granted to the Legislature and governor include only those specifically written in the state Constitution. So, even small legislative changes — like allowing El Paso County to finance its own parks with local taxes — can require a constitutional amendment and a referendum.
That goes a long way to explain all these picayune amendments.
https://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/25/texplainer-why-texas-constitution-so-long/
-
That is what bothers me about both sides. Neither suggests reducing spending.
Nope.
And the moment you do they start slinging stupidity to avoid the discussion
-
That is what bothers me about both sides. Neither suggests reducing spending.
The career politicians of both parties have no motivation to reduce spending. The bigger the pie, the bigger their piece. They only care about their personal wealth, and power which grows with more spending, and bigger government. In this regard, the Republicans are bigger hypocrites than the Democrats because they LIE about wanting less government, and lower spending.
-
The career politicians of both parties have no motivation to reduce spending. The bigger the pie, the bigger their piece. They only care about their personal wealth, and power which grows with more spending, and bigger government. In this regard, the Republicans are bigger hypocrites than the Democrats because they LIE about wanting less government, and lower spending.
They're eating their own in Milwaukee County. The liberal County Executive Chris Abele proposed raising a wheel tax from $30 to $60. The also liberal County Board members are having a shit fit, saying their constituents can't afford it, and are saying that before their constituents are told to find it in their budget, the county needs to look at IT'S budget and see where they can cut waste. So of course the first place Abele goes is that he will have to cut Police, Fire, and first responders.
SHAZAAM! Finally some libs are seeing the problem with spending OPM, as articulated so well by Margaret Thatcher.
-
They're eating their own in Milwaukee County. The liberal County Executive Chris Abele proposed raising a wheel tax from $30 to $60. The also liberal County Board members are having a shit fit, saying their constituents can't afford it, and are saying that before their constituents are told to find it in their budget, the county needs to look at IT'S budget and see where they can cut waste. So of course the first place Abele goes is that he will have to cut Police, Fire, and first responders.
SHAZAAM! Finally some libs are seeing the problem with spending OPM, as articulated so well by Margaret Thatcher.
Cut some of the bus routes. Don't need stops at every street corner. People can walk a few more blocks to get on.
-
Cut public sector workers overtime, salary rate, and out of market pensions, and benefits. That's were a lot of the money is going. Quit allowing public employees to retire in twenty years at age 40 or so, get another government job, and retire again at 58 - 60 with TWO taxpayer funded pensions, and benefits!
-
Cut some of the bus routes. Don't need stops at every street corner. People can walk a few more blocks to get on.
Better yet, cut Mayor Barrett's 19th Century downtown trolley project that NO ONE is going to use, when we have busses on virtually the same routes.
-
Better yet, cut Mayor Barrett's 19th Century downtown trolley project that NO ONE is going to use, when we have busses on virtually the same routes.
Yep. Its going to be a trolley for homeless to ride during the winter months.