Early Voting for Ten Texas Constitutional Amendments

[majormadmax]

Early voting for the ten amendments to the Texas Constitution started on Monday, and runs through 1 November. Election day is 5 November.

I hope everyone gets out to vote! I usually use the Texas League of Women Voters Guide as I have found it to be impartial and give both the pros and cons for each amendment.

While there is a huge effort to vote in favor of Proposition 4, which would prohibit the Texas Legislature from establishing a personal state income tax, to be honest I can see the argument that a large amount of the population doesn't pay property tax thus the burden falls on select individuals. I will still most likely vote in favor of it, but perhaps the argument that it would "spread the wealth" to all living in Texas is a valid one.

Proposition 5 would require the Legislature to allocate the money raised from state sales taxes on sporting goods (i.e., hunting, fishing, outdoor equipment) to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the Texas Historical Commission (THC). Revenue from such taxes would be used to improve and manage state and local parks and historic sites, and to acquire new sites. Proposition 5 closes a loophole in the current law that prevents all the revenue raised by these sales taxes from being given to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission, thus allowing some of the money to be used to balance the state budget.

There are several other propositions that are not easy choices, such as the one that would increase the maximum bond amount for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) from $3 billion to $6 billion. CPRIT provides grants and supports programs that advance cancer research. The organization, begun in 2007, is currently set up to receive $3 billion in funding until 2022. CPRIT has a history of mismanaging funds with a ban put on CPRIT grants in 2012 that was later lifted after restructuring of the organization. Still, the state is the second largest source of public funding for cancer research in Texas, behind the federal government. Increasing the bond amount would ensure that the state maintained its status as a hub for advancements in the cancer field, and continue Texas’ national leadership in cancer research and prevention.

Proposition 8 that creates the Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) as a special fund outside of general revenue is another contentious one in my opinion.

I am interested in hearing individual thoughts/opinions on the ten amendments that are up for a vote...

 

[oldag]

While there is a huge effort to vote in favor of Proposition 4, which would prohibit the Texas Legislature from establishing a personal state income tax, to be honest I can see the argument that a large amount of the population doesn't pay property tax thus the burden falls on select individuals. I will still most likely vote in favor of it, but perhaps the argument that it would "spread the wealth" to all living in Texas is a valid one.

Actually, even renters pay (albeit not directly) property tax. The landlord just passes on the cost of the property taxes when he decides on the rent to charge the tenant. So in effect, everyone does pay property taxes. Thus the argument is invalid in reality.

 

[majormadmax]

Actually, even renters pay (albeit not directly) property tax. The landlord just passes on the cost of the property taxes when he decides on the rent to charge the tenant. So in effect, everyone does pay property taxes. Thus the argument is invalid in reality.

Given that multiple wage-earners can live in the same rented domicile (as so with an owned property), it doesn't "spread the wealth" as an income tax would.

Also, business owners pay property taxes in addition to the ones they pay for their residences.

So the argument is clearly valid despite your opinion...

 

[toddnjoyce]

Prop 4: I am in favor and will vote yes, primarily because there will be additive costs to the government for administration, collection and enforcement, which will require additional revenue passed on to the taxpayer.

Businesses will also gain additional costs and responsibilities associated with compliance. Those costs will be passed on to the customer.

Finally, if you believe school districts will lower their revenue requirements from property taxes as a result of this, then I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.

Too many unaddressed issues for me to let an increasingly revenue-hungry state government be allowed to self-approve personal income tax.

 

[majormadmax]

As I stated, I will still most likely vote in favor of it, but there is far too much burden places on property owners whereas many others directly benefit from the services those taxes provide without contributing to them...

 

[toddnjoyce]

MMM, I don’t disagree with your statement. My position is an income tax won’t relieve the burden on property owners.

ETA: had I stayed in CO when I retired in 2016, my property tax + 5% state income tax burden exceeds my current property tax burden despite my Texas property tax burden being twice my CO burden, for similarly valued properties.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Any one disagree?

From: Texans for Fiscal Responsibility


Texas Constitutional Propositions

Early Voting: October 21 through November 1
Election Day: November 5



PROPOSITION 1: Neutral
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time.”

What it means: In Texas, a person can serve in more than one municipal judge position, assuming the person was appointed to each of those positions. However, if an individual is elected as a municipal judge they are prohibited from being elected or appointed as a judge. Proposition 1 would allow an individual to hold more than one office as an elected or appointed municipal judge for multiple municipalities at the same time.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility Stance: Neutral on Proposition 1
Supporters Say: Texas already permits individuals to be appointed to multiple municipal judicial offices, and the constitutional amendment only adjusts the law to treat appointed and elected judges equally.
Opponents Say: Texas should not have allowed judges to serve in more than one office in the first place and the state would be better off not to double-down on the practice.


PROPOSITION 2: Oppose
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas.”

What it means: The Texas Water Development Board will be allowed to issue bonds, and therefore go into debt, in order to continue financing water supply, sewer service, and drainage projects in economically distressed areas.

TFR Stance: Oppose Proposition 2
Our Reasoning: State-subsidized debt serves as a disincentive to properly prioritizing spending and distorts market forces.


PROPOSITION 3: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of a portion of the appraised value of certain property damaged by a disaster.”

What it means: Currently, local governments in Texas have the ability to reappraise properties damaged in disasters, but not to exempt the owners from all or part of their total tax burden.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 3
Our Reasoning: Local governments should be given more tools with which to provide tax relief for property owners. Proposition 3 is a commonsense reform that should result in taxpayer savings.


PROPOSITION 4: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.”

What it means: The Texas Constitution already requires the Legislature by simple majority vote to seek voter approval to impose an income tax. This amendment would mean that a future legislature would have to vote by a super-majority and obtain voter approval to amend the constitution in order to impose an income tax.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 4
Our Reasoning: TFR supports any proposal that prevents the government from imposing an income tax or otherwise increasing taxes on Texans. Proposition 4 makes it harder for a future legislature to impose an economically destructive income tax on our state.


PROPOSITION 5: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment dedicating the revenue received from the existing state and use taxes that are imposed on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission to protect Texas’ natural areas, water, quality, and history by acquiring, managing, and improving state and local parks and historical sites while not increasing the rate of the sales and use taxes.”

What it means: Sales taxes on sporting goods will be dedicated to wildlife and nature preservation.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 5
Our Reasoning: While taxes on sporting goods in Texas have always been intended to finance state parks, lawmakers inside the Capitol frequently pilfered the revenues for other projects. The passage of Proposition 5 will prevent that diversion and ensure that revenues raised are spent on their intended purpose.


PROPOSITION 6: Oppose
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase by $3 billion the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.”

What it means: CPRIT will be authorized to spend additional taxpayer dollars.

TFR Stance: Oppose Proposition 6
Our Reasoning: While well-intentioned, CPRIT has not been a good steward of taxpayer dollars and cancer research is not a core function of government.


PROPOSITION 7: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.”

What it means: The General Land Office or State Board of Education will have the ability to distribute up to $600 million of the school fund, up from $300 million currently.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 7
Our Reasoning: Securing additional revenue from the state’s oil and gas reserves was one of the alternatives adopted in lieu of an increased sales tax.


PROPOSITION 8: Oppose
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.”

What it means: This amendment creates a permanent fund to help with flood mitigation infrastructure.

TFR Stance: Oppose Proposition 8
Our Reasoning: State-subsidized debt serves as a disincentive to properly prioritizing spending and distorts market forces.


PROPOSITION 9: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state.”

What it means: Precious metals stored in the state depository would not be subject to being taxed as income-producing business assets.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 9
Our Reasoning: We oppose any form of ad valorem taxes.


PROPOSITION 10: Support
How it reads: “The constitutional amendment to allow the transfer of a law enforcement animal to a qualified caretaker in certain circumstances.”

What it means: If it is in the best interest of the animal, the law enforcement animals will be allowed to be transferred to its caretaker upon retirement.

TFR Stance: Support Proposition 10
Our Reasoning: Currently illegal due to prohibitions on “special benefits” and “gifts,” Proposition 10 is a commonsense change to the constitution that should save taxpayer money while treating service animals and their handlers with respect.

 

[Dad_Roman]

Prop 4: I am in favor ....

Too many unaddressed issues for me to let an increasingly revenue-hungry state government be allowed to self-approve personal income tax.

Also, make your self aware of the language the propositions are worded in. Prop 4 prohibits future state income tax being levied so you have to vote in favor of the Prop.

I even had to read Todd’s post twice...and I voted yesterday! Still confusing.

Chris Salcedo mentioned that the TWDB money is a slush fund for low income projects and that the cancer research was a $3 billion slush fund, basically for government research that doesn’t work and hasn’t worked.

 

[MTA]

An income tax will just get you an income tax alongside the same increasing property taxes. Ask anyone who has ever lived outside this state. Its just another way for the government to screw you especially with a state that is turning purple.

It would be an effective way to get people to stop moving here though. Once they find out they wont be making any extra money and that the weather is too hot for them, they will go back to the coasts.

Cancer research is another crock of bs. All those billions and still no cure? Yea ok

 

[oldag]

Given that multiple wage-earners can live in the same rented domicile (as so with an owned property), it doesn't "spread the wealth" as an income tax would.

Also, business owners pay property taxes in addition to the ones they pay for their residences.

So the argument is clearly valid despite your opinion...

With multiple wage earners in one domicile - who pays for it? One way or the other, they all do.

We are talking personal income tax, if I am not mistaken. Not business. Whole different situation. Businesses have the franchise tax, which is close to an income tax.

 

[Big Green]

Another resource.

http://ntcl.org/2019/08/14/nov-5-2019-ten-proposed-texas-constitution-amendments/

Good thread @majormadmax

 

[MTA]

Another resource.

http://ntcl.org/2019/08/14/nov-5-2019-ten-proposed-texas-constitution-amendments/

Good thread @majormadmax

Thanks for aharing this

 

[sidebite252]

I agree great thread. I have not voted yet because I wasn’t informed enough. Over the last 2 days I’ve tried to wrap my head around these proposals. The wording in prop 4 had me all jacked up. What the hell is a “Natural Citizen”? One comment I read said that wording alone has loop hole written all over it.

Thanks for the info guys. I’ll vote tomorrow.

 

[pronstar]

Do you want TX to become even more like CA?
Because opposing Prop 4 is the first step...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TAZ]

We don’t need to spread any more wealth. We need more responsible spending out of government. It’s like your kids blowing their allowance and you simply giving them more. I don’t do that with my kid, so why do we think it’s ok to do with government.

 

[SofAustin]

As I stated, I will still most likely vote in favor of it, but there is far too much burden places on property owners whereas many others directly benefit from the services those taxes provide without contributing to them...

It seems we are never given the opportunity to exchange one tax system for another--only add new ones. If Texas installed an income tax, they would KEEP the property tax because taxes never go down and never go away--the bureaucrats are in place.

If an option to exchange property tax with a state income tax--TRULY EXCHANGE--I would definitely consider it.

 

[Mohawk600]

Actually, even renters pay (albeit not directly) property tax. The landlord just passes on the cost of the property taxes when he decides on the rent to charge the tenant. So in effect, everyone does pay property taxes. Thus the argument is invalid in reality.

I pay plenty at my apartment.

 

[Mohawk600]

We don’t need to spread any more wealth. We need more responsible spending out of government. It’s like your kids blowing their allowance and you simply giving them more. I don’t do that with my kid, so why do we think it’s ok to do with government.

Spreading wealth is phuking communism.......

if you don't make it.......guess what? don't phuking spend it.

I'm gettin' real tired of other people spending my money.

 

[Mohawk600]

Can somebody just nuke Austin? I live there and will take the hit so the rest of my beloved state survives......especially Amarillo.......best place on earth.

 

[TX OMFS]

Income tax already isn't equitable & wouldn't be any different in Texas. Half of Americans don't pay taxes. Something similar would happen in TX.

Bottom line for any new spending: we don't need it & we can't afford it.

Bottom line for taxes: politicians & lobbyists use taxes to manipulate, bribe, & reward people. The only new tax I'm in favor of is a flat tax that EVERYONE pays & only if existing taxes are done away with. The bill should be one page long.

Thanks for all the links about these props.