TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote:The current property tax system, and temporary abatements, are tools which attracts businesses and create jobs.
She may state she wants to eliminate progressive taxes, but increasing regressive taxes isn't the way to accomplish her stated goals. If she doesn't like the current system where everyone is taxed fairly upon a set percentage of their assets, she should come up with her own plan which is fair, instead of relying on one funded by the persons standing to benefit, the big businesses. I have nothing against her or her stated goals, I don't care for her methods devised by those getting benefits to our detriment. If she comes up with her own plan. I'd listen.

It is equally possible to use sales tax incentives to lure business as it is property taxes and removing property tax is a pretty large incentive in of itself. The current system is anything but "fair" or "a set percentage" and pales in comparison to a flat rate which everyone can plan for and anticipate equally based on use. Unless you can tell me how to collect that extra "income" I'm taxed on when the value of my home rises? In addition, it is a tax that applies to all constituents not just a demographic minority and therefore much more costly to raise politically. I suppose I will acknowledge that the "poor" will pay marginally more than they otherwise would under a "progressive" tax if we acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the tax burden does not fall on the oh-so-downtrodden and destitute "poor". According to the Internal Revenue Service for 2007:

Top 1% of income earners defined as persons making over $410,096/year paid 40.42% of Federal Personal Income Tax.
Top 5% of income earners defined as persons making over $160,041/year paid 60.63% of Federal Personal Income Tax.
Top 10% of income earners defined as persons making over $113,018/year paid 71.22% of Federal Personal Income Tax.
Bottom 50% of income earners defined as persons making less than $32,879/year paid 2.89% of Federal Personal Income Tax.

(important to note here that "persons" is defined as a entity filing a tax return, that could be an individual, family, or business)

This model simply can not sustain itself. A broad base usage tax leaves the capitol in the hands of those that produce it, and should they CHOOSE to spend they are paying a mathematically (truly) equal share. Additionally, we may leave existing exemptions for sales tax in place for essential goods and services such as food, water, medicine, etc to marginalize any tax increase on the "poor".

Again...

Medina does not want to starve county governments and municipalities out of revenue to create a monolithic state government. She is advocating a sales tax reform such that "progressive" taxes, which are a direct impediment to economic growth and personal liberty, are minimized. The interview I referenced earlier with Medina and Judge Napolitano expounds upon her position.

Well in fact property tax in Texas is more of a local phenonenom. We see cities, water districts, emergency services, and hospital districts funding their services with a property tax. What we would do is rescind their ability to levy a property tax and suggest that they raise their revenue with a consumption tax."

As we all know, the current sales tax for the state of Texas is 6.25%, however; cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%. Therefore, by rescinding local property taxes, the entities listed previously will be allowed to compensate for revenue loss by the levy of a larger portion of sales tax. The rate of which is to be determined locally.

Furthermore, I hardly agree that using the police power of government to take from the "fat cat" is an effective exercise in local control.

sjfcontrol wrote:(Fat cats & turnips? sounds more like "Alice in Wonderland" than "Animal Farm")

Yea I was alluding more to the communist overtones found in Animal Farm. I also find it more than ironic that I was forced to read it by an institution funded and controlled by the state.

I won't delve further off-topic. Promise.

RPB wrote:I'd think the goal should be to increase revenue if more money is needed. Then I'd examine whether I could get that additional revenue easier from the turnip or the fat cat, rather than eliminating a portion of the fat cat's payments and distributing more burden upon the turnip.

Right. You sure you're not referring to Animal Farm? Where does the horse come into play here?

RPB wrote:The decision against Medina is more that she wants to take away our LOCAL control over OUR tax revenues, and she wants to take away our LOCAL tool of property tax abatement which is used to attract businesses and create jobs LOCALLY in order to benefit big business and big government while the little people have to pay more to make up the difference, yet they give up the LOCAL control over the revenue to allot for the upgrading of our water supply etc because the LOCAL sales tax WE PAID is sent to austin might go for new sidewalks in Hidalgo instead.. It's better now where we use LOCAL taxes to pay for our LOCAL needs."

Medina does not want to starve county governments and municipalities out of revenue to create a monolithic state government. She is advocating a sales tax reform such that progressive taxes, which are a direct impediment to economic growth and personal liberty, are minimized. The interview I referenced earlier with Medina and Judge Napolitano expounds upon her position.

Well in fact property tax in Texas is more of a local phenonenom. We see cities, water districts, emergency services, and hospital districts funding their services with a property tax. What we would do is rescind their ability to levy a property tax and suggest that they raise their revenue with a consumption tax."

As we all know, the current sales tax for the state of Texas is 6.25%, however; cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%. Therefore, by rescinding local property taxes, the entities listed previously will be allowed to compensate for revenue loss by the levy of a larger portion of sales tax. The rate of which is to be determined locally.

RPB wrote:She was displeased with SB 855, a bill making its way through the Texas Senate. According to her blog,
the bill
"allows local communities to call elections to raise taxes and fees to pay for light rail, roads, and hike & bike trails"

I'm a fan of quoting others in context, so I'll relay the rest of that thought found at http://debramedina.us/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"State Income Tax in Texas:
April 22, 2009

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, 21* of your state senators thumbed their noses at Texas and passed SB 855. This bill allows local communities to call an election to raise taxes and fees to pay for light rail, roads, and hike and bike trails. Justin Keener at the Texas Public Policy Foundation explains however that “our system for financing roads has come through taxes, fees, and tolls, which are more or less proportionate to one’s use of that infrastructure. But if the fees in SB 855 are adopted in local communities, one of two people making equal use of the infrastructure would pay the government while the other would not, based on their income. That injects a means test into our public finance system for roads, which is quite a departure from Texas’ historical rejection of finance structures that are similar to a progressive income tax.”

So while they’ll never call it an income tax, it paves the way for exactly that just as the business franchise/margins tax did in the last session. It is this sort of arrogant disregard towards the will of Texans that led to the tremendous tea party turnout last week."

Medina does a follow-up interview on 570KLIF regarding the Glenn Beck incident:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Judge Napolitano has a great interview with her here:

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m ... -state.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Much greater detail about her platform than she was allowed to present in the debates.