U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2007, 04:06 PM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44

Advertisements

Have waited decades for this concept to catch on. It's a very equitable and no-hassle way to be taxed, and it eliminates the whole idea of an IRS that can call you into account, demand your records, confiscate your assets and assume you are guilty until proven innocent. Is this really the way a "free" people should be taxed?

It also captures all the underground economies we have going on....illegals working for cash, drug money, etc. No matter what you're doing, you're going to buy something and that's when the tax is collected. Since the states all have a tax collection system in place, not much in the way of infrastructure or paperwork needs to be done, the Federal government would only have 50 tax clients to mess with, and the rest of us could breath easy, knowing we have complied by virtue of our purchases.
It's fair because each consumer can make choices about what he buys. One person may buy a yacht and pay the corresponding tax. Another may buy a canoe and also pay the corresponding tax. It's self adjusting according to where you're at economically and are able to buy. I believe the Fair Tax incorporates a rebate for those who fall under a certain income level so the poor are not punished. If Americans are lucky enough to get the opportunity to vote on this, I think we will have a chance to correct a mistake we made when we instituted the current confusing and expensive tax system.
The only reservation I have about this particular plan is that the percentage may be too high and they will collect too much. I'm not sure they have wholly accounted for the fact that a dollar turns over a number of times, maybe an average of 7, before it hits the bank. Each time it changes hands it would be taxed again, till it went out of circulation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SnappyBob View Post
>>>"The easiest way to do this is by eliminate property tax, and tack the costs onto sales tax and tax all consumable goods"<<<

There is actually a movement going on right now to do just that. They have a bill in congress. I think it's called the "Fair Tax Act". The sales tax would be very high but there would be no income tax. None taken out of your paycheck and no 1040's. April 15th would be just another day. Everybody would pay the same rate. There is a website on it. Google "Fair Tax". It's an interesting concept.

 
Old 11-28-2007, 08:15 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,435 posts, read 16,486,722 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy1 View Post
Think about social security, and think about the massive numbers of baby boomers who are about to get into the system. While you're at it, consider that there is no money in the social security fund...just a government IOU. They spent that too.

Now think about how many workers there were per retiree when the system started. Then look at how many workers there will be per retiree in the near future. Do you think the system can perpetuate itself? One can make a really good case that we are not over-populated, but that we may well indeed be drastically under-populated.

The fact that so many Americans failed to reproduce may be the reason we are seeing government dragging their feet to limit immigration. (The fact that we have sent our best breeding stock every generation for the last hundred years to fight other peoples' wars probably hasn't helped either.) They may know that unless we get a whole slew of young workers into the system damn fast, it will implode, and there will be a lot of pissed-off grey-haired people wondering what the heck happened.

I'm thinking that if we need to populate a little, there are probably some
good ole boys and girls already here who could make that happen, but given your medical situation, I reckon you'll have to miss that party.

By the way....we haven't even scratched the surface of the resources
that are available, we will find ways to use those we have better if we need to, the United States is sparsley populated, and there ain't no man-made global warming. (I can have an opinion on that too.)

well, if that's the case, then why don't the politicians just come out and say that we are UNDERpopulated?, and that in order to bolster the social security system, we need more younger workers. they certainly could have made that case by now.
 
Old 11-28-2007, 08:23 PM
 
Location: San Antonio Texas
11,435 posts, read 16,486,722 times
Reputation: 5224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy1 View Post
Have waited decades for this concept to catch on. It's a very equitable and no-hassle way to be taxed, and it eliminates the whole idea of an IRS that can call you into account, demand your records, confiscate your assets and assume you are guilty until proven innocent. Is this really the way a "free" people should be taxed?

It also captures all the underground economies we have going on....illegals working for cash, drug money, etc. No matter what you're doing, you're going to buy something and that's when the tax is collected. Since the states all have a tax collection system in place, not much in the way of infrastructure or paperwork needs to be done, the Federal government would only have 50 tax clients to mess with, and the rest of us could breath easy, knowing we have complied by virtue of our purchases.
It's fair because each consumer can make choices about what he buys. One person may buy a yacht and pay the corresponding tax. Another may buy a canoe and also pay the corresponding tax. It's self adjusting according to where you're at economically and are able to buy. I believe the Fair Tax incorporates a rebate for those who fall under a certain income level so the poor are not punished. If Americans are lucky enough to get the opportunity to vote on this, I think we will have a chance to correct a mistake we made when we instituted the current confusing and expensive tax system.
The only reservation I have about this particular plan is that the percentage may be too high and they will collect too much. I'm not sure they have wholly accounted for the fact that a dollar turns over a number of times, maybe an average of 7, before it hits the bank. Each time it changes hands it would be taxed again, till it went out of circulation.
the problem with your tax suggestion is that it's TOO DARNED FAIR! All, and i mean ALL of the special interests would come out of the woodwork wondering where their tax subsidies are headed. think about these who would be demanding that they receive their tax subsidies:

1) people with children (their precious tax credits gone)

2) people who pay capital gains on their investments

3) homeowners and their mortgage tax deductions

4) business people who currently itemize

5) illegal immigrants

those are just the ones that i can think of. the current tax system has created a lot of people who feel like they are entitled from paying their fair share. so, i don't really think that it would come to a vote among the american public
 
Old 11-29-2007, 09:12 AM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44
Default A Piece of the Pie

The Founders suggested that the Republic would last till the people found that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
I think that until we retreat from socialism and get back to our roots, we will always be doomed to squabble like children who can't agree on the rules in a Monopoly game over who gets the biggest piece of the publicly-funded pie. Think about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62 View Post
Please consider that if you did not pay school taxes, the system would collapse and all these juveniles would be on the streets with nothing to do but vandalize and spray graffiti on your house. What would your property values be like then? It is in your best interest to keep these kids locked up, I mean, in school so that they cannot destroy your home.
 
Old 11-29-2007, 09:31 AM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44
Default Elephant in the closet

Do you really think any politician will have the nerve to tell the American people that their retirement has been pissed away, that
benefits will be drastically cut, and younger workers can expect to carry a retiree on their shoulders every damn day of their working lives?

Where will you be when the riots break out?

And they HAVE been telling us....maybe you just weren't paying attention.







Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
well, if that's the case, then why don't the politicians just come out and say that we are UNDERpopulated?, and that in order to bolster the social security system, we need more younger workers. they certainly could have made that case by now.
 
Old 11-29-2007, 10:09 AM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44
Default Lol

Obviously, something that's simple and makes sense has little chance of
getting off the ground, but they laughed at the Wright brothers too.
Their eyes opened wide and their mouths hung open when that sucker soared over their heads like a flock of ducks, though.

My first exposure was 20 some years ago when a fellow from Florida was
promoting a similar proposition called Just One Just Tax. He was good at manipulating numbers and familiar with budgets and tax numbers at the national level. Think he testified in Congress on the topic at one point, and there was an opinion that he proved on paper that a 1% tax at the retail level would generate enough revenue...at the time.....I think our requirements have grown a bit since then. Lucky us.

Change comes hard...we got here incrementally... I suspect that's the way we'll get back to what works. The fact that it's getting more air time
and exposure in the presidential debates is encouraging. I believe a talk show host in Atlanta has written a book on the subject that sold well-
Neal Boortz.

I recall the Post Office trying to kick me off the sidewalk in front of their building because I was getting petitions signed for the Just One Tax on tax day years ago. (Timing and location is everything.) There is a bit of resistance. Lots of people read it and signed though, and that was what ultimately got the guy in the news and in front of Congress. What is really disgusting about all this tax stuff is that we give politicians control of our money, then they turn around and use it to buy our votes, whether it's related to schools or something else. The obvious solution is not to give them so much in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex View Post
the problem with your tax suggestion is that it's TOO DARNED FAIR! All, and i mean ALL of the special interests would come out of the woodwork wondering where their tax subsidies are headed. think about these who would be demanding that they receive their tax subsidies:

1) people with children (their precious tax credits gone)

2) people who pay capital gains on their investments

3) homeowners and their mortgage tax deductions

4) business people who currently itemize

5) illegal immigrants

those are just the ones that i can think of. the current tax system has created a lot of people who feel like they are entitled from paying their fair share. so, i don't really think that it would come to a vote among the american public
 
Old 11-30-2007, 08:02 AM
 
168 posts, read 433,757 times
Reputation: 113
Default Fair Tax will never pass.........

Every time I see someone touting the Fair Tax plan, I always wonder if they first heard it on Fox news, Neil Boortz, or from Steve Forbes. Before I continue, I'm very conservative but I am not party affiliated.

The chance of the Fair Tax passing is nil or zero. Sure, it's popular and excites the imaginations of those who think all of their woes with regard to taxes would be solved. The Fair Tax is a con. Republicans float it hoping to attract voters like flies to honey because everyone thinks they will be paying less in taxes. Whether it is the Armey 17% plan or the Spector 21-25% plan, or the new Huckaby "Man, I need votes real bad" plan, they are all losers for rank and file Americans.

During the first term, the Bush administration appointed a blue-ribbon fact finding panel to explore and try to find a way to change the way we pay taxes. After the 2004 elections, the panel testified before Congress and offered no solutions. The one thing that did come up was that implementation of the Fair Tax plan would be near impossible.

Why is implementation near impossible? Because those with post-tax accumulated wealth in this country, many of whom are wealthy, would essentially be double taxed under two different income tax systems unless they were given a tax abatement equal to the amount of wealth they had in the bank at the time of implementation.

For example, suppose the Fair Tax was to become official on 01 January, 2008. On 15 December, 2007, Person A wins a $1 million dollar lottery and is forced to pay income tax under the current system. Let's say that leaves him or her with $650,000 after taxes. The Fair Tax becomes effective two weeks later on 01 JAN 2008. Person B wins a $1 million dollar lottery on 07 JAN 2008 under the new Fair Tax system. Person B is not required to pay any income tax because the nation is now under the new Fair Tax system.

On 20 January, 2008, Person A and Person B both go to the exotic car dealership to purchase new Bentley's for $250,000 each. The new Fair Tax rate is 20% of the purchase price. Person A pays $250K for the Bentley plus the 20% Fair Tax or a total of $300K. Person B does the same.

The problem with this is that Person A was double-taxed because he or she paid taxes both under the old system and the new system. If this was the only money spent by Person A, he or she now has a total of $350K left after winning a million dollar a month earlier. Under the same scenario, Person B still has $700K left or twice what Person A has after his or her winnings.

The reason that Fair Tax proponents don't discuss this glaring hole is that the majority of their target audience is broke or has no real accumulated wealth to speak of in relation to the Fair Tax. I once heard a caller on the Neil Boortz show ask what would happen to those who had money in the bank if the Fair Tax was implemented. Incredibly, Boortz said it would be no problem because suddenly all of the prices for goods everywhere would be cheaper and the saver would benefit from this. While this is true, what is left out is that the saver would still be double-taxed.

The bottom line is that taxing income twice is inherently unfair. While some on this forum disagree, I say that you should first let it happen to you and then offer your opinion. Considering the amount of wealth the the wealthy have accumulated, it is unlikely that the Fair Tax would ever be implemented UNLESS the government gave TAX ABATEMENTS equal to the accumulated wealth of mostly the wealthy which means it would be years before the wealthy ever had to pay any taxes under the fair tax.

The other equally important argument against the Fair Tax is that the government would unlikely repeal the 16th Amendment that allows for an income tax. In essence, the Fair Tax would become an additional source of revenue in addition to the old income tax.

Even under the Fair Tax, no mention is made as to what happens to the employment taxes, namely Social Security and Medicare taxes. Between you and your employer or for the Self-Employed, these taxes amount to 15.3% of your income. Other taxes that would continue to exist would be the current variety of income, sales, and property taxes at the State, County, and Municipal levels.

We have an estimated $12.5 trillion economy in America and the Federal government needs between 20% to 25% of that to fund its operations. Over $300 billion of the budget went to pay just INTEREST on the National Debt which is now over $9 trillion dollars and has NEVER been paid down. In the past 20 years alone, this nation has paid over $2 trillion in interest on the debt alone.

If the federal government implemented a Fair Tax, it would need to be at least 25% or more because there would still be many items that aren't taxed. Lastly, if you think a Fair Tax is still a great idea, take a look at the Value Added Tax(VAT) that all of Europe and Canada currently use. No one likes it and those countries still have an income tax.

Steve Forbes only likes the idea of a Fair Tax because he and his cronies could rake in billions and avoid ANY taxes until they want to buy something. Think about it, who benefits more from the Fair Tax, a billionaire who buys a $50 million dollar yacht and pays $12.5 million(25%) in Fair Taxes or the the $150K a year family who spends $50K on a NEW Cadillac Escalade and a Fair Tax of $12,500(25%)? While I can expect hundreds of answers to this, the point is that after the first million dollars in income, the Fair Tax is a joke in terms of tax liability compared to the current tax system. Clearly, the extraordinarily wealthy benefit from it much more than mainstream America.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy1 View Post
Have waited decades for this concept to catch on. It's a very equitable and no-hassle way to be taxed, and it eliminates the whole idea of an IRS that can call you into account, demand your records, confiscate your assets and assume you are guilty until proven innocent........believe the Fair Tax incorporates a rebate for those who fall under a certain income level so the poor are not punished. If Americans are lucky enough to get the opportunity to vote on this......only reservation I have about this particular plan is that the percentage may be too high and they will collect too much. I'm not sure they have wholly accounted for the fact that a dollar turns over a number of times, maybe an average of 7, before it hits the bank. Each time it changes hands it would be taxed again, till it went out of circulation.
 
Old 11-30-2007, 08:01 PM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44
Default Contempt prior to investigation

I'd suggest that those who think the current system is convoluted and confusing look at the alternatives and make their own decision. I don't think a retail tax and a value added tax are the same at all. If you really think the current tax system makes sense then, more power to you, but that certainly doesn't eliminate the possiblity that we can find a better way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercone View Post
Every time I see someone touting the Fair Tax plan, I always wonder if they first heard it on Fox news, Neil Boortz, or from Steve Forbes. Before I continue, I'm very conservative but I am not party affiliated.

The chance of the Fair Tax passing is nil or zero. Sure, it's popular and excites the imaginations of those who think all of their woes with regard to taxes would be solved. The Fair Tax is a con. Republicans float it hoping to attract voters like flies to honey because everyone thinks they will be paying less in taxes. Whether it is the Armey 17% plan or the Spector 21-25% plan, or the new Huckaby "Man, I need votes real bad" plan, they are all losers for rank and file Americans.

During the first term, the Bush administration appointed a blue-ribbon fact finding panel to explore and try to find a way to change the way we pay taxes. After the 2004 elections, the panel testified before Congress and offered no solutions. The one thing that did come up was that implementation of the Fair Tax plan would be near impossible.

Why is implementation near impossible? Because those with post-tax accumulated wealth in this country, many of whom are wealthy, would essentially be double taxed under two different income tax systems unless they were given a tax abatement equal to the amount of wealth they had in the bank at the time of implementation.

For example, suppose the Fair Tax was to become official on 01 January, 2008. On 15 December, 2007, Person A wins a $1 million dollar lottery and is forced to pay income tax under the current system. Let's say that leaves him or her with $650,000 after taxes. The Fair Tax becomes effective two weeks later on 01 JAN 2008. Person B wins a $1 million dollar lottery on 07 JAN 2008 under the new Fair Tax system. Person B is not required to pay any income tax because the nation is now under the new Fair Tax system.

On 20 January, 2008, Person A and Person B both go to the exotic car dealership to purchase new Bentley's for $250,000 each. The new Fair Tax rate is 20% of the purchase price. Person A pays $250K for the Bentley plus the 20% Fair Tax or a total of $300K. Person B does the same.

The problem with this is that Person A was double-taxed because he or she paid taxes both under the old system and the new system. If this was the only money spent by Person A, he or she now has a total of $350K left after winning a million dollar a month earlier. Under the same scenario, Person B still has $700K left or twice what Person A has after his or her winnings.

The reason that Fair Tax proponents don't discuss this glaring hole is that the majority of their target audience is broke or has no real accumulated wealth to speak of in relation to the Fair Tax. I once heard a caller on the Neil Boortz show ask what would happen to those who had money in the bank if the Fair Tax was implemented. Incredibly, Boortz said it would be no problem because suddenly all of the prices for goods everywhere would be cheaper and the saver would benefit from this. While this is true, what is left out is that the saver would still be double-taxed.

The bottom line is that taxing income twice is inherently unfair. While some on this forum disagree, I say that you should first let it happen to you and then offer your opinion. Considering the amount of wealth the the wealthy have accumulated, it is unlikely that the Fair Tax would ever be implemented UNLESS the government gave TAX ABATEMENTS equal to the accumulated wealth of mostly the wealthy which means it would be years before the wealthy ever had to pay any taxes under the fair tax.

The other equally important argument against the Fair Tax is that the government would unlikely repeal the 16th Amendment that allows for an income tax. In essence, the Fair Tax would become an additional source of revenue in addition to the old income tax.

Even under the Fair Tax, no mention is made as to what happens to the employment taxes, namely Social Security and Medicare taxes. Between you and your employer or for the Self-Employed, these taxes amount to 15.3% of your income. Other taxes that would continue to exist would be the current variety of income, sales, and property taxes at the State, County, and Municipal levels.

We have an estimated $12.5 trillion economy in America and the Federal government needs between 20% to 25% of that to fund its operations. Over $300 billion of the budget went to pay just INTEREST on the National Debt which is now over $9 trillion dollars and has NEVER been paid down. In the past 20 years alone, this nation has paid over $2 trillion in interest on the debt alone.

If the federal government implemented a Fair Tax, it would need to be at least 25% or more because there would still be many items that aren't taxed. Lastly, if you think a Fair Tax is still a great idea, take a look at the Value Added Tax(VAT) that all of Europe and Canada currently use. No one likes it and those countries still have an income tax.

Steve Forbes only likes the idea of a Fair Tax because he and his cronies could rake in billions and avoid ANY taxes until they want to buy something. Think about it, who benefits more from the Fair Tax, a billionaire who buys a $50 million dollar yacht and pays $12.5 million(25%) in Fair Taxes or the the $150K a year family who spends $50K on a NEW Cadillac Escalade and a Fair Tax of $12,500(25%)? While I can expect hundreds of answers to this, the point is that after the first million dollars in income, the Fair Tax is a joke in terms of tax liability compared to the current tax system. Clearly, the extraordinarily wealthy benefit from it much more than mainstream America.
 
Old 11-30-2007, 09:39 PM
 
83 posts, read 167,629 times
Reputation: 44
Default It's odd

I live in a state that offers a reasonable standard of living for what seems to be a reasonable cost. There is a surplus in the state treasury. On tax day, I neglect to get my papers in order, figure out the rules, hire a tax preparer, etc, and send the state a check. My state doesn't have an income tax. Go figure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mastercone View Post
Every time I see someone touting the Fair Tax plan, I always wonder if they first heard it on Fox news, Neil Boortz, or from Steve Forbes. Before I continue, I'm very conservative but I am not party affiliated.

The chance of the Fair Tax passing is nil or zero. Sure, it's popular and excites the imaginations of those who think all of their woes with regard to taxes would be solved. The Fair Tax is a con. Republicans float it hoping to attract voters like flies to honey because everyone thinks they will be paying less in taxes. Whether it is the Armey 17% plan or the Spector 21-25% plan, or the new Huckaby "Man, I need votes real bad" plan, they are all losers for rank and file Americans.

During the first term, the Bush administration appointed a blue-ribbon fact finding panel to explore and try to find a way to change the way we pay taxes. After the 2004 elections, the panel testified before Congress and offered no solutions. The one thing that did come up was that implementation of the Fair Tax plan would be near impossible.

Why is implementation near impossible? Because those with post-tax accumulated wealth in this country, many of whom are wealthy, would essentially be double taxed under two different income tax systems unless they were given a tax abatement equal to the amount of wealth they had in the bank at the time of implementation.

For example, suppose the Fair Tax was to become official on 01 January, 2008. On 15 December, 2007, Person A wins a $1 million dollar lottery and is forced to pay income tax under the current system. Let's say that leaves him or her with $650,000 after taxes. The Fair Tax becomes effective two weeks later on 01 JAN 2008. Person B wins a $1 million dollar lottery on 07 JAN 2008 under the new Fair Tax system. Person B is not required to pay any income tax because the nation is now under the new Fair Tax system.

On 20 January, 2008, Person A and Person B both go to the exotic car dealership to purchase new Bentley's for $250,000 each. The new Fair Tax rate is 20% of the purchase price. Person A pays $250K for the Bentley plus the 20% Fair Tax or a total of $300K. Person B does the same.

The problem with this is that Person A was double-taxed because he or she paid taxes both under the old system and the new system. If this was the only money spent by Person A, he or she now has a total of $350K left after winning a million dollar a month earlier. Under the same scenario, Person B still has $700K left or twice what Person A has after his or her winnings.

The reason that Fair Tax proponents don't discuss this glaring hole is that the majority of their target audience is broke or has no real accumulated wealth to speak of in relation to the Fair Tax. I once heard a caller on the Neil Boortz show ask what would happen to those who had money in the bank if the Fair Tax was implemented. Incredibly, Boortz said it would be no problem because suddenly all of the prices for goods everywhere would be cheaper and the saver would benefit from this. While this is true, what is left out is that the saver would still be double-taxed.

The bottom line is that taxing income twice is inherently unfair. While some on this forum disagree, I say that you should first let it happen to you and then offer your opinion. Considering the amount of wealth the the wealthy have accumulated, it is unlikely that the Fair Tax would ever be implemented UNLESS the government gave TAX ABATEMENTS equal to the accumulated wealth of mostly the wealthy which means it would be years before the wealthy ever had to pay any taxes under the fair tax.

The other equally important argument against the Fair Tax is that the government would unlikely repeal the 16th Amendment that allows for an income tax. In essence, the Fair Tax would become an additional source of revenue in addition to the old income tax.

Even under the Fair Tax, no mention is made as to what happens to the employment taxes, namely Social Security and Medicare taxes. Between you and your employer or for the Self-Employed, these taxes amount to 15.3% of your income. Other taxes that would continue to exist would be the current variety of income, sales, and property taxes at the State, County, and Municipal levels.

We have an estimated $12.5 trillion economy in America and the Federal government needs between 20% to 25% of that to fund its operations. Over $300 billion of the budget went to pay just INTEREST on the National Debt which is now over $9 trillion dollars and has NEVER been paid down. In the past 20 years alone, this nation has paid over $2 trillion in interest on the debt alone.

If the federal government implemented a Fair Tax, it would need to be at least 25% or more because there would still be many items that aren't taxed. Lastly, if you think a Fair Tax is still a great idea, take a look at the Value Added Tax(VAT) that all of Europe and Canada currently use. No one likes it and those countries still have an income tax.

Steve Forbes only likes the idea of a Fair Tax because he and his cronies could rake in billions and avoid ANY taxes until they want to buy something. Think about it, who benefits more from the Fair Tax, a billionaire who buys a $50 million dollar yacht and pays $12.5 million(25%) in Fair Taxes or the the $150K a year family who spends $50K on a NEW Cadillac Escalade and a Fair Tax of $12,500(25%)? While I can expect hundreds of answers to this, the point is that after the first million dollars in income, the Fair Tax is a joke in terms of tax liability compared to the current tax system. Clearly, the extraordinarily wealthy benefit from it much more than mainstream America.
 
Old 12-01-2007, 08:00 AM
 
3,219 posts, read 8,011,272 times
Reputation: 1412
Quotes from the Austin-American Statesman: Robin Hood


Texas public education already at the bottom of nation's list!

The "Robin Hood" clause developed 10-years ago by the court system forces "wealthy" school districts to send a large portion of their tax dollars to "poorer" districts. It is an antiquated and absurd way to attempt to "equalize" districts in providing public education throughout Texas. It's also a stupid system because it doesn't work.

The real truth is that these days virtually ALL school districts may be considered poor because legislators still don't want to fix an ailing school financing system that doesn't work. Schools are NOT receiving an adequate "allowance" from the state to provide Texas children with a quality education.

Over the years the state has diverted its constitutional responsibility for providing every Texas child with a quality education. Only 10 years ago the state paid 60-percent of school financing. Today the state pays out 40-percent with most of the school tax revenue still being paid by local homeowners who have had to bear this increasing burden for the past 6 years --- incidentally, when Perry became governor.

Consequently, earlier this year with no state help in sight, when the board members of Wimberley Independent School District (WISD) voted and determined NOT to send its taxes to the state for it to divert to another district the State Education Department sent a message to the WISD. The district is speaking out for all Texas school districts.

However, according to an article in the Statesman: "If Wimberley doesn't pay the first installment of the $2.3 million it owes the state by Feb. 15, Education Commissioner Robert Scott will order the district to be annexed to the closest neighboring district that is not as relatively property-rich, as required under state law, Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Suzanne Marchman said."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all need to recall that our forefathers fought a revolution primarily because they were unfairly taxed! "No taxation without representation!"

Unfortunately, there are very few individuals who are representing the majority of people and the community's best interests.

It is time that the legislature stop shirking its responsibility and revamp the property tax and appraisal system. It is an abusive and infantilizing archaic and unfair methodology and it needs to be changed immediately. The "American Dream" has become a horrific "Nightmare" for many property owners. Our young children have little hope of one day owning their own home.

Voters / taxpayers must rise-up as a giant tsunami and as a group demand legislators to stop the aggressive appraisal districts to perpetrate the rampant financial murder of their district constituency. People have worked very hard to own and maintain their homes and property. Tax and appraisal districts should not be permitted to continue assaulting the wallets of their residents because the state diverts its constitutional financial and tax revenue responsibility to local communities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top