PDA

View Full Version : Medina Tax Plan Draws Opponents




Bern
01-20-2010, 07:58 AM
Her tax plan is in the news. I consider this a good thing. :)

http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Medina-tax-plan-draws-opponents-82118012.html

LibertyEagle
01-20-2010, 08:05 AM
The Texas Association of Realtors opposes the idea, pointing to the burden on first time buyers. TAR says homeowners would also lose the property tax deduction on their federal taxes that might not be equaled by a sales tax deduction.

lol.

Oh, I have no doubt they are against it. They'd rather people have the blood drained from them year after year AFTER they purchase real estate. As opposed to the charge coming up front and then people actually owning their property, instead of in essence having to lease it from the government.

TonySutton
01-20-2010, 08:16 AM
CPPP says the data show a higher, broader sales tax is regressive, and would consume a higher percentage of a low-income family’s income compared to a higher-income household.

sure... because property taxes are not passed on to lower income familys through the rent they pay...

/sarcasm

sratiug
01-20-2010, 08:28 AM
How can they say she's doubling the goods and services tax when it goes from 8.25 to 9 percent?

Romulus
01-20-2010, 08:59 AM
I'll trade 9% for no prop tax anyday! We're already up near 10% on sales tax as it is.

Bern
01-20-2010, 09:00 AM
To be fair, the tax rate would be changing from 8.25 to somewhere between 9 and 14.5 depending upon how much the tax base changes. The 9% figure, according to the study, requires a tax base that includes "all services that are taxed in at least one state are taxed in Texas". I'm not sure what that includes exactly and if it is a realistic (political) goal.

Dustancostine
01-20-2010, 07:20 PM
TAR says homeowners would also lose the property tax deduction on their federal taxes that might not be equaled by a sales tax deduction.


Hmmmm.....

Option 1: Pay a ton in property taxes each year and get to write it off on my taxes or......

Option 2: Keep my money and pay taxes on it


Really hard decision there...... LOL :rolleyes:

Imperial
01-20-2010, 07:39 PM
Isn't her tax plan similar to the one Chris Daggett the independent had in New Jersey's gubernatorial election?

Bern
01-21-2010, 08:47 AM
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/2009/10/09/the-plan-to-cut-nj-property-tax/

Looks like Daggett's plan didn't call for complete elimination of property taxes.

Number19
01-21-2010, 08:57 PM
( taken from campaign literature)

EXAMPLES OF DEBRA'S PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAX:

Assume you are buying a house for $200,000.

The current appraisal would result in an annual property tax of about $7,000.

The current state sales tax rate is 6.25%.

CASE 1: If the legislature eliminated the property tax and did nothing else, it would be necessary to increase the sales tax rate to make up for the revenue lost by the property tax elimination. The sales tax would RISE from 6.25% up to 15.00%.

CASE 2: Many states have a broader sales tax base than does Texas. There are 180 items (goods and services) not currently taxed in Texas that are taxed in other states. Broadening Texas's sales tax base to include a number of these previously untaxed goods and services would result in a sales tax RISE from 6.25% up to 9.0%.

CASE 3: In addition to the increased sales tax base in CASE 2, the legislature passed legislation to include sales tax on the transfer of property. In this case the sales tax would DECREASE from 6.25% down to 6.1%.

At a 6.1% sales tax rate your sales tax on the purchase of a $200,000 home would be $12,000.

On first brush this appears to be exorbitant. However, compared to an annual payment of $7,000 of property tax it represents the following advantages:

* In your first two years in your new home with property tax in effect you would pay $14,000 in property taxes, or 114.75% of the sales tax you would have paid in your first year of home ownership. That is, you would pay nearly 15% more at 2 years of home ownership, 72% more after 3 years of home ownership, 125% more after 4 years o0f home ownership, and 187% more after 5 years of home ownership. In your sixth year of home ownership with property tax remaining in effect you would have paid more than double that which you would have paid in sales tax on the initial purchase of the home.

* Base on historical fact, your property appraisal would have increased annually, increasing your property tax. That "inflation tax" is eliminated by the elimination of property tax.

* YOU OWN THE HOUSE OUTRIGHT and the government can not come and take it away from you to settle unpaid property taxes.

* Assuming you had borrowed $150,000 to purchase the home. With property taxes you would need to put your tax payment in the escrow account each month and not earn interest off the escrow. Without property tax that escrow money remains in your hands to be spent or earn interest from savings.

* After the first 21 months of home ownership your disposable income would substantially increase by $7,000 annually excluding any pay increase you may be awarded.

Bern
01-22-2010, 06:27 AM
Thanks #19. Did you type that (transcribed from a pamphlet) or copy/paste from a web document somewhere?

Number19
01-22-2010, 08:31 AM
I had to type it out from an 8 1/2 X 11 handout I got at our last meetup. I wanted something I could cut and paste into internet comments and discussions. It looks like it came from a newsletter.

There's also one on:

Better Border Needs Better Economics,
Protecting Texas - Gun Ownership, and
Restore Sovereignty

edit : All three of the above carry Debra's byline. The property tax piece was included in the same literature, but doesn't actually have Debra's name attached to it. I have heard that Debra is relying on another source for her statistics and position on this issue, so it is possible that this text may have come from this. It does not have a byline, but Debra's immediately precedes it, concluding the Better Borders position paper.

I'll see if I can find out where this all originated, but it may take a few days.

Texan4Life
01-22-2010, 01:58 PM
very interesting #19.

I hope she makes it clear shes not for Case 1 or 2. as raising sales tax to 9-15% would not go over well.

Austrian Econ Disciple
01-22-2010, 02:06 PM
If she reduced spending she could simultaneously end property tax and reduce sales tax. She needs to pound on that. Nullify all Federal Mandates. Reduce Government imposed services and replace with free-market alternatives.

Nathan Hale
01-22-2010, 07:00 PM
If she reduced spending she could simultaneously end property tax and reduce sales tax. She needs to pound on that. Nullify all Federal Mandates. Reduce Government imposed services and replace with free-market alternatives.

I agree. At the federal level, for instance, the Fairtax proposal is ludicrous at our current level of spending. I've advised supporters of it to push spending reductions along with their Fairtax plan because at a lower spending rate it's a much more feasible alternative. Debra should push on reduced spending to make her plan more attractive.

Ron_Paul_Knows
02-01-2010, 10:39 PM
WFAA is at it again with another attack on her tax plan. I guess once wasn't enough.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Critics-claim-Medina-tax-plan-hurts-families-83300657.html (http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Critics-claim-Medina-tax-plan-hurts-families-83300657.html)

Leave a comment if you like to help counteract their scare tactics.

I also came across another attack piece today if anyone cares to comment. They say in the article that Debra wants to do a bunch of stuff that is unconstitutional.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/medina-shakes-up-gop-race-rise-in-polls-may-cause-election-runoff-1.2157541 (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/medina-shakes-up-gop-race-rise-in-polls-may-cause-election-runoff-1.2157541)

The Eradicator
02-02-2010, 12:50 AM
Frankly, there is no chance that a sales tax on existing homes would ever pass the legislature, it is just too stupid. Tax on new homes, commercial real estate, those could work. However taxing people for moving is just freaking stupid. There is a long list of cons falling through my fingers. Of course I won't type them all.

It punishes military service
It punishes people for having children
It punishes people for wanting their children in a better school
It punishes already strained families and children for getting divorced
It punishes people for being useful and getting promoted

It makes no sense to tax someone for moving, none at all. Why not tax people for living with their parents instead? That actually makes sense.

The Eradicator
02-02-2010, 01:02 AM
WFAA is at it again with another attack on her tax plan. I guess once wasn't enough.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Critics-claim-Medina-tax-plan-hurts-families-83300657.html (http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/Critics-claim-Medina-tax-plan-hurts-families-83300657.html)

Leave a comment if you like to help counteract their scare tactics.

I also came across another attack piece today if anyone cares to comment. They say in the article that Debra wants to do a bunch of stuff that is unconstitutional.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/medina-shakes-up-gop-race-rise-in-polls-may-cause-election-runoff-1.2157541 (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/medina-shakes-up-gop-race-rise-in-polls-may-cause-election-runoff-1.2157541)

Their comments are nonsensical. If someone who currently pays $1500 in sales tax annually had their sales taxes double, they would be paying no more than they do now. It would just be $3000 in sales tax instead of half sales and half property.

I don't care if it is unfair to the poor, but it isn't any more regressive than property tax. Property tax is probably far more regressive when you consider the poor are the ones who are having their property taken from them for not making the tax bill. This notion of sales tax being regressive is in comparison to the Federal graduated income tax, a whole other situation. People need to keep their facts straight.

Ron_Paul_Knows
02-03-2010, 02:46 AM
Debra has added an FAQ section to her issues page on eliminating property taxes:
http://www.medinafortexas.com/propertyTax.php (http://www.medinafortexas.com/propertyTax.php)

Bern
02-03-2010, 04:49 AM
Awesome. That issue is generating a lot of questions, so she really needed to clarify it. I'm glad to see that she addressed the issue of funding schools in poor districts. That seems to be the first thing that people wonder about when considering this issue.

Ron_Paul_Knows
02-08-2010, 02:05 AM
Here's another article critical of her tax plan from the Austin American-Statesman. It's not entirely negative but overall it is pretty critical.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/medina-tax-swap-proposal-comes-at-a-cost-219926.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/medina-tax-swap-proposal-comes-at-a-cost-219926.html)

loveshiscountry
02-08-2010, 10:27 AM
Frankly, there is no chance that a sales tax on existing homes would ever pass the legislature, it is just too stupid. Tax on new homes, commercial real estate, those could work. However taxing people for moving is just freaking stupid. There is a long list of cons falling through my fingers. Of course I won't type them all.

I don't understand the comment. Why do you say a sales on existing homes wouldn't work? How is that different from the current property tax? Medinas plan does not tax houses unless it is sold.

No one is being taxed to move.


It punishes military service
It punishes people for having children
It punishes people for wanting their children in a better school
It punishes already strained families and children for getting divorced
It punishes people for being useful and getting promoted

It makes no sense to tax someone for moving, none at all. Why not tax people for living with their parents instead? That actually makes sense.

Since when is someone who moves forced to buy a house? If property tax was abolished RENTERS would pay less since the owner of the house is no longer paying though the teeth, especially on non homestead exemption houses.

On a 130k house the property tax for those with just the home stead exemption is ~3k a year. Which translates to $250 a month. The free market will tell you when the cost to the homeowner goes down the rent will also.

Pay every year you are in the house at ~3 percent or once at 12 percent.

The Eradicator
02-08-2010, 10:49 AM
I don't understand the comment. Why do you say a sales on existing homes wouldn't work? How is that different from the current property tax? Medinas plan does not tax houses unless it is sold.

No one is being taxed to move.



Since when is someone who moves forced to buy a house? If property tax was abolished RENTERS would pay less since the owner of the house is no longer paying though the teeth, especially on non homestead exemption houses.

On a 130k house the property tax for those with just the home stead exemption is ~3k a year. Which translates to $250 a month. The free market will tell you when the cost to the homeowner goes down the rent will also.

Pay every year you are in the house at ~3 percent or once at 12 percent.
Yes, it would definitely promote renting over ownership, which I don't see as something the government should be doing. The point in getting rid of the property tax is an ideological one. It is so you can actually own your property free and clear from government. No one says this will reduce our tax burden, merely shift it. What is the point in making a change that can lead to real property ownership if it encourages renting instead of ownership?

If you are one of us crazy people like me who wants to own your house, you will have to pay this tax every time you move, while people who decide to live in one place never do. It just doesn't make sense to make movers pay taxes non-movers don't have to pay. Like I said, if it sticks with commercial real estate and new homes I could go with that, and the legislature and citizenry might as well, but not a sales tax on every home purchase.

The Eradicator
02-08-2010, 10:55 AM
Here's another article critical of her tax plan from the Austin American-Statesman. It's not entirely negative but overall it is pretty critical.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/medina-tax-swap-proposal-comes-at-a-cost-219926.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/medina-tax-swap-proposal-comes-at-a-cost-219926.html)

I read their article and deny their claim that a sales tax is more regressive than a property tax. It's the other way around.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-08-2010, 10:57 AM
Yes, it would definitely promote renting over ownership, which I don't see as something the government should be doing. The point in getting rid of the property tax is an ideological one. It is so you can actually own your property free and clear from government. No one says this will reduce our tax burden, merely shift it. What is the point in making a change that can lead to real property ownership if it encourages renting instead of ownership?

If you are one of us crazy people like me who wants to own your house, you will have to pay this tax every time you move, while people who decide to live in one place never do. It just doesn't make sense to make movers pay taxes non-movers don't have to pay. Like I said, if it sticks with commercial real estate and new homes I could go with that, and the legislature and citizenry might as well, but not a sales tax on every home purchase.

To me it makes perfect sense. Also, taxing the sale of a house might help prevent a housing bubble like the one we saw with the sub-prime debacle. It will discourage "flippers" and raise the one time sale price. Once you are in your house you no longer have to come up with all that money for property taxes which will make it easier to keep your home.

Just wondering, how often do you move to a new home?

The Eradicator
02-08-2010, 12:03 PM
To me it makes perfect sense. Also, taxing the sale of a house might help prevent a housing bubble like the one we saw with the sub-prime debacle. It will discourage "flippers" and raise the one time sale price. Once you are in your house you no longer have to come up with all that money for property taxes which will make it easier to keep your home.

Just wondering, how often do you move to a new home?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think a great many people will be on my side, some on yours too no doubt.

I'm not a good sample. However, the National Association of Realtors figure is 7 years. On average everyone moves every 7 years. If you move every 2-4 then your tax liability would be greatly increased.

Bern
02-08-2010, 01:20 PM
... However, the National Association of Realtors figure is 7 years. On average everyone moves every 7 years. If you move every 2-4 then your tax liability would be greatly increased.

I'm guessing that the change in tax structure would encourage folks to move less frequently and maintain the upkeep/value of their property more. Businesses that move employees will end up absorbing some of the moving costs if they can't adjust their business/HR model.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-08-2010, 06:53 PM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think a great many people will be on my side, some on yours too no doubt.

I'm not a good sample. However, the National Association of Realtors figure is 7 years. On average everyone moves every 7 years. If you move every 2-4 then your tax liability would be greatly increased.

People who can afford to buy a home every 2-4 years can afford to pay the tax. You are not required to move. It is a free choice. Just as you are not required to buy taxable goods and services in Texas that you can't afford. (remember most foods and medical services will not be taxed) And as mentioned above, people will be more inclined to set down roots in their community instead of seeing their house as simply an investment. The United States became strong because of people investing not just money but time in their communities.

The Eradicator
02-09-2010, 12:19 AM
People who can afford to buy a home every 2-4 years can afford to pay the tax. You are not required to move. It is a free choice. Just as you are not required to buy taxable goods and services in Texas that you can't afford. (remember most foods and medical services will not be taxed) And as mentioned above, people will be more inclined to set down roots in their community instead of seeing their house as simply an investment. The United States became strong because of people investing not just money but time in their communities.

Thanks but I'd rather not have the government trying to influence my behavior.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-09-2010, 01:16 AM
Thanks but I'd rather not have the government trying to influence my behavior.

I see. Do you follow the speed limit when you drive? Stop at red lights? Pay your income tax? Drink soda made with high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar?

The whole purpose of government is to influence your behavior. If you don't want government at all then you might classify yourself as an Anarchist. However, you support property taxes, sooo.....

see what I'm getting at here?

I think what you are failing to realize is how badly a property tax influences your behavior. With a yearly tax on "your" property, the government never stops influencing you as long as you own that property. With a one time reasonable tax, the government has no claim on your property (or a substantial chunk of your money) after the sale.

nobody's_hero
02-09-2010, 10:53 AM
Yes, it would definitely promote renting over ownership, which I don't see as something the government should be doing. The point in getting rid of the property tax is an ideological one. It is so you can actually own your property free and clear from government. No one says this will reduce our tax burden, merely shift it. What is the point in making a change that can lead to real property ownership if it encourages renting instead of ownership?


Who do renters rent from?

Owners who own the rental property.

Heck, this might encourage people to buy more properties to rent out, for that matter.

But you are still going to have people who have that desire to own their own home, and will be happy to do so even if it costs them a bit more money than renting.

As for me,
I desire not to get in debt over my eyeballs with a mortgage that practically enslaves me, so renting already is more alluring at the moment, regardless of the property tax debate.




Peter Schiff rented, and all the realtors thought he was crazy, and now he's a made man. :D

The Eradicator
02-09-2010, 11:13 AM
I see. Do you follow the speed limit when you drive? Stop at red lights? Pay your income tax? Drink soda made with high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar?
Now you are just being silly. Public safety and traffic laws are not in the same category as private behavior and spending.


The whole purpose of government is to influence your behavior. If you don't want government at all then you might classify yourself as an Anarchist. However, you support property taxes, sooo.....

I never said I was an anarchist now you've gone to making things up. Not wanting the government to interfere in this matter is not the same as not wanting any form of government at all. I've also stated clearly in this thread multiple times that I am opposed to property taxes.


see what I'm getting at here?
Yes, it is quite clear, either you've gone off the deep end or you are just a jerk.



I think what you are failing to realize is how badly a property tax influences your behavior. With a yearly tax on "your" property, the government never stops influencing you as long as you own that property. With a one time reasonable tax, the government has no claim on your property (or a substantial chunk of your money) after the sale.

Again, you are arguing against positions which I clearly do not ascribe to.

The Eradicator
02-09-2010, 11:17 AM
Who do renters rent from?

Owners who own the rental property.

Heck, this might encourage people to buy more properties to rent out, for that matter.

But you are still going to have people who have that desire to own their own home, and will be happy to do so even if it costs them a bit more money than renting.

As for me,
I desire not to get in debt over my eyeballs with a mortgage that practically enslaves me, so renting already is more alluring at the moment, regardless of the property tax debate.




Peter Schiff rented, and all the realtors thought he was crazy, and now he's a made man. :D

I don't have anything against renting, just don't think it should be incentivised and favored over ownership. I say let the citizen make their own decision without being influenced by tax policy.

constituent
02-09-2010, 11:39 AM
I don't have anything against renting, just don't think it should be incentivised and favored over ownership. I say let the citizen make their own decision without being influenced by tax policy.

fair enough. it's a purity issue for you then?

i certainly understand if that's the case... i disagree with her suggested policy too. I'm just glad to see someone talking about getting rid of property taxes. That just didn't happen last go 'round.

John Taylor
02-09-2010, 12:31 PM
fair enough. it's a purity issue for you then?

i certainly understand if that's the case... i disagree with her suggested policy too. I'm just glad to see someone talking about getting rid of property taxes. That just didn't happen last go 'round.

Here's to getting rid of rent payments to the government for holding your own land!!!

Nate-ForLiberty
02-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Now you are just being silly. Public safety and traffic laws are not in the same category as private behavior and spending.


I never said I was an anarchist now you've gone to making things up. Not wanting the government to interfere in this matter is not the same as not wanting any form of government at all. I've also stated clearly in this thread multiple times that I am opposed to property taxes.


Yes, it is quite clear, either you've gone off the deep end or you are just a jerk.



Again, you are arguing against positions which I clearly do not ascribe to.


wow, man. relax. I was attacking you at all. Sorry if it came across that way.

No, I haven't gone off the deep end, and no I'm not a jerk (most of the time) :D
A better way to have handled that (if you thought I was coming after you), was to address only the issues and ignore anything you thought was a personal attack. When you do this the person who is doing the "attacking" will either go away, or self-implode.

Welcome to the forums, btw. :)

constituent
02-09-2010, 03:28 PM
Here's to getting rid of rent payments to the government for holding your own land!!!

seems simple enough. let's hope it sticks!