TexasCHLforum.com

Bart wrote:I for sure didn't vote for it.

My question was, did you vote against it?
If not, why not?
or, did you make a choice to buy a home that had sewer lines instead of outhouses and had garbage pickup at the curb instead of you hauling trash to the dump ?
If so, and if those services are paid for by your property taxes, you had to have known that when you bought the house.
Ergo, you voted for it.
If you don't like it and don't want sewer or garbage services, talk to them about opting out.
See the link http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0Zl ... clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I propose you voted for it, if it already existed when you chose to buy that home, when you were disclosed the information and chose to buy it.
Or, you voted against it, lost, and didn't opt out.
Unless, it didn't exist when you bought the home, and you didn't get around to voting and just let the rest of the people decide for you, in which case you actually "voted to go along with the majority" by abstaining.

However, if you subsequently want to dissolve the Utility District which is no longer needed, then take action to do it. Either elect a decent city council, or run for city council, or petition the city council.
SEE: http://frankreilly.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
FEBRUARY 4, 2010
One less taxing entity in Austin, RIP NW Austin MUD #1
Today, the Austin City Council approved an ordinance to abolish the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (the “District”). (Cities can dissolved utility districts laying within their boundaries .... contact city council if you want to)
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opi ... 0441ga.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://law.onecle.com/texas/water/chapt ... ga0451.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://law.onecle.com/texas/water/chapter65.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/sworncomp ... 904102.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Senate Bill 367 dissolves the Kuykendahl Road Public Utility District No. 1 in Harris County.

Some are self-dissolving:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/annexation/lostcreek.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
December 31, 2015 Residential area in MUD is annexed for full purposes with no further City Council action required. The Lost Creek MUD is dissolved.

Like I said before, my city doesn't create those, so we don't have to dissolve them... If you don't need the services, don't vote to create the districts, or rather BE SURE TO VOTE against them, if they are needed temporarily, make them self-dissolving, if you want to opt out, give it a shot and have them not pick up your garbage. If you don't want a house with sewers, buy outside of town. That's an individual choice and local issue, don't tear down the house to fix a kitchen sink, those issues you create locally and you fix locally. Talk to your city council and district.

Did you vote against creating one? That's how we opted out.
Most people know what services an area has when they buy a home and what the costs are. Many buy a home in a certain area due to what srvices are there that attract them (Sewers instead of septic tanks/outhouses, better streets, less likely to flood, etc.)
But if for some reason you didn't, couldn't, or refused to vote, then bought a home somewhere whithout reading anything, and you want to opt out later, I imagine you'd contact whichever utility district and opt out to no longer receive sewer or garbage service etc. See : http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0Zl ... clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
TRAVIS COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 10
Minutes
"GARBAGE SERVICES:
Discussion ensued regarding garbage service to (address deleted). DirectorTaylor said that the property owners, Vicki and Ken (Last name deleted), have owned the property for two years and had not been receiving garbage service. He said we did not have their name at the time the letter regarding opting out of garbage service was mailed. He said that the Daraie's are requesting to opt-out of the garbage service. DirectorTaylor said that since they were not notified of the opportunity to opt out of the garbage service, he recommended that the Daraie's be allowed to opt-out of the service at this time and refunded the portion of their sewer payment that is attributable to garbage service"

Marty Graw wrote:Will a property tax fan explain what half these are? What benefit to the public? I understand the first few but then it looks like more and more excuses to redistribute wealth like P-lousy and O-bummer.
http://www.hcad.org/resources/jurlist.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, you mean school districts/MUDS/PUDS/Flood Control/Emergency Services Districts?

MUDS/PUDs are utility districts that the people who voluntarily subjected themselves to them and receive services from them voted to create, we don't have one nor want one, but some areas created one, like some areas created a Flood Control District to control flooding, we don't have one nor want one, but some areas created one, Emergency Services Districts are to raise funds for EMS Fire etc, we don't have one nor want one, but some areas voted and created one to service their local area.

We, (my city) decided not to vote for creating any of those and instead have a place on our utility bills where we can donate extra dollar or few for FIRE/EMS services if we so choose to voluntarily do so..... But those people wanting to create those districts in those areas of Harris County voted to do so to obtain those services provided. It's like Metro .... Pasadena voted NOT to add an extra 1% sales tax, because they chose NOT to have Houston busses run there, other cities voted to pay Metro/MTA because they wanted those services. A ranch owner last year desired to create a MUD for water rights near Marble Falls Texas, the people voted against it, so there is no MUD taxing utility district in Marble Falls.. That link is to a list of districts for various areas within Harris County, for the various services they provide that the voters wanted in those particular areas, so they voted to create them.

Like one city there, I don't recall if it's Galena Park or Jacinto City or what, but they voted to create an Emergency Services District taxing entity to pay for amulances. If you are in a wreck in that city, your ambulance ride etc is free, paid for by the residents there that voted to do it and be taxed for it. I recall almost going crazy attempting to get them to send a bill for a personal injury case, so they could get paid by the negligent party who caused the injuries and their expenses, I informed them that our client wasn't even a resident of their city and had never paid into that Tax District fund, but they insisted that there was no charge. In my city, the ambulance sends you a bill which you turn over to your health insurance and they pay it, so I don't know why they voted for that, but that's their local decision and right.

5thGenTexan wrote:RPB

Unfortunately there is no such thing as an Independent politician due to the obcene costs of mounting a campaign, and there is no such thing a perfect tax with all the "special interests" including my own.

Ok, that does it ... I'm moving to Utopia.... oh wait, thats a city in Texas still.

5thGenTexan ............ I like the way you perceive things and word things

Let's get rid of all of them and vote Charles in.

As you stated ...
"However I'm not sold on the concept of changing to a total reliance on sales or consumption tax either since it would tend to foster people crossing state lines to shop much like they do now to gamble in our neighboring states"

True ...
Won't everyone just buy everything but groceries from Indiana over the internet and avoid the state and local sales and use tax they are supposed to pay? FedEx and U.P.S. will have to hire more drivers/sorters etc, Local and State Sales Tax revenues would decrease. Now if enough people shopped out of State for the tax savings, obviously sales here decrease, local Texas businesses would need fewer salespeople, stockers, cashiers etc so they lay them off. Those unemployed workers now aren't spending much money locally either so the businesses they would have patronized now need fewer employees and lay some off .......

Dragonfighter wrote:

RPB wrote: I have an issue with that too, and it is simpler to solve than her proposed give rich benefits while increasing burdens on less fortunate.

One solution would simply be to add a Constitutional Amendment or law that exempts property from being confiscated .... much like Credit Card creditors etc can't take your property for non-payment.

What about liens. They may not be able to kick you to the curb under that system, but you are still "renting" your property from the state. With the exception of a couple of successful suits based on the common law, every Texan pays taxes based on the assessor's valuation, sometimes on land owned for generations.

You and I do agree on several points.

You addressed only the top part of my post, per the rule of optional completion, I'll post the rest.

Lots of ways can be implimented to protect property. And recovering from the poor what they owed, without burdening the rich.
Example: Medicaid may pay a person's Nursing home, Long term at home care, or Hospice care bills, but they can't take your house .... after you pass away though, they get repaid from the estate through MERP (Medicaid Estate Recovery Program) but meanwhile, you aren't homeless due to non-payment.

Liens won't work, they'd hinder transfer of property when a person needs to move. Estate Recovery wouldn't. PROPERTY TAX LIENS will be a thing of the past.

As I already stated, if a constitutional amendment or law were passed prohibiting the confiscation/foreclosure of a homestead due to non-payment of property taxes, there's no need for anyone to file any tax liens as there will be no way to foreclose on a tax lien.

Yes you are still free to have a roof replaced and the company place a Mechanics and Materialmens lien .... you are free to do that, that's your choice, but there's no reason for an unenforceable tax lien.

Yes the FEDERAL Gov't I.R.S. could still take your property if you fail to pay your income tax, but on a State+Local level there's no reason for anyone to even file an unenforceable tax lien, since they couldn't foreclose on it anyway.

An Estate Recovery Program like MERP utilizes filing a claim against the estate, rather than a lien against the property.

That's just one idea. But since the sink is broken, we can fix the sink. There's no reason to tear down the whole house to fix the sink.

I suppose another solution would be .... and I'm just brainstorming here .... is for people to actually pay what they owe, whether it is to the roofer who did put a lien on the house, or the government. And to live within their means. If someone can't affod tax and maintanance and repairs on a 5 million dollar house, then downsize to a 2 million dollar house.

Still, no matter what, your still essentially renting from the Federal Gov't since they can take your property due to unpaid taxes..... I don't like that either, but that's a horse of a different color.

Rex B wrote:I'm good with that.
Point is, no one else is even talking about it being an issue.

I agree, like I said I'm not against a revolution, just wish they'd provide other well thought out options on how to run it, instead of relying on someone elses "plan" that sounds good, but has a lot of hidden agenda implications and consequences.... Sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution.....It's too costly to revolt and lose.

Rex B wrote:Her primary issue is that taxation of real estate includes the ability of the state to confiscate real estate for non-payment of taxes.(That is not true in all other states). As long as the state can take your $200,000 home for a tax debt of $10,000, you do not really own that property.
She proposes to make that a total non-issue by funding government differently. Her proposal of a sales tax would fall on all citizens equally, just as government services are supposed to.

I have an issue with that too, and it is simpler to solve than her proposed give rich benefits while increasing burdens on less fortunate.
One solution would simply be to add a Constitutional Amendment or law that exempts Business or residential homestead property from being confiscated .... much like Credit Card creditors etc can't take your property for non-payment. Sometimes the most obvious simplest solution is the best to take instead of going roundabout to achieve the stated goal.

Lots of ways can be implimented to protect property. And recovering from the poor what they owed, without burdening the rich.
Example: Medicaid may pay a person's Nursing home, Long term at home care, or Hospice care bills, but they can't take your house .... after you pass away though, they get repaid from the estate through MERP (Medicaid Estate Recovery Program) but meanwhile, you aren't homeless due to non-payment.

idrathernot wrote: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.

and again ...

Then she needs a different plan.

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.

idrathernot wrote:

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.

That really isn't that far off topic either considering Communists always remove local ownership and control and place it in the hands of big government too, as Medina wants to do with our revenue dollars we currently own and control locally.

sjfcontrol wrote:

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.

AH! Now I've got it! It's tax the rich/income redistribution! Why didn't I think of that?
I think the "fat cat" disagrees...

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

Actually, the "rich" big companies currently pay their share of property taxes based upon value, just like everyone else, so that's fair. Of course the fat cat/rich property owners disagree with paying their fair share ... that's why they funded the study which benefits them that Medina endorses. She wants to give relief to them and tax everyone else more; inversly proportionate to their respective asset ownership and probable income. If the "fat cats" don't have to pay their fair share, the poorer people will make up the difference... yeah, that sounds fair. So she proposes a 'give tax relief to the rich and redistribute the poorer peoples "wealth" to those who already possess more' system... yeah, that sounds fair.

Obama promised to change stuff, we gave him the opportunity to prove he can change stuff, now we need to figure out how to change it back, if at all possible, and it isn't.

idrathernot wrote:

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?

now that's a horse of a different color
Good catch/analogy though in that a revolution itself may not be a bad idea, ignorance, inexperience and corruption in a conducting revolution in the wrong way is costly. Which are concepts in that book I believe.
I think California is learning that.

sjfcontrol wrote:

RPB wrote:[

I disagree ... I run into "The Appraisal District" and "Tax Assessor/Collector" and "School Board" people at the HEB and hardware store or school functions often, if they don't behave, they get replaced in the next election. Try doing that with some appointed committes in Austin. My town is only 65 miles from Austin, but it's only 8 blocks long and 6 blocks wide with one grocery store (thats where you'll see your elected officials often too, plus at all school functions when their kids and our kids are on stage or field together while we visit in the stands) and we want to keep our money here instead of turning it over to parents (Austin bigger government) and asking for some back. We aren't children and don't want to be trated as such.

I dare say if we all lived in tiny towns, we'd all be in agreement. If you live in a real town , it's an entirely different experience. The goal (at least from my POV) is to broaden the taxbase as much as possible.

After way over 50 years in Bellaire/Pasadena/Houston (and having a parent run for city council, and me being friends with several mayors of each of those cities and being involved in LOCAL poitics etc) I moved from Houston to my small town on purpose.

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. IF her plan worked to DECREASE our overall tax burden, I could see it, but that revenue has to come from somewhere, and eliminating a portion of the burden belonging to the rich huge property owners, places that burden elsewhere, and looking around .... I see that's me. And with the "benefit" of this increased burden, I give up rights to local control where and how my money is spent. .... I don't want my money going to a 6 story abortion supercenter in Houston, when we need potholes fixed here.... we fell for that line before. Federal Income Tax was a Temporay Voluntary system where we turn our money over to a bigger government instead of using it locally right? Fool me once, shame on the politicians, fool me twice, shame on me. Keep local control of local money. Keep Local tools to attract businesses and create local jobs, like property tax abatement. Reject turning all your money over to bigger government and requesting back an allowance.

Rex B wrote:Your property taxes may be controlled by locals, but you don't have much to say about it, and those locals likely don't share your concerns. The Appraisal Districts have removed tax decisions from local elected officials and let a faceless bureaucracy do their dirty work. That AD has one goal: Maximize income and increase it every year, to satisfy the demand from their constituency (City Halls) for more and more of our money.
It's a racket, and there are already people at work to abolish it. Thankfully, my rep is Vicki Truitt and she is at the front of this effort.

Medina may not be able to win - we'll see - but I hope she at least scores a close 2nd to Perry in the primary. If nothing else it will pointedly remind Mr. Perry that millions of Texans demand fiscally responsible, conservative government 100% of the time, and not just when an election is approaching.

Ultimately I realize I will probably be voting for Rick Perry in November. But the Trans Texas Corridor was to Texas what BHOs Health Care bill was to the Nation. I will not forgive Perry's attempt to "nationalize" millions of acres of private property to profit a foreign corporation.

I sure do hate gritting my teeth when I cast my vote.

I disagree with you ... I run into "The Appraisal District" and "Tax Assessor/Collector" and "School Board" people at the HEB and hardware store or school functions often, if they don't behave, they get replaced in the next election. Try doing that with some appointed committes in Austin. My town is only 65 miles from Austin, but it's only 8 blocks long and 6 blocks wide (exaggeration, but it's really small comparatively) with one grocery store (thats where you'll see your elected officials often too, plus at all school functions when their kids and our kids are on stage or field together while we visit in the stands) and we want to keep our money here instead of turning it over to parents (Austin bigger government) and asking for some back. We aren't children and don't want to be trated as such.

Mike from Texas wrote: I certainly would. I have heard her on several occasions say that she is for gun owner's rights.

I agree with you ... I heard her say it too .
I've heard her say she's against big government, yet proposes to give to big government power over that which local people currently control. I've heard her say she's against big business, yet proposes to impose more taxes on the little guy and give big businesses tax relief ... I heard Obama say CHANGE is goinng to be good, yet ...