Hey Pink, I'm confused. Are you for or against getting all businesses to pay taxes in this state? Why shouldn't ALL business pay more in education taxes, they benefit the most from an educated workforce, don't they? Also, why should homeowners carry the burden of school financing? Are you AWARE that people are getting forced out of their homes not b/c of the mortgage payment but because of the TAX payment? (I'm one of them.) Yes, I'd like to see all school funding from property taxes eliminated and replaced with a modest 1-2% income tax across the board. But shit man, you make it sound like by giving homeowners some fucking financial relief is putting babies on the streets. And that makes me a sad panda.

hey pinkdome... no links, i went to look for something stating this and found a list of bills on tx freedom network, but nothing so radical as what you proposed... i'd love to read more about this...

SATIRE, people. Closer to home than we would like.

Anon- I don't think PD is talking about NOT giving homeowners some relief... they've been bearing the burden of the entire system for far too long. Problem is, what's going on at the capital is window dressing and does nothing to address real problems in how we fund schools. It's a bandaid, but not one of the good branded ones... it's a cheapo knock off from Wal-Mart (where CradDICK buys his toupes).

One question... did your realtor and loan officer NOT explain property taxes to you when you bought the house?

(Sigh.) The really sad thing is that this is supposed to be so ridiculous that people are shocked and appalled...

Trey the man that loves to pay taxes.

Trey - yes, property taxes were explained. I bought during a time when I was making good money from Clinton's economy. Then Bushista began his shit, and everything changed.

The house cost a modest $135k, and at the time I bought it I was making about $80k annually. The taxes were $3100 the first year. I now make half my original pay working for (irony) education, but I've watched my taxes go up to $4000 in three years, even as I fought the appraisil district to get their value of my home LOWERED. Half of that is school taxes, and it's flat out ridiculous.

There are a LOT of problems with the property tax system as a whole in this state, but the education portion especially. And for the record, teachers aren't the only education system employees grossly underpaid considering their contribution, but they are the only ones that get any attention.

I will say this: The single largest problem with education in Texas isn't money, it's the fucking good 'ole boy system. It's the hiring of friends at fucking high salaries when they aren't qualified and do more to fuck up the administration side than they fix. Keep that in mind while you're clamoring to give districts more fucking money...

I just want everybody to flood CradDICK's office with calls. This post was hysterical.

anon - that blows... when you went to the appraisal district, did you have an appraisal with you? If not, I have a few people who always come in below value. I use them when I want to kill a loan without pissing anyone off.

All that other crap aside, I think PD is just making Grussendorf's wish come true to read that he had finally done away with socialized education.

The problem (Wonk) is that we could have lowered property taxes AND put new money into schools. Lowering the tax rate to $1.25 gives significant property tax relief AND frees up lots of money for public schools.

Why not do both?

Because the lege sucks?

"The single largest problem with education in Texas isn't money, it's the fucking good 'ole boy system. It's the hiring of friends at fucking high salaries when they aren't qualified and do more to fuck up the administration side than they fix"

WORD!!!!

Its a damn shame few people understand what the hell is happening at the capitol.

NO ONE is against property tax relief. The negligence of the state to fully fund public education has led local school districts to seek those funds from the local tax payer.

These Bills DO NOT address that fundamental problem. Instead they take potential revenue streams (like the broad-based business tax) and use them to temporaily cut taxes. (School districts still need funds, and will continue to raise taxes.

The five bills are essentially a siphon that suck money out of the system.

This session will mark a lowpoint for public education in Texas (thnx to Perry & co.).

I think it was evident that Perry et al had no interests in education, but they do have an interest in taxation. "No taxation, without education!"

Anyhow. I ran across this on BOR recently, seems appropriate to post here, too:

"…[B]arring major policy change at the national level, states will be forced to compete increasingly hard to attract and retain industries… [T]he impetus this provides for cutting taxes and public services is severely limited by the needs of corporations for a skilled and flexible workforce to stay viable in an advanced industrial nation. That is, the old Southern strategy of accentuating the characteristics of a Third World economy is almost certainly doomed to failure…. [T]he importance of attracting new businesses is not just for the new jobs that they directly bring. Rather, the access that they can provide local businesses to world-wide corporate networks may be just as vital for regenerating economic growth. Finally, education is clearly an important area in regards to: 1) Basic literacy in math training in primary and secondary schools; 2) specific skills that a particular business needs and that vo-tech and community colleges can provide; and 3) partnerships between research universities and high tech firms."

Source:

Clark, Cal, and Robert S. Montjoy. “Globalization’s Impact on State-Local Economic Development Policy: Introduction to the Symposium.” Policy Studies Review 18.3 (2001): 5-12.

As the orig. commenter on BOR noted: "'Nuff said, I s'pose."

Schools don't just want money, they want it with no strings. That means that the state puts more money in for the same crappy results. If you "fully funded" (that is, give them whatever they ask for) today, there would be a line out the door tomorrow demanding more money and telling you why they could not possibly pass more than 50% of the kids. There is no state where unions claim the system is adequately funded. There is no amount that will satiate.

Allow me a little thought experiment/word play:

Defense contractors [just picking a random group] don't just want money, they want it with no strings. That means that the government puts more money in for the same crappy results. If you "fully funded" (that is, give them whatever they ask for) today, there would be a line out the door tomorrow demanding more money and telling you why they could not possibly finish more than 50% of their projects. There is no contractor who claims that defense is adequately funded. There is no amount that will satiate.

J the topic is education.

Comparing education to defense is just silly.

Oh. I'm sorry!

I thought part of the issue was people complaining about schools bitching about never having enough money, and not producing adequate results. To whit, Snrub's Complaint, three comments up.

Imagine! A government run program always wanting more money, and never living up to its promises.

It's all good if it's *your* pet program that's all about blowing up brown people. But if we're talking about *our* pet program that is for educating brown (and other) people's kids...

See where I'm coming from, Wonk?

I do and it makes sense. Of course, I can think clearly. Wonk and his b-fri Snrub have issues with that.

j:

Right, so you oppose one and not the other. I get it. As long as it is your pet project. I, on the other hand, don't recall ever having made any statement that justified defense contractors looting public coffers. Also, there is no h in "to wit," just FYI.

snrub;

Not sure I stated I opposed defense spending. It's about priorities, was the point I was trying to make.

I had a HS teacher suggest that the value of a dollar was the value of the best other thing you could do with it. Are there instances where money is being spent, in Texas (forget defense), and that doesn't produce results?

I can think of one right off the top of my head:

http://texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1925

"Texas: The Corporate Welfare State

How Gov. Rick Perry's use of the Enterprise Fund is wasting taxpayer dollars"

And Austin just gave away a bunch of money to Samsung. Wanna bet all those jobs never materialize?

So there's a couple of pots of money that's being spent for questionable results.

Can the public schools be better? You bet. Is money the answer to all the state's problems with education? Absolutely not. (Engaged parents would help a lot - which you can't legislate.) But I think we'd be better off putting money in our schools than throwing it at corporations. And I'm sure there are other areas where the state and local governments are throwing good money after bad.

It's all a matter of priorities.

Just one lib's opinion.

I don't have a problem putting more money into education. I think it could be a very worthwhile investment. I have a problem with putting money in and listening to the education lobby oppose every meaningful reform to a system that is producing awful results. People talk about "high stakes" testing. Has anyone looked at that test? It is a joke. If a kid can't pass it there is something seriously wrong with the kid or the school.

Either Pink Dome is an outrageous liar or has a unique sense of humor. The Texas Constitution mandates that all children in Texas receive a publlic education. Neither the Legislature nor the Governor can change that.

Parody? Darn. I was rather pleased by the sound of this. It's too good to be true.