Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Didn't see a thread. Here's my gut thinking on these, still doing some research.

  1. Money for Texas State Technical College. Sure. Although I did see a TV ad with Dan Patrick promoting this one, so I'll have to hold my nose while I vote for it.
  2. Banning something that doesn't exist (state capital gains tax). Pointless red meat that unnecessarily constrains the state in the future. I'm a no.
  3. Requires judges to deny bail in certain cases. Seems like it ties the hands of judges to make case-by-case decisions in the name of "tough on crime" posturing. Leaning no.
  4. $20bn for water infrastructure projects. I'm legitimately confused why we need a constitutional amendment for this. Cant the lege just put this in the budget like anything else?
  5. A sales tax exemption on animal feed. Seems like pretty small potatoes, but not sure why it's necessary. I'll say no.
  6. Securities tax ban. Same deal as #2.
  7. Property tax exemption for surviving spouses of veterans. Sure. Not a huge amount of money or anything.
  8. Inheritance tax ban. See #2 and #6.
  9. Exempts $125k of business inventory and equipment from property tax. Per the Trib, this cuts ~$100m from local tax revenue. Will the state make that up? I'm not holding my breath on that. So, no.
  10. Property tax exemption for homes destroyed by fire. Small potatoes. Sure.
  11. Raises homestead exemption for elderly and disabled. I mean, sounds good, but just like #9 this cuts $500m annually from school revenue. State says they'll make it up, but also...the state is liars. No.
  12. Changes the makeup of the state commission on judicial conduct. This one seems real bad. Hard no.
  13. Raises homestead exemption from $100k to $140k. See #11. Sure, I like lower taxes. Who doesn't? What I don't like is the state pulling $1bn+ per year out of school funding and pinky promising to make it up. No.
  14. Sets aside $3bn to create a dementia research fund. I guess.
  15. Codifies in the state constitution that "parents are the primary decision makers for children". This is useless political pandering. Who gives a fuck? I'll vote no just because.
  16. Says only US citizens can vote. That's already true. In theory I agree, but this is 100% pointless pandering.
  17. Adds property tax exemption for border security infrastructure. Nah. Pay for your own fucking wall.

Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/

Chronicle's endorsements (haven't read 'em yet): https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/endorsements/article/texas-constitutional-amendments-2025-propositions-21102640.php

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Didn't see a thread. Here's my gut thinking on these, still doing some research.

  1. Money for Texas State Technical College. Sure. Although I did see a TV ad with Dan Patrick promoting this one, so I'll have to hold my nose while I vote for it.
  2. Banning something that doesn't exist (state capital gains tax). Pointless red meat that unnecessarily constrains the state in the future. I'm a no.
  3. Requires judges to deny bail in certain cases. Seems like it ties the hands of judges to make case-by-case decisions in the name of "tough on crime" posturing. Leaning no.
  4. $20bn for water infrastructure projects. I'm legitimately confused why we need a constitutional amendment for this. Cant the lege just put this in the budget like anything else?
  5. A sales tax exemption on animal feed. Seems like pretty small potatoes, but not sure why it's necessary. I'll say no.
  6. Securities tax ban. Same deal as #2.
  7. Property tax exemption for surviving spouses of veterans. Sure. Not a huge amount of money or anything.
  8. Inheritance tax ban. See #2 and #6.
  9. Exempts $125k of business inventory and equipment from property tax. Per the Trib, this cuts ~$100m from local tax revenue. Will the state make that up? I'm not holding my breath on that. So, no.
  10. Property tax exemption for homes destroyed by fire. Small potatoes. Sure.
  11. Raises homestead exemption for elderly and disabled. I mean, sounds good, but just like #9 this cuts $500m annually from school revenue. State says they'll make it up, but also...the state is liars. No.
  12. Changes the makeup of the state commission on judicial conduct. This one seems real bad. Hard no.
  13. Raises homestead exemption from $100k to $140k. See #11. Sure, I like lower taxes. Who doesn't? What I don't like is the state pulling $1bn+ per year out of school funding and pinky promising to make it up. No.
  14. Sets aside $3bn to create a dementia research fund. I guess.
  15. Codifies in the state constitution that "parents are the primary decision makers for children". This is useless political pandering. Who gives a fuck? I'll vote no just because.
  16. Says only US citizens can vote. That's already true. In theory I agree, but this is 100% pointless pandering.
  17. Adds property tax exemption for border security infrastructure. Nah. Pay for your own fucking wall.

Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/

Chronicle's endorsements (haven't read 'em yet): https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/endorsements/article/texas-constitutional-amendments-2025-propositions-21102640.php

Agree with you on all except 11 and 13 which are a yes.

Posted

On prop 4 (the water infrastructure funding), an amendment is needed because our overly detailed constitution places some limitations on what the Lege can do with sales tax revenues/allocation of same.  This allows allocation of what are functionally excess sales tax revenues to water infrastructure projects.  Which is indeed needed.  This is kind of a bread-and-butter issue our state government should be tending to.  So, vote yes.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

This state is ridiculous.

You know I won't be arguing with you.  But we could ALWAYS do worse.  So, let's not call a constitutional convention to re-write our constitution just now, mmkay?  Can you imagine what a giant pile of evil fuckery that would be?

Posted

I just assume that if our state government needs me to vote for something, I need to vote against it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
  1. No (companies can train their own goddamned technicians)
  2. No (we should be able to raise money however we need to in the future)
  3. No (don't micromanage judges, better to let 99 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be jailed, yada yada)
  4. Yes (see @Brisketexan post above)
  5. No (only benefits a few people who are probably Abbott's friends so fuck 'em)
  6. No (we should be able to raise money however we need to in the future)
  7. Yes (drop in the bucket for our budget but huge for the worthy beneficiaries)
  8. No (we should be able to raise money however we need to in the future)
  9. No (only benefits a few people who are probably Abbott's friends so fuck 'em)
  10. Yes (drop in the bucket for our budget but huge for the worthy beneficiaries)
  11. No (close call, but it hurts school districts at a time they can't afford to be hurt)
  12. No (judges should not get a slap on the wrist if they're bad)
  13. No (close call, but it hurts school districts at a time they can't afford to be hurt)
  14. Yes (drop in the bucket for our budget but huge for the worthy beneficiaries)
  15. No (meaningless culture war bullshit, doesn't belong in the constitution)
  16. No (don't enshrine racial dogwhistles in our constitution)
  17. No (don't enshrine racial dogwhistles in our constitution and we sure as fuck don't want to burden the state budget either)
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

If our dumbass MAGA controlled legislature voted to put something on the ballot I’m inclined to vote against it, even if it will lower my taxes.  I may relent and vote for #1  though

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

No (don't enshrine racial dogwhistles in our constitution)

Fair, but that grab bag of legislative detritus and grants of sinecure should never be referred to as a “shrine.”

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

If our dumbass MAGA controlled legislature voted to put something on the ballot I’m inclined to vote against it, even if it will lower my taxes.  I may relent and vote for #1  though

This is where I'm at. Even if it sounds good, it's probably vaguely worded enough so they can pick and choose which of their donors it helps out while fucking the rest of us. 

Edited by Pescado_Rojo
Posted
37 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

This is where I'm at. Even if it sounds good, it's probably vaguely worded enough so they can pick and choose which of their doners it helps out while fucking the rest of us. 

Kebap?

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 3
Posted
49 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

This is where I'm at. Even if it sounds good, it's probably vaguely worded enough so they can pick and choose which of their doners it helps out while fucking the rest of us. 

That's how #4 hits me.  Makes sense. Yes...but wait, where's the grift?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Iceman said:

That's how #4 hits me.  Makes sense. Yes...but wait, where's the grift?

Yeah that definitely crossed my mind on #4.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

This is where I'm at. Even if it sounds good, it's probably vaguely worded enough so they can pick and choose which of their doners it helps out while fucking the rest of us. 

Counterpoint: Voting positive on vaguely worded things got us more-or-less legalized marijuana (via hemp) over the counter. 

Posted

Oh, on any and all projects these days, grift/routing projects to donors is an understood baseline.  Just realize and accept that.  There are NO tax dollars that do not suffer from some diversion to corrupt ends.  That's the rule these days.  Funny that all the "drain the swamp!" types have gotten us fully immersed in the most openly corrupt governance in 100 years. 

But if we want anything good to be done, just understand there will always be an inherent "siphoned off to the governor's cronies" tax.  On every dollar, for every purpose.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, tokamak said:

Didn't see a thread. Here's my gut thinking on these, still doing some research.

  1. Money for Texas State Technical College. Sure. Although I did see a TV ad with Dan Patrick promoting this one, so I'll have to hold my nose while I vote for it.
  2. Banning something that doesn't exist (state capital gains tax). Pointless red meat that unnecessarily constrains the state in the future. I'm a no.
  3. Requires judges to deny bail in certain cases. Seems like it ties the hands of judges to make case-by-case decisions in the name of "tough on crime" posturing. Leaning no.
  4. $20bn for water infrastructure projects. I'm legitimately confused why we need a constitutional amendment for this. Cant the lege just put this in the budget like anything else?
  5. A sales tax exemption on animal feed. Seems like pretty small potatoes, but not sure why it's necessary. I'll say no.
  6. Securities tax ban. Same deal as #2.
  7. Property tax exemption for surviving spouses of veterans. Sure. Not a huge amount of money or anything.
  8. Inheritance tax ban. See #2 and #6.
  9. Exempts $125k of business inventory and equipment from property tax. Per the Trib, this cuts ~$100m from local tax revenue. Will the state make that up? I'm not holding my breath on that. So, no.
  10. Property tax exemption for homes destroyed by fire. Small potatoes. Sure.
  11. Raises homestead exemption for elderly and disabled. I mean, sounds good, but just like #9 this cuts $500m annually from school revenue. State says they'll make it up, but also...the state is liars. No.
  12. Changes the makeup of the state commission on judicial conduct. This one seems real bad. Hard no.
  13. Raises homestead exemption from $100k to $140k. See #11. Sure, I like lower taxes. Who doesn't? What I don't like is the state pulling $1bn+ per year out of school funding and pinky promising to make it up. No.
  14. Sets aside $3bn to create a dementia research fund. I guess.
  15. Codifies in the state constitution that "parents are the primary decision makers for children". This is useless political pandering. Who gives a fuck? I'll vote no just because.
  16. Says only US citizens can vote. That's already true. In theory I agree, but this is 100% pointless pandering.
  17. Adds property tax exemption for border security infrastructure. Nah. Pay for your own fucking wall.

Texas Tribune: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/22/texas-statewide-propositions-november-ballot-election/

Chronicle's endorsements (haven't read 'em yet): https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/endorsements/article/texas-constitutional-amendments-2025-propositions-21102640.php

Non-existent tax bans gives an opportunity to make known what you’d be okay with. I can’t imagine why anyone would ever willingly not vote yes there. 

Posted

as far as the "only citizens can vote" thing, there are some areas of the country (that hate america, support Hamas, and are funded by Soros) where non-citizens can, in fact, vote.  in school board elections.  because they have kids in school. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

Non-existent tax bans gives an opportunity to make known what you’d be okay with. I can’t imagine why anyone would ever willingly not vote yes there. 

If the Texas government gave a shit about what its citizens would, or would not, be okay with we would have initiative and referendum here.

Edited by Ghost of NMAS
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

If the Texas government gave a shit about what its citizens would, or would not, be okay with we would have initiative and referendum here.

Oh I think it very much gives a shit and is trying to lay down some precedent. 

Posted
33 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

Non-existent tax bans gives an opportunity to make known what you’d be okay with. I can’t imagine why anyone would ever willingly not vote yes there. 

Well, I'm not opposed to taxes in theory. Why would I want to ban something that I think might have a place in our society in the future? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Well, I'm not opposed to taxes in theory. Why would I want to ban something that I think might have a place in our society in the future? 

Not banning suggests you’re okay with being taxed. I would never give any government any inkling I would be okay with willingly parting with my money in some future scenario. 

Posted
Just now, Cruz in Aledo said:

Not banning suggests you’re okay with being taxed. I would never give any government any inkling I would be okay with willingly parting with my money in some future scenario. 

Well, I guess we fundamentally disagree on the function of government. Makes sense for both of us to vote our way then.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Cruz in Aledo said:

Not banning suggests you’re okay with being taxed. I would never give any government any inkling I would be okay with willingly parting with my money in some future scenario. 

The state government has to raise a certain amount of money to carry out its duties. If you ask me, I'd probably prefer for a larger proportion of that money to come from taxes that a small number of relatively wealthy people pay (inheritance, capital gains, securities transactions) versus taxes that even the poorest people in the state pay (sales, property). Taking certain types of taxes off the table forever necessarily means codifying all the other types as the only ways for the state to ever raise funds. Wealthy political donors know this, which I assume is why they're pushing for a ban on something that doesn't exist and isn't currently under any serious consideration in the state.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Well, I guess we fundamentally disagree on the function of government. Makes sense for both of us to vote our way then.

Probably. But I very frequently do not vote my way. 

59 minutes ago, tokamak said:

The state government has to raise a certain amount of money to carry out its duties. If you ask me, I'd probably prefer for a larger proportion of that money to come from taxes that a small number of relatively wealthy people pay (inheritance, capital gains, securities transactions) versus taxes that even the poorest people in the state pay (sales, property). Taking certain types of taxes off the table forever necessarily means codifying all the other types as the only ways for the state to ever raise funds. Wealthy political donors know this, which I assume is why they're pushing for a ban on something that doesn't exist and isn't currently under any serious consideration in the state.

I really disagree with the first part of your post, and I’m not what you would consider wealthy. Also, nothing about the propositions takes these avenues of revenue off the table forever. It doesn’t codify anything, these types of taxes or others as an alternative revenue source. 



×
×
  • Create New...