Texas GOP proposes sales tax increase/property tax decrease swap

[Johnny Sack 8397]

6 minutes ago, XYZ said:

And you base that assertion on what, exactly?

When you adjust for demographics, we are #2.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Longhorns 17, Badgers 1

Please pardon this brief departure from my normal folderol, but every so often a member of the chattering class issues a nugget of stupidity so egregious that no amount of mockery will suffice. Particularly when the issuer of said stupidity holds a Nobel Prize.

Case in point: Paul Krugman. The Times' staff economics blowhard recently typed, re the state of education in Texas:

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

Similarly, The Economist passes on what appears to be the cut-'n'-paste lefty factoid du jour:

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

The point being, I suppose, is that unionized teachers stand as a thin chalk-stained line keeping Wisconsin from descending into the dystopian non-union educational hellscape of Texas. Interesting, if it wasn't complete bullshit.

As a son of Iowa, I'm no stranger to bragging about my home state's ranking on various standardized test. Like Wisconsin we Iowans usually rank near the top of the heap on average ACT/SAT scores. We are usually joined there by Minnesota, Nebraska, and the various Dakotas; Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire...

... beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state's "average ACT/SAT" is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there. In fact, the lion's share of state-to-state variance in test scores is accounted for by differences in ethnic composition. Minority students - regardless of state residence - tend to score lower than white students on standardized test, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be.

Please note: this has nothing to do with innate ability or aptitude. Quite to the contrary, I believe the test gap between minority students and white students can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. And poverty. And yes, racism. And yes, family structure. Whatever combination of reasons, the gap exists, and it's mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) with a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

So how to compare educational achievement between two states with such dissimilar populations? In data analysis this is usually done by treating ethnicity as a "covariate." A very simple way to do this is by comparing educational achievement between states within the same ethnic group. In other words, do black students perform better in Wisconsin than Texas? Do Hispanic students perform better in Wisconsin or Texas? White students? If Wisconsin's kids consistently beat their Texas counterparts, after controlling for ethnicity, then there's a strong case that maybe Texas schools ought to become a union shop.

Luckily, there is data to answer this question via the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is an annual standardized test given to 4th and 8th graders around the country to measure proficiency in math, science, and reading. Participation is fairly universal; if you've had a 4th or 8th grader in the last few years, you're probably familiar with it. Results are compiled on the NAEP website, broken down by grade, state, subject and ethnicity.

So how does brokeass, dumbass, redneck Texas stack up against progressive unionized Wisconsin?

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin. In other words, students are better off in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools - especially minority students.

Conclusion: instead of chanting slogans in Madison, maybe it's time for Wisconsin teachers to take refresher lessons from their non-union counterparts in the Lone Star State.

****
Update: a few emails complaining that I focused on NAEP 4th and 8th graders, and didn't address Krugman's "point" about Texas dropout rates. I would note that "average state dropout rate" (non-controlled for ethnicity) is as uninformative as "average state ACT/SAT." Some research suggests Hispanic students, for example, tend to have higher dropout rates than black students despite performing marginally better on standardized tests. But still, the level of Texas dropout rate claimed by Krugman (38%+) is rather disturbing, and it does seem rather odd that somewhere between 8th and 12th grade Texas students are attacked by an epidemic of stupidity.

So I decided to investigate.

Mr. Krugman (please note - I don't call anyone "Doctor" unless they can write me a prescription for drugs) doesn't mention where he gets his dropout statistic from. I suspect a database somewhere in his lower intestine. So I endeavored to find most detailed / recent / comprehensive state-by-state dropout table, which appears to be this 2006-7 report from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Event Dropout Rates for 9th-12th graders during 2006-7 school year:

White students: Texas 1.9%, Wisconsin 1.2% (national average 3.0%)
Black students: Texas 5.8%, Wisconsin 7.8% (national 6.8%)
Hispanic students: Texas 5.6%, Wisconsin 5.2% (national 6.5%)

[jimmyjazz 45557]

21 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We're better than any surrounding state? 

LOL.  Texas K-12 education is largely considered bottom quartile.

[Enchubben 5509]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LOL.  Texas K-12 education is largely considered bottom quartile.

Largely considered sounds very scientific.

My point stands that TX education is better than Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas and Nee Mexico. (Each of the surrounding states, hence my usage of the term relatively) Check US News rankings or any other number of rankings.

Or you can refer to the posts above which is a better measure. 

[Huckleberry 32701]

I'm no Johnny Sack ally but his information on Texas education is accurate. Our public education system is fine, the issues with our education outcomes in total are related to demographics. And that's not to excuse us as a state because that means we're failing when it comes to poverty level, etc.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

28 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

When you adjust for demographics, we are #2.

What does "adjust for demographics" mean exactly?  Does that mean don't count the coloreds?  Because it sounds like throw out the scores of the darkies and browns.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

I would argue it's not fine at all -- with the efforts Texas goes through to get money into poor school districts, you'd think the results would be better than they are.

I'm also chuckling over the tortured definition of "relatively" meaning "compared to states Texas touches".  Alrighty.  I'm pretty sure everyone read that as "relative to the entire country".

[XYZ 2154]

32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

When you adjust for demographics, we are #2.

I have no idea what that graph means. What is the x-axis? What does each bar mean, and why is one end light blue and the other dark blue? And what does “demographically adjusted” mean?

Edited April 10, 2019 by XYZ

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

34 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Longhorns 17, Badgers 1

Please pardon this brief departure from my normal folderol, but every so often a member of the chattering class issues a nugget of stupidity so egregious that no amount of mockery will suffice. Particularly when the issuer of said stupidity holds a Nobel Prize.

Case in point: Paul Krugman. The Times' staff economics blowhard recently typed, re the state of education in Texas:

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

Similarly, The Economist passes on what appears to be the cut-'n'-paste lefty factoid du jour:

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

The point being, I suppose, is that unionized teachers stand as a thin chalk-stained line keeping Wisconsin from descending into the dystopian non-union educational hellscape of Texas. Interesting, if it wasn't complete bullshit.

As a son of Iowa, I'm no stranger to bragging about my home state's ranking on various standardized test. Like Wisconsin we Iowans usually rank near the top of the heap on average ACT/SAT scores. We are usually joined there by Minnesota, Nebraska, and the various Dakotas; Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire...

... beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state's "average ACT/SAT" is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there. In fact, the lion's share of state-to-state variance in test scores is accounted for by differences in ethnic composition. Minority students - regardless of state residence - tend to score lower than white students on standardized test, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be.

Please note: this has nothing to do with innate ability or aptitude. Quite to the contrary, I believe the test gap between minority students and white students can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. And poverty. And yes, racism. And yes, family structure. Whatever combination of reasons, the gap exists, and it's mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) with a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

So how to compare educational achievement between two states with such dissimilar populations? In data analysis this is usually done by treating ethnicity as a "covariate." A very simple way to do this is by comparing educational achievement between states within the same ethnic group. In other words, do black students perform better in Wisconsin than Texas? Do Hispanic students perform better in Wisconsin or Texas? White students? If Wisconsin's kids consistently beat their Texas counterparts, after controlling for ethnicity, then there's a strong case that maybe Texas schools ought to become a union shop.

Luckily, there is data to answer this question via the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is an annual standardized test given to 4th and 8th graders around the country to measure proficiency in math, science, and reading. Participation is fairly universal; if you've had a 4th or 8th grader in the last few years, you're probably familiar with it. Results are compiled on the NAEP website, broken down by grade, state, subject and ethnicity.

So how does brokeass, dumbass, redneck Texas stack up against progressive unionized Wisconsin?

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin. In other words, students are better off in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools - especially minority students.

Conclusion: instead of chanting slogans in Madison, maybe it's time for Wisconsin teachers to take refresher lessons from their non-union counterparts in the Lone Star State.

****
Update: a few emails complaining that I focused on NAEP 4th and 8th graders, and didn't address Krugman's "point" about Texas dropout rates. I would note that "average state dropout rate" (non-controlled for ethnicity) is as uninformative as "average state ACT/SAT." Some research suggests Hispanic students, for example, tend to have higher dropout rates than black students despite performing marginally better on standardized tests. But still, the level of Texas dropout rate claimed by Krugman (38%+) is rather disturbing, and it does seem rather odd that somewhere between 8th and 12th grade Texas students are attacked by an epidemic of stupidity.

So I decided to investigate.

Mr. Krugman (please note - I don't call anyone "Doctor" unless they can write me a prescription for drugs) doesn't mention where he gets his dropout statistic from. I suspect a database somewhere in his lower intestine. So I endeavored to find most detailed / recent / comprehensive state-by-state dropout table, which appears to be this 2006-7 report from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Event Dropout Rates for 9th-12th graders during 2006-7 school year:

White students: Texas 1.9%, Wisconsin 1.2% (national average 3.0%)
Black students: Texas 5.8%, Wisconsin 7.8% (national 6.8%)
Hispanic students: Texas 5.6%, Wisconsin 5.2% (national 6.5%)

Good fucking god.  Just go with this next time.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Fudge Nuggets

[Brisketexan 104607]

Fortunately, the economy, the need for a future workforce, and the likelihood of an uneducated person to end up in prison also adjust for demographics....wait...what's that?  THEY DON'T?  Huh.  Well.  That is a real pickle for us, then.

Cuz see, we seem to have a woefully poor and uneducated population that is heavily minority....and there's no "adjustment" that makes us NOT have that population.  So, in terms of educating our population, getting them ready to be productive members of society, and not likely to fail and end up poor, in prison, or both...we ain't doing so hot.

Of course, I live in Real Texas, not Johnny's Adjusted Texas.

[bolverk 29399]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

In Texas we have relatively good public education, which is supported through state funding, county sales tax, and property taxes.  I guess we could go to the Louisiana model where our schools are terrible and pay a couple grand less in property tax...

2

I'm not going to get into an education debate, because this thread is supposed to be about taxes so I'll go on record to correct this statement. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a huge deal but I think it's important for us to start with the same foundation.

Sales taxes: 6.25 cents goes to the State's general revenue, and it's from here that most of the State's portion of K-12 public funding is derived. The local jurisdiction that you live in gets one penny for the municipality's budget. On top of that, the State allows for additional "local option" sales tax of up to one more penny. These local option taxes generally go toward things like economic development, local property tax reduction, infrastructure, or special projects and must be approved through the approval by local voters by way of a referendum. I don't think I've come across a single instance where it goes to education. Also, only a very small handful of counties have a countywide "local option" sales tax. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one: Frio County.

Property taxes: All of the revenue from these dollars are meant to stay local and can only be assessed by a few jurisdictions. Like the income tax, a statewide property tax is currently unconstitutional in Texas. Everyone pays property taxes to their county and school district. Beyond that, if you live in an incorporated place, you'll have a city layer added. Then, it can get to be a crap shoot of a number of other special districts, such as water management, hospital, community college or some other type of district. So far as I know, there is no limit to how many layers of special districts that can levy property taxes (but there probably is one deeply embedded in some obscure law).

So far as I understand the proposal, the State will tack on another penny to its share, making the State rate 7.25 cents. I hope to gawd, that extra penny will be required to go to education so it doesn't get lost in the general revenue bucket. Of course, the devil is in the details because the lege could easily lower the amount it spends on education from general revenue with a sleight of hand. We've seen shenanigans like that many times before (lottery comes to immediate mind).

Since the late 2000s:

• The State's share of public school funding has shrunk from 50 to 35 percent when the business franchise tax was lowered. As a result, local school districts have had to raise property tax rates substantially to account for that shortfall. 
• Population growth in the State's big metro areas didn't slow during the "Great Recession" because our economy wasn't super adversely affected and people continued to flock to Texas from other states. BUT lending for new home construction dried up due to the financial crisis so we began to experience a housing shortage, so the laws of supply and demand started forcing housing prices to skyrocket AND as assessments were increasing, local school districts were ALSO raising rates to make up for the State's cut in education funding.

As a result, we all (homeowners, property owners, renters alike) have been hit with that double whammy.

Edited April 10, 2019 by bolverk

[bolverk 29399]

I'll go on to say that those of us who are fortunate to live in property "rich" districts also tend to have strong economies. But, see, the State won't pay its share and so has determined that they can do a Robin Hood on us by taking our district funding and giving it to poor school districts. So, in spite of the fact that our assessments have gone up, the local district is hamstrung by not being able to lower rates.

As a result, those of us living in Austin ISD are sending currently sending $600 million of our property tax money to the State so that they can redistribute it. That $600 million makes up about half of all the money raised. Imagine if your school property taxes could be cut in half. Even though Austinites live in a property "rich" district, the vast majority of us are not.

Now, also remember locally levied property taxes were intended to remain local...

One thing to be wary of with the sales tax part though is that retail sales can vary widely even with relatively short economic cycles - much more so than income and property taxes. I'm afraid that with this proposal, the State's funding of public education will remain inadequate but also very erratic unless they set aside a rainy day fund specifically for school financing. This, of course, would mean that they wouldn''t be doling out as much as promised.

Edited April 11, 2019 by bolverk

[DanRydell 799]

When you adjust for demographics, we are #2.

Unfortunately the job of the Texas education system is to educate the kids who are actually in the Texas education system, regardless of their demographics.

[relapse98 634]

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Under this plan, the poor would pay more sales tax and the same property tax.  If anyone thinks landlords are going to reduce rents because their property taxes went down, well . . . oceanfront property for sale, etc.

You'd be amazed how many people don't know that renters indirectly pay property tax.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I’d respect @Johnny Sack more if he’d just come out and say America would be a lot better place if everyone was white.

but he’s a spineless sack of shit so he won’t do that.

[Anastasis 23395]

Based on the nature of some of the recent posts here, I think we should concede that the Texas education system is a failure. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Anastasis

[Nivek 16859]

I still prefer the state income tax I pay here with property taxes more half of what they are in Texas. State income tax is around $800 for the year. After homeowners exemption my property taxes are at about 0.94%.

Here?

[David Dennison 18656]

32 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’d respect @Johnny Sack more if he’d just come out and say America would be a lot better place if everyone was white.

but he’s a spineless sack of shit so he won’t do that.

But Haiti.

[David Dennison 18656]

37 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

You'd be amazed how many people don't know that renters indirectly pay property tax.

It's like our president not knowing that consumers pay tariffs.

[Texas Jeff 1932]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Sales taxes: 6.25 cents goes to the State's general revenue, and it's from here that most of the State's portion of K-12 public funding is derived. The local jurisdiction that you live in gets one penny for the municipality's budget. On top of that, the State allows for additional "local option" sales tax of up to one more penny. These local option taxes generally go toward things like economic development, local property tax reduction, infrastructure, or special projects and must be approved through the approval by local voters by way of a referendum. I don't think I've come across a single instance where it goes to education. Also, only a very small handful of counties have a countywide "local option" sales tax. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one: Frio County.

Crazy idea for that one penny local option in Austin:

* Step 1: Ditch Cap Metro
* Step 2: Give the penny to Austin ISD
* Step 3: Don't tell the lege about this so they can't take it as part of Robin Hood
* Step 4: Well, I'm not exactly sure how to fund a bus system at this point but maybe the city council could think about that one ... a problem for another thread!

That one penny is worth $231 million per year to Cap Metro, for the entire service area ... which is mostly Austin.  Round Rock ISD would probably get part of this pile since they are partially in Austin, as would other districts like maybe Del Valle and Pflugerville.

But, Austin ISD might walk away with something like $160 million per year from the penny sales tax.  Austin ISD spends about $670 million on salaries today, so that would give them 23% more revenue to work with.

 

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

Based on the nature of some of the recent posts here, I think we should concede that the Texas education system is a failure. 

I can't tell if they just don't understand how statistics work, or if they're being intentionally obtuse.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’d respect @Johnny Sack more if he’d just come out and say America would be a lot better place if everyone was white.

but he’s a spineless sack of shit so he won’t do that.

I mean he probably believes that, but in this one instance he (and Fudge Nuggets) are right.

It's actually probably more racist just to compare raw test scores to grade education performance by state, because all you end up with is a list of states with the highest white population at the top. 

That's a really fascinating chart. I've always just gone with the "common knowledge" that Texas is terrible at educating our kids. That chart is enough to at least give me pause on that belief. Might have to look into that some more. Mind slightly blown.

Edited April 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Stats aren’t racist.  What people take away from them might be. 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

That's a really fascinating chart. I've always just gone with the "common knowledge" that Texas is terrible at educating our kids. That chart is enough to at least give me pause on that belief. Might have to look into that some more. 

To reiterate, if Robin Hood is such a great idea, why is Texas' non-adjusted performance so low?  

Believe me, I am no fan of dumping additional tax burden on the poor.  I'm also no fan of the current way taxes are accrued.  Maybe there's actually a good alternative.

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

To reiterate, if Robin Hood is such a great idea, why is Texas' non-adjusted performance so low?  

Believe me, I am no fan of dumping additional tax burden on the poor.  I'm also no fan of the current way taxes are accrued.  Maybe there's actually a good alternative.

I don't know much about school funding, Robin Hood, etc. so I'm not really one to jump into that discussion. But the answer to your first question is "because we have a very large non-white population".

[Anastasis 23395]

11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

That's a really fascinating chart. I've always just gone with the "common knowledge" that Texas is terrible at educating our kids. That chart is enough to at least give me pause on that belief. Might have to look into that some more. Mind slightly blown.

Agree. You can play with the data and review their methodology here:

http://apps.urban.org/features/naep/

[F250 28682]

5 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Legally the State of Texas cannot tax you if you are a sovereign citizen and you do not recognize the state's authority to levy taxes. That's why I haven't paid property tax in 20 years but I booby trapped my land so the sheriff can't come get me. It's all in the Constitution. 

Is your place over on Copperhead Road?

 

[Helobious 9481]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

I don't know much about school funding, Robin Hood, etc. so I'm not really one to jump into that discussion. But the answer to your first question is "because we have a very large non-white population".

Hate to burst your white pride bubble but that's a bit simplistic. I believe the number of students in poverty is a better indicator of test score performance than race. A drastic anecdotal example is San Antonio Reagan HS. It was 60% white and 26% Hispanic in 2007. It's currently 39% white and 44% Hispanic, with virtually the same number of students now as it had 12 years ago. Using your logic, the school should have seen a dramatic drop-off in test performance corresponding with its demographic change. It hasn't, it's as highly ranked a school now as it was then. Because it's still a school largely full of rich kids. Total tangent to the thread but I just think it's something worth considering. 

[Fico 1743]

Under this plan, the poor would pay more sales tax and the same property tax.  If anyone thinks landlords are going to reduce rents because their property taxes went down, well . . . oceanfront property for sale, etc.

Not arguing in support of the overall proposal, I just wanted to point out that this 100% false with regards to commerical properties.

In this market, 90% of the properties operate on a NNN basis. The property taxes are passed through as additional rent, as part of the CAM. They are the single largest driver in operating expenses for Landlords and they are passed through to the tenants.

Downtown rents, for example, are at ~$40 NNN, the operating expense are running ~$25+ for a gross amount ~$65. Property taxes make up about $12-15 of that operating expense number. It is in the LLs best interest to lower the CAM number as much as possible as they eat the pro-rata portion of those expenses that correlate to vacancy, also a few bucks advantage on CAM at one building can lead to them winning a deal.

On the residential front you’re probably 100% correct as there isn’t near the transparency there.

/Side bar out

[shnsajax 3589]

Here?

Idaho

[jimmyjazz 45557]

1 hour ago, Fico said:

On the residential front you’re probably 100% correct as there isn’t near the transparency there.

/Side bar out

 

Thanks . . . I was definitely thinking residential.  Never considered commercial.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

Why is demographically adjusted a valid stat? Is that just saying that if we raise the kid race ratio to the national level, Texas would be the highest achieving state?   This is one of those stats that first seem potentially valid, then you realize it’s fully racist. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Hate to burst your white pride bubble but that's a bit simplistic. I believe the number of students in poverty is a better indicator of test score performance than race. A drastic anecdotal example is San Antonio Reagan HS. It was 60% white and 26% Hispanic in 2007. It's currently 39% white and 44% Hispanic, with virtually the same number of students now as it had 12 years ago. Using your logic, the school should have seen a dramatic drop-off in test performance corresponding with its demographic change. It hasn't, it's as highly ranked a school now as it was then. Because it's still a school largely full of rich kids. Total tangent to the thread but I just think it's something worth considering. 

Hate to bust your "didn't bother with the details" bubble but financial status is included as part of the adjustments in that data. Try harder.

[BradInATX 9208]

Why is demographically adjusted a valid stat? Is that just saying that if we raise the kid race ratio to the national level, Texas would be the highest achieving state?   This is one of those stats that first seem potentially valid, then you realize it’s fully racist. 

How is it racist? Can you or any of the dog whistling simps on this thread who clearly have no concept of how math and stats work give an explanation?

I doubt it but if you'd like to try I'm happy to come back and tear it apart.

[Anastasis 23395]

math Is racist!

[BradInATX 9208]

math Is racist!

I guess they believe that white teachers and administrators work harder and do a better job than minorities.

[Pam Cummings 9581]

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the same thing could be accomplished by simply adjusting for socio economic status, but whatevs

[DanRydell 799]

Controlling for incoming talent level, Fresno State was the #1 college football team in the country last year.

[Pam Cummings 9581]

This isnt some complicated math formula btw. All it is is comparing white kids from one state vs white kids from another state. Black kids from one state vs black kids from another state. Etc.

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the same thing could be accomplished by simply adjusting for socio economic status, but whatevs

It does.

And age of students, special education status, and English language learner status.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

35 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

How is it racist? Can you or any of the dog whistling simps on this thread who clearly have no concept of how math and stats work give an explanation?

I doubt it but if you'd like to try I'm happy to come back and tear it apart.

The race card is literally all those dumb fuck simpletons have.  They learn it from their leaders.  So it’s understandable.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 hours ago, BradInATX said:

I mean he probably believes that, but in this one instance he (and Fudge Nuggets) are right.

It's actually probably more racist just to compare raw test scores to grade education performance by state, because all you end up with is a list of states with the highest white population at the top. 

That's a really fascinating chart. I've always just gone with the "common knowledge" that Texas is terrible at educating our kids. That chart is enough to at least give me pause on that belief. Might have to look into that some more. Mind slightly blown.

That data was compiled by the Urban Institute.  Which is a liberal think tank.  I first heard about it listening to NPR.   I guess NPR and Urban Institute are racist now.  Most liberals get mad and call you racist when they can’t argue against you.  Happens all the time here.  

[David Dennison 18656]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The race card is literally all those dumb fuck simpletons have.  They learn it from their leaders.  So it’s understandable.  

This is silly. Democrats win on policy all the time. 

[formermav43 4599]

For years I have heard and read complaints that standardized tests are inherently racially biased. Yet, evidently, controlling for that in comparing data is racism.

Ignore racial disparities in public education=racism

Point out racial disparities in public education=racism

That’s quite the dilemma.

Edited April 11, 2019 by formermav43

[Pam Cummings 9581]

One group of people sees that data and thinks that brown people are dumb.

 

Another group sees that data and wonders why it is that minorities and poorer people score lower.

[Pam Cummings 9581]

29 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The race card is literally all those dumb fuck simpletons have.  They learn it from their leaders.  So it’s understandable.  

Oh shut up. You're the only person here who acts like some sort of victim every time someone has the audacity to challenge your privileged white worldview.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Oh shut up. You're the only person here who acts like some sort of victim every time someone has the audacity to challenge your privileged white worldview.

What I said about the race card is true.  It gets old. 

[bolverk 29399]

So...how 'bout this proposal to raise the sales tax?

[Fozzz 152]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

We should just go back to feudalism.

Going back to our roots would be to invade Mexico or something, kill/deport almost the entire population, and then give the land away for free to our citizens. 

Texans for Lebensraum!

Edited April 11, 2019 by Fozzz

[Huckleberry 32701]

13 minutes ago, bolverk said:

So...how 'bout this proposal to raise the sales tax?

Unfortunately it's all related. The reason this tax idea is so bad is that it will disproportionately affect the poorer residents of Texas, which will in turn disproportionately affect minorities. So even if the government calculates correctly (hahaha) and it is revenue neutral, it will still drive down educational outcomes for minorities in Texas and therefore educational outcomes for Texas overall.