Texas GOP proposes sales tax increase/property tax decrease swap

[Winona's Big Orange Bevo 197]

14 hours 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%)

I know the Sack has said some pretty disagreeable things, but I don't understand the pile on about racism concerning this view. It clearly states the problems are with socio-economic and racism. As a brown teacher, I agree with this. Could education be better? Of course. But we have to try to fix all the problems kids come to school with before you expect us to perform miracles in the classroom. 

It's like comparing my test scores (some gen ed, heavy 504/sped and esl) to my fellow teacher who gets all gen ed and GT kids. She's Wisconsin and I'm Texas. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Winona's Big Orange Bevo

[Huckleberry 33114]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

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

The chart clearly shows that Texas' non-adjusted number is above the national average.

[bolverk 29729]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

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.

I understand and agree with every word and it's definitely worthwhile discussing within that context. But I don't think getting into a shitting contest over a single assessment on the quality of public education in this state vis-a-vis others pushes the conversation forward.

[Fozzz 152]

I’m surprised Sack has time to post. Thought he would be busy planning a mosque mass shooting or something. 

[BradInATX 9208]

22 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I understand and agree with every word and it's definitely worthwhile discussing within that context. But I don't think getting into a shitting contest over a single assessment on the quality of public education in this state vis-a-vis others pushes the conversation forward.

Certainly not if you have people chiming in that "numbers are racist". That's an obvious bellwether that the conversation will never be intellectually serious.  

But anyway, to the topic at hand, it's a terrible idea.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18951]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

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

You don't seem to mind when white people play it.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

14 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

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.

read the article Sack posted.

 

53 minutes ago, Winona's Big Orange Bevo said:

I know the Sack has said some pretty disagreeable things, but I don't understand the pile on about racism concerning this view. It clearly states the problems are with socio-economic and racism. As a brown teacher, I agree with this. Could education be better? Of course. But we have to try to fix all the problems kids come to school with before you expect us to perform miracles in the classroom. 

It's like comparing my test scores (some gen ed, heavy 504/sped and esl) to my fellow teacher who gets all gen ed and GT kids. She's Wisconsin and I'm Texas. 

 

This is where I am. This may be the only thing I agree with Sack on.

Texas schools on average do pretty well when compared to other states. But public education in Texas (and the US in general) is still pretty fucking weak. We are one of the tallest midgets. Yay Texas!

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

When you shift tax methods, you are basically saying that one group is paying too much, and others too little.  I assume the sponsors of this bill assume that landowners are paying too much and non-landowners too little. Therefore time to shift that burden to non-landowners, hence higher sales tax. 

Do non-landowners get more benefits than they pay in taxes (direct or indirect?)  Possibly.  And very likely in some cases. But it's easy to say that we need to tax the poor to make them feel the pain. But if they don't have any excess money, you're basically trying to punishing them for being poor. 

[Huckleberry 33114]

I would argue that in aggregate landowners get plenty of bang for their buck, much more than non-landowners. For one thing, why would everyone want to be a landowner if it weren't beneficial? For another, even landowners who have no children benefit from an educated society in more ways than we could discuss in a lifetime. It's just that many of them are short-sighted fools who think the only benefit of education spending is if it's your kid being educated directly.

[David Dennison 18951]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

When you shift tax methods, you are basically saying that one group is paying too much, and others too little.  I assume the sponsors of this bill assume that landowners are paying too much and non-landowners too little. Therefore time to shift that burden to non-landowners, hence higher sales tax. 

Do non-landowners get more benefits than they pay in taxes (direct or indirect?)  Possibly.  And very likely in some cases. But it's easy to say that we need to tax the poor to make them feel the pain. But if they don't have any excess money, you're basically trying to punishing them for being poor. 

People who adhere to this view fail to realize or simply ignore the fact that non-landowners pay property taxes in the form of rent and prices for goods and services.

[Fozzz 152]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I would argue that in aggregate landowners get plenty of bang for their buck, much more than non-landowners. For one thing, why would everyone want to be a landowner if it weren't beneficial? For another, even landowners who have no children benefit from an educated society in more ways than we could discuss in a lifetime. It's just that many of them are short-sighted fools who think the only benefit of education spending is if it's your kid being educated directly.

I don't know why you would choose to couch a difference in values as instead resulting from some perceived ignorance.  How much education does one really need to be proficient in service industry work?  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, Winona's Big Orange Bevo said:

I know the Sack has said some pretty disagreeable things, but I don't understand the pile on about racism concerning this view. It clearly states the problems are with socio-economic and racism. As a brown teacher, I agree with this. Could education be better? Of course. But we have to try to fix all the problems kids come to school with before you expect us to perform miracles in the classroom. 

It's like comparing my test scores (some gen ed, heavy 504/sped and esl) to my fellow teacher who gets all gen ed and GT kids. She's Wisconsin and I'm Texas. 

you seem to think poor minorities have a bunch of problems in life. he doesn't believe people are poor because of any inherent 'problems' they have to bear growing up, he thinks they're poor because they make bad choices.

his view point is very simple: if you're poor, it's because of decisions you've made. it's not society's job to teach you PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

 

[Huckleberry 33114]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't know why you would choose to couch a difference in values as instead resulting from some perceived ignorance.  How much education does one really need to be proficient in service industry work?  

Apparently quite a bit because the difference between the Wendy's that staffs high school students and dropouts and the Whataburger that staffs local community college students and other high school graduates near my house is night and day.

But regardless, your response is as short-sighted as those who don't value public education. I just got finished describing how those idiots don't understand the huge number of ways that public education benefits them and here you come with your response that attempts to limit those benefits to service industry work. And the best part is you were thinking "ooh this is a good point" as you typed that ridiculous post.

[Brisketexan 105440]

2 hours ago, DanRydell said:

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

Perfect, pithy analysis of the folly of discussing "demographically adjusted" education results.

W-L records are not demographically adjusted (Jesus, it sounds so aggy -- "if you only count the years in which the aggies beat Texas, they are undefeated against Texas...WHOOP!").  The ability of people to contribute to our economy is not demographically adjusted.

If 100,000 kids graduate high school in Texas every year, we have 100k new adults entering society.  It's cold comfort to us socially and economically if we say "well.....the white ones will probably do okay.," when 40% of those grads ain't white.

We have a larger poor and minority population than some other states.  Them's the breaks.  We have to work harder and do more to bring those folks up to educational par.  So, let's do that.

But who are we kidding?  We are the state that proposes even more regressive taxation on the poor (see thread topic).  "Fuck the Poor" is our state motto.  It will probably be put up, in Trump-gold lettering, on the capitol dome before the session is out.

[Winona's Big Orange Bevo 197]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

you seem to think poor minorities have a bunch of problems in life. he doesn't believe people are poor because of any inherent 'problems' they have to bear growing up, he thinks they're poor because they make bad choices.

his view point is very simple: if you're poor, it's because of decisions you've made. it's not society's job to teach you PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

 

I'm well aware of his simplistic outlook. I just thought, strictly in terms of the quality of education, that his posting of the article (which I assumed he supported) was spot on in that judging education by test scores is disingenuous the same way the U.S. is compared to China. 

 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Apparently quite a bit because the difference between the Wendy's that staffs high school students and dropouts and the Whataburger that staffs local community college students and other high school graduates near my house is night and day.

But regardless, your response is as short-sighted as those who don't value public education. I just got finished describing how those idiots don't understand the huge number of ways that public education benefits them and here you come with your response that attempts to limit those benefits to service industry work. And the best part is you were thinking "ooh this is a good point" as you typed that ridiculous post.

From their perspective, the only benefit education provides the lower classes is to prepare them for the market.  Anything beyond that is wasteful if not dangerous as a well educated working class is one that will have greater class consciousness and levels of civic engagement.  Why do you think we have consistently chosen to boost our economy through military Keynesiasm instead of investing that money in education and other services for increasing the well being of that class?

[DaysOff 7976]

Yes, but on average our browns are doing better than other states's browns. Which is nice.

[Brisketexan 105440]

Just now, DaysOff said:

Yes, but on average our browns are doing better than other states's browns. Which is nice.

Well, that's because we're mexiCANS, not mexiCAN'TS.

[jimmyjazz 46227]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

The chart clearly shows that Texas' non-adjusted number is above the national average.

I haven't gone back to look at it, but I believe it also shows our rank is 30 or worse.  Somebody else can count the dots.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Are they doing anything to eliminate the dark store loophole that gives property tax deductions to big box retail? That is something like 2.6B a year alone we piss away.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Flip side of this is it incentivizes property owenership which is good. 

[jimmyjazz 46227]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

People who adhere to this view fail to realize or simply ignore the fact that non-landowners pay property taxes in the form of rent and prices for goods and services.

Not only do they indirectly pay property taxes, they can't deduct those taxes when calculating income tax.

[bolverk 29729]

21 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Are they doing anything to eliminate the dark store loophole that gives property tax deductions to big box retail? That is something like 2.6B a year alone we piss away.

Is that widespread throughout Texas now? I thought there was a case from Bexar County still tied up in court, but I could've easily missed the outcome.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

32 minutes ago, Winona's Big Orange Bevo said:

I'm well aware of his simplistic outlook. I just thought, strictly in terms of the quality of education, that his posting of the article (which I assumed he supported) was spot on in that judging education by test scores is disingenuous the same way the U.S. is compared to China. 

 

his overarching point is poors and blacks/browns are doing just fine and they don't need any more of his money or society's help.

[DanRydell 799]

Certainly not if you have people chiming in that "numbers are racist". That's an obvious bellwether that the conversation will never be intellectually serious.  
But anyway, to the topic at hand, it's a terrible idea.

I don’t think the numbers are racist, just irrelevant. The job of the Texas education system is not to educate a hypothetical kid controlled for demographics better than Connecticut does. It’s job is to create an educated workforce and citizenry of the kids who are actually in the Texas education system.

[Brisketexan 105440]

4 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

I don’t think the numbers are racist, just irrelevant. The job of the Texas education system is not to educate a hypothetical kid controlled for demographics better than Connecticut does. It’s job is to create an educated workforce and citizenry of the kids who are actually in the Texas education system.

 

Nope.  If the poors are stupid at skool, that's their fault. The job of improving their lot -- and thus creating an educated workforce and citizenry -- is theirs, and theirs alone.  BOOTSTRAPS!  Perhaps you didn't get the memo.  We don't live in a society.  It's every man for himself, Thunderdome, and the only interaction between people should be if some bad poor person does something, you should shoot them with multiple firearms.  America.

[Armybrat 40920]

36 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Are they doing anything to eliminate the dark store loophole that gives property tax deductions to big box retail? That is something like 2.6B a year alone we piss away.

Raise their taxes (property & corporate) so they can raise their prices they charge to said poors?

[LongestHorn 759]

Texas is now spending more than $9k per pupil/year.  That's more than ever.  And still among the lowest in the US.  New Yorks spends more than $22k.

[BradInATX 9208]

I don’t think the numbers are racist, just irrelevant. The job of the Texas education system is not to educate a hypothetical kid controlled for demographics better than Connecticut does. It’s job is to create an educated workforce and citizenry of the kids who are actually in the Texas education system.

Don't disagree with any of this. Nor were you one of the people I was talking about.

The numbers are what they are. We should strive to be #1 whether adjusted or unadjusted. Then we should try to catch up to Asia and other countries who educate their kids far better than us. Won't happen, but we should vote people in that will at least try.

[bernorange 8366]

I remember almost a decade ago when Debra Medina was running for governor, she promoted a plan to completely repeal property taxes and replace the revenue with a limited sales tax.  We had a discussion about it on the old site.  Good times.

Spoiler

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/55826-Medina-s-tax-plan

and

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/71522-Can-somebody-defend-the-legitimacy-of-property-taxes

... lol - I see now that my account on the old site was banned.  I haven't logged in since the move.  I guess I'm just the dangerous type...

 

[Huckleberry 33114]

59 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

From their perspective, the only benefit education provides the lower classes is to prepare them for the market.  Anything beyond that is wasteful if not dangerous as a well educated working class is one that will have greater class consciousness and levels of civic engagement.  Why do you think we have consistently chosen to boost our economy through military Keynesiasm instead of investing that money in education and other services for increasing the well being of that class?

Your first sentence, while accurate, does not lead to your snarky post which limited their market placement and employment to the service industry. Unless you intended service industry to mean all businesses, in which case your post doesn't make any sense. Public education also produces engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. And not just in the immediate generation, but the availability of quality education to everyone means that a Mexican-American woman who has no relatives who have ever graduated from high school can obtain a college degree, have kids, pass on that love of education, and have two children who grow up to be an engineer and a lawyer. You know, a totally random example, nothing specific.

[Huckleberry 33114]

30 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I don’t think the numbers are racist, just irrelevant. The job of the Texas education system is not to educate a hypothetical kid controlled for demographics better than Connecticut does. It’s job is to create an educated workforce and citizenry of the kids who are actually in the Texas education system.

 

They may not paint a full picture, but they are absolutely relevant. I would prefer an update that uses household income as a covariate, or even a proxy like reduced lunch program eligibility, but the bottom line is that at the time of the study, Texas student performance was superior to Wisconsin student performance in every group, the only difference was the ratio of the groups. If you were white then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin. If you were black then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin. If you were Latino then you did better in Texas than in Wisconsin.

As formermav43 alluded to above, it's more than a little disingenuous when the same people who (correctly) point out the inherent racial bias in society and standardized tests want to shout down statistics like these because they think they're racist. It's a completely absurd position to take, and more than a little hypocritical. Why do white students perform better than minority students (Asian exception, of course) when it comes to standardized tests? Well I think it's pretty obvious that a history of racial inequality has led to socioeconomic inequality which has a direct influence on scholastic performance. Then add the next layer where standardized tests are created by predominantly white adults who will of course subconsciously create tests that are more familiar to and therefore easier for white students. This is a national problem and when using national tests it obviously will have a larger impact on States with higher minority populations. You can't cry racial inequality and then protest when someone is pointing out the impact that said racial inequality has.

Equally important is that recognizing this situation, as I said before, does nothing to absolve Texas of its overall failings. If we simply replace race with other covariates that race is unfortunately and disgustingly a reasonable proxy for then the conversation can move away from race, which means people are less likely to react absurdly without thinking. If instead of race it's based on household income and number of college graduates in the household, things get much clearer. So let's discuss this same scenario using those terms instead of race and throw in some numbers to illustrate the point (obviously a hypothetical):

Students in households with $80,000 annual income or above and two college graduates (Group A):
Texas 250, Wisconsin 248

Students in households with less than $80,000 but at least $40,000 annual income and one college graduate (Group B):
Texas 240, Wisconsin 237

Students in households with less than $40,000 annual income and zero college graduates (Group C):
Texas 230, Wisconsin 225

Percentage of students in each group:
Texas - 20% Group A, 20% Group B, 60% Group C
Wisconsin - 40% Group A, 40% Group B, 20% Group C

Resulting total scores:
Texas - 236, Wisconsin - 239

Now looking at the above, how would anyone rationally argue that the education system in Wisconsin would be better than in Texas? The education system is not the problem in Texas, the problem is that a much higher percentage of students are coming from disadvantaged home situations that are forcing them to start the educational process in a hole and fight their way out. In fact, just like in the racially separated figures, in this example poor students actually perform closer to their more well-off peers in Texas than in Wisconsin. Texas outperforms Wisconsin by every reasonable metric, but if you just look at the final number you will come to the completely wrong conclusion about the education system in each place.

That is why I said the education system in Texas is fine but we are failing elsewhere. The GOP proposal that started this thread would only further exacerbate that problem and that's why it's a terrible idea. Texas public education is doing better work than most States in this country, especially considering that we handcuff the system due to other policy areas.

[workswithseed 2120]

2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I’m surprised Sack has time to post. Thought he would be busy planning a mosque mass shooting or something. 

Yeah, go fuck yourself.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Perfect, pithy analysis of the folly of discussing "demographically adjusted" education results.

W-L records are not demographically adjusted (Jesus, it sounds so aggy -- "if you only count the years in which the aggies beat Texas, they are undefeated against Texas...WHOOP!").  The ability of people to contribute to our economy is not demographically adjusted.

If 100,000 kids graduate high school in Texas every year, we have 100k new adults entering society.  It's cold comfort to us socially and economically if we say "well.....the white ones will probably do okay.," when 40% of those grads ain't white.

We have a larger poor and minority population than some other states.  Them's the breaks.  We have to work harder and do more to bring those folks up to educational par.  So, let's do that.

But who are we kidding?  We are the state that proposes even more regressive taxation on the poor (see thread topic).  "Fuck the Poor" is our state motto.  It will probably be put up, in Trump-gold lettering, on the capitol dome before the session is out.

Your clear lack of education is showing through. Our state motto is actually "Friendship." Pretty sure I learned that in second grade.

[atomheartbevo 89828]

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

[Bat Guano 359]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

They'll notice. They'll get pissed. Vote? Well, like the man said, 2 out of 3 ain't bad....

[Pescado_Rojo 19431]

will there be "walkin around money" 

[Bat Guano 359]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope.  If the poors are stupid at skool, that's their fault. The job of improving their lot -- and thus creating an educated workforce and citizenry -- is theirs, and theirs alone.  BOOTSTRAPS!  Perhaps you didn't get the memo.  We don't live in a society.  It's every man for himself, Thunderdome, and the only interaction between people should be if some bad poor person does something, you should shoot them with multiple firearms.  America.

This is getting a little off track for the thread, so let's take it further off. The bootstraps theory has never been valid, and it's turning out that there are, like, reasons that it's just a myth:

Why Poverty Is Like a Disease

Emerging science is putting the lie to American meritocracy.

Sounds a bit weird at first, but some of the effects on the individual - at every level, including the cellular and genetic - really do look like the effects of a disease, an inheritable one. And are just as devastating and long-lasting.

Quote

Why do so few make it out of poverty? I can tell you from experience it is not because some have more merit than others. It is because being poor is a high-risk gamble. The asymmetry of outcomes for the poor is so enormous because it is so expensive to be poor. Imagine losing a job because your phone was cut off, or blowing off an exam because you spent the day in the ER dealing with something that preventative care would have avoided completely. Something as simple as that can spark a spiral of adversity almost impossible to recover from. The reality is that when you’re poor, if you make one mistake, you’re done. Everything becomes a sudden-death gamble.

Now imagine that, on top of that, your brain is wired to multiply the subjective experience of stress by 10. The result is a profound focus on short-term thinking. To those outsiders who, by fortune of birth, have never known the calculus of poverty, the poor seem to make sub-optimal decisions time and time again. But the choices made by the poor are supremely rational choices under the circumstances. Pondering optimal, long-term decisions is a liability when you have 48 hours of food left. Stress takes on a whole new meaning—and try as you might, it’s hard to shake.

The standard American myth of meritocracy misinterprets personal narratives like mine. The accumulated social capital of American institutions—stable transfer of power, rule of law, and entrepreneurship—certainly create economic miracles every day. But these institutions are far more suited to exponentially growing capital where it already exists, rather than creating new capital where society needs it. Stories such as mine are treated as the archetype, and we falsely believe they are the path to escape velocity for an entire segment of the population. In doing so, they leave that population behind. I am the face of the self-made rags-to-riches success story, and I’m here to say that story is a myth. The term “meritocracy” was coined in 1958 as a mockery of the very idea of evaluation by merit alone. We’ve forgotten to laugh, and the joke is on us.

 

[WBT 20672]

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

They think the people that have consistently voted them into office over the past 25 years are already pissed about high property taxes.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

46 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

The really really poosr don't vote. The normal poors lean R. This won't change that.

[jimmyjazz 46227]

Well, the really really poors are all illegal, so they can't vote, except when they do.  QED.

[JBJ 3666]

On 4/10/2019 at 12:27 PM, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I bet there is a much smaller progressive/regressive divide between property taxes and sales taxes than there used to be.  So many people owning houses beyond their means because of low interest rates.  Plus percent savings is going down, meaning people are spending all their dough at every income level.

It used to be that property was seen at the most regressive tax (in the 70s and 80s that is).

Also, property tax hits renters the hardest.  Both in terms of incidence as a portion of income, and that it isn't deductable as a tax.

I'm not sure which is more regressive in Texas in 2019, but the benefit of a sales tax is that the vulnerable population has the ability to instantly reduce their tax burden if they hit hard times (which is much harder to do with a property tax).

The counterpoint to that is that revenue is much less certain especially when entering a recession.

Also, non-residents will pay a certain portion of a sales tax increase.  I would say this could impact tourism, but hotel taxes are probably the larger concern for the industry and travelers.

Edited April 11, 2019 by JBJ

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Your first sentence, while accurate, does not lead to your snarky post which limited their market placement and employment to the service industry. Unless you intended service industry to mean all businesses, in which case your post doesn't make any sense. Public education also produces engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. And not just in the immediate generation, but the availability of quality education to everyone means that a Mexican-American woman who has no relatives who have ever graduated from high school can obtain a college degree, have kids, pass on that love of education, and have two children who grow up to be an engineer and a lawyer. You know, a totally random example, nothing specific.

How does the wealthy landowner materially benefit from the Mexican-American woman's kid's employment?  I would imagine that the availability of quality education can be extremely inequitable (as is currently the case) while still satisfying the demands for this particular professions. 

You could argue that it would positively impact economic growth, but the rich aren't really concerned with maximizing economic growth if that growth will be shared equitably with everyone else.  See our response to the housing crisis if you want a painfully obvious example.  The reason they don't care about maximizing growth anymore is because they know material gains for the many are hard to roll back and lead to additional demands.  It took them nearly half a century to undo much of the damage from the FDR and LBJ administrations, and they have still failed to obliterate all of those gains, like social security, medicare, etc.  They know what they are doing.

[Foosters 17889]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

[DanRydell 799]

Does the GOP think the poors won't notice an increase in their sales tax?  And do they think those poors won't get pissed and show up and vote?

Especially because nobody is really going to notice the corresponding property tax cut. They cut school taxes by 1/3 a few sessions back and nobody really felt it because their appraisals kept going up.

[Born to Run 6569]

Especially because nobody is really going to notice the corresponding property tax cut. They cut school taxes by 1/3 a few sessions back and nobody really felt it because their appraisals kept going up.

The schools felt it.

[NIUHuskies 504]

15 hours ago, Helobious said:

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. 

Being located in Stone Oak has its benefits...

[Anastasis 23491]

10 hours ago, bernorange said:

I remember almost a decade ago when Debra Medina was running for governor, she promoted a plan to completely repeal property taxes and replace the revenue with a limited sales tax.  We had a discussion about it on the old site.  Good times.

  Hide contents

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/55826-Medina-s-tax-plan

and

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/71522-Can-somebody-defend-the-legitimacy-of-property-taxes

... lol - I see now that my account on the old site was banned.  I haven't logged in since the move.  I guess I'm just the dangerous type...

 

Tldr. How long did it take before the threads devolved into posters calling each other racist and posting pictures of klan rallies?

[Brisketexan 105440]

Tldr. How long did it take before the threads devolved into posters calling each other racist and posting pictures of klan rallies?

Bout tree fiddy.

[TwiceHorn 31559]

On 4/10/2019 at 6:16 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Good fucking god.  Just go with this next time.

 

Lol wut?