All Activity

I'm not sure you understand my insurance value appraisal stance. In my scenario, the land is moot except for incidental value related to costs of rebuilding (ie. ease of access for reconstruction, utilities, etc.). The property value of the home would be based on rebuild costs that are already used for labor and material costs in any design/engineering/construction area. The estimated costs are area and regional specific. These costs typically include locational differences which would account for your developed vs not question. (You could also set a limit on acreage included with the improvement value on the property, and have anything greater be taxed at unimproved acreage levels in addition. This would address your larger lot concerns.) The numbers used are what engineering/construction firms use when estimating project costs, and are basically industry standard numbers with slight deviations for special circumstances. They are also close to the numbers insurance companies use now for rebuild estimates. AI could make this very simple and efficient. So, relatively little extra expense for the insurance company to set a value, and keep it up-to-date yearly. Instead of a CAD, improved property tax appraisals would be based on the cost of materials and labor to rebuild your structure/home to a replacement scenario at the market conditions based on the previous year's estimate. Unimproved property taxes would still be taxed as they are currently. The way it is now is backwards. My home is almost 40 years old. It's nice, but not fancy. My appraisal is way more than what I can sell it. I've also had relatives in Dallas that were literally taxed and fee'd out of their homes (need a new roof, new paint job, any number of things) because the City wanted the older homes & residents with tax exemptions out. Then, they had developers buy, demolish, and rebuild new to resell where the City could increase it's tax base. As a bonus to this change, you could downsize another government department. Always a plus. 😁

It might seem that way, but it’s not. It’s actually a criminal act for anyone to try and influence values, upwards or downwards… on a single property or on all of them. There’s a formal protest process for property owners to use, and anything other than that process isn’t permitted by law. There are limits to how much a taxing units other than schools can increase their taxes. Long story made short is that they’re only allowed to increase the total amount of taxes collected last year by 3.5 percent without triggering an election. So if everybody out there has an increase in value of 20% this year, their taxes won’t go up by 20%… the max that the total amount of taxes can grow is 3.5% across the board. Now, if everybody else’s value stays the same and yours doubles, you’re in trouble. There are lots of caveats, but that’s the basis of it. If your CAD doubles everybody’s values this year, it doesn’t mean your taxes will go up. In fact, almost every taxing unit out there has lower tax rates than they did ten years ago because of the growth in values. Here’s my thing. Old people get incredible breaks. If their value is less than $200k, they pay nothing for school taxes. I just checked my dad’s. His bill for 2025 was $795. The bill would have been $4075 if there were no exemptions. Thats a hell of a break. But if you were to ask him, he’s getting robbed. The problem is that everybody has a solution that results in them paying less, or none at all, and the costs being passed on to everyone else. To answer your question, the elderly and disabled can defer their taxes and it stops any collection efforts until the property no longer has a deferral in place. No elderly (or even disabled people) should ever lose their home. But should people who aren’t elderly or disabled also not have to worry about paying their taxes? Well, we told people that they were entitled to healthcare whether chose to pay for it or not, and now our healthcare system is in ruins. Simply put, tax auctions are a last resort when people refuse to pay their taxes. Should I pay mine if nobody else pays theirs? Tax sales aren’t about punishing someone for not paying theirs… it’s about putting that property in the hands of someone who’s willing to actually pay the taxes, and a reminder to everybody else that there are repercussions for not paying your taxes. The reason that the American experience is doomed to fail is the same reason it was created. People don’t want to pay taxes. Americans have realized that they can elect leaders who promise generous gifts from the treasury. Those gifts come in the form of direct payment (EBT, food stamps, housing, free health care, etc) or in the form of tax cuts that we quite simply can’t afford. Either way, we just head further down the road to ruin. We can argue that no one should go hungry, healthcare is a human right, or old people shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Either way, it’s all about making sure that we pay less, regardless of what effect it has on the survival of our communities or the nation.

Another prediction, lol, The new norm is what the clown obama said about high unemployment. Folks only make predictions to make themselves look smarter at the moment, very seldom works out.

The problem with CAD's now is they have become the source for the increased money supply. Counties need more money, they tell CAD's to increase valuations (my opinion). This let's the politicians off the hook. They can point the finger at the CAD. I really don't know this answer, but when was the the last time any city in the area increased taxes? This hurts the elderly. After 65 they are exempt from any future tax increases. BUT -- they are not exempt from any evaluation increases. Either way they are drained. It's my opinion that any one over 65 should not have to at least pay school taxes. You are having to pay for a benefit that you are no longer receiving. On the subject of overall property taxes. Should the elderly, and anyone else, lose their home because they can't pay the taxes? To me that's a problem. BTW, it's my understanding that Florida is in the process of eliminating all property taxes. Think we'd ever hear that coming from a Blue State?

Stros could have won yesterday. Had bases loaded with no outs in the top of the 9th, but it wasn’t meant to be. Playing St. Louis right now. Myers and Peña in the lineup today.

72 pages and still no Trump charges. How about Whoopi and Behar. Did anyone see them crawfishing with their remarks? Did Sunny Hostin get on the list? Oh, that’s right, she’s busy with her husband’s Medicare fraud. Seems that’s all the liberals do is rip off the taxpayers.

I think you’re on point with the property tax issue. Consumption taxes are regressive. They hit people with lower incomes/and property values much harder than those with more property value. The only discrepancy with your insurable value scenario is that I don’t see how it will work with homes on larger acreage tracts. It costs the same amount to insure a house on a half acre as it does to insure one on a hundred acres. Also, the value of homes in restricted neighborhoods is significantly different than one down a dirt road. Same age, same size, completely different market value, but the same cost to insure. But the idea isn’t a bad one, just need to tweak it, but you’re on point. My gripe is that the CADs were set up to make sure that taxes were as fair and equitable as possible. But imagine a scenario where there are four $250k homes in a row on a street in Lumberton. The first one pays $0, the next $500, the next $2000, and the last pays $4500 per year. Is that fair and equitable? Not hardly. The first one is a disabled veteran, the next is owned by an elderly couple in their seventies whose taxes were frozen ten years ago. The third is owned by a young family with a homestead exemption, and the last is also owned by a young couple the same age, but they bought a new home to live in elsewhere and are trying their hand at rental property with this one, so no exemption here. Still fair? I mean, that’s the law, but it doesn’t seem very fair or equitable. Then you hear that one of the ideas in Austin is to eliminate property taxes on any property that has a homestead. Now houses one, two, and three will pay nothing and the young couple that own the fourth home will have to pay $7000 per year to cover the revenue lost by the elimination of taxes on homesteads. Of course that’s going to pass the costs on to their renters. It’s no secret why rents seem extraordinarily high… the property tax relief giveaways that the legislature keeps passing off to homesteads are landing squarely on any type of property which doesn’t have a homestead exemption. There aren’t any easy answers, but the idea of just scrapping it all and tacking an extra 7 percent on all of the goods and services that you buy will absolutely hurt people and the economy in Texas.

I just think Toby is currently in a better situation at Shoemaker than he would be at Jasper. To appease Reagan, just my opinion.

I may think abortion on demand is wrong. But, it's not my place to interject in someone else's very personal matter. If the government wasn't so deeply involved in healthcare, your moral dilemma wouldn't be an issue. The answer isn't to fight the moral question. The answer is to minimize/eliminate government involvement in healthcare. Property taxes in Texas is an interesting question. I am more of a flat tax person vs. a consumption tax person. To me, a consumption tax stymies growth more than a flat tax. That being said, I'd prefer a flat tax (Federal) with property taxes. But, I would maintain a maximum level of property tax increase/year--with no loopholes--and have the tax rate of property be set by the insurable value after yearly appraisals. Not the other way around. The value of one's property should only be worth what it can be insured for in case of total loss.

Up to a point. I think abortion is wrong, but that’s based on my religious beliefs. Whether or not you have one should be between you and your creator, IMO. BUT, the problem comes in when a person can’t afford one. Should we then collectively be responsible to pay for a procedure that we believe to be immoral? That’s where the argument lost me. If the right have one means that the rest of us should foot the bill for anybody else getting one, then I’m out. And I’d love to hear your opinion on the movement to abolish all property taxes in Texas?

I hope this happens on the HS side too. [Hidden Content]

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. The government shouldn't be involved in the abortion or not business. If what someone does in their own home--or daily activities--does no harm to others, it's none of my business. The government wouldn't be involved if we hadn't invited them in.

Same… I’ve always been conservative fiscally and socially, but feel myself recognizing more from the “other people” these days. Today “fiscally conservative” means “cut taxes and end regulation, that’ll fix everything” when it’s the not the answer. Even the successes that they point to are more like cautionary tales. There are some things that I can actually agree on from a liberal/progressive standpoint. Same-sex marriage, for one. If my wife (or I) die suddenly, there are rules for the disposition of our estate that protect the surviving spouse. Same with medical or end of life decisions. It doesn’t matter how long a same-sex couple has been together, until gay marriage was legalized, the significant other had no say in anything… that’s not right, when the only thing that would prohibit such unions were the religious beliefs of others. I’ve heard it said, but it’s true. We’re not a Christian nation, where a nation where we’re free to be a Christian. Or not. Or a Muslim, Hindu, etc… conservatives today don’t understand that basic fact of our constitution.

Good information.

I'm a fiscally conservative libertarian. There's actually a pretty big difference in that and typical conservatism. Typical conservatives still believe in some market manipulation to help achieve their social goals. Liberals and Progressives are at the total opposite end of the spectrum from me from a fiscal and personal liberty stance.

I’m just surprised at all of the supposed “free market, conservative” people who don’t a problem with all of the things you just described.

This is the new norm.

Gotta start somewhere. So you like Newsom. Got it.

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No. This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration. We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices. While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job. The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

Be honest. Would you really want Texas to look like California?

Wishful thinking. 👍

Currently 23 straight years that Silsbee has advanced to 2nd round. Looking to make it 24.

Huntington goes 4-0 at the Palestine tournament out scoring their opponents 43-3.

The state will not turn red. What if Texas turn blue?

Tarriffs were always in place. Trump attempted to increase the percentage that other countries paid.