Taxes in Texas

Posted on by

There is always a lot of talk about taxes in Austin. One of the selling points politicians like to make is reminding people we have no state income tax (other states with no state income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming).

That sounds really good, until you ask yourself how Texas pays the bills without one. The answer is sales and property taxes. Texas has the 12th highest sales tax in the nation at 8.17 percent (Tennessee is the highest with a 9.46 percent).

Texas also has a higher-than-average effective property tax (Fifth highest in the nation). This has gotten the attention of Austin lawmakers who are crying foul and looking to find ways to have municipalities cutback on their tax rates, but education officials say not so fast. Thanks to Austin cutting back on funding for education, schools and other government entities look to property tax to fill the gap.

A 2010 report from the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute found funding for education in Texas to be “antiquated”. The study group was co-chaired by Dan Patrick, now Texas’ lieutenant governor.

While an argument can be made on both sides of the issue of state income taxes, one thing seems to be very clear, not having a state income tax hurts the poor. Why? Because a state income tax is based on what a person earns. Sales taxes are considered regressive because they don’t change based on a person’s income. Someone making $15k a year pays the same tax for a gallon of milk as someone who makes $150k annually.

If you look at taxes paid as a percentage of income on the poorest to the wealthiest, Texas ranks fifth in the nation for having the most regressive state tax system. The poorest 20 percent pay 12.6 in taxes compared to the middle class (8.8 percent) and the top 1 percent (3.2).

Much like the federal tax system, the Texas tax system needs some fixing. It’s a simple question; how do we want to collect money to pay for state services. The answer? Well that’s a little harder.

Numbers that tell a story

Posted on by

There has certainly been a lot of attention on citizens who have been killed by police officers. The recent events (thanks to cellphone video) in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis have put a national spotlight on this very contentious issue.

Dyfed Loesche, a “data journalist” with Statista.com, did some digging and came up with, what I found to be, surprising numbers on what is happening in the country.

Watching the coverage and hearing the rhetoric, you would assume the majority of people being killed by police officers are black men, but you would be wrong. As of July 8, 238 white males have been killed versus 123 black men (you can see all the information on the data graph below).

The other number that jumps out to me is that of the 509 killed this year, at least 124 were thought to be suffering some sort of mental illness. David Brown, Dallas police chief, who lost 5 officers in a horrific attack said police are left to solve the problems left by government officials.

“Not enough mental health funding, let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding, let’s give it to the cops. Here in Dallas we have a loose dog problem. Let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, give it to the cops. 70 percent of the African-American community is being raised by single women, let’s give it to the cops to solve as well. That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems. I just ask other parts of our democracy along with the free press to help us.”

Infographic: Breakdown of U.S. citizens killed by police in 2016 | Statista

Nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong

Posted on by

FacebookDear Facebook friends…

I get it. You’re pissed off. You show your disgust toward Hillary Clinton and her lack of trust concerning emails, and other matters of judgement. You are outraged by what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth and his lack of civility.

Here’s what chaps my ass; the people who only choose to point out many and varied character faults in the candidate they don’t favor. I don’t expect you to be “fair and balanced”, but by only posting the negative points of the candidate you don’t like, you are missing what I believe most American’s are feeling right now.

How did we get to this point and more importantly, how do we get out of it?

Truth be told, both parties have given us very flawed candidates to choose from. The expression “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind when coming up with reasons not to vote for either Clinton or Trump. There are enough of debauched illustrations of both candidates to give late night talk show hosts material for years to come.

Don’t like Clinton? I get it, but does that mean you would vote for Trump? By the way, what happened to Governor John Kasich? I see recent polls showing him beating Clinton by a healthy margin. Would you rather lose the White House based on the principles of insulting everyone who scares you and promising to build a wall paid for by Mexico rather than elect a person who may be viewed as moderate (insert gasp here)?

And what about the Democrats? Clinton is such a weak candidate, she was defeated by a black man with a Muslim name eight years ago and barely beat out a Jewish socialist in this year’s primary. And let’s not forget the great judgment she showed using a private email while secretary of state, or wearing a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality. I am sure that instills a lot trust in her judgement.

Clinton and Trump are probably the most unlikable candidates to run for president since David Duke in 1992 (and even that may be a push). Was this the best the we could do?

I think it’s time we all did a little soul searching on how both parties brought us to this point. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it looks like no one will be a winner this November.

Is it time to revisit free speech?

Posted on by

Billboard near Benton, Tennessee

Just when you think politics can’t sink any lower, along comes a candidate who breaks through and lowers the bar even further. This time with a billboard which reads “Make America White Again”.

Rick Tyler, an independent candidate for the 3rd Congressional District in Tennessee is the person responsible for the messages (see below). According to a story from WSMV-TV, Tyler said the sign’s message is that America should go back to a “1960’s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration.”

He went on to add that he has no hatred in his heart for “people of color”, although one does wonder what he wants done to them. Maybe he can get them to leave voluntarily (who could blame them).

Tyler told a local ABC News affiliate that the sign was taken down on Tuesday evening after the story went viral. His restaurant, Whitewater Grille in Ocoee, is also facing calls for a boycott.

We need to remind ourselves that there will always be people who are extremists and are looking for a way to get noticed (can you say Westboro Baptist Church) and everyone has a right to their opinion, but there comes a time when somebody needs to say enough is enough.

Maybe we need to revisit freedom of speech along with the right to bear arms.

Another billboard for Rick Tyler for Congress.

#selfienation

Posted on by

Tweet“Proof our country has gone to hell” is what one angry person tweeted after seeing a bronze sculpture of two girls taking a selfie in front of the Sugar Land, Texas City Hall.

According to a release from the sweetest city in the country, the sculpture, along with another bronze sculpture portraying a guitar player while sitting on the ledge of a fountain facing city walk represents activities which are common in the plaza.

Other angry tweets are questioning the use of tax-payer money to fund the project, but the two sculptures are part of a 10-piece collection donated by a Sugar Land resident to the City through the Sugar Land Legacy Foundation.

Now me, I can personally find outrage in a lot of things, but this? Once again, the wonderful world wide web demonstrates how far we have come as a people.

selfie

The blind squirrel finds the nut

Posted on by

Mary Lou Bruner, 69, Candidate for State Board of Education, District 9. A Tea Party group dropped its support of Mary Lou Bruner on Tuesday, May 24.It’s not always easy living in Texas. The state has a lot of great things going for it, but like other states there are times when one has to shake their head in bewilderment.

Take for example the recent run-off election for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. Mary Lou Bruner was a candidate who received 48 percent of the vote in a three-way primary, just two percentage points of winning, and since Texas is a red state, becoming the presumptive candidate to join the board.

The 69-year-old candidate, who looks like someone from the SNL Church Lady sketch, ran on a platform of keeping gay “subliminal messages” out of text books. Now you would think most conservative Republican voters would support that position, but then a funny thing happened; somebody started looking at her Facebook page and found these pearls of wisdom:

  • The United Nations launched a plot to depopulate the planet.
  • President Obama is a former gay prostitute.
  • Democrats secretly assassinated JFK because he was conservative.
  • House Speaker Paul Ryan’s beard made him look like “a terrorist.”
  • Dinosaurs and people lived at the same time.
  • The climate crisis was Karl Marx’s idea.

In a released statement, Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller said, “Texas escaped an education train wreck tonight. If Bruner had ultimately won election to the board, she would have instantly become the most embarrassingly uninformed and divisive member on a board that already too often puts politics ahead of making sure our kids get a sound education.”

In the end, the voters decided that Keven Ellis, Lufkin school board president might be better suited for the position proving that even a blind squirrel can find the nuts, even if they look like a church lady. Blind-Squirrel-Finds-a-Nut-small

Blurred lines

Posted on by

bench-2They have gone too far.

I admit, I’m a fan of Modern Family. I think it’s cleverly written and I find myself actually laughing out loud, but all that has changed after this past episode.

Part of the storyline involved Phil Dunphy, a loveable goofball, using his knowledge of real estate to foil an evil character’s attempts at taking advantage of a family member. I found myself cheering him on as he landed blow after blow on the unsuspecting person.

Turns out she was not the only unsuspecting person. That scene was part of a new advertising strategy by the National Association of Realtors. Yes, they actual paid for a scene that made real estate agents look valuable.

I totally get that today’s TV’s viewing habits are radically different than even five years ago and advertisers are having a hard time reaching consumers. Recording programs and zooming past the ads are becoming more and more the normal rather than the exception, but has it really come to this? I can understand paying a show to have an actor drink a coke (product placement), but to actually help write a script?

It looks like the sales department has moved smack dab into the writer’s office.

Do you believe in miracles?

Posted on by

pC1vq2QlThere is an implausible sports story taking place involving the sport of soccer. Now before you go off on your “soccer is boring” rant, you need pay attention, because you just missed out on what could be considered he greatest sports story of all time.

Across the pond is a soccer organization called the Premier League which is host to England’s greatest clubs. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City are but a few of the elite squads looking to be crowned champions. These clubs spend big bucks on top name players and fans demand nothing the title every year.

And then there is Leicester City. Nobody gave them a chance. The Brits, who love to bet on anything and everything, had them as 5,000 to 1 long-shots to win it all. It is even more unbelievable when you consider that a year ago, Leicester City barely escaped relegation and entered bankruptcy protection seven years ago.

According to published reports, Leicester City had a payroll of £48.2 million ranking them 17 out of 20 clubs. Chelsea (last year’s champions) spent £215.6 million. That alone should help this into perspective for you.

So Leicester City winning it all is huge. How huge? The infamous Miracle on Ice game had the U.S. men’s hockey team as 1,000 to 1 underdogs. The N.Y. Mets winning the 1969 World Series, 100 to 1. Broadway Joe guaranteeing the N.Y. Jets would beat the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III was considered outrageous, but the odds makers only had them as 10 to 1 underdogs.

Maybe you don’t love or even like soccer, but who doesn’t love Cinderella.

Rendezvous Houston

Posted on by

Rendezvous HoustonIt was 30 years (and one day) ago when I was witness to one the most amazing spectacles ever. The city of Houston has hosted some pretty big events in its day including Super Bowls, Final Fours, World Series games, as well as numerous festivals and concerts, but none compare to what took place at the foot of downtown.

The city was literally shut down by a concert featuring Jean-michel Jarre. For a period of time, it held a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest outdoor “rock concert” in history, with figures varying from 1 to 1.5 million in attendance.

Freeways were jammed by cars whose passengers simply stopped where they were and got out to watch the show, some even climbing highway exit signs to get a better view. The low hanging clouds provided a ceiling for the light show and fireworks that added even more drama.

It is hard to fathom the technology available to Jarre to pull off such an extravaganza in 1986. Computers were in their infancy and nobody had heard about the worldwide web, but after a blistering rain storm the day before which tore down equipment, threatening to have the concert canceled, Jarre enthralled an entire city with lights, fireworks, video displays and of course, music.

In the public interest?

Posted on by

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.