Homestead exemption meant that peoples’ homes would not be taxed at a full charge although some of their households could be tax-free. In Texas, the current family exemption is $15,000, meaning that if one’s home tax is valued at $100, 000, they would only pay taxes of $85,000 (Texansforprop1.com). Proposition 1 would extend that exemption, meaning that one would even pay less tax than their actual house value.
Proposition 1 achieved four things. First, it ensured that property tax was decreased by increasing the homestead exemption from $15,000 to $25,000. Second, it ensured that senior Texans and physically challenged Texans to get as much tax relief as possible. Third, it prevented local governments from lowering any homestead exemption that could have existed. Finally, it ensured that estate transactions would not be subjected to any tax (Texansforprop1.com).
No matter what one’s house was worth, they would be required to pay the required tax. Texas did that because it did not have a state income tax. For some states, they have income tax to generate revenues. However, the stable source of revenue for the government of Texas is property tax for all the local primary services and institutions like fire departments and law enforcement firms. Texas also relies on the real estate transfer tax as one of its main sources of revenue. This is a tax which is incurred when selling a home, and it increases taxes to the home buyer and even the home seller.
However, there were some amendments which were put across. For example, Proposition I amended Art 8, Sec 1-b(c) of the Texas Constitution. Specifically, it increased the amount exempted from $15,000 to $25,000 (Texas Legislative Council). Estates owned by the aged and also the physically challenged people would see the amount taxable reduce significantly. Another significant change brought about by Proposition 1 is that it enabled parliament to declare illegal optional homestead exemptions.
Also, the law would allow the parliament to eliminate real estate transfer tax. On the other hand, the ballot proposal needed homestead exemption to be increased when the institution involved was set up for public use. This would ensure that it conveys simple property fee to real estate. This information was proposed by authors who carried out joint resolution proposals in these amendments. They include Jane Nelson and Dennis Bonnen.
The other amendment was about state officers. All the state officers would have to live in state residences, as long as they were still working for the state (House Research Organization 10). The other amendment authorized professionals in the sports teams to pay advertisement, promotional and other administrative expenses. It was aimed at charity activities. The other amendment imposed by S. J. R 17 was that as long as a residence had between 5,000 to 7,500 people, they could build their own roads for private use, and the associated tax would be reasonable (House Research Organization 14).
Another amendment was passed about how to carry out hunting, fishing and harvesting of wild animals. This law allowed the legislature to pass other laws so as to regulate hunting and harvesting of fish to ensure their existence is well secured. This law did not prohibit the other local laws on possession of weapons (House Research Organization 15).
Certain arguments arose from the amendments. For example, some argued that the amendments had an impact on economic growth. This affected them negatively due to the high taxes which were imposed on them. This is because the increasing household exemption tax benefited especially people with low income. The other argument was based on the local control whereby state law placed restrictions on the school district’s ability to set property tax rates. Taxpayers addressed the issue of relieving by the state from taxation as they could not rely mostly on the local government there (Texas Legislative Council).
The other argument was that Texas should ensure revenue stability. This could be achieved through having several sources of collecting revenue. The argument was based on the fact taxing property usually hurt the schools and the homesteads. The other argument was based on alternatives in spending. Proponents of this viewpoint called upon for the allocation of extra resources for the purpose of making sure that all the state activities would be funded adequately.
This idea had a negative impact on the majority of the people. It could have sought other mechanisms/methods of collecting revenue. The government should have maintained the original house holding tax and avoid taxing schools; in fact, public schools should be tax-free. For that reason, the idea was bad, and I could not support it, even though some citizens and organizations supported it. Some of the organizations that supported the law include Freedom for All Americans, the Human Right Campaign and the Texas Freedom Network. Finally, the people of Texas will make a decision on the issue of transgender people and sexual predators. They are also looking forward to improvement in the housing sector. It would be interesting to see how the issues will be navigated.
Works Cited
House Research Organization. Amendments Proposed For 2015 Ballot. 1st ed. House Research Organization, 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Texansforprop1.com. "Faqs". Texans For Prop 1. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
Texas Legislative Council. Analyses Of Proposed Constitutional Amendments. 1st ed. Austin,
TX: Texas Legislative Council, 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
