Politics 2014

[NoJ]

Oh man, that's a lot of beaver biscuits!

 

I live in an unincorporated neighborhood (by choice) and will never agree to be incorporated.

[Hixter]

I live in an unincorporated neighborhood (by choice) and will never agree to be incorporated.

Likewise, but this time we'll have no say in the matter. 

 

When the city offered to annex us voluntarily about 5 years ago, they said that we'd have to remove the gates at the entrances to the community, and from that date forward the city would maintain the streets; the neighborhood voted to keep the gates and say 'no' to annexation. This time we have no choice and the city will not maintain our roads, even if we remove the gates. It's a big F-U for turning them down, I guess. The extra $125 we pay in taxes every month will be a lasting reminder of how ruthless the city is when it comes to gobbling up territory in order to gain tax revenue. It should come as no surprise that the areas being annexed are relatively affluent and full of expensive houses.

 

San Antonio's aggressive annexation policy will result in it becoming the 5th-largest city in the nation.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I hear Massachusetts is pretty good tax-wise...have you considered relocating there?

[tinnitus photography]

not in the top 10!

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/top-10-states-with-the-highest-taxes.html/?a=viewall

 

NH has no state income nor sales tax, but their property tax is very high to make up for that shortfall. and a pretty sizable portion of people who live in Southern NH end up working in MA so they end up paying the 5.2% income tax anyway.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

not in the top 10!

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal-finance/top-10-states-with-the-highest-taxes.html/?a=viewall

 

Disappointing.

[KevinG]

Just read that the City of San Antonio plans to annex my neighborhood next year. We've voted against annexation in the past, but this time they'll just do it involuntarily. Our property taxes are expected to rise 25% above the already inflated rate, but we'll receive no new services. What a bargain!

 

The Beast is hungry and when the Beast is hungry, it must feed.

 

What services have you already been getting form the city?  

 

From the article referenced below, you appear to be getting police, fire, library, etc.  Probably the school district as well to?  

 

$125 extra dollars a year is not a lot (10 bucks a month).  Sure it sucks, but you are probably getting a lot more out of it then you think.  And probably you have been getting a lot of services for free in years past.

[Hixter]

What services have you already been getting form the city?

None. Everything has come through the county: fire, schools, police, etc., and it came out of my county taxes.

 

$125 extra dollars a year is not a lot (10 bucks a month).

You misread what I typed. It's an extra $125 per month.

 

Sure it sucks, but you are probably getting a lot more out of it then you think.  And probably you have been getting a lot of services for free in years past.

No, I will get no new services, just a new provider, new regulations and another $1500 (or more) on my tax bill.

 

Here's my property tax bill from last year. The school district makes out like a bandit, since I have never had any children enrolled in local schools and I never will. 

 

[LouieB]

Oh I get it, only people with children should pay for schools. And if you can't pay then I guess your kids don't get educated.

 

I love the word Dickensian. 

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

Oh I get it, only people with children should pay for schools. And if you can't pay then I guess your kids don't get educated.

Funny you should bring it up, since I never said or even suggested either one of those things.

[bleedorange]

Funny you should bring it up, since I never said or even suggested either one of those things.

 

Aren't you used to people here jumping to the worst possible conclusions about something you've written? Of course, that's true of the entire internet.

[KevinG]

You misread what I typed. It's an extra $125 per month.

 

No, I will get no new services, just a new provider, new regulations and another $1500 (or more) on my tax bill.

 

 

My bad, that is a lot and I would be generally pissed if I was in your position.

 

But I do challenge you on your assertion that you will get no new services. You will now be under the protection of the city police and fire and all other services (at least from what I can gather from your article). Also you can now be part of city government and use the power of your vote to change things in the city. That should not be over looked.

 

Also in defense of LouieB it does sound like you are bitching about paying taxes for schools. And regardless of having children or not, it is every single citizens duty to pay for public education.

[lost highway]

The taxes in your state are unruly because you aren't paying income tax, and none of your citizens are.  It might sound like a libertarian utopia, until someone's got to pave a road.

[Hixter]

Aren't you used to people here jumping to the worst possible conclusions about something you've written?

I'm not surprised by it, but I don't think I'll ever get used to it.

 

But I do challenge you on your assertion that you will get no new services. You will now be under the protection of the city police and fire and all other services (at least from what I can gather from your article).

I was already under the protection of the county fire, sheriff, etc., so I won't be gaining anything for my $1500 other than seeing different uniforms.

 

Also you can now be part of city government and use the power of your vote to change things in the city.

Yes, a city that I purposely avoided living in when I bought my house. San Antonio politics are a big shit show and I would be happy to remain removed from them and their stupid regulations. Here's an example: as soon as we are annexed, the tiny folding pocket knife that I always carry in my pocket will be illegal to carry in my neighborhood. Ridiculous.

 

Also in defense of LouieB it does sound like you are bitching about paying taxes for schools. 

It was pure projection, because I never bitched, much less said that "only people with children should pay for schools. And if you can't pay then ... your kids don't get educated."

 

And regardless of having children or not, it is every single citizens duty to pay for public education.

I never said otherwise. I raised two children (as a single parent) and put them both through public schools and I know how those institutions are funded. 

 

I don't mind being criticized for something I've said, but please make sure I've actually said it first.

[Hixter]

The taxes in your state are unruly because you aren't paying income tax

Not exactly true, as our tax rates are about 70% higher than some of the more rural areas in the state. I'm paying an elevated school tax rate because the district is building one or more new schools per year. I'm fine with that and I'll note that they are excellent schools. My complaint is that the city is planning to gobble us up unilaterally in order to slurp up tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. They won't build a single school.

 

 It might sound like a libertarian utopia, until someone's got to pave a road.

The voters took care of that all on their own last month.

 

I've lived in states with state income taxes where the schools were worse and so were the roads, but the government was nice and bloated. (I'm looking at you, California.)

[lost highway]

But the reason you're getting annexed is the state of TX is losing income tax revenue so they're leaving it to the cities and counties to provide basic services like road repair. This incentivises the cities to annex areas to broaden their tax base since they're paying more of the bill than other cities in neighboring states.

[Hixter]

But the reason you're getting annexed is the state of TX is losing income tax revenue

Is it possible to lose something that you've never had?

[lost highway]

Lost potential.

[uncool2pillow]

Here's my property tax bill from last year. The school district makes out like a bandit, since I have never had any children enrolled in local schools and I never will. 

 

 

Oh I get it, only people with children should pay for schools. And if you can't pay then I guess your kids don't get educated.

 

 

Funny you should bring it up, since I never said or even suggested either one of those things.

 

Usually I would find myself agreeing with Hixter over Louie, but in this case, Hixter is being absolutely ridiculous. If Louis is wrong, why bring up that you never had or will have kids in that district? If they are making out like bandits, it is because they are taking your money to educate other people's children, no?

[Hixter]

If Louis is wrong, why bring up that you never had or will have kids in that district?

Because it's the truth, first of all, and also because it would sound ridiculous if I were to say they were making out like bandits if I had children who were utilizing the services and facilities that my tax dollars were paying for. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that someone can gripe about the cost of something without being accused of being anti-that-thing. If someone here were to lament the size of their federal tax bill, my first response wouldn't be to say, "So you want to take away Social Security so that the elderly and disabled starve and freeze to death?"

 

 

 

 If they are making out like bandits, it is because they are taking your money to educate other people's children, no?

They're using my taxes to pay for schools, as required by law. As I've already said, I have no problem with it, but I also doubt that a school district bean counter would have any problem with admitting that they've made out very well over the last 7 years, collecting $25,000 from me without having to provide my family with any services whatsoever. 

 

Anyway, the whole school thing was just an aside to begin with. My beef is with the city and their greed for tax dollars. Today I read an article where a pro-annexation county judge slammed the decision to cherry pick the more affluent areas while choosing to ignore poorer neighborhoods that might actually benefit from the city's services.

[lost highway]

Again, the problems you're having with the city are a direct result of the policies of the state of TX. They tried an experiment that sounded nice to a lot of people but doesn't work. TX has all of these urban areas with a majority vote that thinks rural. Not collecting necessary taxes is fiscally irresponsible.

[KevinG]

They're using my taxes to pay for schools, as required by law. As I've already said, I have no problem with it, but I also doubt that a school district bean counter would have any problem with admitting that they've made out very well over the last 7 years, collecting $25,000 from me without having to provide my family with any services whatsoever.

I hate this notion of school districts as takers and providing nothing to people without children in the schools, simply untrue. Public Schools provide so much more to a community then just education of those that go to the schools.

 

I don't know if this is your intent, but you sound like a cranky old man, yelling about how schools are taking money from you.

 

I think losthighway is right, I think your problem is the state policies of your state, and the cities responding to their financial needs.

[calvino]

 

collecting $25,000 from me without having to provide my family with any services whatsoever.

 

To write this about a school system and to write that it does not "provide my family with any service whatsoever" is pretty ridiculous  --- even if your family is grown and living in CA - the students that your tax dollars serve now will provide a service later on in life, it may not be directly, (though it very well might) - but the majority of the students that you are helping pay for through your tax dollars (like the people who helped to pay for your kid's schools, even though they may have not have kids in the system) will benefit Texas, as well CA and the rest of the country, by hopefully getting good jobs and paying taxes, providing services, finding the cure for Cancer, etc....

 

Of course I have not looked into your school district --- if they are underachieving (both students and administrators) - you can have a beef about wasting your tax dollars, but I guess you can do something about that (going to board meetings, etc) rather than complaining about paying taxes --- or at least you can complain about paying taxes and being pro-active.

 

 

Anyway - I do agree - not cool, annexing land without elections.

[bleedorange]

It's a very good school district. It did produce me after all.

[jff]

It's a very good school district. It did produce me after all.

Scandalous.

[LouieB]

My favorite part of this thread is Hixter saying he didn't say something he said.

 

LouieB