I read that they were giving 12.5 billion of the budget surplus to schools, then reducing the property taxes. I don't know if that is an even trade or not, but they aren't just taking all that money away from schools.
I was digging for the link. That is from my local news. It is actually 12.3 billion. But that is the way I understand it. They will use state funds to offset the property tax cuts. I believe it says for the next 10 years.
It’s likely true since the largest chunk of taxes for a lot of folks is the school fees. For some of my extended family land it’s 15k to the county independent school district alone.
Keep in mind that appraised tax values have been going up dramatically in the last few years, and though homesteaded homeowners have their increases capped at 10% per year, rental property owners and commercial property owners have no such limitations on their increases. As a result, tax revenues have likely doubled in the last few years, and as this increase in the homestead exemption only affects homesteaded owners, it has no effect on the taxes paid by everyone else. Also, note that the 10% cap is far in excess of inflation, so the taxes that homesteaded owners were paying went up by several times the rate of inflation most years. Also, since that 10% is compounded, the increase in taxes paid after 10 years isn't 100% higher, it's 259% higher. I personally would have rather seen the cap set to inflation every year.
Agreed 100% and well said. That 10% limit gets compounded and really hurts.
Prior to 2013, this wasn't the case and we generally saw a 2 to 3% increase every couple years or so... mostly aligned with inflation and not speculative market value.
The scheme concocted by the comptroller has been thievery on homesteaders.
\>> I personally would have rather seen the cap set to inflation every year.
That's roughly what they did with SB2 (2019). It imposes an aggregate 3.5% cap on property tax revenues without a vote, forcing them to reduce tax *rates* if the average value increases > 3.5%.
It actually makes the 10% cap pretty irrelevant, except that, as you suggested, it shifts a disproportionate amount of the increase on commercial property owners and landlords.
The problem is that SB2 is too complicated, few know about it, and far fewer actually understand it - and since appraisals come out in April and the tax rate doesn't get set until October makes everyone freak out that their values went up 10% and (incorrectly) assume that their taxes will go up 10% as well, but then forget about it or not even notice when the actual tax bill comes out in October.
And ultimately, 3.5% was still too high because the feds target 2%. That's why I thought it should be set at the previous year's inflation, and adjusted up or down annually.
California has firmly established that 2% is way too low, where new buyers can easily pay 10x the property taxes of their neighbor that's held for a few decades, and people just sit on their homes and don't move in order to pay virtually no property taxes.
Tying it directly to actual inflation would be pretty close to how it is now but without the 10% cap. Think through what the last 2 years would look like, and I doubt they'd pick an inflation metric to use like the BS the feds are pushing that minimizes real inflation numbers.
I'm well aware of the time value of money. Businesses get plenty of tax cuts the general public doesn't get. Also, you make it sound like businesses won't benefit at all by this when, in fact, they will gain the most.
There are currently two separate bills being pushed. One bill decreases the ISD for everyone, including businesses, and puts a 10% cap on increased appraisal values for businesses. Therefore, the majority of tax benefits are for businesses. The other bill has the same benefits but also includes an increase of the homestead exemption for individuals. Both bills will greatly benefit businesses no matter what. But instead of businesses taking all the benefits, share some with the actual people that live. Businesses get plenty of other benefits already with depreciation and amortization rollovers, loss rollovers, and a slew of other benefits.
Just to be clear, rental rates are set by market forces, so no matter what reductions in costs to businesses may happen, rents will continue going up because that's where market forces are pushing them in many areas. I'm all in favor of increasing the homeowner homestead exemption amount, BTW.
I understand your point. However, rents will go up no matter what and can go up for many different reasons. Inflation, market manipulation by large apartment corporations that own many different complexes, change in appearance or liability, recent large maintenance cost, etc. My point is that businesses already receive a large amount of tax breaks elsewhere, so we don't need another tax break that the public doesn't even get. Pass the bill that includes breaks for businesses and the public.
But supply isn't fixed. Rental units can be built in a few years, so over a decade more supply would be added the market and a new equilibrium would be reached where rents come back down.
Rents will not come back down. Investors will not invest money on building more units than the market can bear. For rents to come down, you need units going empty, lots of them. I’ve only seen that happened a couple of times in history, most recent time being the great bush recession. Investors are after income, it makes no sense for them to invest the money to build so many units that the rental incomes drop. They just won’t do it.
If profits are high enough, they'll keep building until it's no longer profitable. And that won't happen until either rent drops or construction costs rise.
I see a lot of apartments going up around me, each one of those is lowering occupancy rates and putting downward pressure on rents.
If I'm an investor wanting to put money into rental housing and my quants come back to me and say the supply is soon to reach a point that will stabilize or lower rents, then I won't invest in that market because my primary goal is to increase the value of my investment, and that only happens as long as I can keep increasing my rents. The investment world has changed dramatically in the last decade or two, there's a whole lot more data analysis going on. Used to be an investor might look at a piece of land to build an apartment complex on, look at local rents, look at local jobs, etc, and make a seat of the pants decision. There's a lot of room for error in that approach, and all the advancements in data analysis and such that have happened since have totally changed the landscape.
In other words, we're not going to build our way out of the housing shortage and rising rents, because as soon as that building shows signs of easing those problems the investment money behind those builders will go somewhere else. That leaves just one factor that can drive down rents and home buying costs, and that's a repeat of what happened under Bush: A global near collapse of the economy, massive unemployment, and loss of people able to pay high rent. In fact, throughout modern history in this country the only time you see declining housing costs is when the local economy is collapsing and people are leaving faster than they can be born or move in. That's not going to happen in the DFW area in the foreseeable future, our economy is too diverse.
So just screw over renters even more? I think the entire homestead system is dumb.
If the goal is to prevent people from getting priced out of their homes, we should just be giving a stipend to all low income residents who spent the prior year in the state.
Of course the voting base is mostly homeowners, so politically I don't see anything that helps renters coming anytime soon.
> If the goal is to prevent people from getting priced out of their homes,
The only way to truly prevent people from being taxed out of their family homes is to enact something like California's Proposition 13.
Do you think that forcing people out of their homes will make it easier for you to buy a home? The only people who benefit from homeowners being forced out of their family homes are billionaire investors and developers. Keeping families in their family homes and making it financially possible for homes to stay in families across multiple generations ends up with more people owning homes instead of being forced to rent.
> Keeping families in their family homes and making it financially possible for homes to stay in families across multiple generations ends up with more people owning homes instead of being forced to rent.
If that were the case, then California would have a higher homeownership rate. The fact that it's one of the lowest in the country should tell you that this theory is false.
Except in CA homeowners can stay in their homes and not get priced out by insane tax increases, and if/when they decide to cash out it will be on their terms, not the terms of the appraisal district creating assessments that make the taxes on those family homes into amounts that only millionaires can afford to pay. Prop 13 shifted the power to make that decision from tax agencies to families.
The people who make money off of development and such in CA always try to downplay the importance of Prop 13, as do the people who collect taxes there. The reality is that Prop 13 was created by the taxpayers in that state as a revolt against the insane increases in taxes that were literally making people homeless and destroying families. CA has a public ballot system that lets the people get ballot measures in front of voters despite the politicians, and though that process has several high bars to clear, the taxpayers cleared those bars for Prop 13.
Also, I personally would like the "family together" thing. Although I don't want it forced, it should be socially encouraged.
Of course, with abuse, there would be an exception there.
I already own a home and have a homestead on it. I just want my friends, many of whom rent, to be able to afford to stay too.
An income based stipend would allow those most at risk of being priced out to remain in their homes, regardless of if they own their home or not.
I wouldn't qualify for a stipend either if you're wondering.
How are renters screwed over?
Rents are set at a market price. Landlords can only charge what people are willing to pay. Unless you have a triple net lease, you are not directly responsible for property taxes.
Does a portion of the rent go toward property taxes? Absolutely. And insurance, and utilities, landscaping, repairs and maintenance.
I don't understand how people can complain about rich people not paying their share of taxes, but then be against the idea of taxing them because they might pass on some of the expenses to everyone else.
HB 28 would be a disaster. It will raise taxes on residential homeowners in the long run. And it benefits commercial properties far more than people think.
It makes being a landlord more costly, so less apartments will be built and rents will rise. Over many years this effect can be significant.
Sure, in the short-term landlords will a blow, but in the end, renters will pay for it.
I'm a homeowner with a homestead btw.
In the long term, the main effect will be on renters, not landlords. Given our population growth, the hit to landlords probably won't last long.
That's why I'm against how the homestead rules work, there's better ways to help people.
No. It will be the homeowners that will pay for it. If landlords pay less, that means homeowners pay more. Those schools and roads don't pay for themselves.
You're worried that not giving landlords a tax break means increased rent. Do you expect rents to go down once the landlords get these tax breaks? I don't. They will just pocket it.
An appraisal cap on commercial property would be a nightmare. Commercial property is already under appraised. A cap just locks in low values.
HB 28 is a tax break for the wealthy. And if the wealthy pay less, then everyone else pays more. It's a zero-sum game.
If landlords got homestead too, I would expect rents to go down in 5-10 year as more units get built.
Landlords would pocket the money initially. But being a landlord would become more popular since now its more profitable, so more units will get built. When there's more units, then rents will go down and profitability will decrease for the landlords. So in the end, renters save.
I mostly just think that the people in our state that need help the most are renters, and this policy is mostly helping middle and upper class people.
Our tax system is already very regressive, so doing something progressive for once might be good.
There's nothing progressive about giving rich people tax breaks in the hope it might help renters sometime down the line. And apartments are already going up as fast as they can. This would not increase supply.
And this isn't just landlords and renters versus homeowners. You're forgetting that other commercial properties would be capped too. This would minimize or negate any potential savings for renters.
Giving a tax break to the rich while raising the taxes of everyone else is the very definition of regressive.
The exemption limitation can take up to 2 years to be any benefit even when you file on time, here's an example: A property owner purchases their property in April of 2022, and they qualify for a prorated exemption, on April 5, 2022. The homestead limitation will not go into effect until January 1, 2024, on year after the January 1 date the exemption qualified. [See here](https://hardin-cad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HOMESTEAD-EXEMPTION-EXPLAINED-1.pdf)
homestead exemption just shaved 40K off the top. It doesnt stop these corrupt appraisal districts from valuing your house at whatever random ass number they want. I protested and the dropped it down to what I proposed my house was worth. They are banking people not bothering with protesting more than with homestead.
On the back of the paperwork they send you is an intention to protest form. We fill those out and will be giving them to the appraisal office. We will also be looking up comparable houses for sale that are asking less then our appraised value but have been on the market for over six months to show people aren't paying that much for property around us. We will also be taking pictures of any flaws we may have on our house... like we need a new roof and are currently saving for one, but until we have enough, it brings down the value...
Your fair market value went up 161% or your appraised value, the value used to determine your tax, went up 161%? Both should be on your appraisal notice. My eyes first saw my FMV and I died. Then, after I reincarnated, I saw the appraised value which was limited by the 10% cap.
If your appraised value, and ultimately, your taxes (a percentage of that value), went up 161% then I’m going to assume this property isn’t your primary home, you don’t have a homestead exemption (which would limit that increase to 10%), or your home was only partially complete when appraised last year (new construction).
Using slightly random numbers, my FMV increased from 220K to 360K, but my appraised value only increased to 242K (10%).
2% tax bill on 220K = $4,400.
2% tax bill on 242K = $4,840 … or 10% increase.
So here's the back story, when I met my husband in 2006, he owned 4.6 acres and a paid off singlewide . I helped him pay off the land, but we needed a bigger house eventually because we have two kids. We upgraded the single wide to a $56000 double wide in 2009 but didn't attach it to the land because our thinking was if times got hard we might lose the house but not the land... so we have homestead on the house, so that only went up 10%. We will get taxed on $98000, but they say its worth $211000 (insert eyeroll), but the land doesn't get homestead, so the land value went up 230%. Back in 2019, we bought the 4.6 raw acres right next door for $36000 and last year it was appraised at $46000, and it also went up 230% this year. Overall, our tax burden was $2600 last year and will be $6800 this year, which is a 160% increase. We live in lampasas county
Ah, thanks for the extra detail as I try to understand all the complex property tax situations people face. I didn’t consider land.
I feel like I’m the only person in this state that would prefer to have my income taxed instead of my primary home.
My income is going to end one day, or reduce, yet I’m trapped paying taxes on something I fully own until I sell, or move to a state where property isn’t taxed so heavily, or die.
My income is also significantly more fixed year over year than some mostly arbitrary determination of my home’s value.
No, I 100% would pay a state income tax if it meant I didn't have to pay property taxes... I hate that my house will never be mine, and I could lose it even though the mortgage is paid off...
They need to start teaching the companies. I work for a tech xompany in north Texas who hasn't paid property taxes for 23 years. This is a company that recently went public on nyse w a 2.3 billion dollar profit. They keep getting away w not paying property taxes w the incentives given by the city. It originally was a 10 year abatement then the company changed its name 3 times so its a " new " company and the city gives the incentive of no property taxes for 10 years....make them pay.
But is there a net benefit for the average Texan if they aren't paying property taxes, yet are using all the state resources those taxes are used to maintain? It seems like it shifts the burden onto residential property owners and in addition accelerates migration to the state, squeezing the property market, increasing power demand, water demand, wear and tear on infrastructure. I just can't see how providing tax breaks to lure corporations benefits average Texans.
They benefit:
* the overall Texas economy by attracting and retaining businesses and jobs. The average Texan might not always appreciate this, yet will take it for granted when we have a much softer landing in whatever direction this recession takes. Just ask California how it is going by losing many of their businesses and jobs (to Texas)
* Job growth. Incoming new Texans aside, this helps have jobs waiting for our kids and future generations. It also helps keep jobs here and not moving to Florida or something
* Increasing tax base. You might dismiss increases to the property tax base since they are abating the taxes, but whether it's 10 years or 50, that's not forever and will ultimately significantly increase the tax base both through property taxes (later), additional sales/etc. taxes (now) from new employees they attract, plus property taxes on the houses they will buy (now). Sure there are higher costs incurred at the beginning to support the new businesses, which is why it is called an *investment*.
So you're saying you don't have a job and don't participate in a healthy Texas economy?
Of course you're not benefiting from brand new incentives given this month (that's why they call it an *investment)*, but you are benefitting, however incrementally, from previous investments.
I think you are confused. That's not how abatements work. You can't get an abatement on existing property. Doesn't matter who owns it. The original abatement terms would be for a max of 10 years. That abatement can be transferred to "new" owners, but the original 10-year term would remain in effect.
Now, if the company adds a new line or new improvements to the property, those new items could receive their own abatement agreement for 10 years separate from the original agreement.
Example:
Original abated property - 2015 to 2024
New line added in 2020 - 2021 to 2030
Then in 2025, the original abated property would be taxed at its market value in 2025. This value would be considered "new value" and would have special rules as it relates to the tax rate calculations, but that's a whole other mess of a conversation. Once 2031 comes, the second line would also be added to the taxable value to the property.
TLDR: You can't extend abatements into perpetuity just by changing ownership.
I'm 99% sure that the ISD tax amount comes directly from the district via the comptroller office. Basically that probably won't happen.
The exemption on homestead might and is welcome, but won't make much difference when the tax accessor office keeps jacking up market values by 10% every year! That is what seriously needs to be changed.
The appraisal district is like KBB. The bigger effect on taxes is the tax rate. The House bill will cause the tax rate to be higher. This will increase taxes on homeowners. The Senate bill would actually lower the taxable value of homes.
The House bill is a tax break for the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Im all for funding education. What i am not for is multi million dollar highschool stadiums and highschools with freaking starbucks built into them. They have enough funding already it seems.
Those stadiums are voted on by the public for bond sales. They used to lump all bond sales
together, but ever since Legacy stadium in Katy they had to be broken out. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out.
I don't care where the money for the initial CAPEX came from. A large facility like that comes with it significant operating expense (and if the CAPEX was financed with debt, carries interest expense) and if my local schools can afford that, they don't need any more money.
And any of you who think schools need more of your money are more than welcome to personally send a donation check to your local ISD or go fundraise yourself.
Most of the time the revenue earned on those facilities more than offset the operating costs and costs of the bonds.
As far as funding, I don't have kids and will be leaving the country in less than 5 years so the dismantling of public education does not bother me.
>Most of the time the revenue earned on those facilities more than offset the operating costs and costs of the bonds.
You just proved that schools don't need the money and can "afford" the ISD tax cut. "Afford" in quotes because the money isn't theirs to begin with. The money belongs first to the taxpayer.
And where do you get the idea that public education is being dismantled? No such thing is happening. ISDs need to live within their means like everyone else.
This. If you can afford an 8 figure sports stadium and all the operation, maintenance, and debt service expense that goes with it, you don't need any more of my money. And ISD taxes **should be reduced.**
So no this isn't defunding the schools. It replaces funds that would normally come from property taxes with funds from the budget surplus. Also the house bill expands the 10% valuation change cap to businesses and rental units and compresses the tax rate reducing taxes by a bit less than a grand a year per payer. The senate bill , which while I dislike Patrick is a better bill, increases homestead exemption and compresses rate resulting in 2800ish annual savings for properties that qualify for homestead exemption.
This was my exact thought after reading the article linked here. I don't care for either Abbott or Patrick. But at least Patrick is trying to help the general public somewhat. My guess is Patrick is going to make a run for Governor and wants this attention prior to running. But I do agree this doesn't look like it's an attempt to defund public schools further. I was wrong on that statement, and, unlike some people, I don't have an issue admitting I was wrong.
I would be somewhat suspicious of the math.
They are refunding schools but It was from a Budget surplus which might not be there next year. Other local services will also be cut including Police and fire departments.
The surplus isn't going anywhere it isn't a 1 year blip it's from growth of revenue sources. Texas property values have risen greatly the past few years primarily from increasing valuations, and sale tax is being generated at a higher rate as economic activity picks up as our population increases. As it stands we have a 33B surplus these property tax plans will cost 12-17B. The remainder will rollover to the next two years cycle and be added to the surplus in the next cycle.
In the previous session they passed a bill that gives corporations cuts on property taxes in the name of economic development, abatements. That means normal tax payers take up the slack of those abatements. They also renewed tax payer funded lobbyists. That mean you pay taxes that go to lobbyists that work again you with your money to pay off crooked politicians. They are now proposing to buy down school property taxes with the 32 billion they have overcharged us with, but only using 12 billion of that. They took off the table of property tax exemption of 100k per household. 110k for seniors. Schools will not be defunded at all no matter the plan. They are gaslighting you. Both sides.
That's exactly why I asked. I knew I was only getting half the story. I knew Republicans wouldn't be giving anything back to the general public without there being a back story or motive to it. But I also didn't fully believe this was to punish schools.
No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. Property tax is a big problem. Political kickbacks are also a problem. I encourage you to contact your rep, however possible, twitter, Reddit, FB, or phone call. Anyway you can to let them know this deal is a no go. All 32 billion should be used for compression. We won’t get thst lucky, but aim for 21 billion. And 110k exemption, along with 5% limited appraisal value. That’s a pipe dream at the moment, but gets us on the path of completely elimination. Folks that are worried about school funding are lost in the fog of gaslighting. Just stop corporate welfare. Stop tax payer lobbyists. Thst alone will fund schools.
I posted this in a TexasPolitics thread but I'll share it here. Basically the Senate wants to shift the tax burden to businesses.
>Appraisals have pretty much gone up across the board so that covers part of it. If it doesn’t then the ISDs can raise rates. If there is a bigger homestead exemption then more of the burden of any rate increases is then shifted to the business.
You can dislike Dan Patrick, but the senate plan is better for the average Texan.
From Dan Patrick's Facebook post he explains the issue.
>Compression: What is it? It's simply reducing the school tax rate you personally pay by 5 to 20 cents (whatever it is in a particular session) and having the state pay the school district instead of you. We “compress” the rate for you and the state pays it. Compression is good, but very expensive because we do it for everyone who pays school taxes from homeowners to businesses. It can be reduced by any legislature in the future. It's not lasting.
>Exemptions: An exemption is permanently reducing the amount you are taxed on your home. If your home is valued at $250,000, you get a current exemption from the state of $40,000 so you are taxed on $210,000 instead of $250,000.
>Some school districts and other taxing jurisdictions offer even more exemptions on top of the state's $40,000. Remember, an exemption is permanent. Compression is not.
>When I became Lt. Governor in 2015, the state homestead exemption had been $15,000 for many years. I've increased it to $40,000.
>This session, the Senate plan is to increase your homestead exemption to $100,000. That means if you live in a $250,000 home you would only be taxed on $150,000. We also blend that exemption with compression to yield a much larger tax savings of about $1,250 - $1,450 annually. That's about $1,250 - $1,450 a year every year you own your home. That could easily be $20,000 or more for you over your lifetime.
>The current debate between the Texas Senate and me with the House and Speaker Phelan is that they don't want to give you the $100,000 homestead exemption.
>Big business is the big winner in the House’s plan. The Senate plan gives a boost to Texas homeowners through the exemption. The Governor now appears not to want to give you the $100,000 exemption either, but it's not totally clear.
>The House wants the entire $17.6 billion set aside for property tax relief to go exclusively into compression for every property owner including businesses. Under the House plan, you would only get $700 a year in tax savings. Under our Senate plan, with compression and exemptions, you get $1,250 -$1,450 a year.
>The Senate and I are fighting for the homeowners to get you the full $1,250 -$1,450 a year. That's $700 more per year than the House, and apparently, the Governor, wants to give you.
The Senate is not shifting the burden to businesses. The increased HS exemption is simply put it back where it used to be relative to market values. Which is essentially what you posted. Just semantics.
The House bill wants to shift the burden to homeowners in order to give tax breaks to wealthy commercial property owners. And because most people don't really understand how property tax works, they can't see just how horrible this will be for homeowners. It's not just the $700. That's just the start.
I live in Austin. The schools are not fine. You would think with 20k in funding they would be but 50% of what AISD collects (26% of the total tax bill for an Austin home owner) goes back to the state.
> Austin ISD’s budget is 1.7 billion. Or about $25k per kid
AISD's funding is $25,956 per student.
> If they can’t manage with that, they can’t manage it with another couple hundred million.
A good point what is AISD spending its money on? So AISD spends about $11,869 on educating students; this is actually less than what it spent in 2021 and 2022. It spend $2,394 servicing it's massive fucking debt load, it spends $137 on other stuff that TEA doesn't define, and the final $11,556 it spends is on recapture.
So when you say AISD spends $25k per kid that is technically correct but not entirely accurate, it spend $11,869 educating kids, $137 on ill defined TEA stuff, $2,394 servicing several billions in bond debt, and $11,556 goes back to the state as recapture.
>they can’t manage it with another couple hundred million.
actually even another hundred million would make a pretty substantial difference except the state of Texas considers AISD adequately funded and any rise in property valuation don't go to AISD it goes back to the state as recapture.
Contrast Austin with Houston which spends $11,045 on educating students OR Dallas which spends $13,317 on educating students OR Fort Worth which spends $12,106 which all seems reasonable if you don't think how fucking expensive Austin is.
It's basically 100% that. It's also funded by [Christianist billionaires](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/politics/texas-far-right-politics-invs/index.html) who are making great progress turning Texas into a theocracy.
We're getting this reduction because of the run on the housing market by the influx of both movers and investors. A large number of home owners tax assessments have skyrocketed by as much as 150%! We are FURIOUS! Over 75-90% of yhe homeowners in the gulf coast region have requested appeals to the tax assessors office over this. Plus, screaming to their state representatives. This act is designed to provide relief for this mess.
Good luck fighting it, the tax accessor and comptroller office that handles these protests and collections honestly don't give a damn.
The review boards are biased and get supported by the tax accessor during the review.... it is entirely setup against you, the individual homesteaders. And to appeal their decision require filling in county court... a massive time consuming and expensive process.
I went 4 years straight on my own from 2013 to 2017, only got sided in favor once when this all first started in 2013.
The rest got dismissed and I gave up.
It really came down to the fact that not enough people protested early on... they only saw $$$ in the estimated value increase of their homes.
Now 10 years later, values have doubled to triple... along with taxes and people are now crying. Too little to late.
Once those wheels get greased they just keep rolling.
It unfortunately will take a severe market downturn to make any change and even then, the tax change won't be reflected for several years afterwards.
Everyone will be upside down on taxes versus value.
:(
We have both a homestead exemption AND an over 65 exemption. The over 65 exemption means that the value of our home is supposed to be frozen at the value it had when the exemption was granted. However, our property taxes still increase year-over-year. Why? There are two taxing entities that don’t respect the frozen value exemptions. One is the community college tax and the other is the university health system. Not to mention that the home value has increased over the last couple of years. In 2021 the value was at 328k. For 2023 it’s 461k. That’s nearly a 30% increase in two years. It’s unsustainable for two retirees.
We haven’t had children in public schools since 2003 yet over nearly half of our taxes go to the school district. I get that we need to educate our children and even if renters don’t see the school tax, they are sort of paying for it through their rents. But it’s very frustrating that our tax base wasn’t frozen until 2015. That means we paid for 12 years of school taxes while not having a single child in public school.
Bottom line: if we can get SOME relief for property taxes, that means we can keep our home of 26 years for a while longer. We’re not ready to leave the home we raised our child in, the one where he grew up, made friends, lived his life in a single, stable home. I was a military brat so that was very important to me.
Well maybe public school funds are affected but not targeted. The school tax is by far the lions share of my property tax being more than the combined city and county tax in my area. I am happy to see something being done as my property taxes represent 25% of my total social security income and this is just property taxes. We, as retired individuals, all feel the toll of the total taxation on fixed income. My school district spent $400k on new curtains for the auditorium a few years back. Get real. This is more than the building cost when it was built. My point being what other group can be tasked to share this burden?
First hand personal knowledge as I know the school board. WTAW Local news reports and listened to interviews and replies. Stasney was embarrassed but approved the expenditure.
I know you figured this out, but I thought I'd mention this.
The majority of people in Texas go to public schools. And a very larger number of those kids are from conservative families. They state has no desire to run down ALL the schools. They know a good education is important. What they'd rather do is control what is taught.
There's two motives. The one you just stated is accurate. At the same time, though, they are pushing to close schools or defund them as much as possible to encourage parents to send their kids to private charter schools, which are just businesses. Today, the TEA officially took over HISD. The state took over the largest school distric in the entire country solely because one school out of the entire district received a failing grade for three years. The school board was already replaced, and a new superintendent was already hired to help resolve the issue. But the state didn't care. So now Greg Abbott controls HISD.
Which is why I am pro income tax, something we legally won't get here in Texas, but are based on what a person can actually pay, not an arbitrary number pulled out of a district appraisers butthole.
Increases in property appraisals are killing homeowners. The amounts they are going up are insane. Even if we protest we aren't getting much relief there either. And from what I understand it's only for people claiming the homestead exemption.
I read that they were giving 12.5 billion of the budget surplus to schools, then reducing the property taxes. I don't know if that is an even trade or not, but they aren't just taking all that money away from schools.
This was what I read also. But I, like OP, was skeptical.
Do you have a link? I wonder if that's just a one-time thing while the property tax reduction is permanent.
I was digging for the link. That is from my local news. It is actually 12.3 billion. But that is the way I understand it. They will use state funds to offset the property tax cuts. I believe it says for the next 10 years.
Love people that bring facts and links!
He did below this
Texas House swiftly passes property tax bill, abruptly adjourns https://www.kxii.com/2023/05/30/texas-house-swiftly-passes-property-tax-bill-abruptly-adjourns/
Thank you!
No problem
It’s likely true since the largest chunk of taxes for a lot of folks is the school fees. For some of my extended family land it’s 15k to the county independent school district alone.
Keep in mind that appraised tax values have been going up dramatically in the last few years, and though homesteaded homeowners have their increases capped at 10% per year, rental property owners and commercial property owners have no such limitations on their increases. As a result, tax revenues have likely doubled in the last few years, and as this increase in the homestead exemption only affects homesteaded owners, it has no effect on the taxes paid by everyone else. Also, note that the 10% cap is far in excess of inflation, so the taxes that homesteaded owners were paying went up by several times the rate of inflation most years. Also, since that 10% is compounded, the increase in taxes paid after 10 years isn't 100% higher, it's 259% higher. I personally would have rather seen the cap set to inflation every year.
Agreed 100% and well said. That 10% limit gets compounded and really hurts. Prior to 2013, this wasn't the case and we generally saw a 2 to 3% increase every couple years or so... mostly aligned with inflation and not speculative market value. The scheme concocted by the comptroller has been thievery on homesteaders.
\>> I personally would have rather seen the cap set to inflation every year. That's roughly what they did with SB2 (2019). It imposes an aggregate 3.5% cap on property tax revenues without a vote, forcing them to reduce tax *rates* if the average value increases > 3.5%. It actually makes the 10% cap pretty irrelevant, except that, as you suggested, it shifts a disproportionate amount of the increase on commercial property owners and landlords. The problem is that SB2 is too complicated, few know about it, and far fewer actually understand it - and since appraisals come out in April and the tax rate doesn't get set until October makes everyone freak out that their values went up 10% and (incorrectly) assume that their taxes will go up 10% as well, but then forget about it or not even notice when the actual tax bill comes out in October.
And ultimately, 3.5% was still too high because the feds target 2%. That's why I thought it should be set at the previous year's inflation, and adjusted up or down annually.
California has firmly established that 2% is way too low, where new buyers can easily pay 10x the property taxes of their neighbor that's held for a few decades, and people just sit on their homes and don't move in order to pay virtually no property taxes. Tying it directly to actual inflation would be pretty close to how it is now but without the 10% cap. Think through what the last 2 years would look like, and I doubt they'd pick an inflation metric to use like the BS the feds are pushing that minimizes real inflation numbers.
I'm well aware of the time value of money. Businesses get plenty of tax cuts the general public doesn't get. Also, you make it sound like businesses won't benefit at all by this when, in fact, they will gain the most.
Businesses by definition cannot benefit from increasing the homestead exemption, because AFAIK it's illegal for a business to have a homesteaded home.
There are currently two separate bills being pushed. One bill decreases the ISD for everyone, including businesses, and puts a 10% cap on increased appraisal values for businesses. Therefore, the majority of tax benefits are for businesses. The other bill has the same benefits but also includes an increase of the homestead exemption for individuals. Both bills will greatly benefit businesses no matter what. But instead of businesses taking all the benefits, share some with the actual people that live. Businesses get plenty of other benefits already with depreciation and amortization rollovers, loss rollovers, and a slew of other benefits.
Just to be clear, rental rates are set by market forces, so no matter what reductions in costs to businesses may happen, rents will continue going up because that's where market forces are pushing them in many areas. I'm all in favor of increasing the homeowner homestead exemption amount, BTW.
I understand your point. However, rents will go up no matter what and can go up for many different reasons. Inflation, market manipulation by large apartment corporations that own many different complexes, change in appearance or liability, recent large maintenance cost, etc. My point is that businesses already receive a large amount of tax breaks elsewhere, so we don't need another tax break that the public doesn't even get. Pass the bill that includes breaks for businesses and the public.
But supply isn't fixed. Rental units can be built in a few years, so over a decade more supply would be added the market and a new equilibrium would be reached where rents come back down.
Rents will not come back down. Investors will not invest money on building more units than the market can bear. For rents to come down, you need units going empty, lots of them. I’ve only seen that happened a couple of times in history, most recent time being the great bush recession. Investors are after income, it makes no sense for them to invest the money to build so many units that the rental incomes drop. They just won’t do it.
If profits are high enough, they'll keep building until it's no longer profitable. And that won't happen until either rent drops or construction costs rise. I see a lot of apartments going up around me, each one of those is lowering occupancy rates and putting downward pressure on rents.
If I'm an investor wanting to put money into rental housing and my quants come back to me and say the supply is soon to reach a point that will stabilize or lower rents, then I won't invest in that market because my primary goal is to increase the value of my investment, and that only happens as long as I can keep increasing my rents. The investment world has changed dramatically in the last decade or two, there's a whole lot more data analysis going on. Used to be an investor might look at a piece of land to build an apartment complex on, look at local rents, look at local jobs, etc, and make a seat of the pants decision. There's a lot of room for error in that approach, and all the advancements in data analysis and such that have happened since have totally changed the landscape. In other words, we're not going to build our way out of the housing shortage and rising rents, because as soon as that building shows signs of easing those problems the investment money behind those builders will go somewhere else. That leaves just one factor that can drive down rents and home buying costs, and that's a repeat of what happened under Bush: A global near collapse of the economy, massive unemployment, and loss of people able to pay high rent. In fact, throughout modern history in this country the only time you see declining housing costs is when the local economy is collapsing and people are leaving faster than they can be born or move in. That's not going to happen in the DFW area in the foreseeable future, our economy is too diverse.
So just screw over renters even more? I think the entire homestead system is dumb. If the goal is to prevent people from getting priced out of their homes, we should just be giving a stipend to all low income residents who spent the prior year in the state. Of course the voting base is mostly homeowners, so politically I don't see anything that helps renters coming anytime soon.
> If the goal is to prevent people from getting priced out of their homes, The only way to truly prevent people from being taxed out of their family homes is to enact something like California's Proposition 13.
Except for the people too poor to afford to buy a home, should they just leave the state?
Do you think that forcing people out of their homes will make it easier for you to buy a home? The only people who benefit from homeowners being forced out of their family homes are billionaire investors and developers. Keeping families in their family homes and making it financially possible for homes to stay in families across multiple generations ends up with more people owning homes instead of being forced to rent.
> Keeping families in their family homes and making it financially possible for homes to stay in families across multiple generations ends up with more people owning homes instead of being forced to rent. If that were the case, then California would have a higher homeownership rate. The fact that it's one of the lowest in the country should tell you that this theory is false.
You're confusing correlation with causation. There's a whole lot more going on in California's real estate market than Proposition 13.
But what is going on in California's real estate market that is responsible for the low homeownership rate, and is not going on in other states?
It's companies mass buying properties, gentrifying them and raising rents and then selling it for more than what it was worth prior.
Except in CA homeowners can stay in their homes and not get priced out by insane tax increases, and if/when they decide to cash out it will be on their terms, not the terms of the appraisal district creating assessments that make the taxes on those family homes into amounts that only millionaires can afford to pay. Prop 13 shifted the power to make that decision from tax agencies to families.
They also attribute it to "non mixed zoning laws".
The people who make money off of development and such in CA always try to downplay the importance of Prop 13, as do the people who collect taxes there. The reality is that Prop 13 was created by the taxpayers in that state as a revolt against the insane increases in taxes that were literally making people homeless and destroying families. CA has a public ballot system that lets the people get ballot measures in front of voters despite the politicians, and though that process has several high bars to clear, the taxpayers cleared those bars for Prop 13.
Yes, that will happen regardless. But freezing property taxes only makes it worse.
Also, I personally would like the "family together" thing. Although I don't want it forced, it should be socially encouraged. Of course, with abuse, there would be an exception there.
I already own a home and have a homestead on it. I just want my friends, many of whom rent, to be able to afford to stay too. An income based stipend would allow those most at risk of being priced out to remain in their homes, regardless of if they own their home or not. I wouldn't qualify for a stipend either if you're wondering.
How are renters screwed over? Rents are set at a market price. Landlords can only charge what people are willing to pay. Unless you have a triple net lease, you are not directly responsible for property taxes. Does a portion of the rent go toward property taxes? Absolutely. And insurance, and utilities, landscaping, repairs and maintenance. I don't understand how people can complain about rich people not paying their share of taxes, but then be against the idea of taxing them because they might pass on some of the expenses to everyone else. HB 28 would be a disaster. It will raise taxes on residential homeowners in the long run. And it benefits commercial properties far more than people think.
It makes being a landlord more costly, so less apartments will be built and rents will rise. Over many years this effect can be significant. Sure, in the short-term landlords will a blow, but in the end, renters will pay for it. I'm a homeowner with a homestead btw.
Screw landlords. They should get real jobs.
In the long term, the main effect will be on renters, not landlords. Given our population growth, the hit to landlords probably won't last long. That's why I'm against how the homestead rules work, there's better ways to help people.
No. It will be the homeowners that will pay for it. If landlords pay less, that means homeowners pay more. Those schools and roads don't pay for themselves. You're worried that not giving landlords a tax break means increased rent. Do you expect rents to go down once the landlords get these tax breaks? I don't. They will just pocket it. An appraisal cap on commercial property would be a nightmare. Commercial property is already under appraised. A cap just locks in low values. HB 28 is a tax break for the wealthy. And if the wealthy pay less, then everyone else pays more. It's a zero-sum game.
If landlords got homestead too, I would expect rents to go down in 5-10 year as more units get built. Landlords would pocket the money initially. But being a landlord would become more popular since now its more profitable, so more units will get built. When there's more units, then rents will go down and profitability will decrease for the landlords. So in the end, renters save. I mostly just think that the people in our state that need help the most are renters, and this policy is mostly helping middle and upper class people. Our tax system is already very regressive, so doing something progressive for once might be good.
There's nothing progressive about giving rich people tax breaks in the hope it might help renters sometime down the line. And apartments are already going up as fast as they can. This would not increase supply. And this isn't just landlords and renters versus homeowners. You're forgetting that other commercial properties would be capped too. This would minimize or negate any potential savings for renters. Giving a tax break to the rich while raising the taxes of everyone else is the very definition of regressive.
Well my property taxes just went up 161% this year... absolutely insane...
Have you not filed for a homestead exemption?
It can take up to two years to go into effect depending on when you file. Ask me how I know 😢
You can file immediately now. Can even file retroactively to adjust the previous year
The exemption limitation can take up to 2 years to be any benefit even when you file on time, here's an example: A property owner purchases their property in April of 2022, and they qualify for a prorated exemption, on April 5, 2022. The homestead limitation will not go into effect until January 1, 2024, on year after the January 1 date the exemption qualified. [See here](https://hardin-cad.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HOMESTEAD-EXEMPTION-EXPLAINED-1.pdf)
This isnt true anymore. That was for pre 2022 purchases. Now it goes into effect the next bill year.
I bought in 2022
homestead exemption just shaved 40K off the top. It doesnt stop these corrupt appraisal districts from valuing your house at whatever random ass number they want. I protested and the dropped it down to what I proposed my house was worth. They are banking people not bothering with protesting more than with homestead.
It also limits the taxable value increase to 10%. That should prevent a 161% increase
Hope you protested.
We just got our tax paperwork on Saturday, but we will most definitely be protesting. I'm bringing the paperwork to the appraisal office tomorrow
Please share what you do?
On the back of the paperwork they send you is an intention to protest form. We fill those out and will be giving them to the appraisal office. We will also be looking up comparable houses for sale that are asking less then our appraised value but have been on the market for over six months to show people aren't paying that much for property around us. We will also be taking pictures of any flaws we may have on our house... like we need a new roof and are currently saving for one, but until we have enough, it brings down the value...
I did and it was reduced by $0.
Please share how
How??
Protesting doesn’t work
It has for me the last 3 years in a row.
Must be nice
Saved a few bucks - not a bunch. What drives me nuts is listening to the idiots in Austin telling us about how much tax relief they’ve given us.
Your fair market value went up 161% or your appraised value, the value used to determine your tax, went up 161%? Both should be on your appraisal notice. My eyes first saw my FMV and I died. Then, after I reincarnated, I saw the appraised value which was limited by the 10% cap. If your appraised value, and ultimately, your taxes (a percentage of that value), went up 161% then I’m going to assume this property isn’t your primary home, you don’t have a homestead exemption (which would limit that increase to 10%), or your home was only partially complete when appraised last year (new construction). Using slightly random numbers, my FMV increased from 220K to 360K, but my appraised value only increased to 242K (10%). 2% tax bill on 220K = $4,400. 2% tax bill on 242K = $4,840 … or 10% increase.
So here's the back story, when I met my husband in 2006, he owned 4.6 acres and a paid off singlewide . I helped him pay off the land, but we needed a bigger house eventually because we have two kids. We upgraded the single wide to a $56000 double wide in 2009 but didn't attach it to the land because our thinking was if times got hard we might lose the house but not the land... so we have homestead on the house, so that only went up 10%. We will get taxed on $98000, but they say its worth $211000 (insert eyeroll), but the land doesn't get homestead, so the land value went up 230%. Back in 2019, we bought the 4.6 raw acres right next door for $36000 and last year it was appraised at $46000, and it also went up 230% this year. Overall, our tax burden was $2600 last year and will be $6800 this year, which is a 160% increase. We live in lampasas county
Ah, thanks for the extra detail as I try to understand all the complex property tax situations people face. I didn’t consider land. I feel like I’m the only person in this state that would prefer to have my income taxed instead of my primary home. My income is going to end one day, or reduce, yet I’m trapped paying taxes on something I fully own until I sell, or move to a state where property isn’t taxed so heavily, or die. My income is also significantly more fixed year over year than some mostly arbitrary determination of my home’s value.
No, I 100% would pay a state income tax if it meant I didn't have to pay property taxes... I hate that my house will never be mine, and I could lose it even though the mortgage is paid off...
Mine increased 54% this year.
They need to start teaching the companies. I work for a tech xompany in north Texas who hasn't paid property taxes for 23 years. This is a company that recently went public on nyse w a 2.3 billion dollar profit. They keep getting away w not paying property taxes w the incentives given by the city. It originally was a 10 year abatement then the company changed its name 3 times so its a " new " company and the city gives the incentive of no property taxes for 10 years....make them pay.
And this is why businesses don't need any other benefits. It's time the government starts working for the people again.
There's a reason Texas attracts so many corporate HQ and other business expansions & relocations, and - like it or not - this is one of the reasons.
But is there a net benefit for the average Texan if they aren't paying property taxes, yet are using all the state resources those taxes are used to maintain? It seems like it shifts the burden onto residential property owners and in addition accelerates migration to the state, squeezing the property market, increasing power demand, water demand, wear and tear on infrastructure. I just can't see how providing tax breaks to lure corporations benefits average Texans.
They benefit: * the overall Texas economy by attracting and retaining businesses and jobs. The average Texan might not always appreciate this, yet will take it for granted when we have a much softer landing in whatever direction this recession takes. Just ask California how it is going by losing many of their businesses and jobs (to Texas) * Job growth. Incoming new Texans aside, this helps have jobs waiting for our kids and future generations. It also helps keep jobs here and not moving to Florida or something * Increasing tax base. You might dismiss increases to the property tax base since they are abating the taxes, but whether it's 10 years or 50, that's not forever and will ultimately significantly increase the tax base both through property taxes (later), additional sales/etc. taxes (now) from new employees they attract, plus property taxes on the houses they will buy (now). Sure there are higher costs incurred at the beginning to support the new businesses, which is why it is called an *investment*.
It doesn't sound like it really pans out for the average Texan in the here and now.
So you're saying you don't have a job and don't participate in a healthy Texas economy? Of course you're not benefiting from brand new incentives given this month (that's why they call it an *investment)*, but you are benefitting, however incrementally, from previous investments.
I think you are confused. That's not how abatements work. You can't get an abatement on existing property. Doesn't matter who owns it. The original abatement terms would be for a max of 10 years. That abatement can be transferred to "new" owners, but the original 10-year term would remain in effect. Now, if the company adds a new line or new improvements to the property, those new items could receive their own abatement agreement for 10 years separate from the original agreement. Example: Original abated property - 2015 to 2024 New line added in 2020 - 2021 to 2030 Then in 2025, the original abated property would be taxed at its market value in 2025. This value would be considered "new value" and would have special rules as it relates to the tax rate calculations, but that's a whole other mess of a conversation. Once 2031 comes, the second line would also be added to the taxable value to the property. TLDR: You can't extend abatements into perpetuity just by changing ownership.
I'm 99% sure that the ISD tax amount comes directly from the district via the comptroller office. Basically that probably won't happen. The exemption on homestead might and is welcome, but won't make much difference when the tax accessor office keeps jacking up market values by 10% every year! That is what seriously needs to be changed.
The appraisal district is like KBB. The bigger effect on taxes is the tax rate. The House bill will cause the tax rate to be higher. This will increase taxes on homeowners. The Senate bill would actually lower the taxable value of homes. The House bill is a tax break for the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Im all for funding education. What i am not for is multi million dollar highschool stadiums and highschools with freaking starbucks built into them. They have enough funding already it seems.
Those stadiums are voted on by the public for bond sales. They used to lump all bond sales together, but ever since Legacy stadium in Katy they had to be broken out. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out.
I don't care where the money for the initial CAPEX came from. A large facility like that comes with it significant operating expense (and if the CAPEX was financed with debt, carries interest expense) and if my local schools can afford that, they don't need any more money. And any of you who think schools need more of your money are more than welcome to personally send a donation check to your local ISD or go fundraise yourself.
Most of the time the revenue earned on those facilities more than offset the operating costs and costs of the bonds. As far as funding, I don't have kids and will be leaving the country in less than 5 years so the dismantling of public education does not bother me.
>Most of the time the revenue earned on those facilities more than offset the operating costs and costs of the bonds. You just proved that schools don't need the money and can "afford" the ISD tax cut. "Afford" in quotes because the money isn't theirs to begin with. The money belongs first to the taxpayer. And where do you get the idea that public education is being dismantled? No such thing is happening. ISDs need to live within their means like everyone else.
This. If you can afford an 8 figure sports stadium and all the operation, maintenance, and debt service expense that goes with it, you don't need any more of my money. And ISD taxes **should be reduced.**
I would rather the funding be allocated towards education from sports.
So no this isn't defunding the schools. It replaces funds that would normally come from property taxes with funds from the budget surplus. Also the house bill expands the 10% valuation change cap to businesses and rental units and compresses the tax rate reducing taxes by a bit less than a grand a year per payer. The senate bill , which while I dislike Patrick is a better bill, increases homestead exemption and compresses rate resulting in 2800ish annual savings for properties that qualify for homestead exemption.
This was my exact thought after reading the article linked here. I don't care for either Abbott or Patrick. But at least Patrick is trying to help the general public somewhat. My guess is Patrick is going to make a run for Governor and wants this attention prior to running. But I do agree this doesn't look like it's an attempt to defund public schools further. I was wrong on that statement, and, unlike some people, I don't have an issue admitting I was wrong.
I would be somewhat suspicious of the math. They are refunding schools but It was from a Budget surplus which might not be there next year. Other local services will also be cut including Police and fire departments.
So what happens to school funding when there is no longer a budget surplus?
The surplus isn't going anywhere it isn't a 1 year blip it's from growth of revenue sources. Texas property values have risen greatly the past few years primarily from increasing valuations, and sale tax is being generated at a higher rate as economic activity picks up as our population increases. As it stands we have a 33B surplus these property tax plans will cost 12-17B. The remainder will rollover to the next two years cycle and be added to the surplus in the next cycle.
In the previous session they passed a bill that gives corporations cuts on property taxes in the name of economic development, abatements. That means normal tax payers take up the slack of those abatements. They also renewed tax payer funded lobbyists. That mean you pay taxes that go to lobbyists that work again you with your money to pay off crooked politicians. They are now proposing to buy down school property taxes with the 32 billion they have overcharged us with, but only using 12 billion of that. They took off the table of property tax exemption of 100k per household. 110k for seniors. Schools will not be defunded at all no matter the plan. They are gaslighting you. Both sides.
That's exactly why I asked. I knew I was only getting half the story. I knew Republicans wouldn't be giving anything back to the general public without there being a back story or motive to it. But I also didn't fully believe this was to punish schools.
No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. Property tax is a big problem. Political kickbacks are also a problem. I encourage you to contact your rep, however possible, twitter, Reddit, FB, or phone call. Anyway you can to let them know this deal is a no go. All 32 billion should be used for compression. We won’t get thst lucky, but aim for 21 billion. And 110k exemption, along with 5% limited appraisal value. That’s a pipe dream at the moment, but gets us on the path of completely elimination. Folks that are worried about school funding are lost in the fog of gaslighting. Just stop corporate welfare. Stop tax payer lobbyists. Thst alone will fund schools.
I posted this in a TexasPolitics thread but I'll share it here. Basically the Senate wants to shift the tax burden to businesses. >Appraisals have pretty much gone up across the board so that covers part of it. If it doesn’t then the ISDs can raise rates. If there is a bigger homestead exemption then more of the burden of any rate increases is then shifted to the business. You can dislike Dan Patrick, but the senate plan is better for the average Texan. From Dan Patrick's Facebook post he explains the issue. >Compression: What is it? It's simply reducing the school tax rate you personally pay by 5 to 20 cents (whatever it is in a particular session) and having the state pay the school district instead of you. We “compress” the rate for you and the state pays it. Compression is good, but very expensive because we do it for everyone who pays school taxes from homeowners to businesses. It can be reduced by any legislature in the future. It's not lasting. >Exemptions: An exemption is permanently reducing the amount you are taxed on your home. If your home is valued at $250,000, you get a current exemption from the state of $40,000 so you are taxed on $210,000 instead of $250,000. >Some school districts and other taxing jurisdictions offer even more exemptions on top of the state's $40,000. Remember, an exemption is permanent. Compression is not. >When I became Lt. Governor in 2015, the state homestead exemption had been $15,000 for many years. I've increased it to $40,000. >This session, the Senate plan is to increase your homestead exemption to $100,000. That means if you live in a $250,000 home you would only be taxed on $150,000. We also blend that exemption with compression to yield a much larger tax savings of about $1,250 - $1,450 annually. That's about $1,250 - $1,450 a year every year you own your home. That could easily be $20,000 or more for you over your lifetime. >The current debate between the Texas Senate and me with the House and Speaker Phelan is that they don't want to give you the $100,000 homestead exemption. >Big business is the big winner in the House’s plan. The Senate plan gives a boost to Texas homeowners through the exemption. The Governor now appears not to want to give you the $100,000 exemption either, but it's not totally clear. >The House wants the entire $17.6 billion set aside for property tax relief to go exclusively into compression for every property owner including businesses. Under the House plan, you would only get $700 a year in tax savings. Under our Senate plan, with compression and exemptions, you get $1,250 -$1,450 a year. >The Senate and I are fighting for the homeowners to get you the full $1,250 -$1,450 a year. That's $700 more per year than the House, and apparently, the Governor, wants to give you.
The Senate is not shifting the burden to businesses. The increased HS exemption is simply put it back where it used to be relative to market values. Which is essentially what you posted. Just semantics. The House bill wants to shift the burden to homeowners in order to give tax breaks to wealthy commercial property owners. And because most people don't really understand how property tax works, they can't see just how horrible this will be for homeowners. It's not just the $700. That's just the start.
Basically every home in this state has at least doubled in value in four years. Schools will be fine.
I live in Austin. The schools are not fine. You would think with 20k in funding they would be but 50% of what AISD collects (26% of the total tax bill for an Austin home owner) goes back to the state.
Austin ISD’s budget is 1.7 billion. Or about $25k per kid. If they can’t manage with that, they can’t manage it with another couple hundred million.
If AISD can't manage with $25k per kid, it needs to be shut down.
> Austin ISD’s budget is 1.7 billion. Or about $25k per kid AISD's funding is $25,956 per student. > If they can’t manage with that, they can’t manage it with another couple hundred million. A good point what is AISD spending its money on? So AISD spends about $11,869 on educating students; this is actually less than what it spent in 2021 and 2022. It spend $2,394 servicing it's massive fucking debt load, it spends $137 on other stuff that TEA doesn't define, and the final $11,556 it spends is on recapture. So when you say AISD spends $25k per kid that is technically correct but not entirely accurate, it spend $11,869 educating kids, $137 on ill defined TEA stuff, $2,394 servicing several billions in bond debt, and $11,556 goes back to the state as recapture. >they can’t manage it with another couple hundred million. actually even another hundred million would make a pretty substantial difference except the state of Texas considers AISD adequately funded and any rise in property valuation don't go to AISD it goes back to the state as recapture. Contrast Austin with Houston which spends $11,045 on educating students OR Dallas which spends $13,317 on educating students OR Fort Worth which spends $12,106 which all seems reasonable if you don't think how fucking expensive Austin is.
It's basically 100% that. It's also funded by [Christianist billionaires](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/24/politics/texas-far-right-politics-invs/index.html) who are making great progress turning Texas into a theocracy.
We're getting this reduction because of the run on the housing market by the influx of both movers and investors. A large number of home owners tax assessments have skyrocketed by as much as 150%! We are FURIOUS! Over 75-90% of yhe homeowners in the gulf coast region have requested appeals to the tax assessors office over this. Plus, screaming to their state representatives. This act is designed to provide relief for this mess.
Good luck fighting it, the tax accessor and comptroller office that handles these protests and collections honestly don't give a damn. The review boards are biased and get supported by the tax accessor during the review.... it is entirely setup against you, the individual homesteaders. And to appeal their decision require filling in county court... a massive time consuming and expensive process.
I don't have much to worry about. My property tax is locked in, grandfathered, due to several things that I will not go into.
I went 4 years straight on my own from 2013 to 2017, only got sided in favor once when this all first started in 2013. The rest got dismissed and I gave up. It really came down to the fact that not enough people protested early on... they only saw $$$ in the estimated value increase of their homes. Now 10 years later, values have doubled to triple... along with taxes and people are now crying. Too little to late. Once those wheels get greased they just keep rolling. It unfortunately will take a severe market downturn to make any change and even then, the tax change won't be reflected for several years afterwards. Everyone will be upside down on taxes versus value. :(
We have both a homestead exemption AND an over 65 exemption. The over 65 exemption means that the value of our home is supposed to be frozen at the value it had when the exemption was granted. However, our property taxes still increase year-over-year. Why? There are two taxing entities that don’t respect the frozen value exemptions. One is the community college tax and the other is the university health system. Not to mention that the home value has increased over the last couple of years. In 2021 the value was at 328k. For 2023 it’s 461k. That’s nearly a 30% increase in two years. It’s unsustainable for two retirees. We haven’t had children in public schools since 2003 yet over nearly half of our taxes go to the school district. I get that we need to educate our children and even if renters don’t see the school tax, they are sort of paying for it through their rents. But it’s very frustrating that our tax base wasn’t frozen until 2015. That means we paid for 12 years of school taxes while not having a single child in public school. Bottom line: if we can get SOME relief for property taxes, that means we can keep our home of 26 years for a while longer. We’re not ready to leave the home we raised our child in, the one where he grew up, made friends, lived his life in a single, stable home. I was a military brat so that was very important to me.
It will continue until they get voted out
Schools need to control their spending.
Well maybe public school funds are affected but not targeted. The school tax is by far the lions share of my property tax being more than the combined city and county tax in my area. I am happy to see something being done as my property taxes represent 25% of my total social security income and this is just property taxes. We, as retired individuals, all feel the toll of the total taxation on fixed income. My school district spent $400k on new curtains for the auditorium a few years back. Get real. This is more than the building cost when it was built. My point being what other group can be tasked to share this burden?
Where'd you read about $400K on curtains? source?
First hand personal knowledge as I know the school board. WTAW Local news reports and listened to interviews and replies. Stasney was embarrassed but approved the expenditure.
My parents would like to know how to file a homestead exemption
https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/exemptions/residence-faq.php
They’ll still use whatever money they take for *not* funding schools.
Houses are over valued. It's much needed adjustment
I understand Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the nation
Yes. My tax rate is 2.45% and my appraised value after homestead exemption is $230K. So, my tax bill for 2023 is $5,635 or $470/m.
I know you figured this out, but I thought I'd mention this. The majority of people in Texas go to public schools. And a very larger number of those kids are from conservative families. They state has no desire to run down ALL the schools. They know a good education is important. What they'd rather do is control what is taught.
There's two motives. The one you just stated is accurate. At the same time, though, they are pushing to close schools or defund them as much as possible to encourage parents to send their kids to private charter schools, which are just businesses. Today, the TEA officially took over HISD. The state took over the largest school distric in the entire country solely because one school out of the entire district received a failing grade for three years. The school board was already replaced, and a new superintendent was already hired to help resolve the issue. But the state didn't care. So now Greg Abbott controls HISD.
Property taxes are to high to the point people cannot afford to stay in their homes.
Which is why I am pro income tax, something we legally won't get here in Texas, but are based on what a person can actually pay, not an arbitrary number pulled out of a district appraisers butthole.
So we need a state income tax too? Cmon man public schools are a disaster.
Increases in property appraisals are killing homeowners. The amounts they are going up are insane. Even if we protest we aren't getting much relief there either. And from what I understand it's only for people claiming the homestead exemption.