From the Texas Tribune | June 22, 2011 | By Brandi Grissom, Emily Ramshaw, Morgan Smith, Julian Aguilar, Becca Aaronson and Thanh Tan | Read the complete story
Send your comments and news tips to the Tribune or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story_________________
Dallas Morning News | By William McKenzie Editorial Columnist | SB 8: What's so wrong with teacher furloughs or new minimum pay schedule? – This will be a big week for House/Senate negotiators as they try to work out issues in SB 8, the special session's most wide-ranging education bill. SB 8 gives districts the right to furlough teachers instead of laying them off, relaxes limits on class sizes, puts aside seniority when considering layoffs, reduces minimum pay schedules and changes the process by which teachers are let go.
_________________
With the special session constitutionally limited to 30 days, lawmakers have just a week left to resolve the bills on the call — and a lot of loose ends to wrap up.
Gov. Rick Perry has sole discretion over the special session agenda — and he's put a variety of topics on it, from sanctuary cities and health reform to, as late as this week, an anti-groping bill aimed at the Transportation Security Administration.
So far, legislators have produced a mixed bag of results. Three weeks in, some bills are headed to the governor's desk. Others have only cleared one chamber. A few are headed to conference committee, where lawmakers will negotiate the differences. And one major unresolved bill (hurricane/wind insurance of last resort for Gulf Coast residents) threatens to push the House and Senate into yet another special session.
Here's a rundown of where the special session stands:
FISCAL MATTERS
These are bills lawmakers have to pass to balance the budget and carry out the spending cuts in House Bill 1, the state budget for 2012-2013.
Bill: SB 1 contains the school finance plan for distributing the $4 billion in cuts to districts statewide, several payment deferrals and tax accelerations. The bill is expected to generate $3.5 billion in revenue. Debate in the House started June 9 and lasted for 16 hours.
Status: Passed the House and the Senate. Currently in conference committee.
What to watch for: The bill contains a provision to collect nearly $600 million worth of sales taxes from online retailers who do business in Texas (like Amazon.com). Perry warned against this and vetoed a similar bill (HB 2403) during the regular session. Lawmakers responded during the special session by attaching it to SB 1 as an amendment. The budget conferees could decide to strip the measure, or Perry could veto the entire bill. According to the Austin American Statesman, Amazon.com is seeking a deal with the state to provide 5,000 jobs in exchange for an exemption.
12 comments:
Screw Amazon.com.
By supporting their tax haven so they can do business in Texas they are better equipped to continue taking revenue away from our local businesses of all types.
Moreover, what is 5000 low paying BS jobs compared to having more money for the education of the children of our state?
This whole Perry saga is more corporate welfare - when it is not really needed - at the expense of local Texas businesses and our children.
Perry is simply doing more pimping for a run for President and to pander to his big corporate interests -at the expense of his conservative voting base locally.
When will you voters ever learn? Please respond with your rationalizations for Perry acting against your interests?
" The bill contains a provision to collect nearly $600 million worth of sales taxes from online retailers who do business in Texas (like Amazon.com)."
What a crock of BS. The tax will be paid by the customers of those companies here in Texas, and that's us. Rocky like so many other liberals has never seen a tax he didn't simply adore. I tired of hearing his constant harangue about needing more money for education. God knows we spend enough for what little we get out of Government Schools. It seems like we are taxed more for education than anything else and it is time to dial it back. I already pay plenty in Property and sales Taxes that support education. I hope the budget conferees strip the measure or Perry vetoes the whole damn thing.
I will continue to buy products from Amazon. Screw the local merchants and the Tax man.
Rocky, the sales taxes collected are NOT all going to public education and even those dollars that are going to schools are not used effectively. You know this already.
It's a con game either way.
The not-so-special Special Session is another waste of our tax dollars as the cost for each of these ridiculous sessions is $2 MILLION!
Our legislators don't have enough tax dollars in the budget, but they have enough to piss it away on special sessions and their special interests.
Anyway, sales taxes are another form of regressive taxation that hurts the poor more than the wealthy. You know that also.
What Perry is doing is being 2-faced. On one hand he stated that businesses should pay their fair share of taxes and then the next second he plays this game. He tries to cover his butt on many issues in the same way.
Confucious said, "Beware of the man who blows hot and cold in one breath." That's our boy Perry.
.
Amazingly, Anonymous 1 is "honest" enough to say the following:
"I tired of hearing his constant harangue about needing more money for education."
"God knows we spend enough for what little we get out of Government Schools"
And sadly,
"Screw the local merchants."
If this is what these right wing Tea Party like tax haters and fake free markets promoters really think about the American economy and our public education, the US, and especially Texas, is in big trouble.
He and other right wing anti-tax people like him will watch our children's education get short-changed and the entire American decentralized small business economy get vaporized so he can save a few sales tax dollars when buying crap on Amazon that he could easily buy here in Hays County.
Why should any size business in the local community economy be at a distinct sales tax disadvantage to on-line firms like Amazon? It it so some selfish group of cheapass consumers can save a few bucks?
We all pay sales tax when we shop at Wal-Mart, Sam's, Costco, and any small business in downtown Wimberley, DP, Buda, or San Marcos. Why should online retailers have any advantage at all? It is simply big corporate welfare - AGAIN.
Anonymous represents the real lie underlying much of the false right wing rhetoric of free markets and US capitalism: They only care about it when it suits their pissy little sales tax payments.
Anonymous 1 also states:
"Rocky like so many other liberals has never seen a tax he didn't simply adore."
That's not true, Anonymous. I don't like paying taxes used to support:
1) bogus wars,
2) corporate welfare,
3) a salary for Rich Perry,
4) professional sports stadiums, 5) Medicaid and food stamps for f/t Wal-Mart employees,
6) health care for illegal immigrants employed by Americans,
7) tax subsidies for oil companies, and
8) unemployment insurance for Americans who might be employed if people like Anonymous 1 would simply be forced to pay a little sales tax when they buy crap from Amazon et al.
At least then all local businesses would have competitive sales tax parity. For all you confused and mindless free markets types, a level competitive playing field is what true laissez faire capitalism is all about.
Anonymous 1 and his ilk makes me think liberals care more about the US economy than the right wing tax haters who never say anything about all the taxes we pay that goes to the war profiteers - as well as the job killing and local economy destroying corporate monoliths like Amazon.
Thanks, Peter, for your helpful and accurate clarifications.
And yes, a sales tax is regressive.
However, I cannot support local businesses being unable to compete on a level playing field against an Amazon simply because their business model enjoys major distribution and inventory advantages already. The do not deserve an uncompetitive tax advantage as well.
Second, even though sales taxes from online retailers do not necessarily go to education, they do contribute to a statewide revenue source which would in effect help negate the partially bogus argument of reducing public education funds more than is already being planned.
Hence, all retailers who operate in Texas should operate on a level sales tax competitive field. It is the only fair thing to do for Mom and Pop businesses, which is a sadly declining lot due to the Amazons and the Wal-Marts.
And of course I would also support no state sales tax for all, as that would be competitively fair.
I agree with much of what you stated, Rocky.
Furthermore, the large corporate sector should pay their fair share in taxes. While I comprehend that Perry and legislators want businesses to move here, the larger businesses need to recognize their part in the community development.
There should be some tax breaks for these large companies, but not at the expense of the remaining mom and pop businesses and/or smaller businesses in Texas.
While no one likes paying taxes, we do need them to pay for various "goods" and services provided by the State and local government.
My issue with all this is the ongoing lack of common sense by all levels of government in dealing with our urgent issues. Taxation is one of many issues. Intelligent resolutions are difficult to come by.
Peter,
In your preceding post (June 25, 10:31 AM) you make these 2 statements:
"...the large corporate sector should pay their fair share in taxes." and
"There should be some tax break for
these large companies...."
How do you reconcile those opposing statements?
Barbara,
Those are NOT "opposing statements" because these days we deal with poor balance on most issues.
Either we are overtaxed or undertaxed.
We are either far to the right, or far left.
There is little balance in our lives as a community.
There is a middle ground on most issues, unfortunately, we seldom take that stand.
I propose that we provide businesses with some incentives to work in Texas, but we also ask that they pay a fair share in taxes. Balance!
These are not really opposing forces. They are intelligent and balanced ways that are in the best interests of the Texas community.
We also should be finding intelligent and middle-grounded way to resolve our other urgent issues.
Peter,
Sorry, but I still think your two statements are contradictory.
To me "a fair share of taxes" means that Business 1 operates under the same tax standing as does Business 2. If Business 1 is getting a "tax break," and Business 2 is not, then Business 2 is being treated unFAIRly.
Also, I don't think "balance" is required on some issues. For example, education of its children is beneficial to a society. There is no other tenable position -- no balancing position --, IMHO.
Barbara, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to, but I will continue to disagree with you.
If you want to draw large businesses to Texas, there must be some incentives to do so or else they will go elsewhere. You may say, "So what. Let them go elsewhere." But we need big businesses here in Texas.
Furthermore, you are bending my position of balance. Regarding your idea of educating children, it is not merely the concept of educating them, but also HOW we educate them and the process of educating them. Balance is needed on various levels.
We need a balance in teaching subjects, e.g., the basics and also
in life training to help children succeed in business and life goals.
If you want to believe that ALL areas of life do NOT need balance, then you at least could agree that MOST areas DO need balance. It is the ancient Yin and Yang of the Life Spirit that balances all of us.
Here in the U.S., and for us in Texas, for the most part we are out-of-synch in too many areas of our lives.
Peter,
Certainly we do want some large businesses in Texas, but I don't think we need to, or should, bribe them to come here. Texas has enough advantages/attractions that it needn't pay people or businesses to locate here. Austin was just named by Kiplinger magazine as one of the best cities for the next decade, and Texas is at or near the top of lists of business-friendly states. Such publicity is all that Texas needs-- no bribes necessary.
Furthermore, "the incentives" you refer to are either tax abatement schemes or outright gifts of cash. If you are against unnecessary taxes, you are against those two measures. Taxpayers are the ones who fund those schemes and gifts.
Barbara, you are the one who is being somewhat contradictory.
The reason that Texas is now considered one of the better places to do business is exactly because of the incentives we provide. You can call them "bribes" if you find that distasteful, but it works.
You are one of those people who blends in with our society's take on most things. You are an all or nothing person and I wish you luck.
There is nothing wrong with providing some perks and to ask that businesses pay taxes. It is not contradictory or setting a poor precedence or whatever else you want to say.
There are many other perks besides tax exemptions and cash provisions to businesses. There are many ways that businesses can contribute back to the community. You should get a bit more educated in these ways so you see a bigger picture.
If you don't want to or can't do it on you own, perhaps Rocky B. or another finanical professional will explain it all to you. I don't have the time or desire to do so. No offense meant. I just really don't.
Post a Comment