Texas House Bill HJR142

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/11/11
• Refer: 3/18/11

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish property taxes and limit the rates of state and local sales and use taxes.

Impact

The potential effects of HJR142 on state laws are significant. By eliminating property taxes, the bill redirects the fiscal landscape of local governance, as property taxes are a primary revenue source for cities, counties, and school districts. It also proposes a framework for controlling the combined state and local sales tax rate, which could result in changes to how various public services are funded and potentially lead to budgetary shortfalls unless alternative funding measures are established.

Summary

HJR142 proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at abolishing property taxes in Texas and placing limits on the rates of state and local sales and use taxes. The amendment seeks to change several sections of the Texas Constitution to ensure that political subdivisions cannot impose ad valorem taxes starting from tax years after January 1, 2012. It also mandates that the state will assume responsibility for the repayment of bonds previously secured by property tax revenues, ensuring that local governments still have a mechanism to meet existing financial obligations.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HJR142 appears to be mixed, with advocates arguing it would alleviate the financial burden on property owners and stimulate economic growth by increasing disposable income. However, there is considerable concern among critics that abolishing property taxes undermines local control and could destabilize funding for essential services such as education and public safety. This division reflects broader debates around taxation and fiscal responsibility within the state.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HJR142 revolve around the implications for local governance and the potential increase in reliance on sales taxes, which can be more regressive. Proponents of the bill argue that it supports business and economic development by creating a favorable tax environment, while opponents warn that it jeopardizes local budgets and may lead to cuts in critical public services. The measure's impact on public finance remains a point of vigorous debate in the legislature.