Vote on Referenda/Propositions etc

[theiioftx]

My posts were not to claim Tennessee is better than Texas. My point was states can have no income tax, lower property taxes and a sales tax that everyone pays that adequately provides resources. Tennessee is just an example.

I miss Texas, but do not miss the excessive property taxes.

 

[Chop]

I actually put on that “I voted” sticker they give you at the polls. I got some puzzled looks. It’s a mere sliver of the potential electorate that effectively “re-writes” the Texas constitution in these off year elections.

 

[Monahorns]

Was this vote just for Austin? I saw signs in Round Rock but never any signs at polling locations. In Austin I drove by several every day so I always knew when one was happening.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Was this vote just for Austin? I saw signs in Round Rock but never any signs at polling locations. In Austin I drove by several every day so I always knew when one was happening.

No. It's statewide, but we are only in early voting right now. I had 10 amendments to vote on, plus a couple of local races and a school bond proposal.

 

[Chop]

Same here in DFW.

Statewide propositions plus local stuff (bond issues, etc).

 

[Mr. Deez]

Strangely, my ballot hasn't shown up yet.

 

[Chop]

And those who like to gripe a lot about wasteful school spending (including stuff like very expensive new stadiums) should be showing up every time on the bond votes.

I would prefer if the school districts split up the bond issues into a bunch of smaller specific things. That way you could vote for the new HVACs and school expansion, but against the $95 million new stadium or $80 million new natatorium complex. Predictably, the ISDs don’t want that. They want you to have to vote for or against the whole package. That way they can promote it all as being “for education.”

 

[mchammer]

Strangely, my ballot hasn't shown up yet.

Seriously, were you expecting one? Just curious, do you pay any taxes in Texas? You may be registered overseas, but how does that work in a state level?

 

[Monahorns]

I voted yesterday. Voted against all the bonds. Voted for the service dog thing. Voted for the prohibition of a state income tax. There was another prohibition I voted for. Thanks for the PSA.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seriously, were you expecting one? Just curious, do you pay any taxes in Texas? You may be registered overseas, but how does that work in a state level?

Yes, I'm expecting one. I own a home in Williamson County, and I'm registered to vote there. I generally cast my ballot absentee. I do pay property taxes on my home. Obviously I only pay sales taxes when I'm visiting.

 

[Chop]

Regular (non-early) voting is today.

Re: Prop. 4--For what it's worth, on the news radio in DFW, they were saying that the South Dallas area 'leaders' were pounding the streets, etc. trying to get the vote out against Prop. 4. Prop. 4 would make it extremely difficult for the Legislature to ever pass a state income tax.

More thoughts, for those who think a future state income tax would result in a roughly equivalent decline in property taxes, I doubt it. More likely, there might be a temporary slight relief in property taxes, but you know they'd soon be back to the same old levels or close to it. Then we'd be stuck with: (i) high property taxes (again), and (ii) a state income tax.

Civilization requires government, and government must be funded. There are plenty of worthwhile tasks of government, and they're not cheap. But beware. The government beast is a glutton by nature, and will eat more and more and more if left unchecked.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

More likely, there might be a temporary slight relief in property taxes, but you know they'd soon be back to the same old levels or close to it. Then we'd be stuck with: (i) high property taxes (again), and (ii) a state income tax.

Winner!!! ******** in the government will never give up an income stream once they have it.

 

[Monahorns]

Chop, I agree with what you say above, but this:

Civilization requires government

Isn't true. Government can support the functioning of civilization, but it does not require it.

It does require some kind of order. But government in the form of the modern nation state is required.

 

[Chop]

Chop, I agree with what you say above, but this:



Isn't true. Government can support the functioning of civilization, but it does not require it.

It does require some kind of order. But government in the form of the modern nation state is required.

Government, as I use that term, is pretty flexible. Even anarchists camping out in the wilds of Alaska will eventually develop some form of government. It may even be just the informal deference to the choices of the strongest man, the best hunter, etc. but eventually some rules must be made and enforced. No group larger than a family can exist for long without some form of government.

I’m generally a proponent of the nation state concept and the Treaty/Peace of Westphalia — though it certainly has its imperfections (like protections of minorities within the borders of the nation). Still, some other forms of government have succeeded for a decent time frame such as the Hanseatic League—as I understand it, basically a government by merchant guilds, ship owners, and city-states. I’ll have to study the League further someday.

As I see it: the bottom line for us here and now—we need some level of government, but don’t feed the beast too much or it will devour you. A state income tax would feed the beast considerably.

 

[Chop]

Prop 4 passed with over 75% of the vote. A landslide! It will be exceedingly difficult for future legislatures to impose a state income tax on us.

Other props that passed include the water infrastructure $, the cancer research $, the drug dog adoptions, and not taxing gold bullion located in depositories in the state (this one passed with the closest margin).

The prop on allowing (probably mostly rural) judges to hold more than one position/office/judgeship failed.

 

[Monahorns]

Chop, the props that passed for infrastructure and cancer research, are those Austin or State-wide.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

All the Props were amendments to the State Constitution.

 

[Chop]

Chop, the props that passed for infrastructure and cancer research, are those Austin or State-wide.

State wide. The Props amend the Texas Constitution--which is a Byzantine blend of: (i) normal constitutional structure of government provisions, and (ii) a hodge podge of super-statute like provisions.

 

[bystander]

$3 Billion to these guys:

State Audit Exposes More Problems at Cancer Institute

I hope they cleaned it up. I know some of their biggest cheerleaders back in the day are still lurking around. People preaching "commercialization." Lot's of pilot fish around it. If they've done some good then that's a good thing.

 

[Monahorns]

I voted against them then. Government funding of cancer research means no real accountability for finding solutions. Prefer venture capital to fund start ups around new and novel ideas.

 

[Statalyzer]

I would prefer if the school districts split up the bond issues into a bunch of smaller specific things. That way you could vote for the new HVACs and school expansion, but against the $95 million new stadium or $80 million new natatorium complex. Predictably, the ISDs don’t want that. They want you to have to vote for or against the whole package. That way they can promote it all as being “for education.”

That's pretty much how all politics works, sadly. Lump stuff together either to get people to vote for everything or to blame your opponent for not voting for something good.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I voted against them then. Government funding of cancer research means no real accountability for finding solutions. Prefer venture capital to fund start ups around new and novel ideas.

My default position is to vote No on all bond initiatives. I'm not even willing to listen unless the bond is for something very specific rather than for some vague, purpose. It has to be "$X to build Y." And of course, Y has to be something that's worth borrowing money to build. That means I probably only vote for maybe 1 out of 50 bond initiatives.

 

[Monahorns]

For me it also has to be for something the State isn't already supposed to collect money for. Like roads and schools. They are already getting lots of money that is supposed to go into providing those things. If they don't have the money, it is their fault.

 

[Mr. Deez]

For me it also has to be for something the State isn't already supposed to collect money for. Like roads and schools. They are already getting lots of money that is supposed to go into providing those things. If they don't have the money, it is their fault.

For me it depends on what we mean by "roads and schools." If we're talking about operation and maintenance, then hell no. If we're talking about building a new road or school, I'm more receptive, if there's a real need.

 

[Monahorns]

Not me. They take in enough money. They can quit funding Racism workshops where they call all whites racists and spending money teaching 1st graders about transgenderism and anal sex.

For roads, they didn't use bonds in the past. They can read a little history and see how we did it back in the good old days.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I voted against them then. Government funding of cancer research means no real accountability for finding solutions. Prefer venture capital to fund start ups around new and novel ideas.

In theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it just doesn't work that way.

Consider pharma research. Biotech companies (both established entities and start-ups) spend billions of dollars each year trying to find new drugs and other therapies. This research largely involves rudimentary guess-and-check methods. If they know that a particular disease is caused by an excess of protein X, they put protein X in 5,000 test tubes and then put a different drug in each test tube. The ones that show an impact are studied further.

The hope is to some day be able to design a drug that will have the desired effect on a given protein. But before that can be done, basic research is required to learn more about how proteins work. Scientists are currently able to map the static structure of a protein, but surprisingly little is known about why proteins take the shape they do, i.e. how individual electrons interact with each other within a protein. And even less is known about the dynamic characteristics of proteins.

One of my relatives is currently pursuing a PhD in biophysics. His research focuses on how proteins "wiggle" when suspended in solution. It's all Greek to me, but the gist of it is that we can't even begin to understand how proteins interact with other molecules until we understand how the bonds within proteins change in response to stimuli (temperature, pH, magnetism, exposure to other chemicals, etc.).

A while back, I asked my relative what his research was for (i.e. cancer, brain disease, etc.). He said there is no way to know. What he is doing could help cure a disease or eliminate aging. It could make crops more drought resilient, or enable food production in a zero-G / zero-oxygen environment. It could lead to better recycling of plastics, or enable the creation of synthetic materials.

But most likely, it won't yield any usable results for decades. His research will be published in journals, as will the work of other scientists. They will each use the others' results to launch new studies. There will be more dead ends than successes. But ultimately, they will discover more about how proteins work.

Unfortunately, private industry does almost no research on this basic level. There are several reasons for this, but there are two particularly big ones. First, the results generally can't be patented or otherwise protected. The law does not provide protection for knowledge of fundamental facts, and it is hard to conceive of how that could be done. Second, even to the extent that ideas might be protected (or kept secret), the research won't generally yield usable results for many decades -- long beyond the decision-making horizon for private companies.

Governmental funding of science research (mostly through university labs) has been very successful over the years. Today's new drugs are largely built on techniques developed by university researchers in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The research being done in universities today will yield results at some point in the distant future, and for-profit entities will be there to reap the rewards.

 

[NJlonghorn]

For roads, they didn't use bonds in the past. They can read a little history and see how we did it back in the good old days.

This would be a good point, if it was true. The transcontinental railroad was funded with a combination of land grants and bonds. The Brooklyn Bridge was funded with bonds (which weren't paid off until 70+ years later). The interstate highway system was funded with bonds. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[NJlonghorn]

For me it depends on what we mean by "roads and schools." If we're talking about operation and maintenance, then hell no. If we're talking about building a new road or school, I'm more receptive, if there's a real need.

I agree 100%. Bonds should NOT be used for maintenance and operation. That is a horrible practice, and it is routinely done at the local, state, and federal level. It needs to stop.

 

[Chop]

In theory, I agree with you. But in practice, it just doesn't work that way.

Consider pharma research. Biotech companies (both established entities and start-ups) spend billions of dollars each year trying to find new drugs and other therapies. This research largely involves rudimentary guess-and-check methods. If they know that a particular disease is caused by an excess of protein X, they put protein X in 5,000 test tubes and then put a different drug in each test tube. The ones that show an impact are studied further.

The hope is to some day be able to design a drug that will have the desired effect on a given protein. But before that can be done, basic research is required to learn more about how proteins work. Scientists are currently able to map the static structure of a protein, but surprisingly little is known about why proteins take the shape they do, i.e. how individual electrons interact with each other within a protein. And even less is known about the dynamic characteristics of proteins.

One of my relatives is currently pursuing a PhD in biophysics. His research focuses on how proteins "wiggle" when suspended in solution. It's all Greek to me, but the gist of it is that we can't even begin to understand how proteins interact with other molecules until we understand how the bonds within proteins change in response to stimuli (temperature, pH, magnetism, exposure to other chemicals, etc.).

A while back, I asked my relative what his research was for (i.e. cancer, brain disease, etc.). He said there is no way to know. What he is doing could help cure a disease or eliminate aging. It could make crops more drought resilient, or enable food production in a zero-G / zero-oxygen environment. It could lead to better recycling of plastics, or enable the creation of synthetic materials.

But most likely, it won't yield any usable results for decades. His research will be published in journals, as will the work of other scientists. They will each use the others' results to launch new studies. There will be more dead ends than successes. But ultimately, they will discover more about how proteins work.

Unfortunately, private industry does almost no research on this basic level. There are several reasons for this, but there are two particularly big ones. First, the results generally can't be patented or otherwise protected. The law does not provide protection for knowledge of fundamental facts, and it is hard to conceive of how that could be done. Second, even to the extent that ideas might be protected (or kept secret), the research won't generally yield usable results for many decades -- long beyond the decision-making horizon for private companies.

Governmental funding of science research (mostly through university labs) has been very successful over the years. Today's new drugs are largely built on techniques developed by university researchers in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. The research being done in universities today will yield results at some point in the distant future, and for-profit entities will be there to reap the rewards.

I very much agree. The University has been at the forefront of basic scientific research for many decades. I prefer my tax dollars go to this sort of effort over many other things taxes go to. In the long run, this sort of thing separates winning civilizations from the also-rans. The USA is the undisputed champ of basic scientific research and has been for many decades. The benefits have inured to our economy, our health, longevity, military, conveniences, transportation, etc., and have very much helped put and keep us on top.

It's also one of the two main reasons UT exists, the other being the higher education of students.

A third pretty-good reason being putting a good football team on the field.

 

[Chop]

Nobel Prize in Chemistry Goes to John Goodenough of The University of Texas at Austin - UT News

Yeah, we should spend tax dollars funding this guy's research (and others like him), and am glad it's being done in Texas and at UT. Without his work, cell phone batteries likely would not exist, and the communications revolution we've experienced would be far behind it's current place.