https://epaper.statesman.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=bfabb486-3fe8-448d-b70d-785f9c2ac177&pbid=0bd3b62f-2574-4676-88da-58d1361460ab&utm_source=app.pagesuite&utm_medium=app-interaction&utm_campaign=pagesuite-epaper-html5_share-article&fbclid=IwAR2uHMZT2GxVKclQRzpYtuugmnq1zkZ3HYUxs3aJ3OCUvd0UvrlAuibxpuk

Like it or not, Texas is a non-disclosure state and ABOR owns their MLS. It is at their discretion to provide the information and they have the ability to approve who has access.

Plenty of counties perform mass appraisals without MLS data, including TCAD in the past.

would it though? The CADs could just increase value across the market and force everyone to protest

I thought that have to have a basis to make an increase and/or audit areas periodically. I do not think they can just guess.

But that has never stopped Travis County/Austin before...

SteveBott said:

---

would it though? The CADs could just increase value across the market and force everyone to protest

---

Has TCAD not shown their hand and already done that the last 4ish years?! The increases have been to the point where we protest and even when we do get a reduction, it's still not enough to actually be a savings. Always right above the cap. Outright BS by the CAD to increase taxing while still looking like they want to work with protestors.

So at this point, the ISDs basically budget for at least a ten percent increase a year? Otherwise, why should they worry so much that incoming funds would remain fairly stable?

Federale01 said:

---

So at this point, the ISDs basically budget for at least a ten percent increase a year? Otherwise, why should they worry so much that incoming funds would remain fairly stable?

---

Didn't the state pass a law last year capping them at 3.5% or something unless they go to the voters to explain why it needs to go up more? Would be difficult to plan for a 10% increase expecting the voters to agree each year.


If prop values are climbing at 10%, then the rate needs to drop to keep the increase at 3.5%.

SteveBott said:

---

https://epaper.statesman.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=bfabb486-3fe8-448d-b70d-785f9c2ac177&pbid=0bd3b62f-2574-4676-88da-58d1361460ab&utm_source=app.pagesuite&utm_medium=app-interaction&utm_campaign=pagesuite-epaper-html5_share-article&fbclid=IwAR2uHMZT2GxVKclQRzpYtuugmnq1zkZ3HYUxs3aJ3OCUvd0UvrlAuibxpuk

---

I assume you are referencing the comptrollers proposed change in online sales tax.

I don't see how the current set up (sales tax goes to the city of the online retailer) is any different than if I go out of town to go shopping. Why is it more fair for the tax revenue to go to the city the item is shipped to?

If I go to San Marcos to buy stuff at the outlet, my sales tax goes to San Marcos. If we apply the same "I have no say in how San Marcos spends money", then why shouldn't my purchases in San Marcos send my sales tax back to Round Rock.

And given the sales tax is capped (effectively set) by the state, we all have representation that decides how much sales tax we pay regardless of where in the state the purchase is made.


The change does make it more consistent when trying to get out of state businesses to collect sales tax.