Early Vo tin
ber 1 em ov
ober 21 Oct –N g:
ay, November 5 Tuesd
TriciaKrenek.com
E X P E R I E N C E ✯ T R U S T ✯ R E S U LT S email: editor@fbindependent.com
VOL 12 No. 42
Pd. Pol. Adv. by the Tricia Krenek Campaign
Phone: 281-980-6745
www.fbindependent.com
FORT BEND FAIR. BALANCED. INFORMATIVE. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019
P. O.BOX 623, SUGAR LAND, TX 77487-0623
Official newspaper of Fort Bend County, Missouri City & Stafford
Vote “Yes” to say “No” (to state income tax)
By SESHADRI KUMAR Come Nov. 5, Texans will have an election and ten Constitutional amendments will be on the ballot. There are no other statewide political races. However, at county and city levels there are elections. In Fort Bend County, all registered voters can vote on a bond election for flood control mitigation, in addition to the Constitutional amendments. There will be a special election for the Texas House District 28 seat, vacated by Dr. John Zerwas. The City of Sugar Land will have its own $90 million bond election for drainage, public safety, streets and animal shelter. The City of Missouri City will have elections for its four district council seats. A porton of Houston in Fort Bend County will vote in city of Houston mayoral and city council elections. Early voting starts Oct. 21. Turning to the Constitutional amendments, the most significant item is Proposition 4: Prohibiting a state individual income tax The Texas Constitution requires all taxation in the state to be equal and uniform. It allows the Legislature to impose by general law a net income tax on individuals, including an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income, only if approved by a majority of registered voters voting in a statewide referendum. It also requires that at least twothirds of net revenue collected under an income tax be used to reduce the rate of maintenance and operation taxes levied to fund public education. Proposition 4 would be added to the Texas Constitution to prohibit the Legislature from imposing a net income tax on individuals, including on individuals’ shares of partnership or unincorporated association income. The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.” Supporters say that Proposition 4 would help keep the Texas economy strong by ensuring that the state could not impose an individual income tax, sending a message that Texas was committed to maintaining a business-friendly, low-tax
economic environment. The lack of an individual income tax in Texas is part of the low-tax, pro-growth approach that has fueled the state’s robust economic expansion. It also helps attract families and businesses relocating from other parts of the country and seeking relief from burdensome taxes. Prohibiting an income tax would safeguard the state’s continued prosperity, as income and capital accumulation are critical to economic growth. The introduction of an individual income tax would discourage savings, investment, productivity, job creation, and economic growth in the state. It also would increase the size of the state government at the expense of individual liberty and result in higher costs to the taxpayer. Constitutionally prohibiting an income tax would help prevent this growth in state bureaucracy. Although the Texas Constitution already requires a proposed income tax be approved by voters in a referendum, it does not explicitly prohibit such a tax. This proposition would make it clear once and for all that the state could not impose an individual income tax, protecting both taxpayers and the state’s economic expansion. Proposition 4 would not endanger the state’s revenue stream, as Texas already generates enough revenue to fund public education and public health without imposing an individual income tax. In addition, the proposed constitutional amendment would not jeopardize the franchise tax or invite legal challenges regarding the definition of an “individual” because the legislative intent of the joint resolution is clearly to prohibit a state income tax on the incomes of natural persons. Critics say: Proposition 4 is unnecessary because the Texas Constitution already includes a high bar for imposing a personal income tax by requiring that it be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide referendum. Explicitly prohibiting an income tax in the Texas Constitution could eliminate a potentially valuable source of revenue for future Texans. Revenue from an individual income tax would increase with economic growth and in the future could help reduce the tax burden on Texas businesses, which currently pay a higher
proportion of taxes in Texas than in other states. Constitutionally prohibiting an income tax could constrain the state’s ability to fund education and close off a potential avenue for property or sales tax relief. It also would reduce options for creating a less regressive tax system. Because the proposition lacks a definition for the word “individual” and fails to specify that the income tax prohibition refers exclusively to natural persons, it could invite an interpretation that businesses should be legally considered individuals and therefore exempt from state taxation. In 1993, voters approved an amendment that lets the Legislature impose a personal income tax only if a statewide referendum is approved by voters and if the new revenue goes to school property tax cuts and education programs. The proposition is only to help ensure that Texas doesn’t ever have a state income tax. A “yes” vote supports adding verbiage to the Texas constitution that will make it harder for future legislatures to give us a State tax. A “yes” vote supports this amendment to prohibit the state from levying an income tax on individuals. A “no” vote opposes this amendment, thus continuing to allow the state to enact a tax on individuals in the future through a statewide referendum. Other propositions on the ballor are: Proposition 1: Allowing municipal court judges to hold office in more than one municipality Proposition 2: Allowing TWDB to issue more water development project bonds Proposition 3: Allowing temporary property tax exemptions after a disaster Proposition 5: Dedicating sporting goods sales tax revenue to TPWD and THC Proposition 6: Increasing CPRIT’s bond authority from $3 billion to $6 billion Proposition 7: Allowing increased distributions to Available School Fund Proposition 8: Creating the Flood Infrastructure Fund Proposition 9: Exempting precious metals held in Texas depositories from property taxes Proposition 10: Allowing retired law enforcement animal transfer without fee
Fascinating history of the Hodges Bend Cemetery
Alexander Hodge was the land owner when Hodges Bend Cemetery was started in 1831. Of the veterans of the American Revolution that migrated westward, only 50 of those veterans are known to be buried in Texas. Alexander Hodge is one of those 50 and the only one known to be buried in Fort Bend County. See story on Page 2.
Shadowboxing between County Judge and Sheriff, a damp squib
By SESHADRI KUMAR Fort Bend County Commissioners Court on Tuesday considered a legal provision in the Texas Constitution that would result in the removal of Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls from his elected office. After a closed discussion, no action was taken and the County Judge said it was an informational item. Article 16, Section 65 of the Constitution of the State of Texas calls for automatic resignation of an elected official on becoming a candidate for another office. “If any of the officers named (like the sheriff) herein shall announce their candidacy, or shall in fact become a candidate, in any General, Special or Primary Election, for any office of profit or trust under the laws of this State or the United States other than the office then held, at any time when the unexpired term of the office then held shall exceed one year and 30 days, such announcement or such candidacy shall constitute an automatic resignation of the office then held, and the
vacancy thereby created shall be filled pursuant to law in the same manner as other vacancies for such office are filled.” This item was added as addendum to the agenda for Consultation with attorney in closed session. Nehls announced a few days ago that he has formed an “exploratory committee” to run for Congressional District 22. The question is whether the appointment of an exploratory committee is deemed an announcement that he would run for Congressional District 22. Nehls believes he has not made a formal announcement and hence, the automatic resignation rule does not apply. If he makes the announcement after Dec. 1, his unexpired term will be less than one year and 30 days and consequently, he need not resign. A couple of hours ahead of the scheduled commissioners court meeting at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, Nehls tweeted that the Democratic County Judge was planning to remove him
Sponsored by Serving Fort Bend County for 28 years!
and even discussed a possible Democrat to replace him. Nehls said he has not violated any law and it was “a witch hunt” by the Democratic Party. The tweet spread like wild fire and the sheriff’s allegation made headlines on all local TV channels. No one would like to wait to see what happens in Commissioners Court before splashing the story. County Judge KP George did not plan a witch hunt, but wanted a clarification since many people had questions about Nehl’s position. The easiest thing would have been for the county judge to consult the county attorney and his curiosity would have been quelled. But, George chose to include it as an agenda item and elevated the non-issue into a political probe. Thus he gave an opening for Nehls to make political hay out of it. George had to explain that he was not indulging in a witch hunt, but was merely seeking information from the county attorney. Thus, the perceived political gambit ended as a damp squib.