re: I am voting "no" on amendments 1 & 2 and here is why

Amd #1 is bullshite that comes from developers of large facilities that begin producing goods but claim the thing is not finished being built. It has ZERO to do with you building a home or lowering your taxes. This state will become like Mexico and buildings will never be "finished" and taxed. Bad law being pushed for a few large companies. Look at the LNG plants and you will see where this comes from.

Our state has more amendments to our Constitution than any other state, and it's not close.
I vote NO on ALL Amendments. We don't need them.
We should begin with voting to do away with many of the existing Amendments.

I actually have met all three of the Republicans running. They would all do a decent job. (So would Stokes fwiw). Maybe because of the nature of the job, all of them have run ads that have little to do with what the Treasury department really does. Shame that voters don't really care.

Davis is who you should vote for if you care the most about qualifications.
Riser is your choice if you are looking for a decent man. Probably the most socially conservative.
Schroeder would be most like Kennedy. Take that however you want.

Like I said all would be OK. The staff do the important stuff. So as long as they don't screw with the staff too much, it's all good. It's like picking between a paint color and your choices are egg shell, euchre and off white.

Help me out, someone. Regarding the amendment on property taxes for construction in progress:

I have read and been told that a yes vote keeps things as they are, with taxation of construction in progress in the hands of local tax assessors, and a no vote sets a uniform statewide procedure for taxation of construction in progress, taking it out of the hands of tax assessors.

Some assessors begin taxation when partial construction is complete, or when a portion of the construction is ready for use. Others don't. It's at their discretion. This bill changes that.

What's true??? Yes vote or No vote to prevent the change?

Here are the supporters of #1

quote:

---

Donors

The following were the five donors who contributed to the LA Taxpayer Protection PAC as of October 8, 2017:[9]

Louisiana Now, LLC$135,500 BG Energy Merchants, LLC$75,000 Tellurian Services, LLC$50,000.00 Venture Global$25,000.00 Louisiana Realtors PAC$20,000

---

I don't quite get your question. Did you read the PAR guide?

quote:

---

Jeez you are ungrateful and cheap, I hope they are late when you call

---

BS. Those "first responders" put their pants on one leg at the time just like me.

quote:

---

Yes changes, No stays as-is. PAR info on 2017 Proposed CA's

---

Well sort of, but not really.

Yes is a change to the constitution, but I think it keeps the status quo (for the most part, like you say there are a few assessors who are trying to tax it now).

No keeps the constitution unchanged, but there is a strong possibility the actual practice of assessor's could change to start taxing construction work.

quote:

---

(for the most part, like you say there are a few assessors who are trying to tax it now).

---

And I can't imagine this is ever going to be an issue for single family residential. Sure... maybe some assessors might try to tax commercial and multi-family construction.

But the ads being run on the radio are insanely inaccurate.

quote:

---

And the flip side of local control is statewide uniformity.

---

It is. But I think I'm ok with a lack of uniformity... because property taxes are a local issue, not a state issue. The state doesn't collect property taxes.

It's crazy. LA has differences in laws between state sales taxes and local sales taxes (where I would argue uniformity would help businesses). Yet in property tax, where the state has no skin in the game... we want essentially a statewide property tax code.