- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How are you voting on the amendments tomorrow?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 11:42 am to nugget
Posted on 10/11/19 at 11:42 am to nugget
I voted:
#1 Yes, I don't generally agree with any taxes being required for "staging" of materials.
#2 No, the cost per student in LA is is ranked 29 (21 when adjusted for COI), yet our education is 49 or 50 depending on ranking. The money isn't the problem in my eyes. it is the hands in the pot. I have a hard time agreeing with providing more until we fix the waste and improve the rankings. Plus, what was the reasoning for these specific schools?
#3 Yes, as I understood it this just gives a faster avenue to the same end result for people that have been charged unconstitutional taxes in LA. Someone explain that all issues for unconstitutional taxes had to be submitted in BR, so someone from Shreveport that was screwed over would have to make the trip just to file. If this is true, I think that is a shame. But with our tax code being over 13,000+ words with 195+ amendments, it is hard to research / conclude. That is one of the many reasons we need a Constitutional Convention.
#4 No, I don't typically approve anything that relates to an entitlement. I have heard decent arguments for a "YES" though. Like it is a local tax that they want, so let them have it if they want it. My thoughts are, local taxes (especially those that only benefit that locale) shouldn't be controlled by the rest of the state (failure of our constitution), so if this is your line of thinking, only vote yes or no if you are in the affected area. That would actually be letting them vote for it.
Cold someone help with #2 though. I have not heard a good reason to vote "yes" on it. Any of you that did, could you please help the others understand your reasoning?
#1 Yes, I don't generally agree with any taxes being required for "staging" of materials.
#2 No, the cost per student in LA is is ranked 29 (21 when adjusted for COI), yet our education is 49 or 50 depending on ranking. The money isn't the problem in my eyes. it is the hands in the pot. I have a hard time agreeing with providing more until we fix the waste and improve the rankings. Plus, what was the reasoning for these specific schools?
#3 Yes, as I understood it this just gives a faster avenue to the same end result for people that have been charged unconstitutional taxes in LA. Someone explain that all issues for unconstitutional taxes had to be submitted in BR, so someone from Shreveport that was screwed over would have to make the trip just to file. If this is true, I think that is a shame. But with our tax code being over 13,000+ words with 195+ amendments, it is hard to research / conclude. That is one of the many reasons we need a Constitutional Convention.
#4 No, I don't typically approve anything that relates to an entitlement. I have heard decent arguments for a "YES" though. Like it is a local tax that they want, so let them have it if they want it. My thoughts are, local taxes (especially those that only benefit that locale) shouldn't be controlled by the rest of the state (failure of our constitution), so if this is your line of thinking, only vote yes or no if you are in the affected area. That would actually be letting them vote for it.
Cold someone help with #2 though. I have not heard a good reason to vote "yes" on it. Any of you that did, could you please help the others understand your reasoning?
0
Posted on 10/11/19 at 11:53 am to nugget
Yes - this is basically codifying a state supreme court decision that stopped JBE taxing shenanigans.
No - I love the Thrive school, but see no reason why the other lab schools need access to that money.
Push - the constitutionalist in me hates this amendment because it allows non-judges who are appointed by the governor to do expressly judgey things. On the flip-side, cases currently must go through the 19th JCD, which is almost as hostile a venue as one could find in the state for someone arguing they were taxed improperly and/or unfairly. No is the formulisf’s choice, but yes is the more pragmatic and utilitarian outcome. I’m split.
No - not just no, but HELL NO! Section 8 housing shouldn’t be subsidized period, and absolutely doesn’t need another tax break. F$&k ‘em
No - I love the Thrive school, but see no reason why the other lab schools need access to that money.
Push - the constitutionalist in me hates this amendment because it allows non-judges who are appointed by the governor to do expressly judgey things. On the flip-side, cases currently must go through the 19th JCD, which is almost as hostile a venue as one could find in the state for someone arguing they were taxed improperly and/or unfairly. No is the formulisf’s choice, but yes is the more pragmatic and utilitarian outcome. I’m split.
No - not just no, but HELL NO! Section 8 housing shouldn’t be subsidized period, and absolutely doesn’t need another tax break. F$&k ‘em
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:16 pm to kingbob
quote:
Push - the constitutionalist in me hates this amendment because it allows non-judges who are appointed by the governor to do expressly judgey things. On the flip-side, cases currently must go through the 19th JCD, which is almost as hostile a venue as one could find in the state for someone arguing they were taxed improperly and/or unfairly. No is the formulisf’s choice, but yes is the more pragmatic and utilitarian outcome. I’m split.
But basically it would make them judges. Yes they would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate, but what's wrong with that? Do you really think the elected judges we have now are all that much better?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:24 pm to BigJim
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/13/19 at 12:59 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:27 pm to kingbob
quote:
Push - the constitutionalist in me hates this amendment because it allows non-judges who are appointed by the governor to do expressly judgey things. On the flip-side, cases currently must go through the 19th JCD, which is almost as hostile a venue as one could find in the state for someone arguing they were taxed improperly and/or unfairly. No is the formulisf’s choice, but yes is the more pragmatic and utilitarian outcome. I’m split.
Yes from me, purely on the grounds that this would allow someone other than Judge Clark to make these decisions.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:40 pm to theOG
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/13/19 at 12:59 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:43 pm to alexbox1
quote:
I would agree with you if a governor could appoint anyone.
I think we do agree. I am for this amendment, you just added some extra details.
quote:
They are already judges. The BTA is unique but it has been in place for over 80 years.
I think in practice that is true. And they are referred to as judges as a matter of courtesy. But they aren't technically judges since they are not in Article V. And I am OK with that.
Board of Tax appeals 47:1402
The law is very careful to call them "members" of the board of tax appeals and not judges. Which is a good thing imho because then this board of experts would have to be elected (ugh).
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:47 pm to BigJim
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/13/19 at 12:59 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:50 pm to alexbox1
quote:
You couldn't get the qualifications wanted combined with election.
Ain't that a shame...
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:52 pm to alexbox1
quote:
Board Member Lobrano
This guy is a baw by pretty much every metric. I've met him several times and he is great. You would not know by talking to him that his resume was that impressive. He's also married to Joy Lobrano who is a judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:02 pm to theOG
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/13/19 at 12:58 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:03 pm to Janky
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:27 pm to nugget
No
Yes
No
HELL NO
Yes
No
HELL NO
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:49 pm to Janky
quote:Dude, you're in my contacts
Awe, can we be friends now?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:05 pm to redfish99
quote:
I voted YYNN
I will vote this way.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 4:46 pm to omegaman66
No x4
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News