A normative statement - which I declare to point out that you could also share what should be the case.

What might be more helpful is that ballot initiatives should have a stricter template based on type. If you're changing tax code it could be:

- Initiative Type: Taxes

- Affects: The homesteads of elders in X, Y, for Z

- Results: Taxes are raised

- Description: As stated above

- Definitions: Homesteads - X, Elders - Y, ad valorem - etc

Of course this is essentially making the same conclusions as the title which is that standard writing/legalese is really no longer acceptable given the complexity of many modern laws and incentivized parties.

They were deliberately torturing themselves to avoid saying "raise taxes."

What they seem to be saying, if I parsed it correctly:

"We now get to include tax breaks from the previous year as a factor in property value when taxing the elderly."

That seems awful. I kind of get the hyper-technicality they're going for, but it still seems like they're sticking it to seniors... again, if I understood it correctly.

These issues are nuanced. Texas municipalities depend on property taxes more than most as there’s no state income tax.

One thing local government politicians love to do is pass tax exemptions for old people, disabled people, veterans and combinations of the three. It’s a type of patronage, that lets Mayor Good ‘ol Boy drop by the senior center and VFW and pull in the votes.

Property taxes are essentially allocating the levy based on your proportional share of value. When they get out of control in small towns the effect is a two-tier system where some people pay dramatically more.

That’s exactly the opposite of what it does. Stuff like ‘reduce the limitation’ has the same ambiguity as ‘turn down the thermostat’ where it’s not clear if you are lowering the value or the effect.