Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
890 posts, read 2,280,940 times
Reputation: 1305

Advertisements

I was very surprised to see 116 not pass. There weren't any oppositions submitted to the Secretary of State and there seemed to be a lot of support for it. I wonder if people just saw the words 'tax break' and assumed it would be of equal benefit to large corporations, though it was very much targeted towards helping small, local companies.

Prop 118 very narrowly lost and I think that is a shame. It doesn't increase money going to the fund but does ensure equal distribution of State Trust Land proceeds so the $0 funding that happened in 2010 doesn't happen again. There was also zero opposition to 118 so it's surprising that it lost by such a narrow margin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2012, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
6,405 posts, read 8,993,050 times
Reputation: 8507
Props like 116 & 118 can easily confuse or be written in such a way some do not understand what they are reading. For the record, the Maricopa County Libertarian Party voted to support 116 and remain neutral on 118.

My gut said 121 (Top Two primary) and 204 (permanent tax increase) would fail but not by the wide margins they did. The Arizona Republic and some politicians worked very hard to cram Top Two down our throats and the "save the kids" battle cry is typically quite powerful.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
603 posts, read 946,606 times
Reputation: 568
I'm not surprised about Prop 118. I think the people here had a distrust of tinkering with the distribution formula just so it would pay out more during lean years.

Prop 116 looked shady because they were afraid to put the actual exemption amount so they used the "average wage of 20 people" formula.

I'm actually surprised Prop 117 passed. It's going to drop a $9 million hole in the budget. It only caps the increase in property value, not the actual property tax rates. That means developers are going to make bank on this... likely at the cost of higher property tax rates for the rest of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
890 posts, read 2,280,940 times
Reputation: 1305
I had a feeling 117 would pass...as if cities will not just raise the tax rate to compensate. The people that think it will make a difference had to have spent less than 2 minutes reading it, if at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix, AZ USA
17,914 posts, read 43,435,088 times
Reputation: 10726
If people don't fully understand the impact of a proposition, they vote no. Understandable why one could lose by a narrow margin even without organized opposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
890 posts, read 2,280,940 times
Reputation: 1305
Good point, and I suppose people voting 'no' on things they don't understand/haven't researched is better than them voting 'yes'. However, I thought there was a lot of good information in that paper booklet that was mailed out with all the support and opposition letters, as well as the full text of the propositions. If a voter didn't bother to read through that, or do their own research on the propositions, I think it would be best for them to just not cast a vote on that particular issue, instead of voting 'no'. No one forces voters to vote on everything on the ballot. I myself felt very uneasy voting to retain or unseat judges, because the only thing I had to go on was survey responses and committee recommendations, and it was hard to do research on the justices. I would feel the same way about voting for propositions if I knew nothing besides the brief snippet you get in the voting booth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2012, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Anchored in Phoenix
1,942 posts, read 4,571,899 times
Reputation: 1784
I was very happy 204 did not pass. Those who want higher sales taxes should simply move to California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
603 posts, read 946,606 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
I was very happy 204 did not pass. Those who want higher sales taxes should simply move to California.
I just went to San Diego 2 weeks ago. The sales tax in San Diego is 7.75%

The sales tax in Scottsdale is 8.95%
The sales tax in Tucson is 9.1%
The sales tax in Phoenix & Tempe is 9.3%
The sales tax in Glendale is 10.2%

I'm pretty sure that when the 1% tax goes away, the lowest retail sales tax rate in any city in Arizona will still be 7.8%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 03:57 PM
 
14,247 posts, read 17,930,915 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
I was very happy 204 did not pass. Those who want higher sales taxes should simply move to California.
I voted against the original 'temporary' tax and I just knew it wouldn't be long before they tried to make it permanent. Glad it got killed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
6,405 posts, read 8,993,050 times
Reputation: 8507
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen431 View Post
I just went to San Diego 2 weeks ago. The sales tax in San Diego is 7.75%

The sales tax in Scottsdale is 8.95%
The sales tax in Tucson is 9.1%
The sales tax in Phoenix & Tempe is 9.3%
The sales tax in Glendale is 10.2%

I'm pretty sure that when the 1% tax goes away, the lowest retail sales tax rate in any city in Arizona will still be 7.8%
All the more reason to vote it down. Taxes are high enough and we did not need a special interest laden tax increase. Oddly, enough the tax increase was modeled (as was Top Two) on measures in California. Some folks are more than eager to bring the worst of CA to AZ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top