U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [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)
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:10 AM
 
3 posts, read 4,606 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragerunner1 View Post
Maybe I have missed the post. But the question I have with 101, 60, 61 is, who are its [sic] original backers and where did the money come from to get these on the ballet [sic]? I have heard (could be wrong) that a lot of the money has come from outside the state. If this is true, then these items are more about a national agenda and the backers really could careless [sic] if the State of Colorado and its citizens simply fall apart. They would not care if the schools are unable to function correctly, or if snow plows are unable to clear the roads for safe travel, or if private sector jobs start leaving do [sic] to quality of life issue [sic] or if the State is unable to attract new economic development and jobs. Since they don't leave [sic] here [sic] they really don't care.

Even if you are against taxes, I would think most people would be able to see that if these above issues really happen, property values and home prices are clearly going to fall significantly in the state. Something tells me even the most anti-government property owner doesn't want to see their home value drop another 20 or 30 or 40 or X percent. 101, 60, 61 will hit the majority of Coloradoans financial [sic] in a noticable way.
First off, the authors of these have their names on file with the Secretary of State. Second, many volunteers did the leg work necessary to get the required signatures to get these on the ballot. Third, only special interest morons who think that we the people are too stupid to think for ourselves are trying the "I think it was a billionaire from New York." line of BS. Fourth, who cares?

[ mod cut ]

Finally, how would lower property taxes cause property values to fall? Private enterprise always thrives when taxes are reduced. Property values increase when property taxes are reduced. And home prices are already falling and have been for the past two years. This is a direct result of the federal reserve/ federal governments efforts to get everyone to spend money they don't have by printing more and more money. This leads to a little thing called inflation, you might have heard of this. The more money that is printed, the more it's value decreases, the less we as citizens are able to afford. That being the case, it only makes sense that we would expect our government to make do with less as well.

Since we've already addressed the issue of poor government education with unlimited money, I won't address that again. Regarding roads, these measures account for only a tiny portion of our road funds which will not impact them tremendously. Also, do we know that the government is giving us a good deal on building and maintaining roads since they don't put the maintenance up for bids and the building of the roads goes up for bid only in a manipulated market rather than a true free market scenario? And, again, why would private sector jobs flee a state that has lower taxes for one that has higher taxes? That cuts into profit. Profit is what businesses are in business for.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 09-19-2010 at 12:36 PM.. Reason: Personal attack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:18 AM
 
3 posts, read 4,606 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
So just out of curiosity, have your state and local taxes really gone up significantly in the last few years or is this just a reaction to the fact that because over the past 25 years middle class wages haven't risen in this country while health, education, and other necessary costs have, folks are desperately trying to find something to cut out of their monthly obligations? Funny how there weren't measures on ballots like this during the boom years. Are these people really pushing an ideology or are they just financially strapped or cheap?
Since 1992, when TABOR went into effect, there has been a 310% increase in government spending. Property taxes hace increased 182% in that time. Furthermore, state debt (not counting local debt) has tripled and our debt burden has doubled just since the year 2000! Do you call that significant?

Oh, and by the way, the population increase in that time has not increased at anything close to that rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:48 AM
 
3 posts, read 4,606 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Last weekend on Colorado State of Mind they had a interesting discussion about the three amendments. To be honest I know enough so I know how I am going to vote but I don't know enough to engage in a meaningful debate about it. What I can say is I am a definite "no" and one of the reasons was the person against it on the panel was a Republican who said these ballot proposals go too far and don't address the issue and will actually undue what voters have passed in their local towns. Why should people in Denver or Colorado Springs tell us in Pueblo that even though we want to have a tax to help the city or Riverwalk we can't because they don't want us to? If Colorado Springs does not want to issue bonds to build a convention center or expand one then great. However, don't tell us here in Pueblo that we can't do the same because we want to and that should be our choice.
Where, pray tell, in the language of these Amendments does it indicate that Pueblo cannot fund a Riverwalk? If Pueblo has already voted in a mill levy for some project, then Pueblo is able to keep that mill levy until it expires. Nothing in any of these pieces of legislation- 60, 61 or 101- will do anything to change that. They just make sure that any future increases are, like mill levies, taxpayer approved. They take the step of making sure, as much as we can, that we aren't passing undue tax burdens onto our children and grandchildren. Have we become so selfish that we don't care how tax hikes will burden our posterity just so long as we get our "free" services?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,132 posts, read 25,800,029 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadhunter View Post
They take the step of making sure, as much as we can, that we aren't passing undue tax burdens onto our children and grandchildren. Have we become so selfish that we don't care how tax hikes will burden our posterity just so long as we get our "free" services?
Ah yes, the old "leaving it to our children and grandchildren" chimera. You're right, it irks me when I get that bill every month requiring me to pay for World War II, the Space Program, and the Interstate Highway System.

Again, I ask, what tax hikes have you experienced that have significantly increased your "burden"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 12:11 PM
Status: "Summer's here!" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
83,603 posts, read 96,680,654 times
Reputation: 30261
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
Ah yes, the old "leaving it to our children and grandchildren" chimera. You're right, it irks me when I get that bill every month requiring me to pay for World War II, the Space Program, and the Interstate Highway System.

Again, I ask, what tax hikes have you experienced that have significantly increased your "burden"?
Agreed! I think the worst thing to do for our children and grandchildren is to gut funding for public education. One of these nutty ballot issues (I can't remember which one now) rescinds tax increases the voters have approved over the years! Who does Douglas Bruce think he is to tell the taxpayers they can't raise their taxes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,075 posts, read 19,989,997 times
Reputation: 4090
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadhunter View Post
Where, pray tell, in the language of these Amendments does it indicate that Pueblo cannot fund a Riverwalk? If Pueblo has already voted in a mill levy for some project, then Pueblo is able to keep that mill levy until it expires. Nothing in any of these pieces of legislation- 60, 61 or 101- will do anything to change that. They just make sure that any future increases are, like mill levies, taxpayer approved. They take the step of making sure, as much as we can, that we aren't passing undue tax burdens onto our children and grandchildren. Have we become so selfish that we don't care how tax hikes will burden our posterity just so long as we get our "free" services?
I was watching Colorado State of Mind and they had 4 people talking about the amendments, 2 in favor of them and 2 against them. They all agreed that if passed Colorado would not be able to incur debt, such as bonds, to pay for projects even if the voters were to pass them. They, also, agreed that some ballot proposals that voters have passed would have to be re voted on. That is why I think these proposals go to far and why I will not vote for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2010, 09:35 AM
 
2,755 posts, read 11,381,320 times
Reputation: 1456
Part of the real mess in the state budget is that there's way too many competing mandates for anyone to make a sensible budget. Let's start with constitutional mandates. The Gallagher amendment specifies that only 45% of property tax revenues can come from residential property, which basically means that government has to unfairly penalize commercial property. Amendment 23 states that K-12 education funding must increase every year by the rate of inflation plus 1%, even if overall revenues fall. TABOR states that all tax increases must be voted on by voters.

That's not to mention the countless list of federal mandates for state spending. Sure, federal mandates are totally unfair, but that doesn't mean that the feds can't take that state to task and force state government to spend money how the feds say we have to. The biggest of all is Medicaid, which due to the rising cost of health care has costs ballooning out of sight, and the state has already stripped Medicaid down to about as small as the feds will allow.

Then there's the expanding prison population and the ever-rising costs associated with that. Furloughing prisoners a la Willie Horton is political suicide, and no pol from either party will do that. So, the state really has no choice but to absorb rising prison costs.

Add Prop 101 and 60/61, and you have the makings of a real crisis and default then becomes a real possibility. Once revenues fall enough, it may become impossible to craft a budget that satisfies both federal and state constitutional requirements. Once that happens, the state will have to default.

What SHOULD be done, is to call a constitutional convention, and throw out all the constitutional mandates and find a way to prioritize spending in a big-picture guideline. Sadly, federal mandates we'll have to cope with. As an incentive for throwing out constitutional mandates, we can do big-picture spending cuts in order to lower taxes for the majority of taxpayers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2010, 09:42 AM
Status: "Summer's here!" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
83,603 posts, read 96,680,654 times
Reputation: 30261
That is a very interesting idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,075 posts, read 19,989,997 times
Reputation: 4090
Default CSU prof: 61 would cost economy

This is a interesting article about Amendment 61. This article, also, discusses how the state would not be allowed to borrow money a lot better then I have and the impact it will have on the state.

This is from the Pueblo Chieftain:


Pueblo County could lose $27.9 million in economic activity and nearly 240 jobs if Amendment 61 is approved by voters in November, according to a study by a Colorado State University-Pueblo business professor.

The link: http://www.chieftain.com/article_43b996f8-c469-11df-bfa2-001cc4c03286.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2010, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,627 posts, read 3,568,546 times
Reputation: 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by tfox View Post
What SHOULD be done, is to call a constitutional convention, and throw out all the constitutional mandates and find a way to prioritize spending in a big-picture guideline.
I agree and would actually go one step further. Every 10 years (or some rational period of time) we should basically rewrite Colorado's Constitution from scratch. The U.S. Constitution preserves certain rights that the Colorado Constitution shouldn't need to worry about, so we can have a truly fresh government every X number of years. If there are elements of the Constitution that continue to work or that the people wish to preserve, then they can add them to the new Constitution. No more amending this and that every year until we have a tangled web of uninterpretable laws. No more clinging to outmoded ideas that simply don't apply anymore.

Yes, sometimes this method would get Colorado in a lot of trouble...but at the next Convention, the entire thing could be rewritten to correct the mistakes of the prior decade. In this day and age, and with that kind of time frame, you could even put the thing to a citizen vote (or put aspects of it to a vote in much the same way we vote on various measures.)

In this way, we could really focus on trimming the fat when times are lean, stimulating the economy when times are poor and building a surplus and / or streamlining to greater efficiency when times are good. Coloradans might experiment with one way of law for a decade and find it works wonderfully, or needs tweaking, or fails, but there is still other law that could be made in the meantime and several Conventions to be called in a person's lifetime to try and get it right.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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 > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top