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.
The problem is, government in Colorado is already pretty lean, and you're not going to fix public education by eliminating it (we're already almost last in the nation in per-pupil spending - how much lower should we go?) You're not going to build an economy by raising public college tuition by 9% every year so that middle class and working class kids get priced out (companies need educated workers). Potholes and bridges aren't going to get fixed by cutting roads budgets, state parks and trails won't be maintained by cutting parks budgets. Not to mention disabled persons, etc. etc. I understand many of us are upset at the quality of some parts of out government, but destroying it is not the answer. It's unfortunate some can only focus on such small issues - what percentage in our schools are illegals, really?
I don't think government subsidy is quite as benign as you make it out ...
I think you make several very good points, and I wanted to pick up on your comment about illegal immigrants. For some reason this is perceived by the uneducated as a Democrat versus Republican issue, and that's ridiculous. The influx of El Salvadoreans and Nicaraguans was greatest during whose administration? Ronald Reagan. Did he solve the issue in his two terms? No. Did George Bush the 1st solve it in his one term? No. Did George Bush the 2nd solve it in his two terms? No.
In my school in Virginia we had just over 100 Latino students at any one time, and never knew of more than 1 that was illegal.
I've never personally known a Democrat (and my friends tend to be Democrats) who favored illegal immigration. A key difference that does exist is that Democrats tend to believe that if a child is an illegal, he or she still ought to be educated as a basic human right.
There's a lot of small businessmen who love it because of the low wages they can pay. Back east I doubt a yard would be mowed or a tree planted if it weren't for Latino workers, who are badly taken advantage of.
The issue is a real one. Identifying it with one party or the other is not legitimate.
Medicaid is a FEDERAL program and has NO connection AT ALL with the three ballot items we are discussing here.
Immigration is a FEDERAL program and has NO connection AT ALL with the three ballot items we are discussing here.
The three ballot items concern themselves with HOW government funds capital improvements and ongoing maintenance, and not WHAT items the state spends money on in its annual budget.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I'm kind of torn on these propositions. On one hand I moved from NY state, the land of high taxes. Since moving here I have marvelled at how the state and local governments provide the same, if not better services on much lower revenues. I feel it's kind of like how you always spend what you make, as you're income rises you begin to "need" that much money to get by. There's parts to the propositions I agree with. Car registration should be lower, maybe not to the $10 proposed but maybe somewhere in the middle $40-$50. While I don't want the schools to go to hell, something should be done to lower "administrative" costs. I've never really understood why property owners pay for schools and why the money for schools doesn't come from income tax. Renters should have to chip in too. Voters should get a say in how big money is spent just like within your household. you wouldn't care if your spouse bought a new shirt but you would want to know if he/she financed a vacation home in Vail. What's worrisome is that if this all passes, can we trust that the government will cut the "fluff" spending and eliminate unnecessary jobs or will they make a statement by cutting off necessary services to the tune of "well you voted for it". Where I lived in NY they experienced a budget crisis and rather than do a line by line adjustment in spending they closed dmvs (which generate revenue),public golf courses (which generate revenue) and libraries, etc. This was a ploy by local officials. Some of these officials had paid for cars, phones, lunches, travel, 2-5 assistants who had paid for cars and phones, lunches, travel. When asked why they didn't get rid of all the paid for perks their responses were "it wouldn't save that much money" great reason for overspending. While I am fine with the taxes I pay in Colorado, I guess being from NY makes me a little jumpy on taxes. I escaped overtaxing and don't ever want to return to it.
I'm kind of torn on these propositions. On one hand I moved from NY state, the land of high taxes. Since moving here I have marvelled at how the state and local governments provide the same, if not better services on much lower revenues. I feel it's kind of like how you always spend what you make, as you're income rises you begin to "need" that much money to get by. There's parts to the propositions I agree with. Car registration should be lower, maybe not to the $10 proposed but maybe somewhere in the middle $40-$50. While I don't want the schools to go to hell, something should be done to lower "administrative" costs. I've never really understood why property owners pay for schools and why the money for schools doesn't come from income tax. Renters should have to chip in too. Voters should get a say in how big money is spent just like within your household. you wouldn't care if your spouse bought a new shirt but you would want to know if he/she financed a vacation home in Vail. What's worrisome is that if this all passes, can we trust that the government will cut the "fluff" spending and eliminate unnecessary jobs or will they make a statement by cutting off necessary services to the tune of "well you voted for it". Where I lived in NY they experienced a budget crisis and rather than do a line by line adjustment in spending they closed dmvs (which generate revenue),public golf courses (which generate revenue) and libraries, etc. This was a ploy by local officials. Some of these officials had paid for cars, phones, lunches, travel, 2-5 assistants who had paid for cars and phones, lunches, travel. When asked why they didn't get rid of all the paid for perks their responses were "it wouldn't save that much money" great reason for overspending. While I am fine with the taxes I pay in Colorado, I guess being from NY makes me a little jumpy on taxes. I escaped overtaxing and don't ever want to return to it.
I'm from NY also, and still own ( inherited from parents ) my house on Long Island. The taxes are approaching $25,000/yr and the schools are taking half of that, mostly due to the salaries of teachers and administrators.
Simply put, I'll be voting for all three measures. Mainly, like you mentioned, because we've experienced what runaway taxes did to NY.
My opinion is that if all these restrictions on spending really do turn into a domes-day scenario like many are trying to paint, then we can just put the issue back on the ballet in 5-10 years.
If we don't do this, government will just continue to grow exponentially, and and destroy us even more so ( if that is even possible ) financially.
Medicaid is a FEDERAL program and has NO connection AT ALL with the three ballot items we are discussing here.
Immigration is a FEDERAL program and has NO connection AT ALL with the three ballot items we are discussing here.
The three ballot items concern themselves with HOW government funds capital improvements and ongoing maintenance, and not WHAT items the state spends money on in its annual budget.
Quite true on the first two, however, the ballot initiatives do state that with the repealed property taxes won't fund schools anymore, then the state will have to backfill what the districts won't receive from those property taxes.
What really gets me is that the roll backs on property taxes are on all of the special tax districts put into place after 1992, when TABOR was initiated. That means that the PEOPLE already voted on those tax increases, which is what TABOR requires. Why then, if the people already voted to say that they want higher property taxes for better schools, libraries, etc... do the people need to be protected from their own votes?
Also, my property taxes might go down because of these bills, but I don't doubt for one minute that my state income taxes will go up. Why should my state taxes go to schools in Boulder County when I live in Colorado Springs? It is reasonable to expect some of my state taxes to do so, but for schools to be completely funded by state dollars and not local dollars, that makes no sense to me. The local voters should have control over how much they want to spend on their schools.
Quite true on the first two, however, the ballot initiatives do state that with the repealed property taxes won't fund schools anymore, then the state will have to backfill what the districts won't receive from those property taxes.
What really gets me is that the roll backs on property taxes are on all of the special tax districts put into place after 1992, when TABOR was initiated. That means that the PEOPLE already voted on those tax increases, which is what TABOR requires. Why then, if the people already voted to say that they want higher property taxes for better schools, libraries, etc... do the people need to be protected from their own votes?
Also, my property taxes might go down because of these bills, but I don't doubt for one minute that my state income taxes will go up. Why should my state taxes go to schools in Boulder County when I live in Colorado Springs? It is reasonable to expect some of my state taxes to do so, but for schools to be completely funded by state dollars and not local dollars, that makes no sense to me. The local voters should have control over how much they want to spend on their schools.
I'll put it bluntly--anybody who votes for these poorly crafted amendments is a fool. First, they will not solve the problem that people think it will--overspending by state government. Second, they do NOTHING to solve the problem of out-of-control federal spending--which is where the BIG problem is. What they will do is decimate the ability of small, locally-administered taxing enitities (many with small budgets and unpaid boards) from being able to raise their revenues locally. They, along with a lot of other local entities from the school district to county government, will be forced to go to Denver to lobby for largely non-existent state funds to sustain their operations. How anyone thinks that forcing locally-controlled taxing entities to go plead to the state for funds is somehow good or efficient government needs to go get their head examined. Also, in case no one has noticed, the state itself is essentially bankrupt--so where these fools think that "backfill" money is going to come from is beyond me.
A a staunch fiscal conservative, I firmly believe that what IS needed in this state is a very frank discussion of how much government we collectively want--there is a lot of stuff that could be cut back or made more efficient. A good place to start, as I have stated numerous times, is to quit directly and indirectly subsidizing development by prohibiting developers from socializing all of the costs their growth causes upon the existing taxpayers. That alone would save a huge amount of taxpayer dollars.
In the meantime, these amendments need to be defeated--they are a very wrong answer to a problem which largely lies outside of any area that the amendments target.
One final note--Coloradans need to shut the hell up about their residential property taxes here. This state has about the lowest effective tax rate on residential property of any state in the Union.
Last edited by jazzlover; 10-17-2010 at 01:40 PM..
While I don't want the schools to go to hell, something should be done to lower "administrative" costs.
But Colorado's already at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to school funding. Thankfully we still have decent schools - OK I grew up in the deep south and Miami, so I can't compare to say the northeast.
Quote:
I've never really understood why property owners pay for schools and why the money for schools doesn't come from income tax.
A valid point, surely. But about half of education funding in Colorado comes from the state, I would guess thru income tax ...
Quote:
Renters should have to chip in too.
Renters do pay the same property tax as homeowners. It is paid indirectly as rent to the landlord. Rental residential property has the same property tax rate as owner-occupied property in Colorado.
On the flip side, homeowners get a federal giveaway in terms of mortgage interest tax deductions. The larger the mortgage, and the higher the tax bracket you're in, the more this is worth. Since tax deductions are essentially spending programs in disguise, this is essentially a McMansion tax credit. It doesn't even achieve the stated purpose - to increase homeownership. Canada has no such deduction and has historically had homeownerhsip rates at least equal to the U.S. Probably this tax does incentivize upper-middle-class households to buy larger houses, which kind of makes you wonder at the purpose of government ...
I'm from NY also, and still own ( inherited from parents ) my house on Long Island. The taxes are approaching $25,000/yr and the schools are taking half of that, mostly due to the salaries of teachers and administrators.
So what you are saying is that teachers and administrators do not deserve to earn the salaries they make? Maybe we should cut the salaries of these people in half and hope that quality doesn't suffer. The exodus from the teaching ranks would be substantial. Teaching would be considered an entry-level job that most would leave after a few years so they could earn more money somewhere else. I find it hard to believe that the quality of education would stay the same, much less increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51
Simply put, I'll be voting for all three measures. Mainly, like you mentioned, because we've experienced what runaway taxes did to NY.
You've got to be kidding me. In Colorado, taxes are raised only by the consent of the voters. If taxes increase it will be because that is the will of the voters. You seem to be in favor of democracy until it does something you don't like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51
My opinion is that if all these restrictions on spending really do turn into a domes-day scenario like many are trying to paint, then we can just put the issue back on the ballet in 5-10 years.
In 5-10 years, the damage done could take a generation to repair. Look at it this way, let's say that there is a old, but functional bridge that we decide is no longer needed. It will take just a few seconds to blow it up. If we regret our decision and decide to replace it again later, it will take years to design and build.
The same will happen with education. In an effort to keep cuts from the classroom, the first thing that will happen is that the district will defer maintenance on buildings. As the money dries up even more, schools will cut teachers and administrators and class sizes will grow. By the time people decide that there is an education crisis, buildings will need to be refurbished or rebuilt, teachers will need to be hired, premiums will have to be paid to convince good young teachers to teach in Colorado as the reputation of the state's school districts will have bottomed out.
The same scenario will play out with roads and bridges in the state. We will not be able to catch up from years of neglect without significantly raising taxes beyond what they would have been if we had just taken care of business. Toll roads will be a necessity (though the "user fee" crowd has problems with toll roads). In order to get the best bang for our buck in rebuilding roads, we will have to use the lowest bidders to rebuild, while forgetting that they can bid low only because they are using illegal immigrant labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motoracer51
If we don't do this, government will just continue to grow exponentially, and and destroy us even more so ( if that is even possible ) financially.
Government doesn't grow exponentially, and it doesn't destroy anyone. More people have been driven to bankruptcy by runaway medical costs, credit card spending, and ill-advised auto and mortgage loans. Working class salaries have been driven down because of outsourcing and offshoring jobs. In short, it is the private companies that have largely created our financial crisis, not the government.
I'll put it bluntly--anybody who votes for these poorly crafted amendments is a fool. ... where these fools think that "backfill" money is going to come from is beyond me. ... As a staunch fiscal conservative, I firmly believe that what IS needed in this state is a very frank discussion of how much government we collectively want--there is a lot of stuff that could be cut back or made more efficient. A good place to start, as I have stated numerous times, is to quit directly and indirectly subsidizing development by prohibiting developers from socializing all of the costs their growth causes upon the existing taxpayers. That alone would save a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. .... Coloradans need to shut the hell up about their residential property taxes here. This state has about the lowest effective tax rate on residential property of any state in the Union.
Thank you.
I keep pointing out similar things, that we need to work on the stack of bills we pay and start cutting things. If we can cut enough to balance the budgets, then good for us. The Doug Bruce method of simply taking a meat axe to the income side does nothing to stop spending on the wrong things. If politicos are as tricky as many people think they are, they'll intentionally spend money on the wrong things and tell us there's no money left for the right things like schools, police, fire, and roads.
Another thing I keep pointing out to deaf ears is that El Paso County Colorado has 40 school districts. FORTY! How much duplication of superintendents, staff, rules, boards, processes, etc is enough. I came here from Fairfax County Virginia, which has over a million people and ONE school system. But nobody wants to take on the dirty work of scrubbing the number of boards down into an appropriate handful, or even one. Jazz and I both know that there was a time when this nation had HUNDREDS of railroads, and that back in the late 1920's and early 1930's, even the Feds demanded rationalization of the industry into fewer, larger railroads. I'm saying the same thing about how many school districts we have in EPC, CO. There are some efficiencies that we can glean if our leaders desire; won't save us a fortune but could save a decent piece of change.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I came here from Fairfax County Virginia, which has over a million people and ONE school system.
And Virginia is no panacea of streamlined government. I always thought it was ridiculous that we have 99 counties, each with their own local government and school system. One does wonder whether so much local government is necessary now that we have developed much better transportation and communications than we had when the system we have was divised. A state system for higher education works just fine. I don't know why you couldn't move toward that with K-12.
Last edited by CAVA1990; 10-17-2010 at 05:31 PM..
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.
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.
