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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,181 posts, read 5,617,088 times
Reputation: 2073

Advertisements

My property taxes were raised last year in Denver because the majority of voters voted for it, unfortunately. Will the 'revenue increase' for the schools and the city actually have an effect on the quality of education offered by DPS or the quality of services offered by the city? Of course not. Even with TABOR in place, people who are making a Colorado a "blue state" will continue to vote for tax increases, and will probably eventually vote to un-do TABOR when/if they have the chance to do so.

My point is that I doubt taxes anywhere would DECREASE because of possible future tax revenue from Amendment 64. The Democrats would never want to give any additional revenue back to the people or give anyone a break; they'd spend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2013, 11:27 AM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,788,874 times
Reputation: 9132
While TABOR's revenue limitation provisions have some merit, the entire Amendment was poorly crafted, with many unintended and essentially irrevocable negative consequences. In time, Colorado residents will come to despise it. One of things it does, in concert with the earlier Gallagher amendment to the Colorado Constitution, is keep the effective tax rate on residential property very low, while shifting the tax burden onto commercial and industrial property owners. That superficially might seem "neat" to homeowners, but, over time, it poisons Colorado's business climate, especially for capital-intensive businesses like manufacturing and processing.

The other very bad things that TABOR does is to fiscally punish small, efficient local taxing entities, while having much less effect on large, inefficient governmental entities. In essence, it punishes the entities that are closest and most responsive to the citizens, while having much less impact on the state bureaucracy.

As part of my work, I've studied every nuance of TABOR since its adoption in 1992. I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and opponent of big government, but TABOR was the brainchild of a transplanted California attorney who wrote a whole bunch of stuff into the amendment to favor his own private financial interests. It's a sterling example of Colorado's Constitutional Amendment process run wild, and it will cause untold damage to the Colorado economy as time goes on. With any luck, I will be gone from Colorado by the time that big, ticking fiscal time bomb goes off--which will be not too far in the future, especially if the Colorado economy tanks again, that "crash" being a real strong possibility, in my view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 12:32 PM
 
20,847 posts, read 39,070,515 times
Reputation: 19080
This is one topic in which I have TOTAL agreement with JazzLover, that, and railroads.

By the way, at least 454 taxing entities around COLO have "de-bruced" and shed TABOR, as JL points out, the locals won't stand by and see their piece of COLO decimated by a bad piece of law. Tabor points out the danger in government-by-referendum / majority vote. Remember, there was a time when "the majority" of voters in many states approved of segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, no voting by women, et al.

Back to the OP's question now....

I don't expect ANY increase in taxes because of Amendment 64, nor do I expect to see legions of dopers laying around on sidewalks panhandling or filling up any of our scarce drunk tanks. If we tax MJ as we do alcohol, we can fund a lot of issues that now go begging for money, like schools and infrastructure.

In every change, some people see unmitigated disaster, some see unlimited opportunity.

Is your glass half full or half empty.
__________________
- 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.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 03-16-2013 at 12:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 01:23 PM
Status: "Beach time!" (set 7 hours ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,641 posts, read 11,032,566 times
Reputation: 13863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
This is one topic in which I have TOTAL agreement with JazzLover, that, and railroads.

By the way, at least 454 taxing entities around COLO have "de-bruced" and shed TABOR, as JL points out, the locals won't stand by and see their piece of COLO decimated by a bad piece of law. Tabor points out the danger in government-by-referendum / majority vote. Remember, there was a time when "the majority" of voters in many states approved of segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, no voting by women, et al.

Back to the OP's question now....

I don't expect ANY increase in taxes because of Amendment 64, nor do I expect to see legions of dopers laying around on sidewalks panhandling or filling up any of our scarce drunk tanks. If we tax MJ as we do alcohol, we can fund a lot of issues that now go begging for money, like schools and infrastructure.

In every change, some people see unmitigated disaster, some see unlimited opportunity.

Is your glass half full or half empty.
I wonder if there will be any backlash from the Federal Government since the recreational use of marijuana is still punishable by federal law. Will the feds reduce funding to Colorado for schools and transportation? If that happens, will the state stand its ground and try to make due without federal funds in these areas? Will they even be able to? Or are the laws in Colorado and Washington the start of a larger movement that will eventually result in marijuana being decriminalized on the federal level?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 01:25 PM
 
20,847 posts, read 39,070,515 times
Reputation: 19080
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I wonder if there will be any backlash from the Federal Government since the recreational use of marijuana is still punishable by federal law. Will the feds reduce funding to Colorado for schools and transportation? If that happens, will the state stand its ground and try to make due without federal funds in these areas? Will they even be able to? Or are the laws in Colorado and Washington the start of a larger movement that will eventually result in marijuana being decriminalized on the federal level?
Why would the Feds even do that? Our President is on record as saying he has bigger fish to fry. IMO your scenario is a non-starter. I do see MJ losing its federal status as a Sched I drug and the states legalizing it and taxing it as they do alcohol; if they don't they're losing a ton of revenue that is sorely needed.
__________________
- 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.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 03-16-2013 at 02:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,885,030 times
Reputation: 5429
As noted by many, TABOR limits the government from levying new or increased taxes without approval of the voters. This means the answer to the OP's question is a big solid "It depends."

As of now there is not tax on marijuana, and there is no vote scheduled to levy a tax on marijuana. All the talk of tax increased tax revenue is just that -- talk. Until a tax bill is written and the voters approve it, there will be no marijuana tax like people think there will be.

The only tax on marijuana for the time being will be a sales tax, which will not cause significant revenue increases for government because people will be buying marijuana with money they would have spent elsewhere anyway (like buying weed instead of alcohol).

Secondly, if the negative impact of legalized marijuana means we need more programs to deal with the consequences (increased funding for medicare, police, courts, etc.), then those costs should be borne by the users, not socialized for the rest of society.

Lastly, while I know this is not the time or the place for this discussion, those who expect significantly better results in schools or public infrastructure as the result of increased taxes, should understand that a small increase in revenue (say that your property tax increases from $1,500 per year to $1,575 per year -- a 5% increase) will not yield huge jumps in test scores or the funding of large scale products. It's like buying penny stocks and then getting upset when you don't become a millionaire overnight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 04:48 PM
 
Location: CO
2,591 posts, read 5,988,804 times
Reputation: 3407
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
. . .
The only tax on marijuana for the time being will be a sales tax, which will not cause significant revenue increases for government because people will be buying marijuana with money they would have spent elsewhere anyway (like buying weed instead of alcohol). . .
You might want to consider that people will be paying tax when they buy marijuana.

Now, all the people who buy marijuana do not pay tax when they buy marijuana. They buy it wherever they buy it, from whomever they buy it - it's all not taxed, it's off the books, illegal. Taxes will be collected on those transactions, that have never been taxed before.

For those who will pay taxes on marijuana *instead of* alcohol, so be it. If substituting marijuana for alcohol won't make a difference in state tax revenues, what does it matter? It's the same tax revenue for the state either way, and the individual gets to choose his/her poison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2013, 08:00 PM
 
9,830 posts, read 19,533,285 times
Reputation: 7602
The talk about taxes on cannabis bolstering a government budget are nonsense, as of right now no such taxes exist or are proposed, as far as I can tell.

In addition making an addictive, impairing drug readily available is just going to put more people out there needing welfare because they can't work due to being in a stupor and it's going to have a cost dealing with more addiction and rehab issues. In addition they will be a cost paid when we have a state of stoners sailing through stoplights and killing innocent families or wrecking havoc by other means such as crime to fund their habit. Most crime these days is committed by people on drugs looking for easy money to fund it and yeah that includes cannabis.

These issues already exist and it will just get worse with something made easy to buy. So there will be no net benefit to anyone in the state in terms of money.

Also if it is taxed, it's already an underground trade. It has little reason to go above board and get hit with 100-200% of more in taxes. As taxes were dumped on cigarettes, it has become a sizable underground trade in illegal cigs and illegal alcohol production is as big as ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 09:04 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,936,352 times
Reputation: 5377
The talks about taxes on MJ are a result of a ballot that specifically stated that it would be taxed. A huge part of the bill related to the taxation and use of those dollars. MJ legality was passed in the same measure that passed taxing MJ.

In regards to blue vs red and the impact of tabor. Tabor has made the state more blue than it would otherwise be because the many libertarians are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In short, they want the government OUT of their lives. Less taxes, less laws. They don't want the government in gay marriage or straight marriage. They don't want the government regulating anything that doesn't need regulation. They want the powers that are reserved to the states to be reserved to the states.

What does that mean when voting? If the republicans can not rally libertarians with a charge against taxes that forces them into a conflicted vote, they will be much more likely to support a politician that believes similar things on social issues. I'm one of those libertarians. I've often had to choose between someone who had a poor economic platform and good social sense, or someone who wanted to impose their social wills on others but better economic sense. If the democrat can not raise taxes, I have very little incentive to vote for the republican. The democrats flaws (in the eyes of a libertarian) have been removed by Tabor.

I respect that some people dislike tabor, but I'll keep voting to defend it. Attempts to remove it, in my opinion, are absurd. When the tax plan fails 65 to 35, that shows that tabor was used exactly as intended. If we agreed to remove it, we would say "we didn't want this tax plan, but we will remove our only defense against it". We JUST used tabor.

Taxes are taken by force. Tabor is our defense against it. If we use tabor to prevent having things we didn't want imposed upon us, then giving up tabor is essentially voting yes to everything we did not want and losing out right to vote in the future. I'm sorry for the people that don't like it, because I believe it is one of the greatest things about this great state. So long as Tabor exists, we are protected from becoming California financially.

Yes, voters make mistakes. However, a great deal of research has shown that large groups make better decisions than isolated individuals. It is true that there are some specific instances where the large group has failed dramatically, but there are more instances than I can count where a single politician given power has failed dramatically. Further, our examples of instances where the large group has failed are often issues that were then corrected. It's unfortunate that the public can be convinced of stupid things (around 40% of detriot voted against a great gift from Canada) by massive amounts of spending. I just don't think Colorado will be willing to up their right to vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,885,030 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzco View Post
You might want to consider that people will be paying tax when they buy marijuana.

Now, all the people who buy marijuana do not pay tax when they buy marijuana. They buy it wherever they buy it, from whomever they buy it - it's all not taxed, it's off the books, illegal. Taxes will be collected on those transactions, that have never been taxed before.

For those who will pay taxes on marijuana *instead of* alcohol, so be it. If substituting marijuana for alcohol won't make a difference in state tax revenues, what does it matter? It's the same tax revenue for the state either way, and the individual gets to choose his/her poison.
Remember, many will grow their own. No taxes there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
The talks about taxes on MJ are a result of a ballot that specifically stated that it would be taxed. A huge part of the bill related to the taxation and use of those dollars. MJ legality was passed in the same measure that passed taxing MJ.
First of all, Amendment 64's "requirement" that an excise tax will be levied doesn't cut it legally. According to the Colorado Constitution, an amendment may address only one issue. Amendment 64 addresses the decriminalization of marijuana. It directs the general assembly to enact a tax, but the general assembly cannot levy a tax without the consent of the voters.

Read the Overview of Amendment 64. It states, "The general assembly will be required to enact an excise tax of up to 15 percent on the wholesale sale of non-medical marijuana applied at the point of transfer from the cultivation facility to a retail store or product manufacturer. The first $40 million of revenue raised annually will be directed to the Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund. This new tax must be approved by a majority of voters in a statewide general election in accordance with the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)." (emphasis mine)

The general assembly may refer a tax to the people, but the people may reject it.
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
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top