Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

A DIFFERING VIEW: Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes

Brian T. Schwartz, Boulder

Published October 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Letters to the Editor

More stories »

The Rocky should regret endorsing the deceptive Amendment 59 (editorial, Sept. 19).

Like other proponents, the Rocky claims that 59 "is not a tax hike." The Rocky continues, "it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] surplus occurs."

How is this not a tax hike? The amendment's supporters claim the money that would otherwise go to rebates would fund "education." Yet the Rocky reports that it would "allow legislatures more opportunities for investing in other priorities."

That is, not education. Instead of spending your own money on your priorities, politicians would spend your money on their priorities.

Amendment 59 would force you to donate to government-run schools, regardless of your satisfaction with them. If you'd prefer to provide for your family, or donate your refund to schools or scholarships that politicians don't favor, tough. Amendment 59 forbids it.

The amendment's Web site claims to "protect our taxpayers." From what, spending our money as we please?

Brian T. Schwartz is a resident of Boulder.

Comments

  • October 14, 2008

    6:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    haddock writes:

    If your federal taxes go down, as every national politician always promises, expect your state ones to go up. There is no money for infrastructure projects (such as education of the masses) if that doesn't happen. Every promise at the federal level should be met with a shudder and the cynical disbelief that your "overall" tax burden will be reduced. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure or else we end up like all third world countries (they have a very low tax rate, unlike Europe, for example). Our 11 trillion dollar national debt has debunked the notion that "lower taxes"="more consumer spending"="more tax revenue".

  • October 14, 2008

    7:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    cowboy69 writes:

    Amendment 59 is just another attempt to weaken and eventually eliminate the Tabor Act. There are two good laws on the books in Colorado. Term limitations and the Tax Payor Bill of Rights.

  • October 14, 2008

    8:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    grandpaw writes:

    The idea behind Amendment 59 is that we cannot successfully tax corporations because they will just pass the tax along to the consumer. Then why do the corporations spend millions of dollars resisting being taxed? Carrying this argument to its logical extreme would mean no corporate taxes. You like that idea? Perhaps we should also not tax the income that the CEOs make because they will also just pass that on to the consumer. The corporations argue both ends. They argue that they cannot operate as profitably if they are taxed too much, and then they turn around and argue that they will just pass the tax on to the consumer so that it doesn't affect their profitability. The corporations know quite well that they cannot just charge consumers whatever they want because at some point the consumer will quit buying, so that the corporations will have to reduce their prices to the consumer if they want to stay in business. The way WalMart does so well is not by saying it will just pass increased costs on to the consumer but rather by keeping its prices low so that there will be more consumers buying at WalMart. In the competitive energy business, there will always be some company reducing its price in order to increase its customer base. Profitability is less a matter of how much money you make off of each customer than it is a matter of how many customers you have. If you pass too much cost on to the consumer you reduce your customer base and your profitability. It's called capitalism.

  • October 14, 2008

    8:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dianahsieh writes:

    Brian is right: Amendment 59 is a ploy to force more taxes from hard-working people for the sake of more irresponsible spending by politicians.

    Find out more at: http://www.VoteNo59.com

  • October 14, 2008

    8:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    grandpaw,

    In the short run, corporate taxes matter. In the short run, corporations may not be able to pass the costs to consumers. I believe corporations resist tax increases for this reason. In the long run, corporations either pass the cost to consumers or avoid the tax increase by relocating. Some corporations cannot move so the increased tax is paid by consumers. The increased cost of goods can reduce revenue so corporate profits may decrease as a result of the tax increase even if the corporation passes the costs to consumers. The public should realize the importance of corporate tax rates. There is no free lunch on taxation. High corporate tax rates will lead to lower employment and higher cost of goods. In this sense, corporations do not pay taxes. The taxes are bourne by the public either directly or indirectly.

    Amendment 59 will be the end of TABOR. TABOR has served Colorado well, preventing the excess spending of Democratic controlled states such as California and New York. TABOR is the only law preventing the Colorado Democrats from wildly excessive spending.

  • October 14, 2008

    9:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RS writes:

    Amendment 59 is the effort to make Ref. C permanent, nothing less. Elimination of taxpayer control is the only goal here - make us like California even more than we already are!

  • October 14, 2008

    9:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gasser writes:

    Grandpaw, are you confusing 59 with 58?

    59 is a huge tax increase that we can't afford right now. If the state needs more money for education (and I'm not convinced they do) then they should ask for it without killing TABOR in the process. TABOR is the only thing protecting the taxpayer and that's what the politicians hate because it limits how much they can squeeze from us.

  • October 14, 2008

    11:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    grandpaw writes:

    Yes, indeed, gasser, I am confusing Amendment 59 with Amendment 58. Thanks for the heads up. The bad news is that now I have to become better acquainted with 59.

  • October 14, 2008

    3:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    Don’t worry. Our state representatives have already decided to make a public service announcement about Amendment 59 to help us understand how important it is. They even got someone who speaks our language.
    Here’s the transcript :

    I’m jes honored to address yew fine folks on this amendment five nine. Now then all yew need to know is to jes trust them poltishuns to be careful wid dat "extra" money theys collected. By golly they's giv ther word to spend that money on them thar skools that jes need a spot more money and den everthin will come out jest all right an all da kids will be larnin dem good things not jes the readin and stuff.

    Now don yew go listnin to them selfish ones what thinks they's got a right to the money they earn. They jes don understand that we, I means them, poltishuns knows a whole lot better whar to spend that money on. Besides there's not that much money yew'd be gettin back. They’s gonna pile it all up fer them skools. Pay no mind when them fellas tells yew that puttin that TABOR money all up for skools is jes a trick sos we can takes what money we used to put on skools an can spend it wherever wes want ifin we can jest fool, no, I mean convince you hows we all gonna do it fer the children.

    We's all seen how bad we suffers when the govermint don get the moneys they wants and then can’t spend as much as they been promisin. This here number 59 will fix all that up. Jes ignore them selfish ones who thinks you should be the ones spendin yur money dat you earned. Trust the govmint. They knows best.

  • October 14, 2008

    9:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jack_Bauer writes:

    What happened to single issue ballot initiatives? Doesn't this address two issues?
    Vote NO on this money grab.

  • October 14, 2008

    9:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    daRock writes:

    How many ways are schools being funded now? Ritter raising the mil levy on our property taxes, Amendment 23, and proposed in Amendment 50, Amendment 58, Amendment 59, Referred issue 3A (Denver) asking for $454 mil, Ballots issue 3A & 3B (Cherry Creek SD) asking for $18M/year and $400M respectively.

    Until there is accountability and transparency in spending I will vote NO on ALL school funding issues. Show us where the past money has gone!!!

  • October 15, 2008

    1:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    darock

    Why don't we ask a few simpler questions of the legislature that put this on the ballot? We'll get as many answers. And as little truth.

    How much money did Ref C raise? Where is it? What did it pay for?
    Was it two to four times the most generous pre-vote estimates or more like six as one group has predicted while attempting to get the "invisible" records?
    Why not separate 23 from this? Were you afraid the states' public schools near total lack of any substantial improvements in the basic skills might finally convince the people of Colorado to stop throwing money down the education rathole (to land in the pockets of administrators instead of teachers and schools) without any accountability?
    Were you afraid it would get rid of 23, make the school educrats angry and still not kill TABOR?
    Were you sacrificing 23 because it was the only way you could find to get enough approval to kill TABOR so you'd get to spend as much as you please?
    Why are you trying to hide the fact that this will not only kill forever any TABOR rebates but will also remove the TABOR spending limits on government too?
    How did you ever manage to get this hogwash approved as a single subject?
    Why should we throw away the best taxpayer protection law in the country just because you politicians got away with the Ref C lie and hope to fool us again?
    Why should anyone permit our tax rebates to be put in a slush fund with no real controls on who gets what money?
    Now that you are screaming that the last question was unfair because the money is for "education of the children," what safeguards did you place in this to prevent the legislature from cutting current education funds in favor of other governmental pet projects?
    Do you really think, in this economic climate, that the people of Colorado aren't entitled to receive back the money that was overtaxed out of what they earned?
    Who's the best judge of how to spend the money they earned, the individual taxpayers or you politicians?
    How stupid do you think we are anyway?

    Politicians hate being told they have to conserve and budget. Here we have a law, TABOR, that gives them a built in increase every year. That law also makes them give back any money they "accidentally" collect over the amount they are supposed to spend.

    This year is their best chance to kill TABOR since its approval by the voters. They tested their lies with Ref C and Ref D. They won on Ref C. Now they want it all, no rebates, no limits and no peasants, that's us the common voters, having any say in how much they can spend. They know whats best for us. Just ask them. Or you can tell them you don't want to trust them again. Instead of using our money to bail out failed politicians, let's use it to make our families more secure.

    Ref C was enough lies for a lifetime. Make that many lifetimes. Show them how much you enjoy being lied to. VOTE NO ON 59.