Category Archives: Editorial

Jan 19

Taxation Wisdom From The Ages

Posted on by

Taxation wisdom from the ages

  • Taxation without representation is tyranny.”…Founding Father James Otis
  • “The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny.”…President Calvin Coolidge
  • “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents”… President James Madison
  • “There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people.”…Economist Adam Smith
  • “Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay.”…Economist Milton Friedman
  • “One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government.”…Representative Ron Paul

Continue reading →

Dec 30

Caldara: Putting your money where your causes are

Posted on by

 By Jon Caldara

Americans give more of their hard-earned money to charitable causes than any people on the globe.

According to the Giving Institute, Americans give more than $1 billion a day to charities: a total of $410 billion in 2017.

And very little comes from the ultra-wealthy, big foundations, or large companies looking for good press. According to the Philanthropy Roundtable, in 2014 only 14% came from foundation grants, and just 5% from corporations. The rest, 81%, came from individuals like you.

Per capita, we voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental Europeans. In Europe people see little reason to give more of their own money when so much is being forcibly taken by taxes and redistributed by the state for “what charity used to do.”

To continue reading this story with Jon mentioning The TABOR Foundation, please click (HERE):

Dec 07

Can voters ignore the state constitution when passing an initiative?

Posted on by

The Other Arizona Election Challenge

Can voters ignore the state constitution when passing an initiative?

By  The Editorial Board

Dec. 6, 2020 5:43 pm ET

Voters wait in line at the Surprise Court House polling location in Surprise, Arizona, Nov. 3.

PHOTO: CHRISTIAN PETERSEN/GETTY IMAGES

 

The outcome of the presidential race isn’t the only election result being contested in Arizona, and the other has even greater consequences for the law. Last week two lawsuits were filed against Proposition 208, the ballot initiative that imposes a new 3.5% tax surcharge to raise an estimated $827 million for education. It passed with 51.7% of the vote.

The suits are challenging whether Prop 208, which passed as a statute, must conform to the state constitution. One suit was filed by businesswoman Ann Siner and retired judge John Buttrick, the other by the Goldwater Institute, the influential Arizona think tank.

The suits claim that Prop 208 contradicts a constitutional amendment that limits the amount of revenue provided to school districts each year. It also overrides another constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to approve a tax increase.

The Legislative Council, a nonpartisan legislative office that reviews bills and ballot measures for form and constitutionality, held that Prop 208’s language exempting the money it raises from an existing cap on education spending “is likely invalid” because it violates express constitutional limits. Supporters went ahead anyway. The state Supreme Court declined to rule on claims that Prop 208 unconstitutionally curtails the Legislature’s authority but said it couldn’t consider the issue until it passed.

To continue reading this story, please click (HERE):

Nov 18

How Colorado Voters Cut Taxes During a Statewide Blue Wave

Posted on by
By 

November 16, 2020 6:30 AM

An election official notes the weight of a ballot box as a means to estimate the number of ballots locked inside before they are processed and counted for the presidential election in Denver, Colo., October 22, 2020. (Kevin Mohatt/Reuters)

And how, at the same time, progressives duped them into massive tax increases elsewhere.

In an election year where the political Left won nearly every ballot question and contested political race in the state, Colorado voters approved two conservative-backed ballot measures demanding fiscal restraint.

Proposition 116 reduces the state’s flat income-tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.55 percent, and Proposition 117 requires the legislature to receive voter approval of large new government fees.

Most outcomes from Colorado’s 2020 ballot come as no surprise in a state now largely dominated by the Left. Democrats flipped a seat in the state senate while losing nothing. The Republican-to-Democrat ratio in the House remained unchanged. Voters rejected a ban on abortion after 22 weeks of gestation. The state agreed to join the National Popular Vote compact. Environmental activist groups won on Proposition 114, a measure to introduce gray wolves to the Colorado Rockies. The tax and fiscal issues, however, have left many Colorado policymakers and pundits baffled.

To continue reading the rest of this story, please click (HERE):

Oct 01

Prop 117 ad exposes how politicians raise your taxes by calling it a ‘fee’

Posted on by

As the grassroots organization Vote on Fees points out, with liberal majorities in the legislature the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is the only thing preventing Democrats from going completely out of control at the state capitol.

Colorado’s state legislature uses the word “FEE” to grow state programs and spending without having to ask Coloradans for the permission to raise taxes required under our Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Massive revenue increases like FASTER (car registration) fees, are taxes coming out of our pockets to pay for state programs, and should go through the same voter approval process as all tax increases. It’s not complicated — just ask the people.

Two-thirds of state revenue now falls outside of TABOR. We need to do a better job of managing our state’s more than $30 billion budget. The status quo of continuing to grow and create new state programs and finance them off of “fees” needs to end.

Democrats have recently been using fee increases as an end-run around the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a state Constitutional amendment that gives voters the final say on all statewide tax increases. The recent use of “fees” to short-circuit our Constitutional rights is extremely troubling, and fiscally responsible voters need to put a stop to it immediately.

Prop 117 is a major threat to Democrats and their socialist vision for Colorado.

To continue reading this story, please click (HERE): 

Sep 29

Letter: Proposition 117 to the rescue

Posted on by

Thomas Jefferson pointed out that “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. That government is best which governs least.” As taxpayers, our wisdom was used by voting on an amendment back in 1992 to limit state spending to about the same as state growth — well known as the TABOR Amendment.

This has almost worked to keep the state from taxing us out of our hard-earned wages or profits. The problem is those in government always want to spend on their pet programs and have found a way around what we taxpayers have established as a very fair limit on government spending.  We elect those to our legislature to care for our state and control our government so we can carry on with our own lives and families. That confidence really can be disappointing as the con in confidence can also be the con in conman.

According to The Common Sense Institute, a business-oriented coalition, the state budget was spending 46% or $2,403 per taxpayer outside of TABOR limits in 1993. Fast forward to 2019 and spending has increased so 69% of the sate budget is outside of Tabor limits which amount to $5,787 per taxpayer. The con seems to be with fees versus taxes.

To continue reading this Letter-to-the-Editor, please click (HERE):

Sep 13

Opinion: Chuck Wibby: Kill the fee in wolf’s clothing

Posted on by
By DAILY CAMERA GUEST OPINION | openforum@dailycamera.com and CHUCK WIBBY | cxwibby1@gmail.com | Boulder Daily Camera

By Chuck Wibby

In 1992, Colorado voters passed the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR. The amendment to the Colorado Constitution is widely despised by elected officials at every level of government. It is also widely loved by the majority of taxpaying citizens who pay the bills to employ those same elected officials.

Among its other provisions, TABOR contained an exemption for fee-based services that the government provides to citizens. It was a logical concession. After all, if the city wanted to operate a parking lot, it would be impractical to have a vote every time the city wanted to increase the cost to park your car in their lot.

TABOR’s intent was that “government-owned businesses that provide goods or services for a fee or surcharge” are “paid for by the individuals or entities that are purchasing the goods or services.” This is in contrast to “government agencies or programs that provide goods or services that are paid for by tax revenue.” Letting no good deed go unpunished, it didn’t take the state too long to figure out how to take advantage of TABOR’s allowance for fee-based enterprises.

To continue reading this TABOR story, please click (HERE):

Jul 22

Voting at a time when voting makes sense!

Posted on by

Voting at a time when voting makes sense!

July 2020

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) includes good government provisions that improve election procedures.

We know that voter turnout is highest for those people who will benefit most directly by the ballot measure.  One way to suppress voter participation is to hold an election at an unusual time or at an unexpected, inconvenient, or difficult time.

Before the Taxpayer‘s Bill of Rights, Colorado elected officials could schedule a special election for a new tax or for a debt measure.  Held in, say, February, the government could hope weather to be really foul, so that even the average taxpayer who thought to vote on the measure might think twice, while those proponents who would benefit from the new tax would be in the majority for whom it was worth the effort to slog to the polls.

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights ended that incivility to the citizen.  With TABOR, a vote must happen on the November general election ballot, or if there is a standard election in the spring, (common for many town and city elections) the measure can appear on that municipal ballot.  The only other time a TABOR measure may go before the voters is in odd-numbered years at about the time in November that a general election would take place.

Colorado constitution (Article X, Section 20) paragraph 3(a) states:  “Ballot issues shall be decided in a state general election, biennial local district election, or on the first Tuesday in November of odd-numbered years.”

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights greatly improved government operations beyond providing the taxpayer the power to vote on tax increases.

#TABOR
#ItsYourMoneyNotTheirs
#ThankGodForTABOR
#VoteOnTaxesAndFees
#WhyTABORMatters

 

 

 

Jun 11

Mahaney: Have taxes been raised?

Posted on by

To quote the Pueblo West district manager as printed in the June 4, 2020 article headed “So Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?” In sub heading No. 4, the spin starts as “We are continuing to provide the same services as when Pueblo West originated and that is without a mill levy increase since 1971, which doesn’t allow for the cost of inflation of goods and services since 1971.

My “old daddy” once told me, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. The two points the quote does not explain is that first property taxes have gone up. As the Pueblo County assessor reassess the value of a home the same mill levy generates a higher tax bill. Ask anyone if their property tax bill has gone up in the last two years. Property values tend to track with inflation.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) was made into law to restrain local government from expanding without taxpayer approval.

To continue reading this letter-to-the-editor, please click (HERE):