Category Archives: Fees

Jan 28

How will legislative Democrats pay for their agenda?

Posted on by

DENVER–Governor Polis and the majority Democrats have an ambitious agenda this legislative session. Question is, how will they pay for it all?  With the failure of Proposition CC in November, those who were hanging their hats on voters giving up future tax refunds, allowing the state to keep and spend overcollected tax revenue, will need to find new pots of money.  Indeed, not only did Coloradans vote to keep the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) revenue limit in place, that limit has been hit and the state income tax rate is actually ratcheting down for the year.

Republican strategist Roger Hudson and Democrat strategist Miller Hudson recently sat down with Complete Colorado editor-in-Chief Mike Krause on the public affairs TV show Devil’s Advocate (airs Friday nights at 8:30 on Colorado Public Television, channel 12) to talk about where Democrats might turn to bring in new revenues. Both agree that one option is more more fee-funded government-run enterprises, which operate outside the TABOR budget cap. Check out the video below to find out more.

VIDEO: How will legislative Democrats pay for their agenda?

Jan 23

Bipartisan bill proposes fee-based hazard mitigation enterprise; to fall outside TABOR revenue limits

Posted on by

Bipartisan bill proposes fee-based hazard mitigation enterprise; to fall outside TABOR revenue limits

January 22, 2020 By Scott Weiser


Hazard mitigation controlled burn
Courtesy of W. Perry Conway

DENVER–House members Matt Soper, R-Grand Junction and Lisa Cutter, D-Jefferson County are proposing to create a new state-owned hazard mitigation enterprise that would collect a 0.05% fee on certain policies from insurance companies.

The enterprise would in part “assist entities that apply for federal grants that require matching funds and are dedicated to assisting in the implementation of pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures.”

Other tasks include “public education on the importance of insurance in buying down risk and for the continuity of business operations, and provide local governments technical information and support on natural hazard mitigation through land use and building codes.”

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

Jan 16

Colorado progressives have a new target in their pursuit of a tax overhaul: the rich. Here’s why:

Posted on by

A host of proposed ballot measures for 2020 and proposals at the state Capitol are putting Colorado’s uneven tax system in the spotlight

The Colorado tax code, it pays to be rich and it’s expensive to be poor.

For decades now, that’s been the stark takeaway buried inside the 286-page report on Colorado’s tax system the state Department of Revenue releases every two years: The less you make, the more you spend on taxes, as a percentage of your income.

But despite growing public frustration over income inequality and the state’s rising cost of living, the tax disparities apparent in Colorado’s law have drawn little political attention.

That is, until now. After years of defeats at the ballot box, progressive advocates believe they’ve landed on a tax plan that can resonate with Colorado voters: making the rich pick up more of the bill.

The Colorado Fiscal Institute in December introduced 35 possible ballot proposals that would advance the idea and ask voters to re-establish a graduated income tax in the state for the first time in more than 30 years. Structured like the federal income tax, graduated or progressive state tax brackets would levy higher tax rates based on how much money residents make.

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

Jan 08

IN RESPONSE | Pols trample on TABOR; let’s demand our petition rights

Posted on by

Douglas Bruce

Re: “Colorado must draw a line between ‘tax’ and ‘fee,’ ” Jan. 6.

As TABOR’s author, I fought many traps our foes set for us. We went down their rabbit trail of theoretical debates … twice.

The 1988 TABOR covered “fees” that yearly increase above inflation. Foes used examples like library card fees increasing 10%, which may be a quarter. “We can’t vote all the time” on trivial sums.

The 1990 fight allowed increases rounded up to the next dollar. Same result. We can’t set a limit — say, $50 million — on a fee increase; they will simply increase 50 fees $40 million each. They will also increase licenses, permits, etc.

In 1992, we switched “fee v. tax ” details for revenue spending limits. The Establishment took OUR bait. The issue was our right to vote at all, and we won. Set the agenda and frame the issue, and you win the debate.

Our foes then violated TABOR for 28 years, by saying road and bridge “fees” are for “enterprises,” though they clearly violate the definition. Ditto hospital provider fees, the Dirty Dozen in 2009, and dozens more.

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

Jan 07

Lawmakers Agree Colorado’s Roads Need More TLC. They Definitely Don’t Agree On How To Pay For It

Posted on by

By Nathaniel Minor January 6, 2020

Hart Van Denburg/CPR NewsInterstate 70 Traffic in Mt. Vernon Canyon Friday Aug. 9, 2019

Lawmakers appear to have bipartisan agreement at the state Capitol that Colorado’s transportation system needs a serious infusion of money.

But with the 2020 session poised to kick off later this week, both sides are still far apart about where that should come from: new revenue, or reprioritizing the existing budget.

“I can absolutely tell you, 100 percent, we will not be able to meet our transportation needs without new funding sources,” House Speaker K.C. Becker said Monday at a legislative preview breakfast sponsored by Commuting Solutions, a Louisville, Colorado-based group that advocates for multi-modal transportation.

The group supported the last few attempts to raise new revenue — including 2018’s sales tax-raising Proposition 110 and 2019’s Proposition CC, which would have redirected taxpayer refunds to roads and schools. Voters rejected both of them.

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

Jan 06

FEEDBACK | Colorado must draw a line between ‘tax’ and ‘fee’

Posted on by

Ever since TABOR (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) was enacted in 1992, our courts and legislature have been ignoring the large animal in the room. Namely, the difference between a “tax” and a “fee.” Some things seem logical. Such as a “drivers’ license fee” versus a “property tax.” This seems logical until someone wants to call the property tax a “homeowner’s fee.” Should that occur, the cost of owning a home could skyrocket completely against the intent of the TABOR law.

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

Jan 02

SLOAN | To tone-deaf tax hikers, ‘no’ translates to try, try again

Posted on by

This year’s defeat of Proposition CC was a bitter experience for the state’s Democrats and liberal groups, but apparently not a didactic one, at least for the latter. Proposals are already in the works for some new iterations of the ubiquitous tax-increase ballot measures which crop up every second election or so, just to see if perseverance will ultimately win out over fiscal literacy.

Most of the proposals are conjured up by groups like the leftist Colorado Fiscal Institute, which houses some presumably very bright people whose economic analysis nevertheless boils down invariably to tugging on the General Assembly’s sleeve and pointing at someone else’s wallet.

Carol Hedges, executive director of CFI, said in an interview in some other publication that “what I took away from Prop. CC was that was not the solution.” Clearly. She goes on to say “that solution didn’t address the concerns of folks who voted in the election, and we have an obligation to solve those problems.”

What problems are those, exactly?

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

Dec 17

Happy New Year From Your Colorado TABOR Foundation!

Posted on by

By a vote of 55% to 45%, you helped defeat Prop CC to remove TABOR spending limits, but they’re at it again.

Anti-TABOR activists are already testing ballot language for a 2020 initiative to unwind your Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. With a high Democratic voter turnout, they see next year’s election as their chance to amend the State Constitution to give government taxing authority without a vote of the people.

The TABOR Foundation educates voters on how the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights protects their livelihood and why it matters to their family’s future.

We give seminars, media interviews, social media updates, and we’re a primary contact for citizens asking for help when their local jurisdictions violate TABOR mandates.  Importantly, we engage in legal action to protect TABOR.

Defending freedom costs time – and money. We need more help. What can you do to help us?

Please send your donation of $50, $100, $150 or more. Checks payable to TABOR Foundation, a 501c3 not-for-profit organization, may be tax deductible as allowed by law.

And, we welcome your service with our Board of Directors, Speakers Bureau, or in some other capacity.  Please call me to talk about being more involved.  Thanks!

 

Sincerely,

Penn R. Pfiffner
Chairman
303-233-7731

TABOR Foundation
720 Kipling St.
Lakewood, CO 80215
www.thetaborfoundation.org 

Dec 12

In Two Blue States, Voters Back Democrats, But Show a Wariness Toward Taxes

Posted on by
A lawn sign urges voters to oppose Proposition CC, which would have relaxed a Colorado law that restricts the state's taxing power. Voters rejected the measure in November.

A lawn sign urges voters to oppose Proposition CC, which would have relaxed a Colorado law that restricts the state’s taxing power. Voters rejected the measure in November. AP PHOTO/DAVID ZALUBOWSKI

| 

In Colorado and Washington, residents this fall voted to either constrain state tax revenues or cut fees, even as Democratic lawmakers argue the money is needed to support education and transportation programs.

Colorado voters during the past two elections have made clear that while they’re willing to back Democratic candidates, they’re reluctant to give them greater taxing power to help carry out their agendas.

That’s even as progressives argue that funding is falling short in areas like education and transportation. Last month, Coloradans kept up the pattern, rejecting a ballot measure that would have relaxed limits on the amount of tax collections that the state government can keep.

Further west, residents in another left-leaning state, Washington, also voted in November to crimp government revenues. Voters approved a ballot initiative to cap the cost of vehicle registration fees, or “car tabs,” which help pay for transit and other transportation programs.

“I think you could say it’s an anti-tax vote, clearly,” said Rep. Jake Fey, a Tacoma-area Democrat who chairs the Washington state House Transportation Committee.

In both places, the election results show how there can be limits to the appetite people have for paying more money for public services and infrastructure—even when a majority of a state’s voters are willing to support Democrats who tend to embrace more progressive platforms, which often involve bigger government.

The measures also highlight the complications and uncertainty that can arise when making tax policy at the ballot box, as well as some unique facets of each state’s tax structure.

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