Category Archives: Media

Jul 04

The Empire of Fees. How charges and fines drive government growth

Posted on by

When I wake up in the morning at my home in Austin, Texas, I turn on the lights, and thereby provide a few cents to the city government’s electric company. I flush the toilet, owing a few more to Austin’s sewer service. When I pour myself a glass of water, the city water department gets a piece. After I get dressed and step outside, I watch the city take my trash, my recycling, and my compost—each pickup costs a few dollars. Sometimes, I discover a $25 ticket for parking my car in the wrong spot. Then I swallow my anger and drive down the MoPac highway, where I pay a toll to the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority. I park in a garage downtown owned by the Austin Transportation Department, pay them a few bucks, and walk to my office. If I need to take a trip out of town, I pay $1.25 for a Capital Metro District bus to the city-owned Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, where, along with the price of my plane ticket, I pay a $5.60 fee for the benefit of being patted down by a TSA agent, a Passenger Facility Charge, and a small part in any rents the city charges restaurants and retailers. Only when I’m in the air does the drain to the government stop.

In one typical morning, I handed over money to several government bodies. But I didn’t pay any taxes—only fees, charges, and fines. These are the future of government in the United States.

The idea that government operates just by taxing and spending money is anachronistic. A growing share of its revenue comes from charges that the government imposes in exchange for its services or as a penalty for breaking its rules. In 1950, about 1 percent of Americans’ income went to charges from state and local governments. Today, that number is 4 percent. Include federal fees and charges, themselves the fastest-growing part of federal revenue, and that number rises to over 5.5 percent. Though largely hidden from the public, fees and charges account for most of the growth in government over the past 70 years and have become the top source of revenue for state and local governments.

Two factors drive this new reliance on special charges. First, governments are expanding the “businesses” they run—hospitals, universities, airports—and forcing users to pay more for them.

To continue reading this story, please click (HERE) to go to The City Journal.

May 18

Progressives want more from Colorado residential property taxes

Posted on by

Progressives want more from Colorado residential property taxes

By Brad Hughes

Some Colorado progressives are intrigued by a Bell Policy Center idea to increase property taxes on the wealthy to pay for subsidized housing for the poor. Colorado progressives frustrated that they could not eliminate TABOR, have been targeting property taxes as a source to expand government. The repeal of the Gallagher amendment was a big victory for them in pursuing increased residential property taxation. One of their proposals was to target residential real estate that exceeded $2 million in value. One proposal was to assess an additional 0.57% tax on homes valued at over $2 million. Another proposal was to establish a fee that was 1.1% on houses valued at over $2 million. Fortunately, both initiatives died. This doesn’t mean the idea is dead. It will be back for next year’s session.

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was quoted on Twitter as making a comparison between her proposed wealth tax and the traditional property tax. Addressing a crowd, she said: “You’ve been paying a wealth tax for years. They just call it a property tax. I just want their tax to include the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts.” Under current law, the first $250,000 ($500,000 for married couples) of capital gains on the sale of your primary residence are exempt from tax. Warren wants to create a wealth tax that would fall on the ownership of financial assets such as corporate stock or bonds. Many progressives at the national level like this idea. This will be difficult to accomplish when Americans learn about the magnitude of this taxation. A surtax on residential property in Colorado will be met with resistance if the electorate is informed.

The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France’s wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Emmanuel Macron, President of France, ultimately killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn’t raise much revenue.1

The wealth tax idea was substantially influenced by the work of discredited French economist Thomas Piketty, whose book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, was focused on redistributing wealth in Europe.

Although a wealth tax will be difficult to impose in America, some states, like Colorado, are considering an increased surtax on residential property to accomplish their tax agenda and circumvent taxpayer opposition. It is important for Coloradans to support TABOR, and oppose surtaxes on residential property. Apathy and ignorance encourage the passions of radical progressivism. Stay tuned. The progressives will not give up until they lose elections.

1 https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs#:~:text=The%20experiment%20with%20the%20wealth%20tax%20in%20Europe,twelve%20countries%20in%20Europe%20had%20a%20wealth%20tax.

May 18

Menten: Jefferson County ‘listening’ tour leaves out inconvenient facts

Posted on by

Jefferson County is one of more than a dozen counties in Colorado that is still enjoys the protections of government revenue caps under the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment. In years of excess revenue collection, the taxpayers traditionally benefit from this TABOR feature by a temporary property tax reduction. Unfortunately, County Commissioners Lesley Dahlkemper, Andy Kerr, and Tracy Kraft-Tharp didn’t want to issue the 2020 refunds in an efficient way, instead, they chose to spend $200,000 in postage to send $1.5 million dollars in rebate checks to residents.

The commissioners chose to unnecessarily spend that money so that they could then introduce a recently concluded promotional tour gauging feedback on whether they would be successful in eliminating all or parts of the TABOR revenue caps.  County voters decidedly said no to a similar effort in 2019.  In addition, they are polling meeting participants about an alternative sales tax increase.

The problem is that those who have read the county promotional literature and attended the meetings haven’t been given all the facts.

Click (HERE) to go to Complete Colorado to continue reading this story.

May 06

Democrats’ top legislative priority: re-election

Posted on by

Democrats’ top legislative priority: re-election

    • By Mark Hillman

 050522-cp-web-oped-hillman-1

Mark Hillman

God saw fit to stop at 10 commandments, but politicians can’t leave well enough alone, so a series of “Eleventh Commandments” apply to them. One of those admonishes: Thou shall not make the voters more cynical.

This year, Democrats at our State Capitol are breaking that commandment, too.

So, let’s take a little walk down memory lane and remember this journey through Election Day.

Last week, Gov. Jared Polis and legislative Democrats tossed aside 30 years of fierce opposition to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) which they’ve blamed for everything from crumbling roads to failing schools. Instead, they held a press conference to tout “their” plan to send every taxpayer a $400 check barely one month before voters receive their general election ballots.

There’s just one problem: that money already belongs to taxpayers.

Continue reading →

May 02

Did TABOR violations occur? Court to hear claim about PAID FAMILY LEAVE

Posted on by

PAID FAMILY LEAVE

Did TABOR violations occur? Court to hear claim

By Shelly Bradbury

The Denver Post

The Colorado Supreme Court next week will consider whether the state’s fledgling family and medical leave program violates the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights amendment to the Colorado Constitution.

The legal challenge, to be argued on Tuesday, focuses on funding for the newly voter-approved program, which will, beginning in 2024, offer up to 12 weeks of paid time off to most Colorado workers who are either sick or caring for their newborns or seriously ill family members.

Also known as Proposition 118, the $1.2 billion program was approved in 2020 by voters in a 57% to 43% vote.

The state will begin funding the program in January 2023 by collecting between 0.45% and 0.9% of employees’ annual pay from employees and their employers, with some exceptions.

That premium could be increased to as much as 1.2% of wages after 2025.

Those premiums are at the center of the legal challenge by Chronos Builders, a Grand Junction homebuilding company, which argues the fees are surcharges on income that violate TABOR, which requires that all income “be taxed at one rate … with no added tax or surcharge.” Continue reading →

Apr 18

The Colorado Title Board & TABOR

Posted on by

The April 20th Title Board Hearing has a notable 60 proposals on the agenda because it’s the last chance to get title set for the 2022 ballot. Although the list of potential ballot issues is long, many are variations with a slight tweak.  After title setting, the proponents must do the hard (or expensive) work of getting enough signatures.

Nearly a 1/3 of the proposals pertain to alcohol licensing, sales, and delivery.

Property taxes are another hot topic. Pro-taxpayer advocates are presenting relief in the form of a 2%-3% cap on property taxes.

Bigger government advocates propose a new tax on “Luxury Residential Real Property,” defined as $2 million or more. New revenues would be turned over to government to address affordable housing.  On that same theme, there’s a proposal to increase the income tax rate which would be spent on government-overseen affordable housing.

Another group wants to increase taxes from income tax by reducing deductions, putting increased taxation towards free school lunches for certain public schools – an expenditure of $60 – $140 million dollars a year.

Protecting the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights begins before a ballot issue hits the street. The public can testify at the title setting meeting to get transparent language about the financial effects. If you’ve been around Colorado long enough you know that proponents of tax increases will actually try to have the question read, “without raising taxes” if they can get away with it. As we know, if you end up with less money in your pocket because of a tax policy change, that’s a tax increase.

Currently, there’s a legal battle just filed with the Supreme Court over initiatives #62-65, called Additional Revenue to State Education Fund.  Proponents are attempting to claim the measures are not a tax increase. Any of the four variations would reduce or completely eliminate our expected rebates from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights over the next two years. Since there is no sunset, we would give up a substantial amount of our future refunds if #62-65 moves forward.

You can find the ballot proposals at the Colorado Secretary of State website under Elections & Voting and Initiatives & Title Board. You’re looking for the section titled Awaiting Initial Hearing.

You can testify remotely. The meeting is Wednesday, April 20 starting at 9 am. https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3996912106274902539

Email the Title Setting Board at initiatives@coloradosos.gov. Emails should be sent by Tuesday midday at the latest. Otherwise, listen in remotely and chime in when it’s time. It’s going to be a long meeting.

 

Natalie Menten
TABOR Board Member

Apr 09

Conservatives file lawsuit to invalidate Colorado’s new transportation fees. Here’s what it claims.

Posted on by

Senate Bill 260, passed by Democrats in 2021, enacted new fees on gasoline purchases, deliveries and Uber and Lyft rides to raise billions for transportation projects

7:23 AM MDT on Apr 8, 2022

Traffic flows along Interstate 70 west of Floyd Hill in Clear Creek County on Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2022. (Andy Colwell, Special to The Colorado Sun)

Colorado’s new transportation fees violate the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and several other state finance laws and should be invalidated, two conservative groups and Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg claim in a long-promised lawsuit filed late Thursday in Denver.

Senate Bill 260, passed by Democrats in the legislature last year, enacted a host of new transportation fees — including on gasoline purchases, deliveries and Uber and Lyft rides — to raise money for road and transit projects across the state.

To continue reading this story from the Colorado Sun, please click (HERE):
Apr 07

Kerr vs. Polis Lawsuit Update

Posted on by

There was excellent news last month.  It appears the Plaintiffs have decided not to move forward with the existential threat to TABOR, ending the Kerr vs. Polis lawsuit!

The TABOR Foundation has been coordinating a national coalition of 19 freedom organizations that were ready to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the US Supreme Court.  We won’t have to write it after all.

When the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (sitting en banc) issued its ruling last December that was favorable to our position, you could have bet your bottom dollar that the Plaintiffs would continue the lawsuit.  Many left-of-center people and organizations have been pushing this case for over a decade.

The next step in the process would have been for Plaintiffs to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking the Court to take up the case (for a second time).  Such a petition had to have been filed by a March 14 deadline, but was not.

The Judgment dismissed the case for failing to state a claim upon which the Court could grant relief for the remaining Plaintiffs, who consisted of a few school districts and other political subdivisions of the State of Colorado.  Originally the Plaintiffs also included individual legislators and citizens.  The individual legislators had been denied standing to sue because they only alleged institutional injuries to the government and none to themselves as legislators.  And the individual citizens did not even allege whether or how TABOR injured them personally.

With respect to the school districts and other political subdivisions, the Court ruled that the US Constitution does not provide political subdivisions with rights against their parent states.  Moreover, none of the Plaintiffs identified any other law providing them with a claim for relief to challenge TABOR.

The Court of Appeal’s dismissal was “without prejudice,” so the Plaintiffs could try a new filing.  We’ll keep watch just in case.

The heart of the Plaintiffs’ legal theory, that citizens are prohibited from placing restrictions on certain legislative powers, was extremely dangerous to the fundamental principles of limited government.

Friends of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights can breathe a sigh of relief and celebrate, for now.

 

Mar 01

Update on Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff and Proposition 116

Posted on by

In 2020, Colorado voters approved Proposition 116, which reduced the state’s income tax rate from 4.63 to 4.55 percent. Due to the state’s application of certain provisions of TABOR, however, taxpayers will effectively lose out on the rate reduction for the first several years.

Naturally, voters expected that Proposition 116 would allow them to keep more of their own money. A close look at documents maintained by Legislative Council Staff (LCS), however, reveals that things did not work out how voters expected. Tax rates went down, but constitutionally mandated tax refunds — known as “TABOR refunds” — fell by the exact same amount, negating taxpayer savings from the voter-approved tax cut.

It’s a bit complicated, but here’s how it works.

Article X of the state constitution — commonly known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR — sets limits on the amount of tax revenue the state can collect each year. If revenues, including income-tax collections, surpass the TABOR limit, the excess gets refunded back to voters.

Picture state coffers as a silo and revenues as grain filling it up. In a good year, there may be more bounty than what the silo can hold. In that case, the overflow goes back to the people.

Each year, the limit — or the size of the silo — increases based on population growth and inflation, allowing government spending to grow automatically. If the state wants to collect or keep tax monies at a level higher than automatic growth permits, it must win voter consent at the ballot.

When voters reduced revenues last year, they voted to decrease the amount of grain put into the silo by a specified amount. In executing the will of the people, the state reduced the amount of grain but put it in the same, larger silo. At the lower income-tax rates, the harvest (i.e. revenues) would have to be exceptionally good to fill up the same silo and trigger a refund.

Incidentally, state revenue forecasts show very bountiful times ahead and refunds for at least four consecutive years despite all this. That means that for at least this year and the next three, smaller refunds will offset the voter-approved tax cuts unless additional reforms are adopted.

Read plainly, TABOR appears to guard against this outcome by requiring the limit to be “adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters.” LCS evidently has a different interpretation—one which has effectively stripped voters of their tax cut.

Governor Jared Polis has lauded the income tax cut on multiple occasions and even said that he supports eliminating the state income tax entirely. He can demonstrate fidelity to his own rhetoric and to the state constitution by directing the Colorado Department of Revenue to adjust the TABOR limit for the “revenue changes approved by voters” with Proposition 116.  Alternatively, the General Assembly could set a new, lower TABOR limit to reflect the new tax rate. Either solution would cause voters to receive their full refunds and benefit from the income tax reduction they adopted in 2020.

Ben Murrey, Fiscal Policy Center Director with the Independence Institute