Referendum c and d
Legislation is up for vote here in Colorado that will change the way our taxes work. I've been reading a lot on it today and trying to form and opinion, but it's difficult. As I understand things, under our current tax system, the budget is limited to either revenue from the previous fiscal year or last year's budget, whichever is lowest. Excess revenue collected over the budget is given back to tax payers as a refund. Since we've been in recession for the past few years, Colorado's budget is set pretty low, and there's been no refund. Now that we're coming out, legislators want to take a "time out" from giving the refund to allow Colorado to "get back on its feet" with the extra cash.
The limitations on our state government spending are set in the tax payer's bill of rights (TABOR). I'm naturally worried about any legislation that violates those rights. What if the government wanted to take a "time out" from our right to assemble? Our right to free speech? We have rights for a reason - to limit the government. For the government to ask us to give up those rights seems a little ridiculous to me.
Still, the "right to a tax refund if possible" is of little material benefit to me and not that important for my daily living. If the money were directed at programs we would really benefit from - to roads and education and healthcare - then it sounds good to me. We haven't had the refund for 3 years now anyway, since the revenue collected has been less than our budgeted limits.
The thing that really worries me is that these referendums also change the way in which our budgetary limitations are calculated. They want to change it so that the budget is set at the current rate times inflation times population increase. This seems like a logical thing to do, but this study indicates that had we had such a limit back in 2000, we'd now be hugely in debt and the government way over-budgeted. It effectively sets the "limit" so high it'll never be reached. As Charles has recently pointed out, part of the basis of democracy is limited power. I don't want to live in a state spun out of economic control, like California in the pre-Governator years.
It's also upsetting that the state is still giving out grants to so many less important things than education and roads, like art. I know this is a conservative soap-box topic, but last year our state gave over a million dollars in art grants. $5,000 was used for a display of ceramic dildos. Almost $20k was spent on video game development. $44k was directed to an online poetry contest. What's the deal? If we're really in an economic depression and need this money to "stay afloat" and "stay competitive", to fund firefighter and police Officer pensions, then shouldn't we be cutting back on some of our "less than necessary" programs first? Give me roads, and then let's vote on funding art.
Last, I'm worried that if passed the money won't get to where it's supposed to be. There's no specific legal provision to ensure that this money goes where it's supposed to - to education, roads, etc. Programs like this are notorious for being exploited for pet projects, like when Sen. Leahy tried to dip into the emergency counter-terrorism money to fund a fish study in his home state.
I'm interested to hear more moderate perspectives. Like I said, I really like the summaries of these bills. I love everything the proponents are saying. But I can't find a single place where they address the fears I've cited above, and that looks a lot like dodging the issue to me. I'd really like to hear what any well reasoned liberal has to say about this. I want to vote for these referendums, but unless I see some evidence that our budget will remain responsibly limited and the money go where it's supposed to, I don't see any way that I can.
posted by RJ @ 9:49 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Well reasoned liberal - ha! Ckuhx very much!
Maybe after a few years of rebates you can afford to buy your own ceramic dildo.
I'll list a few thoughts about Barnabas's comment, talk about what happened in my state, Virginia, in 2003, and then give my opinion about what you should do.
barnabas18 wrote: "I'd say as a political rule, never vote to put more money in the government's hands."
That's a principle that can't possibly be consistently applied, because if we followed it we never would have created any government at all. It also would not permit making sacrifices, increasing taxes or buying bonds during times of need, like during World War II, right after 9/11 or during hurricanes. Now, I'm certainly not making the opposite case, that we should always vote to give more money to the government; I'm saying there is no one rule when it comes to taxation and revenue.
"The answer is not that the government needs more money, but rather the taxpayers need more money to stimulate economic growth."
In general, that's true, but again, it can't just be applied across the board. There are certain things in this country that we've decided we want the government to do, like education and Social Security. Until, or if, we return those things to private hands, you can't just not fund them.
The contrast between stagnant economies like those in Europe and growing economies like China's and ours is clear, and the Laffer curve seems to me to be correct. UNFORTUNATELY, it doesn't spit out one number--like 27%--that citizens should be taxed at for the most economic growth. We know from the curve it shouldn't be 0% or 100%, and we know from Sweden and France it shouldn't be 60%, but that's all we know. We're still experimenting with all of this.
See this post for more about taxation and personal growth.
http://pragmaticism.blogspot.com/
2005/08/tax-challenge.html
Virginia, a state exploding with economic growth right now, had its own budget crisis in 2003. Governor Mark Warner responded with 16 initiatives, 11 of which have been passed into law, in order to turn the state around. Here's what they were:
Tax Cuts
-Raise the income tax filing threshhold (minimum income at which you must file a return)
-Raise the personal exemption
-Reduce the sales tax on food
-Eliminate the marriage penalty
-Provide tax relief to military and National Guard families
-Provide tax incentives for small businesses to invest in Virginia
Restructuring the Tax System
-Reform the age deduction (based on income)
-Increase the state sales tax
-Close some corporate loopholes (intangible holding companies)
-Require corporations using "pass through entities" to report their shareholders' earnings in Virginia
-Increase the state cigarette tax
You can see that it was a MIX, a restructuring of increases and decreases in taxation.
I'm all for money going to roads instead of art. In a democracy we fund with taxes the things we all agree we need--education, Social Security, defense. The rest, even if we passionately think it's worthwhile, has to be left in the private sector.
So, redhurt, I'm going to have to say that I think that reinvesting what would be your refund into the system will benefit you much more in the long run. Here's why.
Colorado is growing. Its Hispanic population is growing as well. The new services and other things needed are best provided (whether you like it or not) by the government. It's in your best interest to have a healthy, well-educated population. So, while a $200 or $1000 one-shot refund might be nice, reinvestment in the state infrastructure at this time will make Colorado a much better place to live in the near future. This does NOT mean that this is always the right decision; sometimes it's better to take the refund. In this case, however, I think you should go with getting Colorado back on its feet.
well said, sir.
I hate toting the conservative party line. Living for so long in such a conservative environment, I feel compelled to try and be "understanding" and "non-partisan" by really listening to the ideas democrats put forward and voting for them when they're not terrible.
But right now, I don't see any choice with C and D. Our schools will not die and our administrators will keep making 6 figures and our roads will not fall apart. Their scare tactics and, as far as I've seen, absolute refusal to honestly address my fears about the change to TABOR leaves me no choice but to vote against this.
Chuck: I don't disagree. I WANT to give them back my refund. The problem is that that isn't all they're asking for - they want to fundamentally change the way the budget is limited, basically removing the limits, and the proponents of these ref.'s won't publically discuss why that's an acceptable thing to do - at least not anywhere I've been able to find.
I'm not opposed to giving them money I don't need if it will truly benefit my state. The conservative in me doubts that it will, but I'm willing to take that chance. But that's not all they're asking for, so I don't think I can vote for this.
They should just include a spot in our state taxes asking if we'll authorize them to keep our refunds, and promise the money will go to the places they're saying it will in this.
I see what you're saying, and when I initially read how they were changing the budget limits I was skeptical too--I thought changing the budget rules and reinvesting the refund might be two separate issues. Too bad.
yeah - that's how I feel too.
Charles- I think you are a little overly positive on the effects of this money. The reason that I am against giving the government more of my money, is that most of the time it squanders what money I already give them. If it comes down to it, I say let state budgets run into a crisis and make them start cutting non-essentials and being more efficient with the money they have. I know you think that letting the government waste billions of dollars in bureaucracy ends up being as productive as letting that money be used by the private sector, but I disagree. Only when the government stops subsidizing artists to make crap we don't want, and farmers to grow food there is no market for, will I voluntarily give money.
Jack, you're only ready to let the state programs run into the ground because you don't depend on them.
But then again, welfare and public education will NOT go away in Colorado if ref. c and d don't pass.
jackscolon: you wrote, "[Charles], you think that letting the government waste billions of dollars in bureaucracy ends up being as productive as letting that money be used by the private sector."
That's absolutely false. I've never said that and I don't hold to that. What I have said is that (1) private enterprise is not in every case more efficient than government enterprise, and (2) even inefficiently spent government dollars are still not "wasted" in the sense that gas is wasted when you sit idling in traffic. They could be used more effectively and efficiently, absolutely, but the government doesn't set them on fire. Look at the example of paying artists who make stuff that everyone hates. Bad use of the money? We should come up with a better one? Absolutely. Is that money removed from our economy somehow? Absolutely not. The artist spends it on expenses and the private sector gets it back (after taxes.)
I'm not Johnny Crusading Liberal, Defender of the Government. I hate bureaucracy. There are some things I want privatized. But in this country, where the line between public and private is blurry, and where government employs millions of people, you can't just act like choices are that simple. That's ALL I'm saying.
I wish “Conservatives” would realize that public art is as important as anything else tax dollars could be spent on; even when the art in question isn’t popular.
My word verification is Oajcy, who, coincidently, is a famous Swedish dildo artist.
How can art be more important than roads, health care, defense? This doesn't mean that we need to fund defense ALWAYS instead of art - only that there's no point to museums if there are no roads to get to them or no people to go and see them. It's a hierarchy of needs. Art isn't un-important, but it's definitely not as important as anything else.
Post a Comment
<< Home