President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 05, 2011 01:06 AM UTC
50 Comments
Loading ...
I’m just sayin’
But not a bad idea, either. Just bad timing.
Yea it will always be difficult, but 2011 may be as good as it gets. Off-year election which means low turnout of relatively informed voters, plus a news cycle of cuts to K12, higher education, and Medicaid that people will feel. Plus the economy is starting to pick up, we are not in the depth of a recession.
I feel like people are very aware of Colorado’s revenue situation and know that we have to do something.
When the economy gets better? After we’ve bankrupted our higher education system? Made massive cuts to K-12?
2012 would be a mess for a whole number of reasons, 2013 will come to late to prevent draconian cuts…
Softie, I agree; I think there is an underestimated appetite to fix Colorado’s revenue disparity.
is there any chance of it getting anywhere. I agree with Ralphie. It won’t. Not this year.
I can’t believe that Hickenlooper is going to stoop to pick up the tar baby of an income tax hike in his very first year. It’s DOA for now.
RTD’s going back to the voters asking for a tax increase
the Oregon tax increase was relatively modest, compared to what CFPI is proposing — from the linked TPM article, it raised state income tax on incomes over $250,000, not on “all but the lowest earners.” And it doesn’t raise nearly as much money: the income and corporate increases together were “projected to raise $750 million over the next two years,” as opposed to maybe $1.5 billion annually from the CFPI bundle.
It’s going to be a tough sell if opponents can say “they want to double your tax rate,” and opponents will say that because all those pesky details about marginal tax rates are hard to communicate. Plus, a 9.5 percent state tax rate really does sound high …
I’m curious what the state’s flat income tax rate would have to be to get the same additional revenue as CFPI’s progressive structure. (So not including the corporate tax or EITC components.) It might be easier for voters to swallow returning the flat tax to 5 percent or that vicinity, though I’d imagine CFPI has looked into voter appetites.
I assume that the 9.5% rate does not kick in at $25,001. Where those graduations are, and what the percentages are, mean everything in terms of how salable the plan is.
This story does say that the final initiative could change, too, so we should talk about what progressive tax structure would accomplish the goal and still be palatable to voters.
Top bracket at $1 million. Unfortunately would not apply to me.
We need to be having this conversation. We need to be talking every year about Colorado’s broken fiscal house. We need the voters to understand where Colorado ranks compared to other states on just about everything.
CFPI is doing the state a great service if they can start us down that road, whatever happens to these initiatives.
Nitpicking these proposals is easy and it is fair to say that there might not be an “appetite” for this.
But after the JBC makes it’s final cuts for this year, folks might be whistling a different tune. Colorado’s residents need to make a decision about what kind of state they want to live in.
You’re right, folks might be whistling a different tune. But folks might not be, either, especially if the drastic cuts haven’t taken effect by this summer, when the campaign for this ballot measure will be taking place.
That’s the problem with all the accounting gimmickry and stimulus-infill the last couple years, the budget has been in terrible, horrible, awful shape — but people simply haven’t felt the pain. When drivers license offices cut hours and closed remote locations (among other cutbacks that were inconvenient and visible) back during the post-9/11 recession, there was no escaping that the state was hard up for funds. (Frankly, another huge difference between then and now was that no one expected to be mired in the same recession in another year, but we can’t say that today.)
A lot easier to make the arguments that led to Ref C in that climate than it is when the belt-tightening is causing future pain or abstract disparities like rankings between states.
Just sayin’.
but I do think it’s a long shot. A lot depends on the players that are willing to stick their necks out in support of such changes. Worth keeping an eye on for now.
And every year until it passes. It will always be bad timing in CO.
TABOR took 9 tries. It only had to pass once.
Of course, I would prefer to eliminate sales tax and replace with it real estate and income tax. Do that part revenue neutral, and then make the income tax more progressive.
Less reliance on sales tax, but I wouldn’t increase property tax since its a tax on wealth not income. Despite vehement opposition from real estate interests and home builders, we might see at least some of the mortgage interest deduction eliminated since the federal budget is trillions in red ink.
We need a progressive state income tax that raises adequate revenue. Our present tax system for raising revenue is so dysfunctional it’s a joke. Witness the attempt to appropriate 500 million from Pinnacol.
Be that as it may, it will be a hard sale to voters.
Much depends on the structure, I’d throw in getting rid of a few pain in the ass for businesses taxes that don’t collect much money.
OR we could just cut $1.2 billion from schools, colleges, transportation and the programs that benefit the least among us.
Just sayin’.
Maybe we can turn off the lights in state buildings and offices when no one is in the room.
And wear sweaters.
And look where it got him.
I think the voting public does recognize a growing crises, and that serious actions, even if unpopular, need to be taken.
We need brave politicians willing to make tough decisions now. The decisions won’t get any easier. Look, some facts to consider:
Observations on the economy, based on a viewing of the Federal Bank of Dallas:
http://dallasfed.org/data/data…
1.The real value of the dollar started a slow and steady decline in mid-2001, about six months before Obama was elected.
2.Exports and Imports were fueled by credit. In early 2008 credit stopped. The chilling effect of no available credit has been clear in all indicators, except the NYSE.
3.Real GDP tanked in 2008 and, as a result of current Obama led pilicies, has returned to positive numbers in 2009.
4.The recession that started mid-2007 and ended mid-2009 was a historic negative employment period. Initial claims have been steadily dropping since mid-2009, but the unemployment rate has seen little change, hovering between 9.5% and 10%.
5.Housing starts fell off the map starting early 2006.
6.Home Sales fell off strongly starting late-2005, showing modest gains since mid-2009.
7.New orders for durable goods falls off the map in early 2008.
8.Purchasing Managers Index has rebounded strongly in 2009.
9.Average Hourly Earnings severely depressed starting late-2008.
10.Short Term Interest Rates started to fall rapidly in late-2007, and have been at near zero since 2008.
11.Volatility follows the credit cycle like night follows day, and periods following credit booms are marked by high volatility, for example, 2000-2003 and 2007-2008.
12.Going forward, higher economic volatility, combined with a secular downtrend in economic growth, will create more frequent recessions. This is likely to lead to more market volatility as well.
13. If you push commercial and industrial (C&I) loans forward two years, it predicts increases in the Market Volatility Index (VIX) almost down to the month. We should expect heightened episodes of volatility for the next two years at a minimum.
14.Increased globalization actually makes the world more volatile through extended supply chains!
15.Longer supply chains have enormous macroeconomic implications. As the Economic Cycle Research Institute points out, we’re now experiencing the bullwhip effect, “where relatively mild fluctuations in end demand are dramatically amplified up the supply chain, just as a flick of the wrist sends the tip of a bullwhip flying in a great arc.” The bullwhip effect makes greater export dependence very dangerous to supplier countries, which only contributes to cyclical volatility. This is easily seen in Figure 4.9 (in the link). That is why Asian countries had some of the largest downturns and steepest upturns in the Great Recession and the following recovery.
My point? We’ve experienced and are still in the most severe, structural downturn in 4 generations. The game has changed. Boldness and creativity is required, not pandering for re-election.
to rebut that Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater was a bad idea?
You’re on a roll today, Robin.
but everything to do with the fact that citing President Carter is irrelevant.
And, although humor may be the best medicine, it won’t cure our economic ills.
that it’s their fault.
That’s where Jimmy Carter and the sweater came from.
If you have a better point of view to sell to the voters, now is the time.
If you can blame our problems on someone else, you have a chance of winning.
Speaking as one of the people who will see his taxes go up a bit, here’s how I think you sell it (at least to business owners).
1. Get rid of the business property tax.
2. Get rid of the use tax.
It looks like it would still increase revenues even with dropping those two high overhead taxes.
The other thing the state needs to do to sell this is get competent leadership into DoR. If people figure implementation will be a mess, that is a strong incentive against the measure.
With that said, even as is this is something I would vote for. Those of us that make more should pay more. (But I reserve the right to scream bloody murder when Roxy Huber makes paying the higher rate a gigantic mess.)
then you have to also repeal Gallagher at the same time, or else you’ll simultaneously eliminated personal property tax income. You’d have to word the amendment carefully if you want to get past TABOR’s single-subject restriction with that. And frankly, I think there are a lot of real estate developers out there sitting on a lot of commercial properties that were never full even in a booming economy; we don’t IMHO need further incentive for developers to focus on commercial property that we don’t need or want.
I do agree with dropping the use tax – it’s too hard to enforce and too much work for everyone involved.
It would be nice for businesses if we could go to a statewide sales tax rate, but given our State Constitution and the probability of overcoming the egos of all the county and city officials who’ve got their own rates figured out Just Fine Thank You, that’s probably a non-starter.
There’s something called, I think, the business personal property tax. It’s a tax on some kinds of equipment at the office. We estimate we spend about $500.00 determining we owe $350.00 each year.
Regular property tax I think we should keep.
And I agree with you on that one.
You’ve mentioned doing away with this tax a couple of times. If we could figure out a way to get rid of the BPPT, it would make many people, whom have troubled over this for more than a decade, very happy.
However, revenue loss for local governments would be devastating and the loss of revenue for the state would result in a mandated backfill for education funding.
Neither local governments nor the state has money to backfill the significant loss of revenue.
I would love to see the Business Personal Property Tax go away. I think the recordkeeping is onerous. I have never once had to pay it, but I need to keep track of every computer, monitor, desk, and chair and file every year. The depreciation schedules are ridiculously long for things like computers. It’s a pain.
Every year, it seems, someone runs a bill to eliminated it. And every year, CCI opposes it, saying certain counties depend on the revenue.
Say, one where the Legislature could replace the tax with a different revenue stream, then I’m sure CCI would get behind it. The reason they oppose any such legislation is that there’s no replacement revenue, because the Legislature has its hands tied.
I’d oppose it to were I a commissioner whose county budget was tied to that revenue.
Most of the revenue for the BPPT is paid by coal plants, mostly in small (population) counties. It’s a big chunk of their income. That income stream needs to be replaced.
So we put in a carbon tax – for major emitters only. And that would be… the coal plants. They’ll be happier because the tax payment will stay constant but the overhead will drop a lot. Local governments are fine because they still have their income.
And businesses are much happier and become more open to the idea of re-working other taxes because a bit PITA was removed.
Do you have any other arrows in your quiver?
I think reducing any one tax will require increasing another tax to balance it.
There is no easy solution. If there was, the problem would be fixed already. A carbon tax is a whole different problem.
Many counties without coal plants depend on BPPT. Besides, the revenue loss is just one significant part of the arguement. Keep in mind that exempting any portion of the value of BPPT requires a reduction in residential assessed value, because of Gallagher.
So not only would you be screwing counties out of one significant source of revenue, you would also lower the assessed value of residential values, screwing them on their other revenue stream.
Which is all fine and dandy if you don’t need social services delivered, or roads maintained or county jails.
I’m not being facetious, Dave. But minds a lot sharper than yours have tried tackling this for many years without finding an answer – yet.
Not the regular business property tax. The bPpt is mostly small bucks except for some large facilities like power plants. And for most small businesses the cost of calculating it is generally more than the tax paid.
From an issue brief from 1997
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…
I’m fine with paying the same total in taxes. I just want to do so more efficiently. So what if the bPpt was eliminated and the commercial property tax was increased to make up that loss?
Please can we kill off Gallagher and TABOR soon?
It was a separate issue that was opposed by Doug Bruce.
But getting in line with single-subject is likely part of the reason the proponents of progressive tax have submitted multiple versions.
is another person’s ballot box/campaign gold mine. “Another person”, in this case is drooling all over this.
I’m not saying I disagree that it’s needed, and the “if not now, when?” argument is sound, but it won’t matter how much revenue the state has if the Republicans are in the majority of the legislature. The cuts will keep coming, and it will be up to Hickenlooper to veto or sign. I don’t know about you, but that prospect doesn’t sound too fun to me.
Even though I’m not a fan of the piecemeal approach, I think there’s far more willingness from the voters to go along with a tax increase for, say, higher ed, but not just a massive influx of revenue to the general fund. It’s needed, absolutely, but if it goes down in flames and takes the Democrats down with it…? High risk, high reward I guess.
But what’s the alternative? To say we dare not do anything that might threaten the offices we hold? If that holds us back, then we’ll never accomplish anything hard.
And unfortunately the track record isn’t great. Ref. C was a success, but Ref. D was narrowly defeated. The last major tax increase was Amendment 58, and it was thoroughly defeated. Amendment 59 was also defeated, and that was money for K-12. Those were both in 2008 when Obama and Udall and Betsy Markey all tricked Democrats into thinking we were either a blue state or soon would be.
2010 corrected that attitude a bit, but I’m not inclined to believe that voters are going to approve such an ambitious overhaul of our tax code in 2011.
There is a bright side, which is it will be good for keeping Democratic campaign operatives’ wits about them until 2012, and it will be educative for future ballot initiative campaigns.
Besides, what else are donors going to do with their money?
Fluff, mostly, but the folks at NPR asked some ad consultants to brainstorm ads they’d like to run during the Superbowl to reclaim a positive image of the Federal Government.
Of course they came up with complete silliness that didn’t seem to actually address the issue of trust in the government, and they seemed to be stuck in a rut that said that any attempt to make government look better would be seen as partisan…
But NPR’s original request brings up a good point in relation to this diary: how are you supposed to sell a tax increase when people don’t believe in the government? If George Soros wants to spend some money here in this country, I would respectfully suggest that he start by doing exactly as NPR playfully suggested: take out some patriotic ads to boost the image of government here in this country. The ads don’t have to be partisan at all – I’d suggest going back through history to pinpoint great government accomplishments and the figures that advocated for them; heck – use Reagan and Bush 41 as often as possible to give less cover to today’s GOP whackos. (I know you read this blog daily so you know what checks you have to write to the bloggers, Mr. Soros; I’ll forgo my cut so you have some more to dump into this idea…)
Betty White, gets naked while being eaten by sharks while yelling about getting it in the can!