President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout





CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Deborah Flora




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*


CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen


CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Scott James




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 21, 2011 11:40 pm MST

Bell Policy Center challenges notion that Prop 103 will harm economic growth

  • by: TheBell

(Right back at ya, Victor Mitchell – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The Bell Policy Center today is releasing a report that reviews research on tax increases and their impact on job growth and economic development. Proposition 103, the only statewide ballot initiative, would raise taxes, returning income and sales tax rates to levels that existed in 1999. The revenue raised would help counteract deep cuts to the state’s education system.

Opponents have said Proposition 103 will cost Colorado jobs and frequently have misquoted statistics from a report commissioned by one opposition group.

The Bell Policy Center’s report reviews that report, along with another produced by opponents, and summarizes academic research on taxes and economic growth. It also presents data on the effects of tax increases enacted by other states.

In brief, the research shows:

• While tax increases tend to slow job growth, increases in state spending are likely to increase job growth.

• Several studies suggest that the increased number of jobs related to additional state spending would exceed the losses due to tax increases.

• At a minimum, it is likely that the effect of higher state spending and the tax increases in Proposition 103 will cancel each other out. The decline in job growth driven by tax increases will likely offset the increase in job growth created through additional education spending.

• Continued cuts in education spending will cost Colorado jobs.

• Further cuts in education will likely hurt the quality of our workforce, making Colorado less attractive to businesses and individuals looking to relocate.

In terms of attracting businesses — and jobs — to Colorado, while taxes matter, other factors, including the cost and quality of labor, quality of public services, proximity to markets and access to suppliers, are more important for businesses making location decisions.

Over the long term, investments in education that result in a better-educated and higher-skilled workforce will make Colorado more attractive to businesses and help drive our economic growth.


11 thoughts on “Bell Policy Center challenges notion that Prop 103 will harm economic growth

  1. Which is just plain silly. Five more years of weakened education,or five years of strengthened education? Even IF the rise in taxes will not, in some manner, be extended, and even IF the economy and tax revenues do not improve within five years, should we just abandon our kids and teachers for five years. I say vote for 103 now and, in the next five years, keep working toward improved funding for the future. Of all school districts in Colorado, Denver is probably least susceptible to “voter fatigue”. I hope 103 passes now and we address the long-term problems soon.

    (Non-disclaimer: I’m a longtime Denver property taxpayer with no kids in or out of school.)

  2. Over the long term, investments in education that result in a better-educated and higher-skilled workforce will make Colorado more attractive to businesses and help drive our economic growth.

    I would however add one thing to that. It’s effective investments that pay off so well. We have got to fix K-12.

  3. I already voted no on 103.  It contains a regressive sales tax.

    While I can appreciate those of you who get paid to write this shit, I implore you to consider the views of those of us who don’t get paid to write this shit.

    In fact, if you’re living on your retirement funds, as I am, you probably aren’t getting paid to write this shit.  But you’d still have to pay the regressive sales tax contained in this loser ballot initiative.

    Try connecting with Real People some time.  Try asking Real People how we feel about sales taxes.  It might improve your work product.

    1. Because according to your logic that would boost employment through the roof.

      Following your logic Somalia should be a paradise on Earth. (What a shame this country built wasteful tax funded boondogles like the transcontinental railroad, interstate highway system, and the FAA.)

      1. and stop signs and socialist sidewalks, economic productivity will shoot through the roof. All that money will course through the economy like crazy! Why can’t you libs see that?

    2. “=private sector job losses.”

      The public sector will gain about that many jobs in return, and the money that they earn will return almost entirely to the private sector through their normal living expenses.  In fact, a recent study indicates that hiring a public sector employee like a teacher generates a like number of private sector jobs for precisely this reason.

      The alternative is to cut the $500 million in education spending, laying off public sector employees (who will then no longer spend money in the private sector, which causes an additional loss of jobs).  Most taxpayers will put the money they’re not being taxed back into the private sector as normal living expenses, offsetting most of that private sector job loss… except for those who already make enough money to cover their living expenses; they might put the extra cash into Wall Street gambling houses to try and earn even more reduced-tax income (or a write-off for losses).

        1. In conservative-land, does money that the government spends on teachers, policemen, firefighters – heck, DMV workers – somehow not equal real life people earning money at jobs?

          I want to understand.  Help me, AGOP or someone, ’cause I don’t get it.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

36 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!