You can vote how you like…..Dominion will ensure you vote how they want you to vote.
Printable View
You can vote how you like…..Dominion will ensure you vote how they want you to vote.
Read the details of Prop 120 very carefully. I even went online in search of more info on it. It is somehow tied to SB 21-293 and will result in a different result if the SB is not upheld. In 1 scenario it will include a reduction for single family homes. In the other scenario it will not. I would think they would drop it until they know the outcome of the SB. Confusing as hell, but just suggesting you research for yourself.
Yep. They word all of this bullshit with buzzwords like education and open spaces and it always tricks the uneducated and those with poor reading comprehension skills to vote ?yes? on their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbol
Hell, sometimes if I read the first couple of sentences I can see the appeal to some of it. Unfortunately when you read a little deeper you realize pretty quickly that it was all smoke and mirrors to distract voters from what they really want to do.
And like most of you any tax increase, extension of current taxes set to expire, or new taxes get a big ?no? from me. If their existing revenue was managed well and properly prioritized and was being put to use properly and they asked for a little more to better do good things with it then it might make me put a little more thought into it. Maybe.
Any downsides to 120?
I'll vote no on any tax increase on any other question, I don't give a damn what they're trying to tax. If they were asking to tax recreational heroin, I'm against it.
ETA: missed Rico's response from earlier. I'll have to dig on 120.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...2021-election/
Complete Colorado, Independence Institute's website, reviewing the ballots from a center right/ libertarian view.
Jurinsky and Zvonek claim to be pro-gun. They have warned that the current city council is ready to enact a gun ban after the election- Boulder style since the passing of that bill last year that allows municipalities to pass their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbol
They have gone to both Aurora gun stores and said they will stop the ban.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...ng-principles/
Amendment 78
Amendment 78 would deal with all forms of so-called custodial money coming from sources other than Colorado taxpayers, from federal grants to legal settlements. It would require the legislature to designate how the money is to be spent. While it is awaiting authorization, interest from custodial money, which currently creates additional unaccountable cash for the executive to dispense at its whim, would go to the general fund, also controlled by the legislature.
In short, Amendment 78 would make sure that custodial money was subject to the same regular order as the sales taxes or income taxes that you pay, and that the governor couldn?t just use it to pay off his friends.
Thanks for that info. As with others, I appreciate anything that will break through the double-speak and intentionally confusing language of the ballot measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbol
One of the things they love to put into the verbiage of these measures is "...without raising new taxes..." That "temporary tax increase" that they wanted wasn't enough so they want to continue getting your money. Meanwhile, somewhere else on the ballot they want you to approve new taxes too.
I saw an ad for Prop 120 on TV a few days ago. On the surface it sounded like it was a good thing for CO citizens - it isn't. When the ballot measure was initially approved, it potentially offered to reduce tax rates (by .6%) for single family homes. Sounds good; right? Except this would have only been good for 2 years. The trade off for getting 2 yrs of potentially reduced property taxes on your home? The state would have been allowed to keep $25M in excess taxes they'd collected - for 5 yrs in a row. So the citizens get a small reduction for 2 yrs while the state gets $25M each for 5 yrs. Not a good trade off. BUT WAIT... the CO Senate then passed a bill that changed how the tax break would work if Prop 120 passes and it was too late to re-write/re-submit the wording of 120. If 120 passes, the Senate bill would remove the temp tax rate decrease for single family homes and this decrease would only effect business and rental property homes (apartments). Do you think those renting apartments will see a decrease in their rent because the property owner isn't getting taxed as much - not a chance. So, there is no up side for home owners to approve this but the state will still get to keep $25M/yr for 5 yrs of OUR money that TABOR says should go back to the taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by sroz
Right?! They keep asking us to approve tax increases and the sheep keep approving them under the belief that the government will use the funds the way they told us they would. We get taxed yet fail to see any improvement where they told us we would. Then, as the tax increase is due to sunset they want us to approve an extension of the tax that gave us no benefit in the first place. Problem is, the sheep think "hell yeah I want better streets, better schools and better parks so I'll vote to extend this tax". So, the tax continues.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
If we can't get better accountability and transparency for the money they're already taking, I'll have to assume, based off of lack of improvement, that they wasted the money they've already gotten and will vote NO for every increase or continuation they request. No more blank checks.
ETA: As an example: MANY of the roads in Colorado Springs have been in horrible shape for many years. Popped tires, bent rims and damage to vehicles due to potholes was/is a real problem here (as I understand it is across the state). Knowing this is an emotionally charged item we had not 1, but 2 approved tax increases to pay to fix the roads. Within the last month I've finally seen *1* road that desperately needed repaving get repaved. This repaving came ~2-3 weeks after crews came in and repaired many sections of the road. Wait; what?... Yeah, they repaired the road in many sections (causing lane closures to dig out portions of the road and fill them in, etc) only to come through no more than 3 weeks later to strip out all of the pavement and re-pave the entire road. What a huge waste of money. This is the same stretch of road where patch crews would come in, dump a little asphalt in 3 of 8 potholes then move down the road 50 feet and fill in 3 of 10 potholes (always leaving the big potholes alone 'cuz, why not?)... Since they didn't do more than dump some asphalt and stomp it in, these potholes returned within a month.
Don't get me wrong. I've seen a lot of places where they've been spending the road repair tax dollars. All over town since these tax increases were passed they've been ripping out curbing and replacing it. "Hey, there's a nick in that concrete. We'd better rip out 20' of curbing and replace it!". Now I don't know about you, but I generally don't drive on the curbs, preferring to stay on the actual road instead. I don't think the taxpayers gave two shits about the curbs and actually wanted the freaking ROAD where they drive to be fixed. But see, if they don't fix the roads and spend all of the money to give us the best f'ing curbs in the nation they can come back to us later and tell us they just don't have enough money to finish fixing the actual roads.
When the Senate passed 21-293, they touted it as tax relief that makes prop 120 unnecessary. Then they added new categories of "property" so only hotels and multi families would see the tax rate reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Ross Kaminsky's summary
https://tinyurl.com/fvpkucrp
If Prop 120 passes, there are a few possible paths forward for those who support limiting the harmful impacts of Amendment B: First, sue the state legislature for passing a bill (SB293) with the obvious purpose of subverting the will of the voters. That argument would be correct and in a fair world it would likely win but in a state with a Supreme Court as bad as Colorado?s I think this is at most a 50/50 proposition and the only reason it could be that high is that the Court tends to prioritize votes of the people over competing acts of the legislature; I?m just not sure this is directly competing enough for the liberal judges on the Court to do the right thing. Second, if this passes there would be massive pressure on the legislature to reduce residential property assessment rates in particular, but, I?d hope, also commercial property rates. It?s not sustainable that homeowners would pay much higher property taxes (almost 10% higher per dollar of property value) than owners of condominiums or apartments. That won?t play well in
the suburbs that both parties need to win statewide elections so even Democrats might be forced to do something.
Ginsue, I don't see where 293 would be repealed if 120 passes.
Something else to consider is the Blue Book language is written by the legislature, often trying to slant it's content. If you read the bill's text, it states "ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE STATE".
Michael Fields, one of the bill's sponsors.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...elief-for-all/
Prop 120?s ballot language clearly states that it is a $1.03 billion property tax cut for both residential and non-residential property. That language was approved by the Colorado Supreme Court before it was officially placed on the ballot. The legislature then passed a bill to try to thwart the ballot measure. They also sent out the Blue Book ? which says the tax cut only applies to multi-family and lodging properties ? hoping that it would confuse voters enough to get them to vote no. Thankfully, the actual ballot language is what matters legally, not the Blue Book. If Prop 120 passes, we will take on the legislature in the courts to make sure everyone gets the tax cut that they voted for.
I have no doubt that enough citizens signed the petition.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbol
"Citizens" who like getting free shit are happy to ask the government to raise taxes on, basically, anyone who makes more than them, and use the money to give them more free shit. Or even on themselves, as long as they think they'll get more free shit out of it than they, personally, end up having to put in.