Did every single tax increase in the state pass yesterday?

[sniper7]

The only one I had any input on (Douglas county) was the pot sales tax surplus. I said give it back but was outvoted.

At first I thought maybe people were being dense. But then I wondered if voters hate the pot people so much they'd rather let the state spend it than give it back.

Liberals won big last night. Douglas and JeffCo school boards are going back to Dem/teacher's union control. In Douglas we had about 25% turn out county-wide. I'm not sure if Conservatives didn't want to pay the stamp to vote or what. Libs sure got out the vote.

Douglas really surprises me... The same group that got our voucher program taken away was just rewarded. I know a few non-political types who were really upset about losing vouchers.

I voted opposite of you on this one. The few bucks back wasn't worth it in my mind and I just don't care if the potheads get some money back or not.

locally the teachers really pushed 3c and I ended up voting for it due to the fact I know Brighton high school is terribly overcrowded, and mostly for selfish reasons because when we move I want my kids at a nice new elementary with good kids, not where they would have to go right now where they probably be in the minority of kids who don't speak Spanish.

[crays]

I voted opposite of you on this one. The few bucks back wasn't worth it in my mind and I just don't care if the potheads get some money back or not.

locally the teachers really pushed 3c and I ended up voting for it due to the fact I know Brighton high school is terribly overcrowded, and mostly for selfish reasons because when we move I want my kids at a nice new elementary with good kids, not where they would have to go right now where they probably be in the minority of kids who don't speak Spanish.

It's not about the paltry -$8 per person refund. It's not about the pot people. It's about not giving the already fiscally inefficient .gov an additional $66 million to waste.

A yes vote on BB is essentially a yes vote on more, bigger .gov.

Sent from my VS880 using Tapatalk

[PugnacAutMortem]

It's not about the paltry -$8 per person refund. It's not about the pot people. It's about not giving the already fiscally inefficient .gov an additional $66 million to waste.

A yes vote on BB is essentially a yes vote on more, bigger .gov.

Sent from my VS880 using Tapatalk

What do you care if a fiscally inefficient .gov wastes a bunch of money collected directly from the "pot people"? If you don't buy pot that isn't any of your money in the 1st place, so who cares if they put a solid gold bathroom in Hick's office with that money? The chances of them wasting all of that money is slim to none, so at least some of that money will go to something useful.

[crays]

What do you care if a fiscally inefficient .gov wastes a bunch of money collected directly from the "pot people"? If you don't buy pot that isn't any of your money in the 1st place, so who cares if they put a solid gold bathroom in Hick's office with that money? The chances of them wasting all of that money is slim to none, so at least some of that money will go to something useful.

So you're okay with empowering bigger govt?
You're okay with govt wasting money?

When the "extra" revenue dries up, where do you suppose the funding will come from for the "something useful" it created?

And it will essentially dry up, because now it is no longer "extra revenue", and it won't be long before they will be asking for more/new tax increases to sustain all the new programs.

Sent from my VS880 using Tapatalk

[Great-Kazoo]

What do you care if a fiscally inefficient .gov wastes a bunch of money collected directly from the "pot people"? If you don't buy pot that isn't any of your money in the 1st place, so who cares if they put a solid gold bathroom in Hick's office with that money? The chances of them wasting all of that money is slim to none, so at least some of that money will go to something useful.

I care since the .gov deserves NO EXTRA MONIES for anything other than the people it belongs to. IF you truly believe so at least some of that money will go to something useful.
You're part of the PROBLEM.
Has anyone seen improvements on our roadways since that FEE was tacked on to vehicle registration?? Cleaner air / skies, since Emissions were forced on us??

[PugnacAutMortem]

I care since the .gov deserves NO EXTRA MONIES for anything other than the people it belongs to. IF you truly believe so at least some of that money will go to something useful.
You're part of the PROBLEM.
Has anyone seen improvements on our roadways since that FEE was tacked on to vehicle registration?? Cleaner air / skies, since Emissions were forced on us??

I'm not going to assume how you voted on the recreational bill that passed, however I can say if you voted against it, I understand your position. I think you are mistaken, but I get where you are coming from.

[roberth]

It's not about the paltry -$8 per person refund. It's not about the pot people. It's about not giving the already fiscally inefficient .gov an additional $66 million to waste.

A yes vote on BB is essentially a yes vote on more, bigger .gov.

Sent from my VS880 using Tapatalk

I didn't care about how much money I got back or how much it cost to send my money back to me. I cared about the principle, the principle being that money belongs to the citizens and voting yes on BB affirms the govenment's idea that all money belongs to the government.

[crays]

I didn't care about how much money I got back or how much it cost to send my money back to me. I cared about the principle, the principle being that money belongs to the citizens and voting yes on BB affirms the govenment's idea that all money belongs to the government.

Thank you roberth. Your statement is exactly in line with my point, but more succinct.

[screagle2]

I didn't care about how much money I got back or how much it cost to send my money back to me. I cared about the principle, the principle being that money belongs to the citizens and voting yes on BB affirms the govenment's idea that all money belongs to the government.

It is those that only care if the action directly affects them, that contribute to our ever decreasing rights.
i agree with you 100%

[Gman]

It's not about the paltry -$8 per person refund. It's not about the pot people. It's about not giving the already fiscally inefficient .gov an additional $66 million to waste.

A yes vote on BB is essentially a yes vote on more, bigger .gov.

Hey, here's someone that 'gets it'. More money = more government = less freedom.

We've just green-lighted the government to understate expected revenues going forward. Any overages will be 'free money' to do with however they like. Might as well just convert TABOR to toilet paper and put it next to the roll formerly known as the Constitution.

As far as the dollars all belonging to the pot consumers, it's not just the consumers that were impacted by legalizing pot at the state level while it's still illegal at the federal level.

I'm afraid this state is lost, as is the rest of the country, due to large metro areas dictating the way it is to everyone else. States rights have also been usurped by the Feds.