Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />e2 <br /> <br />3 <br />4 <br /> <br />5 <br />6 <br /> <br />7 <br />8 <br /> <br />9 <br />10 <br /> <br />II <br />12 <br /> <br />13 <br />14 <br /> <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />~~ <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br /> <br />-~ <br /> <br />TABLE 2 <br />Examples of Tax CUTS Reductions <br /> <br />Estimated Tax Redllction f(ll lIollseholds ~ith the <br />FolI(l~ving Chll.ladelistiu. ~ ~ ~ <br />II~)j1J",h.3Id 1. S;ugl", (.".,IO:>VII, Iu.....vJu.... $:5,988, 1 Vdl.;d..., R......L, UJI <br />apluLul",uL m $t49 $Z63- <br />IIoduhala 2. ryllhl;~d ,",vupl..., lu",vuIG. $75,888, Z VGL;d.:..:>, 0.....:> u <br />$lSe,8S81.vm(,. ~ $5-te ~ <br />I16I:1u.hold 3. ~tu.II:...d ....vtlj:)k, I,K,)H~.... $1:5,f)(38,:: \',J.;",k!, Oy..~.:> u <br />$:88,8881lVUI\.... ~ $633- $%1 <br /> <br />Estimated Tax CUTS Rcdll<:tion for Households with the <br />Following Characteristics: 2001 2002 2003 <br />Household 1: SINGLE PERSON, OWNS AN II-YEAR OLD CAR, RENTS AN <br />APARTMENT, AND HAS AVERAGE MONTHL Y UTILITY EXPENSES OF $100 $77 $154 $209 <br />Household 2: SINGLE PERSON, OWNS A 3-YEAR OLD CAR, OWNS A HOME <br />AND PA YS PROPERTY TAXES TO FOUR DISTRICTS, AND HAS AVERAGE $126 $380 $578 <br />MONTIlL Y UTILITY EXPENSES OF $158. <br />Household 3: MARRJED COUPLE, OWNS A 9-YEAR OLD CAR AND A 3-YEAR <br />OLD CAR, RENTS AN APARTMENT, AND HAS AVERAGE MONfHL Y UTILITY $124 $279 $410 <br />EXPENSES OF $100. <br />Household 4: MARRJEDCOUPLE, OWNS A 3-YEAR OLD CAR AND A I-YEAR <br />OLD CAR, OWNS A HOME AND PAYS PROPERTY TAXES TO SIX DISTRICTS, $151 $555 $862 <br />AND HAS AVERAGE MONTHLY UTILITY EXPENSES OF $158. <br /> <br />State replacement of local revenue. The proposal provides that state replacement <br />of local revenue cannot reduce taxpayer refunds and that the state MAY <:an limit local <br />actions that increase STATE replacement costs. However, the proposal does not specifically <br />direct the state to provide money to offset local government tax reductions. <br /> <br />Arguments For <br /> <br />I) State and local taxes are too high and should be reduced. COMPARED <br />WITH OTHER STATES, Colorado's local sales taXes PER PERSON are the 3RD z.m' highest in-the <br />comltt) AND TOTAL LOCAL 1'.0]:>'. ty taxes are the 9ill ~tlt highest, WHILE and state income <br />taxes are the 15TH 25tlt highest. State tax revenue has quadrupled in the last 20 years AND <br />INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES ARE SEVEN TIMES HIGHER THAN 20 YEARS AGO. This proposal <br />saves the average family over $450 in the first full year and higher amounts in following <br />years, giving Coloradans more money to spend or save as they choose. <br />2) State and local revenue WILL EXCEED $25 BILLION IN 2001 AND WILL <br /> <br />-3- <br />