Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br /> <br />INCREASE BY MORE THAN $1.5 BILLION EACH YEAR. (.A......,d,d $14 bill;",u duJ ;ll(.,(."s...d by <br />$700111illi<'lll, ;u 1995 (tIlG last y...= fv. "h:ich data i~ a,lUldbk). The $25 annual increase in <br />the tax CUTS l(.du...t;vus will never completely eliminate ALL vehicle, income, or property tax <br />revenue. Most income tax bills increase by more than $25 each year. Taxes on utilities, <br />which are basic NEEDS s(.! v;...(.. that should not be taxed, will end. THE TAX CUTS WILL <br />CAUSE GOVERNMENT TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY SPENDING. Voters can STILL approve a <br />tax increase ANYTIME (11 tIlG fnttnG if they believe that government truly needs more money. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />8 3) This proposal provides the same tax relief to ALL 10 ".inww(. families-fuat <br />9 t1" "...aWry "ill 1(.(.(.; v(. $25 per tax - thus giving a larger percentage reliefto low AND <br />10 MIDDLE-income families. The tax CUTS lcdnct;ou~ are easy for citizens to understand and <br />II will be simple to administer. The tax CUTS ndnctioll5 are balanced, benefitting everyone <br />12 who PAYS has a utility hiM, VEHICLE ear, income t'IA I;ability, or property tax bill. <br /> <br />13 4) The tax CUTS !CduGt;M~ in this proposal could help the state's business <br />14 climate because Colorado's taxes will be more competitive with taxes in other states. Much <br />15 of the money saved by taxpayers will be spent, leading to increased retail sales, jobs, and <br />16 business investment within the state. <br /> <br />17 Arguments Against <br /> <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br /> <br />1) COLORADO'S CONSTITUTION ColOlado already limits the amount of <br />MONEY t=s and feGs that governments can keep. In the past three years, governments <br />have returned more than a billion dollars to COLORADANS ;t~ (.;t;LL." because of the <br />CONSTITUTIONAL (.tlh(.,.t j(. , GlltK limit. Additionally, dwilliS t1K past t"o y(.lu.., the state <br />RECENTLY has enacted tax CUTS Icdtl'I;6h~ saving taxpayers more than $400 million per <br />year. COLORADO'S Colo!ado stat<. aud Iv...d! taxes are already low: Colorado ranks 41" <br />overall when comparing the state and local tax burdens of all states. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />25 2) Less money will be available for the GOVERNMENT services that Colorado <br />26 citizens rely upon. State revenues will be reduced by $1.6 billion during the first five years, <br />27 affecting moneys available for highways, prisons, -and education, AND OTHER STATE <br />28 PROGRAMS. Local governments will experience a reduction of NEAR I. Y $5.1 billion during <br />29 the same period. If the state replaces the local revenue reductions, the amount of general <br />30 government services provided by the state WILL wotrld be reduced BELOW CURRENT LEVELS <br />31 by vu...-t1wd in Lv(. yClu.~. All taxpayers will pay for local services that benefit just a few, <br />32 such as fire protection, water, police, and recreation. Without state replacement, the <br />33 SERVICES pwp.... ty tltx(.s of many special districts will be eliminated within a few years. <br /> <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br /> <br />3) This proposal will disproportionately benefit the middle and upper classes. <br />Poor people are less likely to own property or pay income taxes. Approximately 35 percent <br />of the state's households rent an apartment or home and do not pay property taxes, while <br />24 percent of individuals do not pay income lax. Since the tax CUTS FOR SALES TAXES ON <br />FOOD AND NONALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ....du...t;vu. are taken against property and income <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />-4- <br />