Amendment 59 backers should send refunds to schools

Let the “begathon” begin! That’s what educators would need to raise school funding because Amendment 59 failed, said Colorado Association of School Boards director Jane Urschel (“Despite defeat, Ritter aims for budget fix,” Nov. 6).

But fundraising should be easy – if 59′s supporters simply put their money where their vote is. Since 59 failed, taxpayers will receive a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Why not donate it to schools?

Amendment 59 would have sent about $50 million in annual tax surpluses to government schools. Since almost a million Coloradans voted for it, that’s a $50 donation each. As a tax-deductible donation, it’s even less. Just forgo dinner and a movie one weekend.

Surely voters who want government to spend their own tax refund – and everyone else’s – on government schools would donate voluntarily, right? Or would they prefer to support a school of their choice, a scholarship fund, or other causes they deem worthwhile?

In a previous essay I addressed a common argument against the above point of view:

Another common argument in support of [taxing people to pay for schools] is that “we all benefit from it.”… In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it.  We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

(What does this have to do with Barbara Streisand?  She supports tax-funded schools. (Photo credit.))

Amendment 59 Raises Taxes

Re: “SAFE gets Colorado back on track,” Sept. 25 Gail Schoettler column.

Amendment 59 is based on deception, and former Colorado State Treasurer Gail Schoettler perpetuates this deceit.

Amendment 59 would raise your taxes. Schoettler denies this, saying that “Amendment 59 will ensure that your tax rates will stay exactly the same as they are now.”

But Amendment 59 would raise taxes without raising tax rates. The Colorado Constitution guarantees taxpayers a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Amendment 59 would force us to donate this refund to a so-called “Savings Account for Education.” That’s a tax increase. Ms. Schoettler’s mentioning constant tax rates is misleading.

A second deceit is that Amendment 59 is a “Savings Account for Education.” There’s a difference between education and government-funded schools. Just Google “college illiteracy.” Further, Schoettler writes that 59 “frees up money for critical things our citizens need.” That is, not schools. If you want to spend your own money on education not favored by politicians, tough luck. To Schoettler, the needs you want to finance with your own money are irrelevant.

Amendment 59 uses the “for the kids” sales pitch to give politicians a blank check from your bank account to spend your money on whatever they please.

A DIFFERING VIEW: Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes

The Rocky should regret endorsing the deceptive Amendment 59 (editorial, Sept. 19).

Like other proponents, the Rocky claims that 59 “is not a tax hike.” The Rocky continues, “it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] surplus occurs.”

How is this not a tax hike? The amendment’s supporters claim the money that would otherwise go to rebates would fund “education.” Yet the Rocky reports that it would “allow legislatures more opportunities for investing in other priorities.”

That is, not education. Instead of spending your own money on your priorities, politicians would spend your money on their priorities.  Amendment 59 would force you to donate to government-run schools, regardless
of your satisfaction with them. If you’d prefer to provide for your family, or donate your refund to schools or scholarships that politicians don’t favor, tough. Amendment 59 forbids it.

The amendment’s Web site claims to “protect our taxpayers.” From what, spending our money as we please?

For more on this, see VoteNo59.com.

Amendment 59 (or “SAFE”) is the proposed amendment to Colorado’s constitution that would increase your taxes by forever funneling your TABOR rebate back to the government, ostensibly to fund P-12 education.

You should vote NO on 59.  Why?  Because:

• It is a permanent tax increase.
• It isn’t about increasing funding for Colorado’s government schools.
• It violates property rights.
• It increases government interference in our economy and our lives.
• It will be bad for Colorado’s economy.
• It will be another boondoggle.
• It is deceptive.

Find out more at: http://www.VoteNo59.com

Those wishing to forcibly transfer more money from those who earn it to those who want it constantly review the benefits (real or imagined) of higher tax spending. What they generally ignore are the costs.

Sure, when the government transfers money from Alice to Ben, Ben gets to spend the money on something he wants. But Alice has less to spend on her needs and those of her family, and those with whom Alice does business also suffer.

When people evaluate economic opportunities, they tend to move to where they can keep more of what they earn — to spend, invest, or give away as they see fit — and live and work as they deem best, rather than as politicians demand. We Coloradans enjoy a relatively strong economy in large part because it remains a relatively free economy. Higher taxes threaten to alienate vibrant businesses, entrepreneurs, and young workers.

Higher taxes also reduce liberty. People have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Regardless of whether politicians and activists mean well in forcing some people to surrender their money to others, the practice is morally wrong.

As Ben DeGrow points out, Education Week has written that

State Treasurer Cary Kennedy (no relation to RFK Jr.) said that Democrats would win a ballot initiative to “drive a stake in the heart” of the state’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights…

Funny that she uses a vampire metaphor to describe the Taxpayers Bill or Rights, which limits government’s ability to tax.   Wouldn’t appropriation of people’s wealth through taxes be analagous to a vampire’s sucking blood? (Thanks to Ari Armstrong for pointing out the irony of the metaphor.)

Also, check out Barry Poulson’s Issue Backgrounder and video critique. The Cauldron also has an amusing narrative.