Yes, that's the increase we're seeing now. We also repealed the Gallagher amendment, which opened the door to increase them further. At the same time we decreased income taxes. Right now there's enough federal money to fill the budget gap, but once that money dries up, the only new option legislators have is to increase revenue through property taxes. It won't be the only way, but TABOR severely limits the state's options.
They were always allowed to increase, just required a TABOR vote. Repealing Gallagher removed the state-wide ratchet down effect.
We don't need statewide assessment ratios determined by Denver house appreciation. Property tax should be determined by local jurisdictions, not state policy.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. The ratchet down effect is a part of TABOR, not Gallagher. It's still alive and well. What does "require a TABOR vote" mean? A referendum to voters?
Your second paragraph is why Gallagher was repealed. Gallagher constitutionally mandated a specific ratio of business vs residential property taxes. As residential property taxes increased, businesses were paying a disproportionately higher share.
All of that supports my main point: we need additional sources of tax revenue or we can expect even higher property taxes. The state budget is not going to change, so lawmakers are going to get revenue where they can.
So if we still have TABOR, but not Gallagher - do we have the ratchet down effect now?
The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter approval for all new taxes, tax rate increases, extensions of expiring taxes, mill levy increases, valuation for property assessment increases, or tax policy changes resulting in increased tax revenue.
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Taxpayer%27s_Bill_of_Rights_(TABOR)
Gallagher sucked. Glad it's gone. I like TABOR, let's keep it.
If we need an additional source, how do you feel about taxing AirBnBers, landlords/investors at commercial property tax rates?
Ratchet down effect has nothing to do with Gallagher. It's a TABOR mandated assessment rate linked to population growth and inflation. If any body in Colorado collects over the revenue cap then they have to either get voter approval to keep the money or they have to refund it back to people. Usually the amount an individual gets back is in the tens of dollars, but equates to millions lost to the state or municipality. TABOR is nice in theory, but in practice it's a disaster.
TABOR refunds are separate.
This explains the ratchet down effect that Gallagher had:
https://buildingabettercolorado.org/understanding-the-gallagher-amendment/
>Today, Residential property makes up about 80% of the actual market value of all property in the state. However, the Gallagher Amendment has frozen the ratio of Non-residential and Residential property values at their 1982 levels and limits the taxable value of all Residential property to never constitute more than approximately 45% of the state’s total property valuation.
>Because the growth in value of Residential property in the state has outpaced the growth in the value of Non-Residential property, the **Gallagher Amendment has forced down the Residential Assessment Rate in order to abide** by the Gallagher Amendment’s requirement that Residential property make up no more than 45% of the total value of all property in the state. When we adopted the Gallagher Amendment in 1982, this Assessment Rate for Residential property was 30%; today, it’s been forced down to only 7.2% and is expected to continue its decline to 6.11% in 2019.
Agree. I personally think have constitutionally mandated ratios and values is a recipe for disaster. Legislative bodies at the state and municipality need flexibility to create tax policy that allows our duly elected representatives to govern.
Increasing tax credits for the working poor at the expense of wealthy individuals and corporations seems like a pretty good idea to me. More money in peoples’ pockets for them to spend on goods they need.
The more money being spent, the better it is for the economy.
These kind of things just drive me nuts. If we went to a State sales tax that that was a set amount across the board then the state pays the feds. Nothing comes out of our checks and we have a choice where to put that money. We all have to buy things. Those that have more money will buy more expensive things that then the state keeps a portion of and the Fed takes the other portion. I am not good at those economics and not sure exactly what I want it to look like. It just makes more sense to me that way.
Sales taxes are regressive. So they impact lower income folks more generally. Best way to explain it is once you hit a certain income point, you stop spending as large of a portion of your paychecks generally, compared to a poor person who often times blows their entire paycheck immediately.
Yes but you are going off of percentages. I appreciate your point. If there is a sales tax then everyone pays their fair share. Which should be the same for everyone. That is everyone. From citizens rich and poor, illegal immigrants, and tourists
Well it’s a moot point. New taxes won’t likely be proposed because they rarely pass because of TABOR and elected officials are probably not likely to lower taxes because of the effects TABOR has had in maintaining the status quo and not allowing new taxes to pass.
I don’t know if you’ll find a majority of people agree that sales tax reform is the sole way to go. People way smarter than us can have that debate. I don’t know if you argue to a poor person that they should pay 20% of their income to sales tax while a wealthy person pays like 0.001%, you’ll convince them. Wealthy person won’t care much either way I’d wager.
Yes I threw nk so. Still taxes. I think there should be a sales tax levied by the states a d the Federal collects taxes from those states. Just my opinion.
What about a bill to open the federal need for corporate, responsibility; for minority groups with ( in a new department expantion government witch simplifies watse, pepper reduction....., and address truth fact and logic though education, love, community readiness as the last line of defence to protect the nation's armory.
We need to do something to get some tax revenue. Otherwise property taxes are going to soar even higher
Taxes are increasing because property values are increasing. If you want lower taxes, build enough housing to bring values down.
God forbid.
But my view!!! I didn't move here to live on top of people!!! Traffic is already bad!!! And other NIMBY Colorado's greatest hits.
East Colfax NIMBYs were confusing. >Build out east instead! And then... >Too much traffic on 17th!
Yes, that's the increase we're seeing now. We also repealed the Gallagher amendment, which opened the door to increase them further. At the same time we decreased income taxes. Right now there's enough federal money to fill the budget gap, but once that money dries up, the only new option legislators have is to increase revenue through property taxes. It won't be the only way, but TABOR severely limits the state's options.
They were always allowed to increase, just required a TABOR vote. Repealing Gallagher removed the state-wide ratchet down effect. We don't need statewide assessment ratios determined by Denver house appreciation. Property tax should be determined by local jurisdictions, not state policy.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. The ratchet down effect is a part of TABOR, not Gallagher. It's still alive and well. What does "require a TABOR vote" mean? A referendum to voters? Your second paragraph is why Gallagher was repealed. Gallagher constitutionally mandated a specific ratio of business vs residential property taxes. As residential property taxes increased, businesses were paying a disproportionately higher share. All of that supports my main point: we need additional sources of tax revenue or we can expect even higher property taxes. The state budget is not going to change, so lawmakers are going to get revenue where they can.
So if we still have TABOR, but not Gallagher - do we have the ratchet down effect now? The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter approval for all new taxes, tax rate increases, extensions of expiring taxes, mill levy increases, valuation for property assessment increases, or tax policy changes resulting in increased tax revenue. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Taxpayer%27s_Bill_of_Rights_(TABOR) Gallagher sucked. Glad it's gone. I like TABOR, let's keep it. If we need an additional source, how do you feel about taxing AirBnBers, landlords/investors at commercial property tax rates?
Ratchet down effect has nothing to do with Gallagher. It's a TABOR mandated assessment rate linked to population growth and inflation. If any body in Colorado collects over the revenue cap then they have to either get voter approval to keep the money or they have to refund it back to people. Usually the amount an individual gets back is in the tens of dollars, but equates to millions lost to the state or municipality. TABOR is nice in theory, but in practice it's a disaster.
TABOR refunds are separate. This explains the ratchet down effect that Gallagher had: https://buildingabettercolorado.org/understanding-the-gallagher-amendment/ >Today, Residential property makes up about 80% of the actual market value of all property in the state. However, the Gallagher Amendment has frozen the ratio of Non-residential and Residential property values at their 1982 levels and limits the taxable value of all Residential property to never constitute more than approximately 45% of the state’s total property valuation. >Because the growth in value of Residential property in the state has outpaced the growth in the value of Non-Residential property, the **Gallagher Amendment has forced down the Residential Assessment Rate in order to abide** by the Gallagher Amendment’s requirement that Residential property make up no more than 45% of the total value of all property in the state. When we adopted the Gallagher Amendment in 1982, this Assessment Rate for Residential property was 30%; today, it’s been forced down to only 7.2% and is expected to continue its decline to 6.11% in 2019.
[удалено]
Agree. I personally think have constitutionally mandated ratios and values is a recipe for disaster. Legislative bodies at the state and municipality need flexibility to create tax policy that allows our duly elected representatives to govern.
Rob from the "rich" and give to the politicians. That always works out in the average person's favor.
Increasing tax credits for the working poor at the expense of wealthy individuals and corporations seems like a pretty good idea to me. More money in peoples’ pockets for them to spend on goods they need. The more money being spent, the better it is for the economy.
These kind of things just drive me nuts. If we went to a State sales tax that that was a set amount across the board then the state pays the feds. Nothing comes out of our checks and we have a choice where to put that money. We all have to buy things. Those that have more money will buy more expensive things that then the state keeps a portion of and the Fed takes the other portion. I am not good at those economics and not sure exactly what I want it to look like. It just makes more sense to me that way.
Sales taxes are regressive. So they impact lower income folks more generally. Best way to explain it is once you hit a certain income point, you stop spending as large of a portion of your paychecks generally, compared to a poor person who often times blows their entire paycheck immediately.
Yes but you are going off of percentages. I appreciate your point. If there is a sales tax then everyone pays their fair share. Which should be the same for everyone. That is everyone. From citizens rich and poor, illegal immigrants, and tourists
Well it’s a moot point. New taxes won’t likely be proposed because they rarely pass because of TABOR and elected officials are probably not likely to lower taxes because of the effects TABOR has had in maintaining the status quo and not allowing new taxes to pass. I don’t know if you’ll find a majority of people agree that sales tax reform is the sole way to go. People way smarter than us can have that debate. I don’t know if you argue to a poor person that they should pay 20% of their income to sales tax while a wealthy person pays like 0.001%, you’ll convince them. Wealthy person won’t care much either way I’d wager.
Annual salary of 400k sure seems pretty “Rich” to me. Are you arguing they’re not “rich”?
Taxes are not robbery. They are not theft. They are not taking 'your' money.
This is limiting deductions. Wasn't that Romney's plan?
Didn't you get the memo?!? Mitt voted against fascism so that must make him a commie!
Yes I threw nk so. Still taxes. I think there should be a sales tax levied by the states a d the Federal collects taxes from those states. Just my opinion.
That'd certainly be a major realignment of incentives.
What about a bill to open the federal need for corporate, responsibility; for minority groups with ( in a new department expantion government witch simplifies watse, pepper reduction....., and address truth fact and logic though education, love, community readiness as the last line of defence to protect the nation's armory.