States that have public vote on taxes & user fees

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

What states actually do this? Colorado and TABOR are often mentioned - somewhat misleading, as TABOR really deals with just taxes, and Montana recently approved this narrowly (51% I believe) but had it struck down as unconstitutional. Are there others? Just want to know where we might look for what the real impact of this provision could be.

-- Rod (scooter@dolphins.fan.org), October 08, 1999

Answers

I agree on both points. I believe the best outcome would be a narrow loss for 695, and the legislature does something rational with the MVET. Second best is 695 wins, the courts throw it out, and the legislature does something rational with the MVET. The worst possible result is that this abortion is delivered alive, and survives.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.

The legislature has had 62 years to "do something rational with the MVET." There is no reason to believe that, if this fails, they'll start now.

Westin

Who suggests that asking the legislature to act rationaly about the MVET is no different then asking a junkie to act rationally while running a pharmacy.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 09, 1999.


Westin:

I disagree. A close vote will still send a message they would not ignore. But even doing nothing would be better than the irrational provisions of this initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.


This tangental thread is an interesting discussion, but will soon lose the entire point of what I'm asking. Why don't you guys start a separate one on the issue of what messages a vote will send and is that meaningful. In the meantime can ANYONE give me a state besides Colorado (which has already been discussed) that has anything approaching the vote on all fees provision that 695 has?

-- Rod (scooter@dolphins.fan.org), October 09, 1999.

Rod - Who cares what other state have?? I think it's awesome that the politicans have to ask my opinion before they can expand their corrupt world of power and domination. The politicians will actually have to consider my needs for a change.

Ask not what you can do for the politicians; ask what's in it for you!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.



Nice non-response - please send in the Government conspiracy theories to Chris Carter. The issue still stands. Why? The crafters of 695 have claimed that several states have enacted similar legislation and that is hasn't hurt a bit. Great, please NAME these states so we can see for ourselves what the affects of voting on all taxes, fees, and monies collected by state and local government (new, renewals, and scope) are. That way we can make an INFORMED vote ourselves, since the initiative's crafters certainly looked carefully into these issues before adding this sweeping provision, as they appear to be claiming. That's all. Simple question, still waiting for a simple answer that isn't a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric.

-- Rod (scooter@dolphins.fan.org), October 09, 1999.

I don't have the url or the original hard copy but the Seattle Times had an article some time ago (ballpark 4-5 weeks) that covered this in detail. I don't know the exact timeframe, but it listed the states with similar legislation (IIRC there were three states besides Colorado who have enacted similar legislation).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 10, 1999.

Brad, Thanks, FINALLY an answer. I found a piece at the Seattle Times that appears to be what you were talking about - the relevant passage: "Voters in Colorado, Missouri and Montana already have approved measures that require a public vote to raise many taxes. In 1998, though, the Montana measure was thrown out by the state Supreme Court. Missouri requires a public vote for state tax increases of more than $50 million or 1 percent of state revenues, whichever is less. It has yet to be invoked."

Actually 3 states total with one being Colorado (TABOR - already discussed ad naseum with nowhere near the impact), one Montana - never implemented as being unconstitutional, and finally Missouri - untested so far - but only on taxes over $50 million/1% of state revenue in impact. I'd found the other two but the Missouri one was actually new (boy now THAT actually sounds like a good idea - too bad 695 wasn't written with that thought in mind or the NO campaign wouldn't have library card costs, greens fees, and school milk prices to harp on about having to put on the ballot every month).

Hmmm... Nothing here even remotely close to what we're looking at with 695, yet its framers claim that several other states have done it painlessly (well it's obviously painless in Montana and Missouri as their laws have not been used!). Clearly something's missing here. Anyone else have some other states to look at? I really want to know if someone's been able to do this - it makes a big difference to the veracity of the campaign.

-- Rod (scooter@dolphins.fan.org), October 10, 1999.


Rod - You have to pay for your library card? Bummer, man.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ