Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Ritter tax freeze unconstitutional
The Denver Post ^ | 05/30/2008 | John Ingold

Posted on 05/30/2008 7:14:42 PM PDT by george76

A Denver District Court judge ruled today that Gov. Bill Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze is unconstitutional.

"However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ... this Court must be concerned only with enforcement of the Colorado Constitution," District Court Court Judge Christina Habas ...

A group of taxpayers, organized by the conservative Independence Institute, filed suit late last year against the Colorado Department of Education, arguing that the property-tax freeze amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase because voters did not directly approve it.

"All that's required to raise taxes in this state is to ask first. Only the most arrogant do it without asking," said Independence Institute President John Caldara

"That's huge. The governor's entire budget is built around this mill levy freeze,"

(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: billritter; caldara; govwatch; johncaldara; propertytaxes; ritter; tabor; taxes; taxpayers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 05/30/2008 7:14:42 PM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver; MtnClimber; rellimpank; dynachrome; GSWarrior

The ruling could mean the state is out $118 million already spent.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/30/court-overturns-guvs-tax-freeze/


2 posted on 05/30/2008 7:16:56 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
Great news for Coloradans! The Democrats will probably either have to vote for a tax increase or submit it to the voters for approval.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

3 posted on 05/30/2008 7:18:17 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jan in Colorado; SaxxonWoods; XeniaSt; SunkenCiv; jazusamo; LucyT

“I thought it was an illegal tax increase, and it should have gone before TABOR,” said Gluckman, 56, “All the mill levies were set to go down, but everybody’s property tax increased.”

“I think the best-case scenario for the residents of Colorado is that we’ll have a tax credit in 2009,”


4 posted on 05/30/2008 7:18:40 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76

Ha HA - Tabor keeps Colorado safe!


5 posted on 05/30/2008 7:19:07 PM PDT by DaveyB (Either we will be ruled by God or by-god we will be ruled - Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB; moondoggie

One for the good guys = US.


6 posted on 05/30/2008 7:21:08 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: george76
That means Coloradans should see the difference between the rate free and the rates that were supposed to be lowered refunded next year if the Colorado Supreme Court upholds today's ruling on appeal. The Democrats should not be allowed to make an end run around TABOR. If they think they need more revenue for whatever they want to spend it on, they can make their case to the voters. Not by flouting them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

7 posted on 05/30/2008 7:23:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; beaversmom

The taxpayers won this round.

November will be important.


8 posted on 05/30/2008 7:30:48 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: george76
November will be important

YOu better believe it!

9 posted on 05/30/2008 7:45:38 PM PDT by moondoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

If only we had a Federal version of TABOR... I can only dream.


10 posted on 05/30/2008 7:53:06 PM PDT by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: george76

A judge who is actually NOT an activist judge! That’s ALWAYS good news.


11 posted on 05/30/2008 8:01:46 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (Vote for conservatives AT ALL POLITICAL LEVELS! Encourage all others to do the same on November 4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

“However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ...”

Hmmmm, if an equivalent action was done by a corporation to make their profit target, there would be people going to jail. I say Ritter gets prosecuted for fraud.


12 posted on 05/30/2008 8:18:16 PM PDT by MtnClimber (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: george76; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
Thanks geo. But I'm confused now.
A Denver District Court judge ruled today that Gov. Bill Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze is unconstitutional... A group of taxpayers, organized by the conservative Independence Institute, filed suit late last year against the Colorado Department of Education, arguing that the property-tax freeze amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase because voters did not directly approve it.

13 posted on 05/30/2008 8:29:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: george76
Didn't Detroit screw something up with school/property taxes up a couple of years ago?

And I think they also spent the money. No surprise.

14 posted on 05/30/2008 8:34:27 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76

So inconvenient when a judge insisted that the Constitution be followed. Gov. Ritter was probably hoping to get something more in line with what the CA Supreme Court did and just make up a new constitution right for him to raise taxes without having to ask the citizenry first.

Socialists - gotta respect their tenacity even as we condemn their violation of the law and the rights of citizens.


15 posted on 05/30/2008 9:36:15 PM PDT by bpjam (Drill For Oil or Lose Your Job!! Vote Nov 3, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnthebaptistmoore
A judge who is actually NOT an activist judge! That’s ALWAYS good news.

Well, I guess she deserves credit for that, at least in this case, but she is definitely one scary rat:

“However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ...”

In other words, "Screw taxpayers, government is God. Wish I could help but I'm having woman problems right now and don't have the patience to make up a good story for ignoring the law and ruling in big government's favor."

16 posted on 05/30/2008 9:45:41 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Colorado Constitution
Article X, Section 20
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights

(1) General provisions. This section takes effect December 31, 1992 or as stated. Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government. All provisions are self-executing and severable and supersede conflicting state constitutional, state statutory, charter, or other state or local provisions. Other limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval. Individual or class action enforcement suits may be filed and shall have the highest civil priority of resolution. Successful plaintiffs are allowed costs and reasonable attorney fees, but a district is not unless a suit against it be ruled frivolous. Revenue collected, kept, or spent illegally since four full fiscal years before a suit is filed shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest from the initial conduct. Subject to judicial review, districts may use any reasonable method for refunds under this section, including temporary tax credits or rate reductions. Refunds need not be proportional when prior payments are impractical to identify or return. When annual district revenue is less than annual payments on general obligation bonds, pensions, and final court judgments, (4) (a) and (7) shall be suspended to provide for the deficiency.

(2) Term definitions. Within this section:

(a) "Ballot issue" means a non-recall petition or referred measure in an election.

(b) "District" means the state or any local government, excluding enterprises. (c) "Emergency" excludes economic conditions, revenue shortfalls, or district salary or fringe benefit increases.

(d) "Enterprise" means a government-owned business authorized to issue its own revenue bonds and receiving under 10% of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local governments combined.

(e) "Fiscal year spending" means all district expenditures and reserve increases except, as to both, those for refunds made in the current or next fiscal year or those from gifts, federal funds, collections for another government, pension contributions by employees and pension fund earnings, reserve transfers or expenditures, damage awards, or property sales.

(f) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for Denver-Boulder, all items, all urban consumers, or its successor index.

(g) "Local growth" for a non-school district means a net percentage change in actual value of all real property in a district from construction of taxable real property improvements, minus destruction of similar improvements, and additions to, minus deletions from, taxable real property. For a school district, it means the percentage change in its student enrollment.

(3) Election provisions. (a) Ballot issues shall be decided in a state general election, biennial local district election, or on the first Tuesday in November of odd-numbered years. Except for petitions, bonded debt, or charter or constitutional provisions, districts may consolidate ballot issues and voters may approve a delay of up to four years in voting on ballot issues. District actions taken during such a delay shall not extend beyond that period.

(b) At least 30 days before a ballot issue election, districts shall mail at the least cost, and as a package where districts with ballot issues overlap, a titled notice or set of notices addressed to "All Registered Voters" at each address of one or more active registered electors. The districts may coordinate the mailing required by this paragraph (b) with the distribution of the ballot information booklet required by section 1 (7.5) of article V of this constitution in order to save mailing costs. Titles shall have this order of preference: "NOTICE OF ELECTION TO INCREASE TAXES/TO INCREASE DEBT/ON A CITIZEN PETITION/ON A REFERRED MEASURE." Except for district voter-approved additions, notices shall include only:

(i) The election date, hours, ballot title, text, and local election office address and telephone number.

(ii) For proposed district tax or bonded debt increases, the estimated or actual total of district fiscal year spending for the current year and each of the past four years, and the overall percentage and dollar change.

(iii) For the first full fiscal year of each proposed district tax increase, district estimates of the maximum dollar amount of each increase and of district fiscal year spending without the increase.

(iv) For proposed district bonded debt, its principal amount and maximum annual and total district repayment cost, and the principal balance of total current district bonded debt and its maximum annual and remaining total district repayment cost.

(v) Two summaries, up to 500 words each, one for and one against the proposal, of written comments filed with the election officer by 45 days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the proposal. Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately summarize all other relevant written comments. The provisions of this subparagraph (v) do not apply to a statewide ballot issue, which is subject to the provisions of section 1 (7.5) of article V of this constitution.

(c) Except by later voter approval, if a tax increase or fiscal year spending exceeds any estimate in (b) (iii) for the same fiscal year, the tax increase is thereafter reduced up to 100% in proportion to the combined dollar excess, and the combined excess revenue refunded in the next fiscal year. District bonded debt shall not issue on terms that could exceed its share of its maximum repayment costs in (b) (iv). Ballot titles for tax or bonded debt increases shall begin, "SHALL (DISTRICT) TAXES BE INCREASED (first, or if phased in, final, full fiscal year dollar increase) ANNUALLY...?" or "SHALL (DISTRICT) DEBT BE INCREASED (principal amount), WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF (maximum total district cost), ...?"

(4) Required elections. Starting November 4, 1992, districts must have voter approval in advance for:

(a) Unless (1) or (6) applies, any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.

(b) Except for refinancing district bonded debt at a lower interest rate or adding new employees to existing district pension plans, creation of any multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect district debt or other financial obligation whatsoever without adequate present cash reserves pledged irrevocably and held for payments in all future fiscal years.

(5) Emergency reserves. To use for declared emergencies only, each district shall reserve for 1993 1% or more, for 1994 2% or more, and for all later years 3% or more of its fiscal year spending excluding bonded debt service. Unused reserves apply to the next year's reserve.

(6) Emergency taxes. This subsection grants no new taxing power. Emergency property taxes are prohibited. Emergency tax revenue is excluded for purposes of (3) (c) and (7), even if later ratified by voters. Emergency taxes shall also meet all of the following conditions:

(a) A 2/3 majority of the members of each house of the general assembly or of a local district board declares the emergency and imposes the tax by separate recorded roll call votes.

(b) Emergency tax revenue shall be spent only after emergency reserves are depleted, and shall be refunded within 180 days after the emergency ends if not spent on the emergency.

(c) A tax not approved on the next election date 60 days or more after the declaration shall end with that election month.

(7) Spending limits. (a) The maximum annual percentage change in state fiscal year spending equals inflation plus the percentage change in state population in the prior calendar year, adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters after 1991. Population shall be determined by annual federal census estimates and such number shall be adjusted every decade to match the federal census.

(b) The maximum annual percentage change in each local district's fiscal year spending equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus annual local growth, adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters after 1991 and (8) (b) and (9) reductions.

(c) The maximum annual percentage change in each district's property tax revenue equals inflation in the prior calendar year plus annual local growth, adjusted for property tax revenue changes approved by voters after 1991 and (8) (b) and (9) reductions.

(d) If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits in dollars for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded in the next fiscal year unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. Initial district bases are current fiscal year spending and 1991 property tax collected in 1992. Qualification or disqualification as an enterprise shall change district bases and future year limits. Future creation of district bonded debt shall increase, and retiring or refinancing district bonded debt shall lower, fiscal year spending and property tax revenue by the annual debt service so funded. Debt service changes, reductions, (1) and (3) (c) refunds, and voter-approved revenue changes are dollar amounts that are exceptions to, and not part of, any district base. Voter-approved revenue changes do not require a tax rate change.

(8) Revenue limits. (a) New or increased transfer tax rates on real property are prohibited. No new state real property tax or local district income tax shall be imposed. Neither an income tax rate increase nor a new state definition of taxable income shall apply before the next tax year. Any income tax law change after July 1, 1992 shall also require all taxable net income to be taxed at one rate, excluding refund tax credits or voter-approved tax credits, with no added tax or surcharge.

(b) Each district may enact cumulative uniform exemptions and credits to reduce or end business personal property taxes.

(c) Regardless of reassessment frequency, valuation notices shall be mailed annually and may be appealed annually, with no presumption in favor of any pending valuation. Past or future sales by a lender or government shall also be considered as comparable market sales and their sales prices kept as public records. Actual value shall be stated on all property tax bills and valuation notices and, for residential real property, determined solely by the market approach to appraisal.

(9) State mandates. Except for public education through grade 12 or as required of a local district by federal law, a local district may reduce or end its subsidy to any program delegated to it by the general assembly for administration. For current programs, the state may require 90 days notice and that the adjustment occur in a maximum of three equal annual installments.

17 posted on 05/30/2008 10:53:39 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: george76

Great news. A slap in the face of our Dem lawyer Goobernor.


18 posted on 05/30/2008 11:01:03 PM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
"However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ... this Court must be concerned only with enforcement of the Colorado Constitution,"

What a quaint concept.

19 posted on 05/31/2008 1:04:46 AM PDT by realdifferent1 (I hope the 'War on Terror' goes better than the 'War on Poverty'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
The Post isn't on the must excerpt list.

Judge: Ritter tax freeze unconstitutional
By John Ingold
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 05/30/2008 06:20:10 PM MDT

A Denver District Court judge ruled today that Gov. Bill Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze is unconstitutional.

"However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ... this Court must be concerned only with enforcement of the Colorado Constitution," District Court Court Judge Christina Habas wrote in her 15-page ruling. "While this Court candidly expresses its concern as to the resulting consequences of this decision, it must nonetheless perform its duties in a manner consistent with its oath to uphold the Constitution."

A group of taxpayers, organized by the conservative Independence Institute, filed suit late last year against the Colorado Department of Education, arguing that the property-tax freeze amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase because voters did not directly approve it. "All that's required to raise taxes in this state is to ask first. Only the most arrogant do it without asking," said Independence Institute President John Caldara, who learned of the ruling while attending a Republican Assembly in Westminster today.

Word of the decision quickly spread to GOP lawmakers via text message. They soon began exchanging high fives and handshakes in the hallways.

Republicans tried unsuccessfully in the most recent legislative session to repeal the freeze, to refer it to voters and to set aside the money collected in the first year, an estimated $117 million, in the event the state lost the suit.

"That's huge. The governor's entire budget is built around this mill levy freeze," said Rep. Cory Gardener, R-Yuma.

"It's another huge loss for Bill Ritter," said Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction.

Ritter intended the money from the freeze to go into the state education fund to help at-risk kids attend preschool and full-day kindergarten.

The freeze holds mill levies - the rate at which taxes are charged - in place when they normally would fall, allowing local school districts to collect more tax money. The state, in return, can use the money it saves for other purposes.

The governor's office has not been reached for comment.

Attorneys for Ritter and the Colorado Department of Education said that beginning in 1995, voters in 174 of Colorado's 178 school districts held elections in which they "de-Bruced" (after TABOR author Douglas Bruce) the TABOR limits, giving permission for the school districts to collect and spend all revenues "from all sources," including those revenues that exceeded the revenue limitations in TABOR.

20 posted on 05/31/2008 2:07:18 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kitchen

Fine, but how did the gubmint raise the actual amount levied? I just need to be refreshed on that, the article excerpt didn’t explain. Thanks.


21 posted on 05/31/2008 7:39:13 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: george76
mill-levy freeze is unconstitutional.

Is this what happened?

The property tax rates were supposed to decline because of lower home prices. But the Governor "froze" the rates so the homeowners were actually paying more taxes for the current value of their homes. And hence, this act was consider an illegal attempt to raise taxes without representation?

Did I get it right?

22 posted on 05/31/2008 7:39:31 AM PDT by John123 (Obama said that he has been in 57 states. I will now light myself on fire...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
4 posted on Friday, May 30, 2008 7:18:40 PM by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)

Is Ward Churchill still teaching??

23 posted on 05/31/2008 7:45:46 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Colorado law requires that property tax revenue should be neutral per taxing district unless the local voters vote otherwise.

For example, if a school district has inflation of real estate prices of 10 percent, then the mil ( tax rate ) is to drop by 10 percent. The school district would still receive the same dollar amounts, year to year. The taxpayers would pay the same dollar amounts, year to year.

The governor froze the mil so that inflation would automatically raise more taxes each year without voter approval.


24 posted on 05/31/2008 7:51:14 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Ward is not teaching ( no classes ) , but he still is getting his salary and benefits from the tax payers.


25 posted on 05/31/2008 7:54:19 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: george76

Oh, okay. Still doesn’t make sense, but it sounds like a Demwit scam. Impeach? Recall?


26 posted on 05/31/2008 7:54:50 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: John123

Yes.

Ritter even admits that the goverment could raise tons of new revenue without voter approval.

With rising real estate prices, the mil ( tax rate ) should decline by the same percentage so that the taxing district is revenue neutral ( unless the local voters approve a change by a direct vote ).

Commercial property tax rates are three times residential; thus the cost of food, clothing, lodging, and gas is impacted as these new taxes are passed on to the customers / tax payers.

” this act was consider an illegal attempt to raise taxes without representation?”


27 posted on 05/31/2008 8:03:21 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: george76
” this act was consider an illegal attempt to raise taxes without representation?”

That's it! Tonight we ride on this fool and throw his tea out in the harbor...

28 posted on 05/31/2008 8:05:37 AM PDT by John123 (Obama said that he has been in 57 states. I will now light myself on fire...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; XeniaSt; MtnClimber; Morgan in Denver; rellimpank

The mil is to float compared to inflation in TABOR so that the government does not get a windfall as property values go up.

It is one way to force politicians to get voter approval on property tax increases.

Maybe I am not explaining this well ?


29 posted on 05/31/2008 8:08:19 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: george76
"However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ...

Well intentioned my a$$. I guess despite their best efforts, they couldn't find a way to uphold it. In any case, a great ruling.

30 posted on 05/31/2008 8:17:16 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
If my very limited Constitutional Law expertise serves me correctly, this is not appealable to the US Supreme Court. It is the final word of the courts.
31 posted on 05/31/2008 8:32:29 AM PDT by cookcounty (Obama reach across the aisle? He's so far to the left, he'll need a roadmap to FIND the aisle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Ritter’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said the state will appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court and also ask for a stay of the ruling so that the state can continue to collect revenue from the mill-levy freeze in the next fiscal year.

“It’s not a surprise,” Dreyer said. “We knew all along that this was going to be decided by the Supreme Court, regardless of what happened at the district court level.”

Dreyer said the state’s appeal would come “fairly quickly.”

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9434189


32 posted on 05/31/2008 8:38:00 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: george76
Ritter’s spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said the state will appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court and also ask for a stay of the ruling so that the state can continue to collect revenue from the mill-levy freeze in the next fiscal year.

We are entitled to the peasants money and we intend to have it.

33 posted on 05/31/2008 8:44:10 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: george76

What happens if RE values decline?


34 posted on 05/31/2008 8:48:49 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Ritter and his fellow travelers are grabbing as much of our money as they can.

They have increased fees almost everywhere.

Wordsmithing fees are not taxes !

/s


35 posted on 05/31/2008 8:49:07 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: george76

Taxes are up, fees are up, regulations are up, freedom is down. Democrats must be back in charge.


36 posted on 05/31/2008 8:51:12 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: patton

In theory, if your specific RE value goes down then one’s tax bill should go down.

But you likely would have to protest it to the county assessor, then the county commissioners, then...


37 posted on 05/31/2008 8:54:20 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

They also do unfunded mandates.

Democrats must be back in charge.


38 posted on 05/31/2008 8:56:02 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: george76

Wow, a “non-activist” judge.

I didn’t think they made those anymore.


39 posted on 05/31/2008 9:56:47 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
Typical RAT. They have the same group-think whether in CO or a senator from CA like Di-Fi passing Unconstitutional laws (her Gun Free School Zone law was struck down by the Rehnquist court).
(Different source)

"We're really a little surprised at her ruling," said the spokesman, Evan Dreyer. "We remain confident in our position. (The tax freeze) was the right thing to do last year for the kids of Colorado, for the schools of Colorado and for the fiscal health of the state education fund," he said.

Forget the law. Forget the (a) Constitution. It's "the right thing to do". And naturally it's always "for the children".

40 posted on 05/31/2008 1:05:25 PM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
“However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ...”

My interpretation of that language is that it's designed in some measure to shield the judge from claims of bias. If a judge simply says "Such a program is no good", then people might argue that the judge is to biased against the program to see the benefits. By explicitly stating that the claimed benefits wouldn't matter even if true, the judge removes the issue from the table.

41 posted on 05/31/2008 3:05:37 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: supercat
“However well-intentioned and commendable the purpose and consequences ...”

I don't know if she needed to resort to weasel words or not but, "Regardless of the intentions, purposes and consequences...." would have worked just fine.

42 posted on 05/31/2008 3:19:53 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: george76

Good news, indeed.

“state is out $118 million already spent”

Of course, we taxpayers will take it in the shorts, short term.


43 posted on 05/31/2008 4:08:16 PM PDT by dynachrome ("Socialism is the feudalism of the future.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kitchen

I hate the taxing of anything, but there are legitimate purposes for government that must be funded. Therefore, there should be only one tax that pays for all the needs of all government. Once the tax is paid on anything, then that item should never be taxed again.

It becomes the free and clear property of the purchaser.


44 posted on 05/31/2008 7:09:13 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; george76
Got it now? I can't add much to the other responses except yes, they're rats - both houses of the legislature and governor... and they're going hog wild.
45 posted on 05/31/2008 8:50:11 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Once the tax is paid on anything, then that item should never be taxed again.

We've escaped use tax on everything except vehicles. Odd that this decision was handed down the same day I filed a protest over my commercial property tax assessment. I have this strange belief that the value established for tax purposes shouldn't exceed the purchase price... when both occurred at the same time. Now we'll have a physical inspection and probably get hassled about use tax on the computers, printer, and fax.

46 posted on 05/31/2008 9:10:47 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins; kitchen; MtnClimber; businessprofessor; familyop

The Colorado tax collectors also hit businesses every year with ‘personal property taxes’ on office equipment, computers, furniture...

Every year.

Businesses buy the stuff. Pay state, county, and local sales taxes on the purchase, then...

Plus businesses have to waste their time and money filling out more government forms every year.

Some people wonder why the price of food, clothing, lodging, and gas are going up.


47 posted on 05/31/2008 9:26:24 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kitchen

rats going hog wild? Look, if you mix metaphors, I’m gonna still be confused. ;’)


48 posted on 05/31/2008 9:40:14 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_________________________Profile updated Friday, May 30, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
I was going for the imagery.
49 posted on 05/31/2008 10:22:58 PM PDT by kitchen (Any day without a fair tax thread is a good day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: george76; SunkenCiv; XeniaSt; MtnClimber; rellimpank

TABOR allows for increases of something like 2% PLUS inflation but this would have increased taxes over the allowed amount, thus being unconstitutional.

The Ritter attempt is clearly a violation of our TABOR law. I would guess his next step will be to challenge the decision with the Colorado State Supreme Court. I hope the court will uphold TABOR but with so many Democrats on it, it’s not sure what they will do. I hope they decide in favor of citizens but we’ll have to wait and see.

Colorado also has the Gallagher Amendment, information at http://www.coloradobudget.com/gallagher_101.cfm if anyone wants to see it.

TABOR is at http://www.coloradobudget.com/tabor.cfm as well as links to other aspects of the Colorado State Budget.

Hope this helps.


50 posted on 06/01/2008 7:03:12 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver (The "P" in Democrat stands for Patriot.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson