Posted on 05/30/2008 7:14:42 PM PDT by george76
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.
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.
Good news, indeed.
“state is out $118 million already spent”
Of course, we taxpayers will take it in the shorts, short term.
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.
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.
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.
rats going hog wild? Look, if you mix metaphors, I’m gonna still be confused. ;’)
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.
Thanks
I am afraid that the leftists on the Colorado Supreme Court will have the mental agility to twist Tabor to mean the opposite of what it says.
Thanks.
Agreed.
Now, will the money that was already collected this year be refunded as is also required by TABOR ? Somehow I hughly doubt it.
Best case is a small credit in 2009 ; no refunds from the money grabbers .
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.