School Finance Ballot Initiative Raises $1 Million

12 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

Lawmakers passed legislation last session, hoping to change the way Colorado funds its schools, directing additional money to full-day kindergarten across the state and distributing more money per pupil to districts with higher percentages of at-risk students.

But none of it will take effect unless voters approve $950 million in new tax revenues to pay for it.

Initiative 22 would set a flat tax rate of 5 percent — up slightly from the current 4.6 percent rate — for all incomes of less than $75,000 a year.

But the proposal those earning more than that would see their income taxed at two different rates: the 5 percent flat rate for income up to $75,000 annually and then a 5.9 percent rate for all earnings above that threshold.

And the Denver Post reports today:

Colorado Commits to Kids surpassed the $1 million mark in overall contributions with $739,250 taken in during the July reporting period. Combined with more than $260,000 raised in June, the effort moved to $1,081,550 primarily with the help of a few deep-pocketed donors.

The Post reports diverse funding sources for this campaign, ranging from Democrat Pat Stryker and Sam Gary of the Piton Foundation to the right-leaning education reform group Stand for Children. Along with backing from Gov. John Hickenlooper, Initiative 22's hefty war chest should underscore the seriousness of this effort compared to 2011's Proposition 103–which failed after attracting only tepid support. It's worth noting that some of the lack of support for Proposition 103, particularly on the left, can be attributed to concerns that it doesn't raise enough revenue to address the problem. This latest initiative is no "band-aid," but a real attempt to solve the longstanding and growing problem of paying for public education in Colorado.

And unlike two years ago, this campaign will have the resources it needs to succeed.

12 thoughts on “School Finance Ballot Initiative Raises $1 Million”

davebarnes says:

August 2, 2013 at 10:44 am

When voters find out about the two-tier income tax, this will die.

Two-tier is first step towards "progressive" taxation and the voters in Colorado will hate that.

Log in to Reply
1. Gilpin Guy says:
  
  August 2, 2013 at 11:10 am
  
  How is it supposed to work Dave?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. davebarnes says:
    
    August 2, 2013 at 11:24 am
    
    One tax rate for all.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Curmudgeon says:
      
      August 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm
      
      Sure, that's fair.
      
      Ask Mitt Romney.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. JeffcoBlue says:
  
  August 2, 2013 at 11:34 am
  
  Dave, what are you basing that on?
  
  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/16/1870711/five-surprising-ways-americans-are-progressive-on-taxes/
  
  Gallup polling from April 2013 shows an overwhelming majority of Americans (77 percent) saying lower income people pay either too much (40 percent) or their fair share (37 percent) of taxes. Even more strongly, 95 percent say middle income people pay either too much (42 percent) or their fair share (53 percent) of taxes. In contrast, 61 percent believe upper income people pay too little in taxes and 66 percent believe corporations pay too little.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Moderatus says:
    
    August 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    
    Reality. Colorado doesn't want a massive tax hike.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. OrangeFree says:
      
      August 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm
      
      Reality. Several years ago, Colorado didn't want legalized marijuana. Last year, they said they did.
      
      Reality. What the electorate wants changes.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Curmudgeon says:
        
        August 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm
        
        Colorado Springs ain't the whole state, Immoderatus. In the state as a whole, progress happens, whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Moderatus says:
        
        August 3, 2013 at 8:39 am
        
        You really believe that post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense? Marijuana=tax hikes? C'mon. I hope for smarter argumentation when I come here.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Diogenesdemar says:
        
        August 3, 2013 at 11:45 am
        
        If you somehow managed to read Orangefree's comments to mean "Marijuana-tax hikes," then "smarter" is the last thing you should be looking for anywhere . . .
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Moderatus says:
        
        August 3, 2013 at 12:02 pm
        
        I am saying that growing support for marijuana does not automatically mean support for tax hikes. They are two different things.
        
        Log in to Reply
3. Moderatus says:
  
  August 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm
  
  Agreed. This is a nonstarter.
  
  Log in to Reply