Since 2000, the Bell Policy Center has worked to advance economic mobility in Colorado. Today, we seek to answer a critical question: In a state that boasts one of the best economies in the country, why do so many feel unable to get ahead?
Despite our state’s growing prosperity, Coloradans feel stuck. To address this economic anxiety and find answers for families and communities, we have sharpened our vision to meet the moment: Our mission is to ensure economic mobility for every Coloradan.
The Legislative Authority for Spending State Money would mandate that all state spending from “outside funds” — such as federal money or private donations — would need to be determined and approved by the Colorado Legislature. At a time when Colorado is still rebounding from several disasters, this amendment would effectively paralyze our state in times of future emergencies, when our government needs more flexibility and responsiveness, not less. It also risks over-politicization of ongoing state activities and reduces the influence of technical experts. When our budgeting system fails to produce evidence-based, timely solutions, the most marginalized Coloradans suffer and we miss opportunities to make critical long-term investments in public infrastructure. We must find more nuanced solutions that promote both transparency and effective budgeting.
The Legislative Authority for Spending State Money would mandate that all state spending from “outside funds” — such as federal money or private donations — would need to be determined and approved by the Colorado Legislature. At a time when Colorado is still rebounding from several disasters, this amendment would effectively paralyze our state in times of future emergencies, when our government needs more flexibility and responsiveness, not less. It also risks over-politicization of ongoing state activities and reduces the influence of technical experts. When our budgeting system fails to produce evidence-based, timely solutions, the most marginalized Coloradans suffer and we miss opportunities to make critical long-term investments in public infrastructure. We must find more nuanced solutions that promote both transparency and effective budgeting.
The Legislative Authority for Spending State Money would mandate that all state spending from “outside funds” — such as federal money or private donations — would need to be determined and approved by the Colorado Legislature. At a time when Colorado is still rebounding from several disasters, this amendment would effectively paralyze our state in times of future emergencies, when our government needs more flexibility and responsiveness, not less. It also risks over-politicization of ongoing state activities and reduces the influence of technical experts. When our budgeting system fails to produce evidence-based, timely solutions, the most marginalized Coloradans suffer and we miss opportunities to make critical long-term investments in public infrastructure. We must find more nuanced solutions that promote both transparency and effective budgeting.
The Legislative Authority for Spending State Money would mandate that all state spending from “outside funds” — such as federal money or private donations — would need to be determined and approved by the Colorado Legislature. At a time when Colorado is still rebounding from several disasters, this amendment would effectively paralyze our state in times of future emergencies, when our government needs more flexibility and responsiveness, not less. It also risks over-politicization of ongoing state activities and reduces the influence of technical experts. When our budgeting system fails to produce evidence-based, timely solutions, the most marginalized Coloradans suffer and we miss opportunities to make critical long-term investments in public infrastructure. We must find more nuanced solutions that promote both transparency and effective budgeting.
The Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program would raise sales tax on marijuana purchases from 15% to 20% over three years to fund out-of-school educational programs for children ages 5-17, with a priority for providing programs for low-income households. It is estimated that this would raise an estimated $137 million per year. Though the outcome of this taxation is of course laudable, continuing to fund needed education and enrichment programs through “sin taxes,” is an unsustainable model and circumvents the necessary major systemic funding issues we need to address as a state.
The Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program would raise sales tax on marijuana purchases from 15% to 20% over three years to fund out-of-school educational programs for children ages 5-17, with a priority for providing programs for low-income households. It is estimated that this would raise an estimated $137 million per year. Though the outcome of this taxation is of course laudable, continuing to fund needed education and enrichment programs through “sin taxes,” is an unsustainable model and circumvents the necessary major systemic funding issues we need to address as a state.
The Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program would raise sales tax on marijuana purchases from 15% to 20% over three years to fund out-of-school educational programs for children ages 5-17, with a priority for providing programs for low-income households. It is estimated that this would raise an estimated $137 million per year. Though the outcome of this taxation is of course laudable, continuing to fund needed education and enrichment programs through “sin taxes,” is an unsustainable model and circumvents the necessary major systemic funding issues we need to address as a state.
The Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program would raise sales tax on marijuana purchases from 15% to 20% over three years to fund out-of-school educational programs for children ages 5-17, with a priority for providing programs for low-income households. It is estimated that this would raise an estimated $137 million per year. Though the outcome of this taxation is of course laudable, continuing to fund needed education and enrichment programs through “sin taxes,” is an unsustainable model and circumvents the necessary major systemic funding issues we need to address as a state.
The Property Tax Assessment Rate Reduction Proposition would: lower the property tax assessment rate for non-residential property from 29% to 26.4%, and lower the property tax assessment rate for residential property from 7.1% to 6.5%.
This reduction would cut needed public funding -- an estimated $45 million in its first year -- for local government services that all Coloradans rely on, such as schools, fire departments, and police departments. In sum, this proposition would have the effect of primarily benefitting wealthy property owners while robbing funding from crucial public investments like education and infrastructure. When public programs such as these are continually underfunded, the most marginalized in our communities are consistently disproportionally harmed.
The Property Tax Assessment Rate Reduction Proposition would: lower the property tax assessment rate for non-residential property from 29% to 26.4%, and lower the property tax assessment rate for residential property from 7.1% to 6.5%.
This reduction would cut needed public funding -- an estimated $45 million in its first year -- for local government services that all Coloradans rely on, such as schools, fire departments, and police departments. In sum, this proposition would have the effect of primarily benefitting wealthy property owners while robbing funding from crucial public investments like education and infrastructure. When public programs such as these are continually underfunded, the most marginalized in our communities are consistently disproportionally harmed.
The Property Tax Assessment Rate Reduction Proposition would: lower the property tax assessment rate for non-residential property from 29% to 26.4%, and lower the property tax assessment rate for residential property from 7.1% to 6.5%.
This reduction would cut needed public funding -- an estimated $45 million in its first year -- for local government services that all Coloradans rely on, such as schools, fire departments, and police departments. In sum, this proposition would have the effect of primarily benefitting wealthy property owners while robbing funding from crucial public investments like education and infrastructure. When public programs such as these are continually underfunded, the most marginalized in our communities are consistently disproportionally harmed.
The Property Tax Assessment Rate Reduction Proposition would: lower the property tax assessment rate for non-residential property from 29% to 26.4%, and lower the property tax assessment rate for residential property from 7.1% to 6.5%.
This reduction would cut needed public funding -- an estimated $45 million in its first year -- for local government services that all Coloradans rely on, such as schools, fire departments, and police departments. In sum, this proposition would have the effect of primarily benefitting wealthy property owners while robbing funding from crucial public investments like education and infrastructure. When public programs such as these are continually underfunded, the most marginalized in our communities are consistently disproportionally harmed.
The "Enough Taxes Already" Initiative would lower and cap from here forward, Denver’s aggregate sale sand use tax rate, from 4.81% to 4.5%.
It would require the city to stop new sales or use taxes — even if voters approve new ones — above this 4.5% cap.
This initiative would impact the city’s overall revenue and reduce funding for services -- an estimated cut of $4.7 to 8 million dollars before the end of 2021, followed by $50-80 million in cuts in 2022 and every year after. This slash in funding would rob Denver residents of the very improvements that they have overwhelmingly voted to approve, such as road repairs, park maintenance, fire protection, mental health and homeless services. The effect would be undermining Denver voters’ stated priorities in favor of small gains for a select few.
The "Enough Taxes Already" Initiative would lower and cap from here forward, Denver’s aggregate sale sand use tax rate, from 4.81% to 4.5%.
It would require the city to stop new sales or use taxes — even if voters approve new ones — above this 4.5% cap.
This initiative would impact the city’s overall revenue and reduce funding for services -- an estimated cut of $4.7 to 8 million dollars before the end of 2021, followed by $50-80 million in cuts in 2022 and every year after. This slash in funding would rob Denver residents of the very improvements that they have overwhelmingly voted to approve, such as road repairs, park maintenance, fire protection, mental health and homeless services. The effect would be undermining Denver voters’ stated priorities in favor of small gains for a select few.
The "Enough Taxes Already" Initiative would lower and cap from here forward, Denver’s aggregate sale sand use tax rate, from 4.81% to 4.5%.
It would require the city to stop new sales or use taxes — even if voters approve new ones — above this 4.5% cap.
This initiative would impact the city’s overall revenue and reduce funding for services -- an estimated cut of $4.7 to 8 million dollars before the end of 2021, followed by $50-80 million in cuts in 2022 and every year after. This slash in funding would rob Denver residents of the very improvements that they have overwhelmingly voted to approve, such as road repairs, park maintenance, fire protection, mental health and homeless services. The effect would be undermining Denver voters’ stated priorities in favor of small gains for a select few.
The "Enough Taxes Already" Initiative would lower and cap from here forward, Denver’s aggregate sale sand use tax rate, from 4.81% to 4.5%.
It would require the city to stop new sales or use taxes — even if voters approve new ones — above this 4.5% cap.
This initiative would impact the city’s overall revenue and reduce funding for services -- an estimated cut of $4.7 to 8 million dollars before the end of 2021, followed by $50-80 million in cuts in 2022 and every year after. This slash in funding would rob Denver residents of the very improvements that they have overwhelmingly voted to approve, such as road repairs, park maintenance, fire protection, mental health and homeless services. The effect would be undermining Denver voters’ stated priorities in favor of small gains for a select few.