Talk:Taxpayer Bill of Rights

No mention of Amendment 23?

The effect of amendment 23 needs to be discussed. This article isn't neutral without discussing 23. Mre5765 02:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Off-year voting

I would like more clarification here. The article says -

"They also add that the process has not been as "democratic" as its advocates purport, citing the off-year voting and complex wording that may skew results."

Which implies that off-year voting might be required. But it also says "Referendums have generally been held in "off years" away from other elections" which I read to mean that it's not required, but it's just generally what has happened. So this should be made more clear in the article.

In my experience, the timing of when initiatives come before the voters is generally detirmined by the initiative's supporters. I don't know about the specifics in Colorado, but I know in most states, initiatives can be put before the voters by two methods - if a group collects petitions or if the state legislature puts it on the ballot themselves. And in both cases, the timing of the election is typically detirmined by the proposal's supporters.

Anti-democratic referendums?

Citied form the article:

They also add that the process has not been as "democratic" as its advocates purport, citing the off-year voting and complex wording that may skew results. Some supporters claim that complicated tax decisions are best decided by deliberation based on well-informed argument and informed consent, such as presumably occurs in legislatures, rather than the simplisitc and emotionally-charged appeals that tend to dominate referendums.

The first italicized phrase is an example of WEASEL WORDS. But that is not what bothers me; anti-democratic opponents, mainly aristocrats, have used the second italicized phrase to advocate against democracy, as if the common person was not smart enough to govern themselves. To have that phrase in a paragraph devoted to a supposed pro-democratic stance is laughable, if not insulting.

I am marking this article as {{weasel}} until it has been neutralized. It looks like it needs a lot of work. For example, I am concerned with the sentence The most famous and prominent example is the state of Colorado because TABOR in Colorado can also be infamous depending on who you are, due to it being the strictest amendment ever. Regards, Tuxide 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

response

Yes, but isn't there already a touch of sarcasm in such as presumably occurs in legislatures? If not for the word presumably then I might agree with you, but with that word there it seems to me that the phrase might actually be making the very point that you want to make.

Article needs complete makeover

I just wanted to point out a few problems with this article (and offer no solutions while I'm at it.) First, this isn't the "Colorado TABOR Act" article. There should at most be a brief paragraph about that act, with a link to a primary article. As it stands this article is actually about the TABOR in Colorado, with a brief mention that TABOR is also a national movement, it should be the other way around. Second, the for and against sections have been obviously written specifically to argue with each other. An article, to be unbiased, should present both sides of an argument, but it should not itself be an argument. For example, right now one section of the article calls another section (on education spending) "misleading" and suggests they rely on "fallacious" comparisons. While the opponents certainly claim this, it is not an objective fact, and could be handled differently, for example, "Opponents of TABOR point to the fact that Colorado ranks 47th in the country in education spending. Supporters, however, believe that this is not a fair representation, as it measures spending as a percentage of total income. When measured on a per student basis, Colorado ranks somewhere between 23rd and 33rd, depending on the survey."

In the end, however, this shouldn't matter, since arguments for and against a specific implementation of TABOR do not belong in the generic article.

Second the motion. This should article not be solely about Colorado. The Colorado experience should have its own page, or at least its own section at the bottom of this page, after the main facts are described. Furthermore, the existing text is not written from a neutral viewpoint. It is not hard to discern from the language used that the author (or most recent major editor) is opposed to TABOR. For one example, see the first paragraph on Colorado:

This has led to a decrease in actual tax revenue (relative to population and inflation) for two reasons. Because the law does not adjust for rising productivity, additional income from year to year among the same population can not be effectively taxed.

The second sentence demonstrates why tax revenue will not increase as incomes increase (which appears to be precisely the point of the TABOR law itself). That second sentence does not demonstrate that tax revenue will decrease, as the first sentence claims, and therefore does not support the first sentence. Also, the phrase "cannot be effectively taxed" assumes a viewpoint. The phrase "is not taxed" would be more neutral. Similar non-neutral (anti-TABOR) phrasing appears throughout the article. 76.238.142.66 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Under "Opponents", the half-paragraph starting with "Here is why this method does not work" demonstrates a non-neutral point of view (NPOV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.158.95 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Priority

This page needs to at least be Medium priority. There are many states beginning to propose TABOR like regulations. Many "non-accountants" will be coming to this page. TheHammer24 (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New information available re this topic (at least the Colorado part)

Residents of poor communities are using the courts to try to undo TABOR in Colorado by suing the State because these residents say the TABOR amendment effectively deprives their children of a "thorough and uniform" education, the article cited below gives an account of one such community's legal fight and could be used to reference some of the Colorado portions of a new page on TABOR. As was suggested this article really does need to be revised to discuss in general what TABOR is, how many states have TABOR, how many are proposing to initiate TABOR or TABOR like legislation, and then the Coloradao version could be presented with the the pros and cons put forth in as neutral a way as possible.

http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2010/01/05/TABOR_opponents_use_courts_to_defang_amendment/

Animaltalker (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Errors in Colorado Example

I was in the Colorado legislature when the majority Democrats undid the ratchet effect. Colorado Revenues have NOT declined since TABOR ... an absurdly false statement (I sat on Appropriations). The Democrats also pulled off this under the voters' radar ploy; they found several methological adjustments to growth and argued they should now go back in time and adjust the growth rate in past years up to grab more surplus money that year. I pointed out the CPI had also been adjusted since 1992 and that if the current method were retroactively taken back to 1992, as they were doing with the growth rate, that the revenue cap would go down by about half of the amount they had found in the grwoth rate. All the Democrats on the Finance Committe voted against my CPI adjustment. The uncited assertions in the article should be removed as they are false. 75.231.230.90 (talk)glennscott9 —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Taxpayer Bill of Rights/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== The article is a start class because it needs more references and it needs to expand on impact, perhaps with section devoted to it.EECavazos 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because the article is on a social group's manifesto on taxation.EECavazos 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) "De-Brucing" refers to the process of overriding TABOR.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfqueenie (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606073232/http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Treasury/TR/1196935260080 to http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Treasury/TR/1196935260080

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)