You don't know it, but you are probably a tax scofflaw-- because you haven't paid your "use tax." If you purchase, say, a stereo from a store in your state (and your state has a sales tax), you'll pay sales tax on that purchase. But when you buy the same stereo on-line from, say, Amazon.com, odds are that Amazon won't add sales tax to your purchase price. The laws of all sales tax states are quite clear on what is supposed to happen in this situation: you, as the purchaser, are supposed to pay the "use tax", which has exactly the same tax rates and tax base as the regular sales tax. But individual consumers purchasing items online very rarely pay the tax in this situation, and states typically make little effort to enforce it, as least with respect to household purchases (as opposed to business purchases).

If one wanted to make a short list of tax reforms that could lead to effective enforcement of the use tax, two things high on that list would be (a) that when a retailer in state X sells a sales-taxable item to a consumer in state Y, and does not collect sales tax on that item because they have no physical presence in state Y, then the retailer should have to remind the purchaser that they are legally required to pay the use tax, and (b) that under this same scenario, the retailer should have to alert state Y's Dept. of Revenue that these transactions took place.

This is precisely what Colorado did when it enacted House Bill 1193 earlier this year. The new law requires companies like Amazon, which has no physical presence in the state, to send a reminder to purchasers that they are supposed to pay the use tax. It also requires these companies to send an end-of-year statement to the state revenue department summarizing the value of untaxed sales to each customer. The law does NOT require Amazon to collect a dime of additional tax.

Earlier this week, Amazon responded to this law by dropping all its affiliates in the state of Colorado. (Affiliates are individuals or companies who put a link to Amazon on their own website, and earn a share of the take when customers click-through to buy things on Amazon's website.) As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Michael Mazerov notes in a statement on Amazon's actions, this is a purely punitive action that has no relationship to the new law: the new reporting requirements under HB 1193 don't depend on whether a sale was made through a "click-through" affiliate, and even after dropping its affiliates, Amazon will still have to comply with the law. Amazon's actions can only be interpreted as a politically motivated attempt to rile up anti-tax sentiment sufficiently so that Colorado lawmakers will repeal the new law.
The use tax should be enforced by every state. Colorado's approach to doing so is sensible and fair, and does not impose substantial burdens on sellers like Amazon. By hitting its own affiliates in their wallets, Amazon is avoiding an open discussion of why they apparently believe the use tax should be repealed.

This week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in partnership with state groups in forty-one states, released the 3rd edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.”  The report found that, by an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy.  The response has been overwhelming.

In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press hit the nail on the head: “There’s nothing even remotely fair about the state’s heaviest tax burden falling on its least wealthy earners.  It’s also horrible public policy, given the hard hit that middle and lower incomes are taking in the state’s brutal economic shift.  And it helps explain why the state is having trouble keeping up with funding needs for its most vital services.  The study provides important context for the debate about how to fix Michigan’s finances and shows how far the state really has to go before any cries of ‘unfairness’ to wealthy earners can be taken seriously.”

In addition, the Governor’s office in Michigan responded by reiterating Gov. Granholm’s support for a graduated income tax.  Currently, Michigan is among a minority of states levying a flat rate income tax.

Media in Virginia also explained the study’s importance.  The Augusta Free Press noted: “If you believe the partisan rhetoric, it’s the wealthy who bear the tax burden, and who are deserving of tax breaks to get the economy moving.  A new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Virginia Organizing Project puts the rhetoric in a new light.”

In reference to Tennessee’s rank among the “Terrible Ten” most regressive state tax systems in the nation, The Commercial Appeal ran the headline: “A Terrible Decision.”  The “terrible decision” to which the Appeal is referring is the choice by Tennessee policymakers to forgo enacting a broad-based income tax by instead “[paying] the state’s bills by imposing the country’s largest combination of state and local sales taxes and maintaining the sales tax on food.”

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News ran with the story as well, explaining that “Texas’ low-income residents bear heavier tax burdens than their counterparts in all but four other states.”  The Morning News article goes on to explain the study’s finding that “the media and elected officials often refer to states such as Texas as “low-tax” states without considering who benefits the most within those states.”  Quoting the ITEP study, the Morning News then points out that “No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.  Can they also be considered low-tax states for poor families?  Far from it.”

Talk of the study has quickly spread everywhere from Florida to Nevada, and from Maryland to Montana.  Over the coming months, policymakers will need to keep the findings of Who Pays? in mind if they are to fill their states’ budget gaps with responsible and fair revenue solutions.

Next month, voters in two states will go to the ballot to decide whether to cap the growth in public budgets according to a formula based on the annual rate of population growth plus inflation. In Washington, the ballot initiative brought forward by anti-taxer Tim Eyman is called I-1033. Researchers at the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute refer to it as the "toxic twin" of Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).  In Maine, the initiative, dubbed TABOR II, is more akin to an annoying younger brother (well, if that brother had the ability to wreak complete havoc with sound fiscal policy).  You can tell him to go away -- as Maine voters did in rejecting an earlier version of the initiative in 2006 -- but he unfortunately keeps coming back.
 
Colorado's experience makes it clear that arbitrary funding formulas are an ineffective way to run government, leading to devastating impacts on vital public services. In fact, Colorado voters chose to suspend TABOR in 2005, due to the effects it was having on education, transportation, and human services. 

The limits that I-1033 in Washington and TABOR II in Maine would impose are especially dangerous in light of the current recession.  Under these initiatives, funding caps would be the lesser of the previous year's cap or the previous year's actual funding levels.  As a result, during economic downturns, when revenues are especially low, the cap is permanently “ratcheted” down to lower levels.

As to the consequences that these initiatives would have if enacted, Washington State  Senator Rodney Tom was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying, "If I-1033 passes, I think we just all go home and bury our heads in the sand." 

As discouraging as that image may be, there are reasons to be hopeful.  The Maine Chamber of Commerce, which had initially backed TABOR II earlier this year (despite opposing its predecessor in 2006), recently withdrew its support, a clear sign that the measure goes too far even for business leaders.

For more on the impact of I-1033, see the Washington Budget and Policy Center's report “I-1033 Undermines Public Priorities.”   For more on Maine’s TABOR II, check out these resources from the Maine Center for Economic Policy or read the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recent analysis.

The poorly named Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is a cap on allowable spending enacted in Colorado in 1992. Since then, it has become clear that the measure demolished the state's ability to fund higher education, infrastructure and health care. Despite voters approving a ballot measure to suspend Colorado's TABOR for five years, the concept of a spending limit is still rearing its ugly head in both Maine and Missouri.

In Maine, the Heritage Policy Center has a revised TABOR proposal (a previous proposal was defeated by a vote of the people two years ago), which promises to combat the state's "overspending" problem while making it quite difficult for taxes to be raised. This November, Mainers will be asked to vote once again on the TABOR. Read the Maine Center for Economic Policy's report about the many serious problems with this proposal.

Meanwhile, a proposal to cap spending is making its way through the Missouri House of Representatives, which will serve as another test for the pro-TABOR forces. Read the Missouri Budget Project's warning about TABOR's impact on the state.

California legislators appear to finally be in the early stages of negotiations over a method to fix the current year's budget shortfall. As has been obvious to most observers for quite some time, California's budget gap is far too large to be fixed with spending cuts alone, and will require some kind of tax increase. Convincing California Republicans to recognize this fact was no easy task, and it now appears that the cost of securing their support could come in the form of a spending cap. Unfortunately, while a tax increase is absolutely necessary to solve California's short-term problems, allowing a spending cap to be slipped into the deal would be nothing short of devastating in the long-term.

The case against the spending cap was articulated brilliantly by Jean Ross of the California Budget Project in a recent op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times. Ross noted that "far from being a cure-all, a hard spending cap would place an arbitrary stranglehold on the state's ability to improve its schools, rebuild its infrastructure, care for its senior population and respond nimbly to future challenges. Disguised as a solution, this cap could quickly become one of California's most serious budgetary problems". She goes on to point out that her organization "found that if this cap had been enacted in 1995, using that year's budget as the base, it would have resulted in a 2008-09 budget $39.7 billion below what was enacted in September. While this would bring the budget into balance, it also would require spending cuts more than twice as large as those proposed by the governor."

Californians familiar with Colorado's TABOR debacle should be especially wary of what Ross points out next: "The hard spending cap also would be incompatible with Proposition 98, which guarantees a minimum level of state funding for K-12 education and community colleges. That guarantee would generally outpace increases allowed under the cap, which would result in education crowding out all other state spending". The parallels with the difficulties created by Colorado's Amendment 23 (which requires increases in K-12 spending of 1% plus inflation each year) couldn't be more obvious.

There isn't any question that California needs more revenue. Just look at the fact that California's bond rating was recently decreased by two grades, or that the state Controller had to start issuing IOU's instead of tax refunds today. But while securing more revenue should be a top priority this year, accepting a spending cap as part of the compromise would be an action that Californians would regret for years.

The news from California just keeps getting worse. Faced with a budget deficit that could reach as much as $42 billion by June 2010 and the prospect that the state will soon deplete its cash reserves, State Controller John Chiang announced last week that the state may have to begin issuing IOU's to state employees and to contractors who do business with the state. There's also the chance that, rather than receive the refunds to which they may be entitled, California taxpayers may receive promises that they'll be paid later as well.

So, while Governor Schwarzenegger is busy vetoing the Assembly's latest budget plan, because, he maintains, it "punish[es] people with increased taxes," millions of Californians must now prepare themselves to pay, in essence, higher taxes than they expected to pay this year. Such an outcome hardly seems justifiable, given the likelihood that those residents entitled to refunds are low- and moderate-income families, families that would almost certainly use those tax refunds to pay off bills or to make long-planned purchases.

In light of these developments, the state's Legislative Analyst, Mac Taylor, is now urging policymakers to put tax increases before the states' voters as early as April, so that they can avoid the supermajority-induced gridlock that has plagued Sacramento in recent years.

Of course, California isn't alone in suffering through fiscal crises brought on by unsound tax limits and undemocratic procedural rules. Coloradoknows them quite well too, thanks to the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) approved by state voters in 1992. Unless some major changes are made this year, it will likely endure some considerable woes in the years ahead. Why is that? Well, as Erika Stutzman of Boulder's Daily Camera observes, during recessions, "double-whammy style, [ Colorado hits] the 'ratchet' effect: TABOR's requirement that the previous year's budget be used to determine next year's budget." So, if spending falls this year, that lower level of spending will serve as the baseline for growth in all future years. Quite sensibly then, Ms. Stutzman backs legislative changes to TABOR to prevent that from happening.

As the vast majority of state governments stare down budget shortfalls, new ideas about how to responsibly and fairly fill those gaps should receive an enthusiastic welcome. A new report from Good Jobs First, entitled Skimming the Sales Tax, does exactly that by revealing that states are currently giving away over $1 billion through "vendor discounts" or "dealer collection allowances" that reduce sales taxes.

Vendor discounts allow retailers to legally keep a portion of the sales tax revenue they collect as compensation for the costs involved in collecting and remitting the tax. Twenty six states currently provide retailers with such compensation, amounting to a total of over $1 billion in annual revenue losses for those states.

The policy prescription in many states is fairly clear. While there may be room for debate over whether any compensation is warranted, what is not in question is that there should be a sensible limit on the maximum amount that any one business can receive via this practice. As author Philip Mattera points out, "the main expenses that retailers incur with regard to sales taxes, especially software programs to track them, are fixed costs that do not rise in tandem with growth in receipts."

Those states without such a limitation in many cases forfeit quite substantial amounts of revenue through vendor discounts. Illinois, for example, loses over $126 million annually due to the practice. Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado each lose in the neighborhood of $70 - $90 million per year. Thirteen of the twenty six states offering vendor discounts do not cap the amount any individual retailer can claim. In addition, five states that do impose limits on maximum compensation have set those limits at seemingly excessive levels, ranging from $10,000 to $240,000 per retailer.

For state-by-state details on existing vendor compensation practices, as well as other ways in which retailers are being subsidized through the sales tax, see the report here.

Colorado's ballot outcomes represent the most serious defeat of good tax policy to take place in this election. A proposal to send the automatic TABOR refunds into a savings account for education, as well as another proposal to end a costly and unnecessary tax break for the oil industry both fell short. Each of these proposals had the potential to secure more revenues for the state at a time when Colorado services are suffering, and the state is facing a mid-year budget shortfall. Descriptions of both of these failed proposals can be found in our Colorado archives.

Last week, we informed you about a couple of surprising allies in Massachusetts and Oregon in the fight against regressive and irresponsible ballot proposals. Since then, more valuable support in favor of reasoned tax policy has come from another surprising source: key business groups in Massachusetts and Colorado.

Ballot Proposal to Repeal Massachusetts Income Tax

In Massachusetts, that support (in opposition to the proposed repeal of the state's income tax) comes in the form of a 26 page report prepared by the Global Insight consulting firm on behalf of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Among the report's criticisms is that the measure would slash funds so drastically that low- and middle-income residents would be effectively deprived of access to higher education. The report also places emphasis on the inevitable decline in the state's infrastructure (a key component of doing business) that would accompany the repeal. An apt summary of the report, in the words of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, is that repealing the income tax would "devastate the state's economy".

Ballot Proposal to Undo Part of the So-Called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" in Colorado

Equally influential business groups in Colorado have expressed a similar desire for sound tax policy. In Colorado, the debate is over a proposal to alter the requirement under the "TABOR" amendment, passed a decade ago, that requires surplus revenues to be used for rebate checks sent to households. The proposal on the ballot this year would redirect the automatic TABOR refunds into a special fund for education, which would help free the state from the unrealistic restraints on revenue imposed by TABOR. Among the business groups in support of the measure are the Associated General Contractors, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association, Colorado Retail Council, Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. In the words of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, "this proposal will help Colorado get out of the bottom in funding", and is simply "smart business".

The broad coalitions forming in each of these states vividly demonstrate the importance of the coming vote on these proposals. And at least in Massachusetts, a recent poll indicates that this broad-base of opposition appears to be producing results. But in Colorado, unfortunately, the numbers are looking much less favorable, although the vote is still too close to call.

One does not have to be elected to Congress or hired to anchor a national news show to become addicted to supply-side economics. State government and local media are equally at risk. This November, voters in several states will decide on ballot questions that are being promoted with supply-side justifications.

A proposal to be voted on in Oregon seeks to allow taxpayers to deduct (in full) their income tax payments to the federal government for state income tax purposes. Currently, only the first $5,600 one pays to the federal government is allowed to be deducted on Oregon state income tax forms. This arrangement already has regressive results, and by uncapping the deduction limit completely, those wealthy individuals who owe the most in federal income taxes will be allowed to slash their Oregon tax payments substantially.

Though the workings of the Oregon proposal may seem a bit confusing, its results most certainly are not. The vast majority (78 percent) of Oregonian families will get nothing, the wealthiest 1 percent will enjoy a nearly $16,000 annual tax cut, and the government of Oregon will have to make due with between $500 million and $1 billion less in revenues each year. (Six other states, Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota, currently allow for some deduction of federal income taxes, and they should all end this regressive practice.)

So how are backers of the Oregon proposal justifying this giveaway to the rich? You guessed it. One news account informs us that "[Russ] Walker, Oregon director of the national fiscal conservative group FreedomWorks [and co-sponsor of Measure 59], says the tax reduction would produce a supply-side result of economic expansion with more income and more tax revenue to offset the cut." The argument is that the tax cut will at least increase revenue enough to pay for itself -- the most extreme form of supply-side thinking.

North Dakota voters will also be taking a look at their income tax this fall. Backers of an income tax rate cut are enthusiastically pushing a plan that offers an average tax cut of just $83 to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers statewide. What's the big deal? The wealthiest 1 percent of North Dakotans would save an average of over $11,000 per year. And those numbers don't even include the corporate income tax cuts, which are sure to also disproportionately benefit the wealthy. And to make matters worse, the proposal would cost the state over $200 million annually.

And how do backers of this measure justify giving away revenue to the rich? Well, if a tax cut simply pays for itself through supply-side magic, backers hope that the practical, common sense folk of North Dakota won't ask such uncomfortable questions. As one news account explains, "Measure 2 proposes to cut income taxes 50 percent and corporate taxes 15 percent, said Duane Sand of the group Americans for Prosperity [the measure's principal backer]. Sand said the state's tax policies have forced young and old to leave the state. The OMB estimates Measure 2 would cut state revenue about $415 million for the next biennium. That money would be replaced by higher tax collections from increased economic activity, Sand said."

A proposal on the ballot in Massachusetts provides perhaps the most obvious example of the recklessness so often involved in anti-tax ballot initiatives. Massachusetts voters will once again have to decide this November on a proposal to constitutionally end the income tax -- a move that would reduce government revenues by a whopping 40 percent, and would undoubtedly have dire consequences in the form of reduced government services. But while all Massachusetts residents would have to share in the pain of a 40 percent reduction in their government's budget, the wealthy would be the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut, since the income tax is the only major progressive tax levied by the state. Even more alarming is the fact that over 45 percent of Massachusetts voters supported a similar measure in 2002.

Now, even supply-siders would have trouble arguing that reducing a tax to zero can result in increased revenues. (Except that apparently the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative do believe that about the capital gains tax, as we said in a previous article in this Digest).

But backers of the Massachusetts measure do argue, using supply-side logic, that less taxes will result in so much economic growth that no one will feel the loss of public services that would inevitably result.

Carla Howell, chairperson of the group backing the measure (and Libertarian candidate for governor in 2002) says that "In addition to giving each worker an annual average of $3,700, it will take $12.5 billion out of the hands of Beacon Hill politicians -- and put it back into the hands of the men and women who earned it. Every year. In productive, private hands this $12.5 billion a year will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Massachusetts."

Actually, this proposal to slash state government revenue by 40 percent is so extreme that even business groups cite a report showing just how devastated infrastructure, education and other services would be if this proposal is approved.

So it seems that many states are on the verge of ruining themselves with the narcotic of supply-side tax economics. If these states fail to resist, then what? Rehabilitation is possible, but it's a long and hard road. Colorado is trying to break free of the mess it created a decade ago when taxes and revenues were strictly suppressed by the so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) that was approved by voters. TABOR poses a serious problem given that the cost of government services sometimes increases at a rate greater than general inflation. Also, another amendment to the state's constitution requires regular increases in education spending. Reconciling these two competing demands proved impossible, and in 2005 Colorado voters temporarily suspended a significant portion of the TABOR requirement.

This year, it appears many Coloradans have finally had enough with having to deal with inadequate government services under the unrealistic TABOR requirements. Voters will have the opportunity to decide on Amendment 59, which would end the automatic refunds to taxpayers used to suppress state revenues, in favor of diverting that money toward education. This effort gives hope to those who realize that public services like schools and roads are the building blocks of a state economy, and that to have these services we have to pay for them. It also should serve as a warning to people in other states where supply-siders are promising voters that they can have their cake and eat it too.

This week Colorado Governor Bill Ritter filed a ballot initiative petition that, if passed by voters in November, would end a $300 million a year subsidy for oil and gas companies. The property tax deduction for oil companies was originally justified as a way to encourage them to support certain local measures, such as school bonds. Supporters claimed that without the tax break the industry would pay disproportionately more in taxes and thus have an incentive to work against local measures.

But Colorado is the only state that continues to provide such a generous severance tax break to the oil and gas industry. And, as Gov Ritter points out, these companies have an obligation as responsible members of the community to support beneficial local legislation. The state should not subsidize this behavior.

The petition would channel the $300 million savings primarily to college scholarship funding for low-income students and measures that would mitigate the impact of the oil and gas industry on wildlife, transportation and water quality. Oil and gas industry spokespersons, however, claim that companies would be forced to pass on higher prices to consumers. Ritter countered this attack, explaining that Colorado's tiny contribution to world oil supplies will have a negligible impact on prices.

The oil and gas industry is expected to spend about $20 million in its campaign against the initiative and supporters of the initiative will spend about $5 million. Voters will be asked to choose between continuing to subsidize a booming industry or investing money in Colorado families and wildlife preservation. But as gas prices continue to soar and winter approaches, Colorado voters may fall victim to the threats by oil and gas companies to pass on the burden of the tax. In order for fairness to triumph, the state must adequately educate voters about the $50 million local communities stand to gain for environmental improvements as well as the increase in low-income students' opportunity to attend college.

Colorado might permanently loosen a constitutional constraint that has caused the state on-going fiscal damage, the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

Voters approved an amendment to their constitution enacting TABOR in 1992. TABOR limits the growth of state revenues to a combination of inflation and population growth by requiring that any revenue in excess of this limit be refunded to taxpayers. TABOR also requires that any tax increase be approved by voters. The main problem is that inflation is only a very crude measure of changes in the costs faced by state and local governments, which for the most part have outpaced inflation in the rest of the economy.

In 2000, Colorado voters complicated matters further by approving a very different measure, Amendment 23, which mandates an increase in funding for K-12 education by at least 1% plus inflation every year. This amendment was a response to the dismal state of Colorado public schools in the wake of unrealistic revenue restrictions enacted in TABOR.

Enacting both of these provisions made sense to many voters who would like to see both lower taxes and more spending on education. The problem is that the combination of TABOR and Amendment 23 serve to starve transportation, higher education and just about anything that is not K-12 education.

Now, Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, with the backing of Governor Bill Ritter, plans to unshackle the legislature from these impossible demands. His proposal, if approved by two thirds of both chambers and by the voters, would repeal Amendment 23 and the part of TABOR that requires the state to refund taxes when the revenue limit is exceeded. Fortunately, the citizens of Colorado are likely to look favorably on this proposal, given that they voted in 2005 to suspend TABOR's revenue-refund provision for 5 years. This suspension would essentially become permanent under this proposal.

But one problem associated with TABOR would not be fixed under this plan: tax increases would still require voter approval. Of course, it would be better if the Colorado legislature were allowed to write tax policy themselves. That is, after all, what lawmakers are elected to do. But a related improvement to the policymaking process appears to be on its way. Local legislators will likely soon be given the authority (by a bill expected to be signed by the governor) to propose sales tax increases to their voters without having to first seek the approval of the state legislature.

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe has called a special session starting Monday to consider a higher severance tax on natural gas. The Governor says that the tax hike will eventually raise as much as $100 million to help pay for state highways. The current level of tax was established in 1957 and is based on the volume of gas extracted. Beebe's proposal would change the tax base to market value, bringing Arkansas in line with what most states have been doing since the 1970s. Basing the tax on market value would ensure that inflation will no longer erode the value of revenues generated by the tax, which is currently providing natural gas companies with an effective tax cut each year. A 2003 ITEP study of the Arkansas natural gas tax found that if the state had imposed a 5 percent tax on the market value of natural gas in 1975 (rather than basing the tax on volume) the state would have raised $610 million between 1975 and 2001, instead of the $13 million it actually collected. For more on the state's severance tax and potential reforms read this report from Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Higher severance taxes may soon be on the agenda as well in Colorado, where environmental groups and higher education advocates have banded together in support of a ballot initiative to generate $200 million in additional revenue from the oil and gas industries. The proposal would eliminate several severance tax deductions and exemptions, the most notable of which allows companies to write off 87.5 percent of their property tax bills. The revenue generated would go to fund college scholarships and renewable-energy programs, among other things.

After years of starving state government through the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) the piper may finally get paid. It seems that a wave of ballot initiatives will ask Colorado voters next year to increase taxes to pay for government services and programs they feel are important. According to The Bell Policy Center, at last count there were 17 initiatives in the works that deal with raising revenue. The proposals include using fees on new construction to fund education and a new tax on junk food.

Currently Colorado ranks near the bottom for education and highway spending compared to states around the nation. Over the years since TABOR was enacted, many in Colorado have realized that taxes are necessary for government to function and have turned to the initiative process as a flawed, second best alternative to having a legislature that can make responsible tax and fiscal decisions.

States that enjoy a large endowment of mineral resources usually levy a severance tax on the extraction of these resources and these taxes are receiving a lot of attention these days. In Colorado the Auditor's office found that many oil and gas companies may not be filing tax returns. Officials in West Virginia worry that coal severance taxes are on the decline there, while advocates in Arkansas say that now is the time for severance tax reform. For more on this, read the report "Digging Deeper," from Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.