multi passionate

Dear Concerned Citizens,

The proposed amendments to Colorado’s property tax laws are generating quite a buzz. Section 4, Article 10, and the subsequent sections bring significant changes, particularly in the assessment and valuation of real property. While these changes aim to address certain issues, it’s essential to explore both sides of the argument.

I’d like to draw your attention to a proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Colorado. This amendment, known as Section 1, Article 10, suggests changes in property tax levies and valuation methods. While this proposal aims to address certain issues, it’s crucial to consider the potential drawbacks and alternatives.

The proposed change suggests that property tax levies should be uniform across all properties, whether real or personal, within a tax authority’s jurisdiction. It also introduces the concept of “inflation” as a limiting factor, capping annual property value increases at 3%. On the surface, this may seem like a way to protect property owners from soaring tax bills.

(**Inflation** — refers to the sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time, resulting in a decrease in the purchasing power of a currency. Inflation means that, on average, the same amount of money will buy fewer goods or services in the future than it would today. It is typically expressed as an annual percentage, representing the rate at which prices are rising. Inflation can have various causes, including increased demand, rising production costs, changes in supply and demand dynamics, and government policies such as the expansion of the money supply. Central banks often aim to manage and control inflation to maintain economic stability. Moderate inflation is considered normal in most economies, but high or hyperinflation can have detrimental effects on an economy and people’s standard of living.)

However, I argue: 

Amendment Overview: Section 4 suggests that, beginning in 2023, the actual value of real property shall not increase annually by more than inflation. This change has the potential to protect property owners from substantial tax hikes in times of economic growth.

Rethinking Property Taxation: Here are some points to consider:

1. Impact on Public Services: Property taxes play a crucial role in funding public services such as schools, infrastructure, and emergency services. Capping property value increases at inflation rates could lead to reduced revenue, potentially affecting the quality of these services.

2. Inequity in Taxation: A one-size-fits-all approach may not account for regional variations in property values. Homeowners in high-demand areas may pay the same rates as those in less desirable neighborhoods, despite significant differences in property values.

3. Economic Development: Property values can be influenced by factors beyond inflation, such as economic growth and development. Strict caps might discourage property owners from investing in maintenance and improvement, potentially hampering local economic development.

Alternative Solutions: Rather than imposing rigid caps, we should explore alternative solutions that balance the interests of property owners and the needs of our communities. A more flexible approach that considers regional variations, economic factors, and the actual needs of local communities might be a more prudent solution.

It’s also important to ensure that any measurement used to limit property value increases is fair and equitable for all residents, accounting for the unique economic conditions in different parts of the state.

Referendum on the Horizon: Furthermore, Section 6 indicates that voters will have the final say on this initiative during the election on November 2, 2032. It’s crucial for all registered electors to cast their votes thoughtfully, considering the long-term implications of this proposal.

Furthermore, while the proposed amendments aim to protect property owners from excessive tax hikes, it’s essential to consider the potential consequences and explore alternative solutions. Let’s strive for a property tax system that promotes economic stability, supports public services, and considers the unique needs of our diverse communities.

Our tax system is a topic that has been debated since the birth of our nation, and today, I’d like to discuss an intriguing proposal: ending the federal income tax. This proposition is rooted in the historical views of some of our founding fathers, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who believed in limiting the direct taxation power of the federal government. The argument goes further to suggest that a legal battle to determine whether Amendment 16 conflicts with Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution could pave the way for transformative changes in our tax policies.

The Historical Perspective: Hamilton and Madison were proponents of a limited federal government when it came to directly taxing the people. They believed that taxation should be primarily in the hands of state governments, which were considered closer to the people and more responsive to their needs.

A Legal Challenge: The proposal encourages us to consider whether the 16th Amendment, which permits federal income taxation, might be in conflict with the original intent of the Constitution. A legal battle that forces the Supreme Court to interpret the relationship between Amendment 16 and Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 could be a crucial step in this process.

State Tax Reforms: The ultimate goal of this proposal is to allow states more flexibility in their tax policies. If the federal government’s direct income taxation is curtailed, states could potentially reform their tax systems. One significant reform could be ending property taxes. The argument here is that our founding fathers likely never intended for the government to directly tax citizens on their land or property to raise revenue.

A Call for Debate: This proposal opens the door to a broader discussion about our tax system and its alignment with the principles upon which our nation was founded. It’s a call for a thoughtful and informed debate on how our taxation policies can better serve the interests of the people and our vision of limited government.

While the proposal may raise challenging questions and legal complexities, it’s a reminder of the enduring relevance of our Constitution and the need to periodically reevaluate our policies in light of our founding principles.

Sincerely,

Marla Fernandez