Prop 103 Increase In Taxes For Schools

For or against? And why?

It doesn't look that onerous, but I am usually try to vote down any taxes I can. Latest polling says this is at 50/50 right now and ballots should be arriving this week.

I remember Amendment 23; and I remember the Bond Issue for Jefferson County that was supposed to come with a link to grade-improvement--"No performance, no money." Uh-huh. Ever seen a bond issue passed that was based on a trigger where the money wasn't distributed because the trigger didn't happen? Neither have I.

They've come to the well too many times...I'm going to vote against this one. They've played the "It's for the children" theme once too often.

LadyJazzer wrote: I remember Amendment 23; and I remember the Bond Issue for Jefferson County that was supposed to come with a link to grade-improvement--"No performance, no money." Uh-huh. Ever seen a bond issue passed that was based on a trigger where the money wasn't distributed because the trigger didn't happen? Neither have I.

They've come to the well too many times...I'm going to vote against this one. They've played the "It's for the children" theme once too often.

Proposition 103 is about more money for the teachers union
Read more: Proposition 103 is about more money for the teachers union - The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19012508#ixzz1aUx3WxrQ

The Jefferson County School District is currently overfunded. Like way overfunded. In this economy our local government expects to just keep on growing and growing without any regard to the real conditions that the citizens here have been facing- and are likely to face in the next few years. Simply cutting the size of the "increase" in the local governments budget is not acceptable- government needs to cut back and find ways to do more with less, just like the families and businesses in this area.

Consider that businesses in this area are not growing - and the majority of them are running with reduced revenue, and fewer customers. Individuals are experiencing the same thing, jobs that are paying less - hours that have been cut - or no job at all where there were jobs before. Senior citizens had seen their savings evaporate in the stock market and the costs of everything going up and up, many are not able to keep up with a fixed income.

Prop 103 means more money goes to government and less money in our pockets- it increases the state income tax rates by 8 percent and sales taxrates by 3.4 percent in Colorado both for 5 years. Decades of increasing school funding has not increased student test scores. It has created jobs for teachers and revenue for their unions that almost exclusively support Democratic politicians. These politicians sustain tax-funded schools as a monopolistic cartel that squashes competition and limits choice for parents and taxpayers.

The teachers union in Colorado has fought against any voucher system which would give parents a choice in their own childrens education.

The information I want people to know are just the basic facts.....

--- The Jefferson County school district accounts for 50% of all property taxes in the county
--- Property values in Jefferson county are still overstated - my assessment went up this last year (and the real value of my property did not) This amounts to an increase of my property taxes during a time when they should be going down due to a lower property value.

Jefferson county takes more money from my property taxes this year than last- chances are that your property is overtaxed as well.

--- Jefferson County School District budget for 2010-2011 is $977,168,400.00 or very nearly 1 billion dollars.
--- Jefferson County School District has 85,000 students.
--- That's $11,496.09 per student / per year to educate the kids

The $11,496.09 is an average cost per student- why does it take nearly 12 thousand dollars a year? Many colleges do not charge this much for an education - why does it cost this much to teach a second grader or a third grader?

The answer is- it should not cost anywhere near this much money, the school system needs reform. If we continue to fund every request from the district- you can bet all your money that the needed reforms will never happen.

They have enough money to do their jobs- consider that a classroom of 22 students costs us $252,913.98 per year- more than a quarter million dollars per year.

Teachers Pay- with all the whining about teachers being underpaid- here's the facts about teachers pay in Jefferson County......

How the Jefferson County pay system works

Jefferson County schools' new teachers-compensation program have a three-tier pay system:

First tier: Probationary teachers with less than three years of experience. They would earn $40,000 in base pay, higher than the current $33,000, and could get up to $10,000 in bonuses from good evaluations, pushing student achievement and meeting goals.
Teachers earn up to $50,000.

Second tier: Non-probationary teachers, or those with more than three years of experience. Base pay would be $55,000 to $65,000, with up to $10,000 in bonuses.
Teachers earn up to $75,000.

Third tier: Highest-performing teachers who would become mentors or master teachers. Base pay would be $80,000 to $100,000, and they also could earn up to $10,000 in bonuses.
Teachers earn up to $110,000.

Not bad considering they only work for 9 months of the year!! Where do I sign up?

Read more: Jeffco schools to increase some teachers' pay to more than $100,000 - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16159862#ixzz1aV5DCw46

So there are some of the facts- After reviewing them myself I have decided to vote NO on 103. There are too many people in our community who are struggling just to get by, and we don't need to make more problems for them right now. The opportunity to tax ourselves more every year will not go away, so don't feel like this is going to be your last chance to raise taxes.

Vote NO on 103!

Elementary and secondary level education should not be part of the state budget. These are local concerns, not state concerns. My vote will be no as well. I would seriously consider a local tax increase for the purposes of improving the schools in Park County, but I will not vote to approve a tax increase to provide more money that the state will have control over.

Well it's ABOUT TIME!

Ya know, over the last couple years, I've seen posters fawning over public school teachers like they were descended from heaven. Now that things have gotten completely and monstrously shi**y, it's all NO votes. Not that I'm singling anyone out, no sir. I'm just saying that it's funny that a lot of people are finally waking up to the fact that public unions are bull sh*t and are deciding that more money is way out of the freakin' question. Test scores and graduation rates staying flat for decades but compensations doubling in most cases?? WTF?! I KNOW a kindergarten teacher that makes almost eighty a year. Give me a flippin' break.


Definitely a NO vote here....

Edit: Hey PS, hope all is well in the real world these days. About Park County Schools though. Platte Canyon got that addition like what?...six years ago? I'm foggy as Tartarus. They don't actually USE but like three quarters of that right? Or wrong? I've gotten a lot of different stories, but the majority tells me that the addition was a waste of cash cause it's a lot of empty space? Don't get me wrong though, I think the little elementary on 43 (Deer Creek?) could use some spiff. JMHO. Jeffco has ALWAYS gotten large increases in revenue versus Park.

Prop 103b...just surcharge parents? And Park SP is building a $30 million dollar school renovation that will cost another $30 million in interest for borrowing the first $30 million, all of which will be split 50/50 by state and local taxpayers. There are not that many kids over here.

I'm voting "no" - but would note that I dislike the scare tactics and logic employed by the proposition naysayers:

Raising taxes over five years would slow Colorado’s economy and lead to 27,000 fewer people working by 2016, according to a study by Eric Fruits, president of Economics International Corp. in Portland, Oregon. He was hired by the Colorado-based Common Sense Policy Roundtable, a research organization with several business leaders on its board.

No - not really - since the tax revenue would be turned around and spent on education (mostly salaries). The bulk - of the funds would be retained in-state (unlike the Roundtable - which spent their funds out-of-state). The Roundtable lacks a genuine interest in Colorado's economy.

bailey bud wrote: I'm voting "no" - but would note that I dislike the scare tactics and logic employed by the proposition naysayers:

Raising taxes over five years would slow Colorado’s economy and lead to 27,000 fewer people working by 2016, according to a study by Eric Fruits, president of Economics International Corp. in Portland, Oregon. He was hired by the Colorado-based Common Sense Policy Roundtable, a research organization with several business leaders on its board.

No - not really - since the tax revenue would be turned around and spent on education (mostly salaries). The bulk - of the funds would be retained in-state (unlike the Roundtable - which spent their funds out-of-state). The Roundtable lacks a genuine interest in Colorado's economy.

If you pay the guy at the sawmill for boards because you want to or pay the same amount in taxes that goes to teacher salary....it does not do the same amount of good for the economy.

Think of a closed loop, such as a family. Mom/Dad/Son/Daughter. Two examples. In one Dad pays Mom $10 one day to teach Daughter how to pick Berries quicker. At the end of the day the family has no more money, no more food but they are more educated on a whole...perhaps can get more money or food later, perhaps. In example two Dad pays Son $10 to pick 10 baskets of berries one day. At the end of the day the family...or the economy....has the same amount of money but more berries...the Son also knows how to pick them faster, by the way.

It is 1890 Fairplay. A stranger comes into town and puts $100 on the counter of the Fairplay Hotel and says he is heading upstairs to look at a room, here is his deposit.

The Hotel Keeper runs over to the local butcher to pay off his $100 debt for his meat. The Butcher runs over to the rancher with the $100 and pays off his debt for the Cow. The Rancher runs over to the Prostitute to pay off the $100 services (oh it was good) her recd. on credit the night before. She runs back to the hotel and pays off her room debt of $100 with the Hotel Keeper. The Hotel keeper puts the $100 back on the counter.

A moment later the stranger comes down from the rooms and states that none meet his standards and he takes his $100 and leaves. When he got there everyone in town had a net worth of zero and was $100 in debt. When left everyone had a net worth of zero and owed no one anything.

There are many points, but one of them is that if the Hotel Keeper actually sold the room, he would have started the cycle and in the end rcvd. $100...adding to the economy as a whole. The Rancher could have struck gold or raised another cow. This is your stimulus bullsh**. If you don't make something new, add value, you have done nothing but accounting for society as a whole....and do you notice who always get a slice when money moves? So stimulus will just make more money for the govt while moving ours around.

You must find wealth or find a way to add value. Adding $11k a year worth of education that only produces $10k worth of return is a net loss and society does not win...the economy does not actually get better. Only if education is really good, better than the alternatives, does it create a better society, otherwise those kids would be better off panning for gold. 12 years of panning for gold and I bet they earn enough to start a small business. Then give them the $150k we would have spent on the teachers and schools and wam, that would be a productive society full of small businesses. Top that off with another $100k in college funds and wam, wam.

Spending money on Teachers DOES NOT HELP THE ECONOMY unless you really believe we can educate ourselves out of the current climate. But if you really believed that, wouldn't you have already stopped trying to regulate your way out of it? Neither will work by the way.

Not sure I followed everything yoyo said- but I think we agree- spending money on more teachers or cops does not create any wealth or add to the GDP of the state, in fact it removes dollars from the private economy where it actually CAN be used to create wealth.

This is where the economist they hired is correct. The fact is - every dollar we remove from private hands and place into the governments hands is a dollar that (at very best) does not create wealth. Add in the un-efficienct government bureaucracy- waste & abuse and the story gets worse from there.

Yes we need teachers and cops- but hiring more than what is needed (and paying them more than market value) is pure waste. If a town like Evergreen only really needs 2 cops- and they always have 14 on the streets- all of the money spent on the extra 12 cops is 100% waste. That money would have undoubtedly been much better off for the economy had it not been taxed and spent by government in the first place.

Who gets to choose how many teachers and cops? The government does.