By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project
They take your TABOR refund, not by removing it from your hand, but by taking away the possibility there will be one in the first place.
When I’ve written in the past about gas stoves or internal combustion cars, one thing I’ve noted is that the government doesn’t necessarily outright ban those things, they merely take away your ability to find them and/or buy them.
Something similar happened this last legislative session. The state (depending on the estimates) either took your TABOR refunds for the future or it took a huge chunk of them.
And like with what I said about the stoves, they didn’t take them by direct action, that is, but taking the check out of your hand. No, they took them by taking away your ability to have them in the first place.
A recent brief by the Independence Institute (see the first link below) illustrates this. I’ll leave it to you to study up on the details/dynamics, but the process is pretty simple.
In order for you to get a TABOR refund, our state must collect more money than allowed under TABOR.** But no refund is due if our state doesn’t go above this limit. So, why not just NOT go over the limit and have no money to refund?
No silly, that doesn’t mean the government becomes fiscally responsible. It means that they set up the rules of the game so that some people pay their full share of taxes while some (those that the party in power favor and feel are more deserving) pay less.
This means that the government doesn’t collect as much from some people, meaning the government takes in less revenue, meaning that they don’t go above the TABOR limit (and all without sacrificing their progressive values and having to give back to each according to what he paid).
In case you wanted some detail of how this happens specifically, head over to my Colorado Accountability page where I’ve provided some examples.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.