In big type on I see "How would you like to pay only $30 for tabs?"

Yet the significant result of this initiative would be to change how taxes are levied.

Does anyone who signed the initiative wish to comment on whether this tactic was used to collect signatures? Were these people fully informed of the fact the initiative would change our tax representation to a direct democracy?

I think at least now people who browse the web site should have the tax structure changes front and center, not left as it is now, indirectly referenced in the questions section.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 18, 1999

Answers

I agree with part of what you are saying... I think..

I suspect that I-695 will pass for the wrong reason,, it will pass because it is billed as a $30 lic tab....

But I suspect we part company at this point... it SHOULD pass because of the second half, being that we will have some contol over future taxes.

If you look back,,several weeks, you will find that I brought this point up more than once.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), September 18, 1999.

Does the conjecture that a tax structure change may pass because of the cash savings to car owners make you a little leary of putting taxes up for popular votes?

I think there's a risk that the voting system could be manipulated by initiatives that do two things under one heading like this one, long term changes being sold on short term benefits.

I think we should consider direct democratic control over taxes FIRST and apart from any specific tax structure changes which should be addressed after we rest control from our representatives if we choose to.

I really think the Pro 695 folks could be more forthright on the web site about changes to the tax structure, currently they appear not to care which means are used for the ends with their focus on "How would you like to pay only $30 for tabs". ( Not that the Anti 695 spots address this important issue sufficiently either...)

I'll go read more threads!

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 18, 1999.

"Does the conjecture that a tax structure change may pass because of the cash savings to car owners make you a little leary of putting taxes up for popular votes? "

Like the federal and state appropriations bills, budget, and tax codes aren't a who's who of special interest legislation. Like there wasn't corporate welfare up the ying yang, pay offs to unions, PACs, and corporations for their political dollars. Like Archer Daniels Midland and the Milk Fund and all the others haven't been swilling at the public trough for decades, with the bought and paid for votes of our elected representatives. Hell, give the people a chance for a while. They could hardly do worse.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 18, 1999.

If the tax structure changes in 695 don't work out I guess we could always include in an initiative to repeal 695 a clause reducing the sales tax to 1% to help it pass...

Have any other states chosen / gained experience with tax levying by direct democracy?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 18, 1999.