3 ms·

The bad news is that this amount of revenue will become the new normal, i.e., future budgets will always assume this amount of revenue or more. I think the nov

by xienze 11y ago

The bad news is that this amount of revenue will become the new normal, i.e., future budgets will always assume this amount of revenue or more. I think the novelty factor wearing off and other states legalizing marijuana will put a dent in this number in the future. So hopefully the government won't go too nuts assuming hockey stick growth.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> The bad news is that this amount of revenue will become the new normal, i.e., future budgets will always assume this amount of revenue or more. That's good news, not bad news (for legalization advocates). It becomes the new normal, which means that if anybody wants to reverse course, the burden is on them to find alternative sources for $50-100MM in tax revenue. And a major chunk of the tax revenue is explicitly earmarked for public education, which is makes it that much more difficult for a politician just to ignore the tax revenue and repeal Amendment 64 without finding an alternate source.
- xienze 11y ago
  > It becomes the new normal, which means that if anybody wants to reverse course, the burden is on them to find alternative sources for $50-100MM in tax revenue. That "alternative source" is invariably tax increases. Politicians aren't terribly clever about these sorts of things. > And a major chunk of the tax revenue is explicitly earmarked for public education That's not at all an iron-clad guarantee of how the money is spent, you may want to look up e.g., the North Carolina Education Lottery.
  - hsod 11y ago
    > That "alternative source" is invariably tax increases. Politicians aren't terribly clever about these sorts of things. Tax increases have political cost (i.e. a politican or activist would have to expend political capital) so I'm not sure what your point is
natrius 11y ago
If the novelty factor starts to wear off, just smoke again so everything seems novel.
guelo 11y ago
Colorado collects $11 billion in taxes so $75 million is just a drop in the bucket and doesn't make much of a difference.
adventured 11y ago
The number will grow beyond the $70 million, likely by quite a bit given how early it is. There's no chance other states will put a dent in the $70m figure unless you're calculating Colorado losing population. The majority of tax revenue is coming from counties other than Denver and Boulder. Pot tourists are a small fraction of the base. Texas legalizing pot isn't going to slam the tax revenue for eg Summit Colorado.
peter303 11y ago
Tax revenue is capped in Colorado. Their version of proposition-13, called TABOR, limits revenue increases to population increase plus inflation. Colorado is having a one-day marijuana tax holiday Sept 16. They are arguing about how to refund the rest of the over-taxation required next year. Its been done several times before, either with small rebates or tiny decreases in the income tax rate.

by xienze 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> The bad news is that this amount of revenue will become the new normal, i.e., future budgets will always assume this amount of revenue or more. That's good news, not bad news (for legalization advocates). It becomes the new normal, which means that if anybody wants to reverse course, the burden is on them to find alternative sources for $50-100MM in tax revenue. And a major chunk of the tax revenue is explicitly earmarked for public education, which is makes it that much more difficult for a politician just to ignore the tax revenue and repeal Amendment 64 without finding an alternate source.

xienze 11y ago
> It becomes the new normal, which means that if anybody wants to reverse course, the burden is on them to find alternative sources for $50-100MM in tax revenue. That "alternative source" is invariably tax increases. Politicians aren't terribly clever about these sorts of things. > And a major chunk of the tax revenue is explicitly earmarked for public education That's not at all an iron-clad guarantee of how the money is spent, you may want to look up e.g., the North Carolina Education Lottery.
- hsod 11y ago
  > That "alternative source" is invariably tax increases. Politicians aren't terribly clever about these sorts of things. Tax increases have political cost (i.e. a politican or activist would have to expend political capital) so I'm not sure what your point is

natrius 11y ago

If the novelty factor starts to wear off, just smoke again so everything seems novel.

guelo 11y ago

Colorado collects $11 billion in taxes so $75 million is just a drop in the bucket and doesn't make much of a difference.

adventured 11y ago

The number will grow beyond the $70 million, likely by quite a bit given how early it is. There's no chance other states will put a dent in the $70m figure unless you're calculating Colorado losing population. The majority of tax revenue is coming from counties other than Denver and Boulder. Pot tourists are a small fraction of the base. Texas legalizing pot isn't going to slam the tax revenue for eg Summit Colorado.

peter303 11y ago

Tax revenue is capped in Colorado. Their version of proposition-13, called TABOR, limits revenue increases to population increase plus inflation. Colorado is having a one-day marijuana tax holiday Sept 16. They are arguing about how to refund the rest of the over-taxation required next year. Its been done several times before, either with small rebates or tiny decreases in the income tax rate.