5 ms·

This is good news and bad news. The funding for schools will be a boon to education in the state, and that's certainly not bad. However, I expect will almost ce

This is good news and bad news. The funding for schools will be a boon to education in the state, and that's certainly not bad. However, I expect will almost certainly lead to decreased education funding from other revenue sources, and ultimately place education footing on less solid ground for years to come. It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education, there's no doubt about that. It's very hard to argue with such things, and many other states have opted to dedicate certain "sin taxes" to select public works. For example, earmarking some funds for veterans affairs out of state lottery tickets as my state (Iowa) does, or education as many more states do. On the surface, this seems like a brilliant way to justify revenue collection for what many citizens would consider unseemly or undignified. It is an effective sales pitch to say to a voter, "You may disagree with marijuana legalization, but it will bring in $50 million dollars to state schools." The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years. That is, education budgets are likely to reflect this revenue for future years. That's precisely what has happened in so many states where state lottery revenues have been earmarked for education and other noble causes. John Oliver's Last Week Tonight had an excellent take on a similar topic: the "sin tax" of state lottery tickets. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA It is wonderful that marijuana taxes are going to a good cause. It is dangerous to make education funding dependent on a volatile tax source, and the evidence suggests that is exactly what will happen.

aggie 11y ago
Are sin taxes really that volatile? I don't have good data, but many people suggest marijuana (as well as alcohol) is counter-cyclical and demand is relatively inelastic. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amid-the-stock-market-volatility-turn-to-the-stability-of-the-marijuana-market-2015-08-27 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amid-the-stock-market-volat... edit: This study suggests alcohol is actually pro-cyclical (in Scandanavia). [pdf] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185.64&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185...
- AaronFriel 11y ago
  Even a small (4-6%) change in revenue can wipe out inflationary increases in funding for education. Even if they're counter-cyclical, the evidence is that replacing education funding with something more volatile is risky, because it's replacing consistent funding with something that is based on market dynamics. In the case of marijunaa, it's largely cultural.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    Colorado spent over $7 billion on education in FY2012-2013. The marijuana revenue number in the article is $70 million. Even if the pot revenue completely disappeared, it'd be less than a 1% change in total education funding. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251749659390&ssbinary=true http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...
  - civilian 11y ago
    If we're looking to avoid volatile revenue streams, we should also avoid income taxes. But that's not really a starter, is it? http://taxfoundation.org/blog/new-sp-report-shows-income-taxes-are-volatile-sales-taxes-need-reform http://taxfoundation.org/blog/new-sp-report-shows-income-tax... A better solution would be to have a budget that accounted for potential volatility, and specified where surpluses should go, and where things should be cut from if revenues are down.
    - eru 11y ago
      Don't governments have the ability to go into debt for exactly that stabilizing function?
      - civilian 11y ago
        Yes, but wouldn't it be way better to make them honestly try to balance budgets, rather than knowing they can always over-run and kick the can down the road?
peter303 11y ago
The silliest tax earmark was for anti-pot education, especially aimed at under 18. Seeing users and magazine ads everywhere saying it is good for adults, but how could you say its bad for teens then?
- rhelmer 11y ago
  Well one argument is that teen brains are not done developing, and something that has a negligible effect on an adult might not be so for teenagers... even if there are no harmful long-term effects it might interfere with schoolwork or other things that teenagers are responsible for. I have read these arguments but I don't know what the available evidence points to, this seems like the kind of thing I'd want this sort of education to cover. Alcohol and tobacco are most definitely harmful for everybody, and it's certainly possible to argue that choosing to use a potentially harmful substance is not something minors are prepared to make a reasoned judgement about. More generally, I think that showing teenagers that people who buy ads in magazines don't necessarily have their best interests at heart is a good thing!
- code_sterling 11y ago
  Science. It impedes brain development in youth.
  - civilian 11y ago
    I suspect it's still inconclusive. Ya know. Science. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to-teen-brains/Content?oid=20884581 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to...
  - douche 11y ago
    This can be read in a hilarious way... Maybe that's the rationale for arresting the 14 year-old clockmaker
- rudolf0 11y ago
  Almost all psychoactive drugs can negatively affect brains that are still developing.
s_dev 11y ago
In Ireland in 2008 we were warned the only two industries that would remain unaffected by the looming recession were the funeral and cigarette manufacturing industry. The two were absolutely stable the entire time almost every other industry brought in less tax revenue/revenue. Sin taxes can be some of the most stable sources of income as in the case of cigarettes and this is more evident during times of downturn when everything else is being slashed or falling in value. The problem is you need to wait to judge revenue after other states legalise.
- taurath 11y ago
  Video games are one of the best investments during bad times as well.
  - xacaxulu 11y ago
    I probably would have killed myself if it wasn't for pot and video games when I was younger.
- Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
  Death is inevitable. Cigarettes are addictive - there's a physiological impetus to continue smoking if you're addicted. Marijuana is significantly less addictive, and it takes very little willpower to stop using it during times of hardship.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    In particular as smoking seems to tie in directly with the stress response. Stress any smoker, and the first thing they want to do is to light one up. And what is more stressful than being "downsized"...
  - s_dev 11y ago
    For clarification I wasn't referring to the funeral industry as a "Sin Tax" -- I just included it because it was a quoted industry so we can agree to discard it. My point is "Sin Taxes" in the case of tobacco are extremely stable even if predictably dwindling. Tobacco is universally and legally available. Marijuana isn't as addictive but luxury goods/Sin Taxes have a whole different set of economic laws applying to them that makes them stable and both MJ and tobacco are luxury goods.
goldfeld 11y ago
The irony seems lost on them that something similar happens within your body with constant drug use. Let's hope the sin tax scenario remains open to future reversibility as the body does.
jlarocco 11y ago
I don't see what your concern has to do with marijuana taxes. Education funding is always in jeopardy, and has been for decades. Marijuana taxes are another source of funding, but nothing else has really changed. Marijuana taxes are not the sole source of education funding, and they're not even close to being the biggest funding source. Politicians will have to budget funding for education just like they always have. Edit: FWIW, I looked it up, and we (Colorado) spent $4.2 billion on K-12 education and another 2.8 billion on higher education in 2013. The marijuana tax revenue number mentioned in the article is only $70 million, which is less than 1% of the total education budget. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251749659390&ssbinary=true http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...
netfire 11y ago
Couldn't Colorado just use the additional tax income for more long-term projects (building new schools or upgrading existing ones, for example) or products that could enhance education in schools (more computers, tablets, textbooks, etc), that wouldn't require an ongoing commitment of funds every year?
fpgaminer 11y ago
Sure, but we didn't earmarking marijuana taxes for education so that we could improve education. Any informed voter would know that. We did it so that we could get uninformed/uneducated voters to pass the legislation. Now, I don't mean "uninformed/uneducated voters" in a negative way. Most voters, even intelligent ones, are classed as uninformed/uneducated when it comes to most topics. Because really, who has time during their day to research all of these measures? And funding education sounds good. So a little "end justifies the means" was used here to make moves towards ending the war on drugs. I want to re-iterate, using marijuana taxes for education had nothing to do with improving education. Those who have studied the educational system in the U.S. know that funding is not the primary issue. The system itself is sick, and not from malnutrition. It is misguided, is mis-incentivized, and in many ways corrupt (mostly due to incompetence). For example, in the past few years when schools have gotten additional funding, they have tended to spend it on technology. They buy iPads for students and teachers, smartboards, and online learning management services (Blackboard, Google Classroom, etc). None of those things have had a meaningful impact on the quality of education. The schools continue to underpay teachers, promote hostile work environments, continue to promote overpriced, poor quality textbooks, don't feed their poor students, force teachers to buy their own supplies, make students sick by not running AC, accept donations from their teachers and parents, and the list goes on. What I'm getting at is that additional funding for education is not, and will not ever be about improving the quality of education. If voters want to improve education they need to focus their attention on fixing the system itself first. Funding should only ever be increased in tandem with efforts to root out bad actors and steer our sinking ship of education away from the rocky harbor it's currently in. Blindly increasing educational spending is the same as blindly donating food and money to the proverbial "Africa". In a similar manner, the corrupt governments where that money and food goes steal those resources to continue to fund their wars and terror. We need a Bill & Melinda Gates for education, not more fund raising.
- pa5tabear 11y ago
  I think you're very wrong about educational funding. There's a high correlation between a schools relative wealth and its relative academic success in each state (mainly tied to property taxes). Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, and yes there's lots of room for systematic improvement. But more money could absolutely make a difference at the underperforming schools.
domdip 11y ago
Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education > The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years That's not a problem. It makes earmarking the tax revenue even more of a brilliant PR move, since you get the PR without misallocating your revenue.

aggie 11y ago

Are sin taxes really that volatile? I don't have good data, but many people suggest marijuana (as well as alcohol) is counter-cyclical and demand is relatively inelastic. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amid-the-stock-market-volatility-turn-to-the-stability-of-the-marijuana-market-2015-08-27 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amid-the-stock-market-volat... edit: This study suggests alcohol is actually pro-cyclical (in Scandanavia). [pdf] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185.64&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185...

AaronFriel 11y ago
Even a small (4-6%) change in revenue can wipe out inflationary increases in funding for education. Even if they're counter-cyclical, the evidence is that replacing education funding with something more volatile is risky, because it's replacing consistent funding with something that is based on market dynamics. In the case of marijunaa, it's largely cultural.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  Colorado spent over $7 billion on education in FY2012-2013. The marijuana revenue number in the article is $70 million. Even if the pot revenue completely disappeared, it'd be less than a 1% change in total education funding. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251749659390&ssbinary=true http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...
- civilian 11y ago
  If we're looking to avoid volatile revenue streams, we should also avoid income taxes. But that's not really a starter, is it? http://taxfoundation.org/blog/new-sp-report-shows-income-taxes-are-volatile-sales-taxes-need-reform http://taxfoundation.org/blog/new-sp-report-shows-income-tax... A better solution would be to have a budget that accounted for potential volatility, and specified where surpluses should go, and where things should be cut from if revenues are down.
  - eru 11y ago
    Don't governments have the ability to go into debt for exactly that stabilizing function?
    - civilian 11y ago
      Yes, but wouldn't it be way better to make them honestly try to balance budgets, rather than knowing they can always over-run and kick the can down the road?

peter303 11y ago

The silliest tax earmark was for anti-pot education, especially aimed at under 18. Seeing users and magazine ads everywhere saying it is good for adults, but how could you say its bad for teens then?

rhelmer 11y ago
Well one argument is that teen brains are not done developing, and something that has a negligible effect on an adult might not be so for teenagers... even if there are no harmful long-term effects it might interfere with schoolwork or other things that teenagers are responsible for. I have read these arguments but I don't know what the available evidence points to, this seems like the kind of thing I'd want this sort of education to cover. Alcohol and tobacco are most definitely harmful for everybody, and it's certainly possible to argue that choosing to use a potentially harmful substance is not something minors are prepared to make a reasoned judgement about. More generally, I think that showing teenagers that people who buy ads in magazines don't necessarily have their best interests at heart is a good thing!
code_sterling 11y ago
Science. It impedes brain development in youth.
- civilian 11y ago
  I suspect it's still inconclusive. Ya know. Science. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to-teen-brains/Content?oid=20884581 http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/what-smoking-weed-does-to...
- douche 11y ago
  This can be read in a hilarious way... Maybe that's the rationale for arresting the 14 year-old clockmaker
rudolf0 11y ago
Almost all psychoactive drugs can negatively affect brains that are still developing.

s_dev 11y ago

In Ireland in 2008 we were warned the only two industries that would remain unaffected by the looming recession were the funeral and cigarette manufacturing industry. The two were absolutely stable the entire time almost every other industry brought in less tax revenue/revenue. Sin taxes can be some of the most stable sources of income as in the case of cigarettes and this is more evident during times of downturn when everything else is being slashed or falling in value. The problem is you need to wait to judge revenue after other states legalise.

taurath 11y ago
Video games are one of the best investments during bad times as well.
- xacaxulu 11y ago
  I probably would have killed myself if it wasn't for pot and video games when I was younger.
Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
Death is inevitable. Cigarettes are addictive - there's a physiological impetus to continue smoking if you're addicted. Marijuana is significantly less addictive, and it takes very little willpower to stop using it during times of hardship.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  In particular as smoking seems to tie in directly with the stress response. Stress any smoker, and the first thing they want to do is to light one up. And what is more stressful than being "downsized"...
- s_dev 11y ago
  For clarification I wasn't referring to the funeral industry as a "Sin Tax" -- I just included it because it was a quoted industry so we can agree to discard it. My point is "Sin Taxes" in the case of tobacco are extremely stable even if predictably dwindling. Tobacco is universally and legally available. Marijuana isn't as addictive but luxury goods/Sin Taxes have a whole different set of economic laws applying to them that makes them stable and both MJ and tobacco are luxury goods.

goldfeld 11y ago

The irony seems lost on them that something similar happens within your body with constant drug use. Let's hope the sin tax scenario remains open to future reversibility as the body does.

jlarocco 11y ago

I don't see what your concern has to do with marijuana taxes. Education funding is always in jeopardy, and has been for decades. Marijuana taxes are another source of funding, but nothing else has really changed. Marijuana taxes are not the sole source of education funding, and they're not even close to being the biggest funding source. Politicians will have to budget funding for education just like they always have. Edit: FWIW, I looked it up, and we (Colorado) spent $4.2 billion on K-12 education and another 2.8 billion on higher education in 2013. The marijuana tax revenue number mentioned in the article is only $70 million, which is less than 1% of the total education budget. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251749659390&ssbinary=true http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobhea...

netfire 11y ago

Couldn't Colorado just use the additional tax income for more long-term projects (building new schools or upgrading existing ones, for example) or products that could enhance education in schools (more computers, tablets, textbooks, etc), that wouldn't require an ongoing commitment of funds every year?

fpgaminer 11y ago

Sure, but we didn't earmarking marijuana taxes for education so that we could improve education. Any informed voter would know that. We did it so that we could get uninformed/uneducated voters to pass the legislation. Now, I don't mean "uninformed/uneducated voters" in a negative way. Most voters, even intelligent ones, are classed as uninformed/uneducated when it comes to most topics. Because really, who has time during their day to research all of these measures? And funding education sounds good. So a little "end justifies the means" was used here to make moves towards ending the war on drugs. I want to re-iterate, using marijuana taxes for education had nothing to do with improving education. Those who have studied the educational system in the U.S. know that funding is not the primary issue. The system itself is sick, and not from malnutrition. It is misguided, is mis-incentivized, and in many ways corrupt (mostly due to incompetence). For example, in the past few years when schools have gotten additional funding, they have tended to spend it on technology. They buy iPads for students and teachers, smartboards, and online learning management services (Blackboard, Google Classroom, etc). None of those things have had a meaningful impact on the quality of education. The schools continue to underpay teachers, promote hostile work environments, continue to promote overpriced, poor quality textbooks, don't feed their poor students, force teachers to buy their own supplies, make students sick by not running AC, accept donations from their teachers and parents, and the list goes on. What I'm getting at is that additional funding for education is not, and will not ever be about improving the quality of education. If voters want to improve education they need to focus their attention on fixing the system itself first. Funding should only ever be increased in tandem with efforts to root out bad actors and steer our sinking ship of education away from the rocky harbor it's currently in. Blindly increasing educational spending is the same as blindly donating food and money to the proverbial "Africa". In a similar manner, the corrupt governments where that money and food goes steal those resources to continue to fund their wars and terror. We need a Bill & Melinda Gates for education, not more fund raising.

pa5tabear 11y ago
I think you're very wrong about educational funding. There's a high correlation between a schools relative wealth and its relative academic success in each state (mainly tied to property taxes). Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, and yes there's lots of room for systematic improvement. But more money could absolutely make a difference at the underperforming schools.

domdip 11y ago

Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education > The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years That's not a problem. It makes earmarking the tax revenue even more of a brilliant PR move, since you get the PR without misallocating your revenue.