Site menu:

 

December 2016 - Volume 21, Number 2

   

Click Here for a pdf version.

   

 

2016 Ballot Initiatives: Largely Positive Results for Taxpayers.

by National Taxpayer Union

While the presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump garnered much of the media’s attention, taxpayers scored some significant victories on consequential ballot measures decided at the state and local level, with some notable exceptions.

 

Earlier this fall, National Taxpayers Union issued its 2016 Ballot Guide, which detailed 74 consequential state and local fiscal policy ballot questions. Below you will find a brief recap of how some of the major initiatives fared on Tuesday.

 

Income Taxes

 

In California, by a 62 percent to 38 percent margin, voters approved Proposition 55, which extended by 12 years, temporary income tax increases for their top tax bracket.

 

In Maine, a bare majority supported Question 2 – increasing the top marginal tax rate by three percent – from 7.15 to 10.15 percent – on income above $200,000.

 

Tobacco and Soda Taxes

 

In California, by a 63 percent to 37 percent margin, voters supported Proposition 56, which will raise cigarette taxes $2 per pack – from $0.87 per pack to $2.87.

 

In Colorado, voters rejected Amendment 72 by a 12 percent margin, which would have raised cigarette taxes from $0.84 per pack to $2.59 per pack.

 

Voters in Missouri rejected two cigarette tax increases (Proposition A and Amendment 3) by a 45-55 margin and 40-60 margin, respectively.

 

North Dakota voters soundly defeated Measure 4 by a 38-62 margin. If enacted, Measure 4 would have drastically increased cigarette taxes from $0.44 per pack to $2.20 per pack.

 

By a 62 to 38 percent margin, voters in Oakland supported Measure HH, which will institute a one cent per ounce excise tax on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages.

 

Across the bay, by a similar margin, voters in San Francisco backed a one cent per ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened drinks.

 

Voters in Boulder, Colorado, supported Measure 2H by a 54 percent to 46 percent margin. Measure 2H will institute a two cents per ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

 

Other Tax Issues

 

By an 18 point margin, voters in Oregon rejected Measure 97, which would have imposed a very high gross receipts tax on business earnings over $25 million.

 

In Oklahoma, voters rejected Question 779 by nearly 20 points. If enacted, Question 779 would have increased the state’s sales tax from 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent.

 

By a 16 point margin, voters in Washington rejected Initiative 732, which would have implemented a carbon tax offset by a reduction in other taxes, including sales and business taxes.

 

Health Care

 

In a stunning defeat, voters in California rejected Proposition 61 by an 8 point margin. If enacted, Proposition 61 would have essentially implemented price controls on pharmaceuticals by prohibiting the state from paying more for any prescription drug than the highest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

 

Voters in Colorado wisely rejected Amendment 69 by a 60 point margin. Amendment 69 would have doubled the size of the state budget and drastically raised taxes on virtually all forms of income in order to create essentially a single-payer healthcare system in the state.

 

National Taxpayers Union (NTU) is the Voice of America's Taxpayers. NTU mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise. Founded in 1969, we work at all levels for the day when every taxpaying citizen's right to a limited government is among our nation's highest democratic principles.

 

This article originally appeared on the National Taxpayers Union website, http://www.ntu.org, on November 10, 2016 and is reprinted with permission from the National Taxpayers Union.

 

LIMITS is one of our quarterly membership newsletters, arriving in March, June, September, and December. It consists of short articles and essays on protection of human rights by limiting the powers of government.

 

LIMITS is published by Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, research and educational institute, whose activities are supported by contributions from private individuals, corporations, companies, and foundations. The Institute does not accept government grants.

 

Contributions are tax-deductible under sections 501(c)(3) and 170 of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from LIMITS, a quarterly newsletter of Public Interest Institute." The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute.

 

If you have an article you believe is worth sharing, please send it to us. All or a portion of your article may be used. The articles in this publication are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry, because IDEAS DO MATTER.

   

 

All of our publications are available for sponsorship.  Sponsoring a publication is an excellent way for you to show your support of our efforts to defend liberty and define the proper role of government.  For more information, please contact Public Interest Institute at 319-385-3462 or e-mail us at Public.Interest.Institute@LimitedGovernment.org