Author Topic: Proposed Amendment No. 5  (Read 1012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Proposed Amendment No. 5
« on: October 20, 2018, 02:14:59 PM »
Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize, or Raise State Taxes of Fees

Prohibits the legislature from imposing, authorizing, or raising a state tax or fee except through legislation approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature in a bill containing no other subject.  This proposal does not authorize a state tax or fee otherwise prohibited by the Constitution and does not apply to fees or taxes imposed or authorized to be imposed by a county, municipality, school board, or special district.

Yes
-or-
No

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,799
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2018, 02:19:55 PM »
A lot of states have this Amendment.  I would be a "Yes" vote if I lived there.  We also have a law that requires Counties to submit tax increases to a vote of the public.
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,570
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2018, 03:37:12 PM »
Leaning yes here.

I have questions about "in a bill containing no other subject".  Sounds great, at first.  But what are the implications?  What if they wanted to build a toll road, funded only by a fee on that road, and the toll would be removed once the project investment was recouped?  Does this amendment take away any ability to specify exactly how the new money will be spent?
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2018, 03:43:36 PM »
Leaning yes here.

I have questions about "in a bill containing no other subject".  Sounds great, at first.  But what are the implications?  What if they wanted to build a toll road, funded only by a fee on that road, and the toll would be removed once the project investment was recouped?  Does this amendment take away any ability to specify exactly how the new money will be spent?


LOL  As if that ever happens.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2018, 03:48:26 PM »
I wonder about this because I recently did some research on registering an antique car with a plate from the year it was made.  The law specifically says that the fee imposed by the DMV to do this is basically whatever the DMV says it will be.  It makes me wonder how many state fees are actually set by the legislature or if they've already passed off their responsibility to the various state agencies so this amendment is basically a bunch of bullshit, at least as far as state fees go.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,799
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2018, 03:56:19 PM »

LOL  As if that ever happens.

It never happens because "Operation Expenses" never go away.  The oldest toll freeway I know of is the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and it's still a toll road.
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,799
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2018, 03:57:45 PM »
I wonder about this because I recently did some research on registering an antique car with a plate from the year it was made.  The law specifically says that the fee imposed by the DMV to do this is basically whatever the DMV says it will be.  It makes me wonder how many state fees are actually set by the legislature or if they've already passed off their responsibility to the various state agencies so this amendment is basically a bunch of bullshit, at least as far as state fees go.

It's probably been left up to the bureaucracies.  Do you already have that restoration project of yours road-worthy?
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2018, 04:08:25 PM »
It's probably been left up to the bureaucracies.  Do you already have that restoration project of yours road-worthy?

No, waiting on a few things: barn to be built, parts car to arrive, etc.

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,570
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2018, 04:35:02 PM »

LOL  As if that ever happens.

I know, it was a dumb example. 
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2018, 04:38:54 PM »
I know, it was a dumb example.

It's not really a dumb example because they try to make us believe that bullshit all the time, except that it is a dumb example because we're dumb that we keep believing them when they tell us that bullshit.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,799
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2018, 05:00:24 PM »
I know, it was a dumb example.

It's not "dumb."  Kentucky converted a lot of tollways to freeways after they were paid off.  The vast majority of tollways, however, find reasons to keep the toll on even after the construction costs were paid off.
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline RoosGirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,809
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2018, 05:10:56 PM »
It's not "dumb."  Kentucky converted a lot of tollways to freeways after they were paid off.  The vast majority of tollways, however, find reasons to keep the toll on even after the construction costs were paid off.

Wow, there are examples of it actually happening??  I'm shocked.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,799
  • We got 'im now!®
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2018, 05:23:08 PM »
Wow, there are examples of it actually happening??  I'm shocked.

It's rare, but it's happened.
Quote
What happens when a toll road gets paid off, if ever? Are there any examples of toll roads getting converted into non-toll?

Benjamin Black Perley, Multi-million Miler. Thankfully most from leisure travel.
Answered Aug 14, 2017 · Author has 6.4k answers and 2.8m answer views

Yes. Most of the parkway system in KY originally had tolls. Now they're gone.

Also, the Mississippi River bridge in New Orleans recently lost its toll due to a voter referendum.
74 Views · View Upvoters

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-a-toll-road-gets-paid-off-if-ever-Are-there-any-examples-of-toll-roads-getting-converted-into-non-toll
I will NOT comply.
                                  Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>              :dontfeed:
Home Sweet Home!

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,570
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 5
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2018, 08:55:41 PM »
I wonder about this because I recently did some research on registering an antique car with a plate from the year it was made.  The law specifically says that the fee imposed by the DMV to do this is basically whatever the DMV says it will be.  It makes me wonder how many state fees are actually set by the legislature or if they've already passed off their responsibility to the various state agencies so this amendment is basically a bunch of bullshit, at least as far as state fees go.

So I got around to reading the actual text, the only thing that's kept me from voting so far.

I've decided to go with yes.  I still have a couple concerns, but all in all I see this as a step in the right direction.  IMO, anything that makes it harder for govt to change the playing field reduces the risk in businesses making investments in our state.

As far as your concern, I noticed this:

(2) “Raise” means:
a. To increase or authorize an increase

I think one might be able to argue successfully that if the legislature has assigned setting the level of a fee to another agency, and that agency tries to raise the fee, that is equivalent to the legislature authorizing an increase.  Might fail too, but I think it's worth a shot.
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf