posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: ketsuko
Good morning, Ketsuko! I'm no spokesmodel for the campaign, but I'll try to answer the ones I can.
1) The argument for using pot taxes is a holdover from the 19th century concept of sin-taxes. There is certainly an element of coercion in that
concept. Coercion is elemental in all tax strategies though. The operable concept here is least harm / greatest benefit. I make no claims to the
rightness of either argument, but that is the framework. That said, the current ColoradoCare initiative does NOT attempt to use tax revenues from MJ.
Current language calls for a %3.33 payroll deduction to fund this initiative. I misspoke earlier because I mistook this for a different initiative
that was going around during the caucuses here in Denver.
2) The first GREAT question in the thread. Awesome!
3) Also a fantastic question. The operable notion here is pooling risk to realize a cost savings. There are arguments on both sides of this as well,
and it definitely needs to be addressed.
4) Two answers: A) Tabor limits currently in place, combined with B) selling debt as a representation of faith for investors. Zero deficits at the
national level = zero faith in our currency / treasury bills. That is a bad thing for global markets. There is no direct analogy to family or small
business budgeting, according to this particular school of thought.
5) Pension liabilities are a major concern, primarily for pensioners, but also for investors. This is often mismanaged due to deficit spending. There
seems to be two competing theories of fiscal management at play: tax and spend, versus borrow and spend. Legislators on BOTH sides of the artificial
conservative versus liberal celebrity deathmatch are both terrific at talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. That is why we "can't
afford" single payer healthcare, but we can borrow for 1 trillion in nuclear weapons systems upgrades over ten years. When a politician wants to pay
for something on the company credit card, it is a matter of national security. When a politician wants everyone else to pay for something, it is an
entitlement program. Neither explanation does the argument justice, but they are not designed to. They are designed to encourage ideological arguments
within the population as a whole, as a distraction, so that legislators can deliver the goods to their patrons.
The short answer to your questions: Nobody knows, it's a ballot referendum. Like gay marriage and medical marijuana, it has a lot of work to do before
it is ready for prime time.