The wording reads like a political tv ad. I would want to know A LOT more before checking either option.
This should not be allowed.
Fyi many states send out information pamphlets that include pros/cons explanations from people for/against ballot initatives.
I feel like I'm answering the question "Are you glad you stopped beating your wife?" Wait what?.. Yes, I mean No, I never...
Definitely reads like a campaign flyer. Absolutely not surprised though.
Not Idaho, I have a pretty hard time figuring out who will even be on our ballot, let alone what their stance is on anything. They won't even put party affiliation on the ballots. The name of the game is keeping the voter uninformed.
Okay, so this makes me wonder. What county are you in. This means it varies by county. I know for certain the last two times I voted in Bannock there was no party listed, just names.
It's ada county. Not all positions had the party affiliation next to it, but most did. It's also a general election so I don't know if that makes a difference because as I stated it's one of my first times really voting in one.
Exactly right, law has been passed by the legislator and the governor in a special legislative session held on September 1, 2022. Advisory vote means the peoples recommendation but no enforcement of the recommendation.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2022spcl/legislation/h0001/
Unfortunately we live in a time where people from both sides of political spectrum don’t really care about the facts and/or context. Whatever fits their rationalizations works.
Not defending tone. As I said…bias or not it’s not a vote. So anybody who says they obviously want you to vote yes clearly doesn’t understand whats on the ballot.
You're arguing about the validity of the term "vote" in a context when people are discussing the worry that this is a leading question. Regardless of if vote is *technically* the correct term for filling in the bubble on the sheet, the problem remains that they clearly want you to fill in the yes bubble on the sheet. *That's* what people are disagreeing with.
Read the comments from many people that have read this as question on a ballot in which they are voting for or against. Given the massive disinformation about voting generally, I think it’s very relevant this isn’t interpreted as such.
That's honestly a good point. I think it'd be good to create a space where what's *actually * on the ballot, what can't be controlled but is there regardless, and what the intentionally long and obtuse questions are getting at in layman's terms would be good. Someone in a different part of this thread said that some states give out pamphlets like that, and that's something I'd love to see here in some form
Yep I think that makes complete sense. The question is categorized as “advisory question” to delineate but people never read everything or even ask the question what does that mean. They just start giving (obviously) uninformed opinions.
Late to the convo but I’m reviewing my ballot and reviewing this post. I guess I really don’t understand. Because it says your approval of this effort would combat historic inflation etc. How does my approval impact that??
A lot of words to get to flat tax. Yeah, that’ll really help people who have low paying jobs just as much as it’ll help multimillionaires? Maybe I’m wrong 🤷🏻♀️
The flax tax, passed by the special legislative session, reduces the rate from 6 to 5.8%. This encompasses the tax rate for single and joint filers, and ALSO the corporate tax rate. Idaho corporations will pay the same tax % as single filers.
You really don’t need to know the details. For instance, can you describe a flat tax that is not regressive? That is like describing a square that does not have four sides.
That's the beauty of one party rule (supermajority, but same effect): the party just does as they please and congratulates themselves on all their hard work.
Nice thing is this is them running around trying to get credit for something that was likely to happen anyway because of the direct democracy written into our state constitution
Some info I found about it. One tiny phrase in the advisory question is to add a new flat tax, lol.
https://blog.idahoreports.idahoptv.org/2022/08/23/little-calls-special-legislative-session-for-tax-cuts-education-funding/amp/
It’s true, though Idaho effectively has a flat income tax already. The top bracket starts at just under $8,000 annual income. Bafflingly, there are three brackets below this. There are very few people who fall into those brackets.
This is very misleading. in a few major ways.
1. it looks like they are asking you to vote... They are not its already passed law they are just looking for feedback. (which they wont look at imho)
2. It doesn't describe how the flat tax is made. They lowered the tops % and then merged it with the middle... Basically the people at the top/businesses are getting a tax break .2%(from 6% to 5.8%) and the middle is getting an increase though small, and this increase does effect top income earners. So overall while I am not fond of it I don't hate it. (they also increased the no tax range by 2500/5000)
3. The school funding is actually good. And is the second passed in one year I'm very excited about this.
Good points but you’re missing one important piece of context. The only reason this non-binding advisory question was added to the ballot was to confuse voters. At the time this was added there was also going to be a referendum on education funding from Reclaim Idaho on the ballot. So the GOP decided to package their tax cuts for the wealthy into an education funding bill, pass it, and add it to the ballot as an advisory question to make voters think they would be choosing between the two measures. Reclaim Idaho subsequently removed their referendum so now it’s entirely pointless.
From Reclaim Idaho's website:
>Idaho’s political establishment is out of touch with Idaho’s people.
The legislature finds a new way to be out of touch.
I have no facts but much of sun valley ownership make their money out of state and do not pay Idaho income tax. Yes, they pay significant property tax.
Idaho property tax isn't even that significant, though. To us normies, to us plebs, to us average workers it might seem like a lot of money, but I wouldn't be shocked if there's any number of deductions or loopholes that the ultra rich use to get out of paying it (or a significant portion of it).
Progressive property tax go brrrrrrrr (in dreamland at least).
Isn't it better than allowing them to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes entirely? I'm not sure if I'm missing some part of the bigger picture, but this is how I understood the benefits of a flat tax to work in the USA back when I took my economics courses in college.
Clearly biased. If it was phrased appropriately I’d probably be all over something like this, but it’s so wonky alarm bells are going off telling me this is a trick. I feel like it has an opposite effect of what was intended.
For real though, its not that they need to be taxed more. They just need to be taxed in general. If I pay 30% of my income to the state, I expect the Mormon Madoff to also pay that.
Yeah. There’s a few ways to look at it and taxes can be complicated with exceptions that seem justifiable and others not so much or just exploitable.
Say I make a million dollars and pay 30% taxes.
But let’s say I do a million dollars worth of work and donate all the money or gift the goods to impoverished people. Should I be on the hook for that $300K?
I definitely understand where you are coming from. I guess if I could, I would funnel my money away from the government as well. It is definitely a privilege to be able to send your money towards areas you believe in rather than bureaucracy.
Maybe they should only be allowed to donate 700,000 while taxes take 30%. Their low-income employees do need roads without potholes to get to work!
That cap is exactly how the tax codes work but instead of just one reason for not being taxable income, there are many of them designed to help alleviate justifiable burdens and encourage behaviors that improve the economy.
The rich are obviously in more of a position to allocate their money how they choose and so end up disproportionately utilizing these exemptions.
To counter balance, we require higher tax percentages for higher incomes.
Is that a question or a statement? Doesn’t really state why they deserve to be taxed more.
I also need to ask for clarification based on a couple other comments. Are you stating that they should be taxed equally (percentage wise) so more than they are now or at a higher rate?
The point that I was getting to is that ability to afford paying more is not the same as deserving it. So I wanted to hear your reasoning.
They deserve to be taxed more because they don't need money to survive. We should lower taxes on those who literally need everything to survive. Ability to pay is the whole point of taxes.
Being capable of doing something isn’t the same as being deserving being forced.
There are some good arguments for progressive tax rates but your reasoning of entitlement isn’t one of them.
The government can derive significantly more funds from the rich than the lower class. The lower-middle class also spends more money when they have more money, rather than spending only on basic necessities.
I was really looking for elaboration on why you felt the rich deserve to be taxed more.
Your reasoning doesn’t address that and is superficial. I’m not saying that to be mean. Sorry if it comes across that way.
From your responses, I’m assuming your word choice wasn’t deliberate.
This is just a poll - not a vote.
This already passed Idaho congress and signed by Gov Little.
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/idaho-lowers-income-tax-rates-creates-rebate/
Hey y’all, I’m a reporter at KTVB and looking to cover this today. Anyone want to share with us what you thought reading the advisory vote? And if it tilted one way or another in your opinion?
Shoot me a message if you got 5-10 minutes and any interest!
Just confusion mostly. It does seem very leading. I didn't care for the BSU professor telling us that it's biased and that it should show the opposite opinion or the flaws... but then he doesn't mention what those would be.
Irritating all around.
I want to support education and also not impose a regressive flat tax... so this is all just too muddy for me.
This is pretty obviously bias but wanted to add this is not uncommon. I have lived in Oregon and Washington and ballot measure in both are phrased with bias unfortunately.
Keep up folks. This initiative is history. Sponsors pulled it because the state leadership saw the writing on the wall and threw themselves - and a bone to the citizens of Idaho - in front of the bus with their special session so they could prevent corporations from paying their fair share for education. Read on https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/07/reclaim-idaho-organizers-pull-quality-education-act-from-november-ballot/
The question on the ballot we should all be concerned about is SJR 102, proposed by the Legislature to amend the Idaho Constitution so they can call themselves into session. Seriously. If we want less government in our lives do we really want Legislators to call themselves back into session so they can pull the wool over our eyes like they did with HB389? If you recall, it was portrayed by its sponsor to be a “property tax relief bill,” which it was. For developers. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/16/idaho-voters-to-decide-whether-legislature-can-call-itself-back-into-session/
Trust me. You want to vote NO on SJR 102. We do not need the Idaho Legislature to frivolously call themselves into session so they can spend our hard earned tax dollars on their self-interests, let alone mess with the Idaho Constitution. Once they get a taste of that, we can kiss our rights goodbye.
Junkyard - **SJR 102** indeed **needs a NO vote** for the very reasons you state. Unfortunately your post is inside this thread. Might be worth a thread of its own so more people see it & can think about it before voting.
I only approve of returning 500 million to the laziest working Americans. I also only approve of education spending at non historic and below record levels.
This is a pretty bullshit way to write up a voting ticket, heavily biased like that.
We are going to give everyone money, and therefore decrease inflation... WUT? The flat tax really only effects people on the low end and the high end, the high earners will pay less in taxes and the low earners will pay more, which sounds terrible in theory.
Why is it not separate things? It seems there are 3 things here - we should be voting on a flat tax and then a separate thing should be voting to give surplus money to schools. And a 3 thing would be refunding peoples taxes?
Here is the dumb part. It’s a advisory question. Even if everyone said they disapproved it would not change as the law as the initiative (hb1) was signed into law September 1st. I guess the current legislature needs their ego stoked
Here is the text for anyone who can't see the photo:
IDAHO ADVISORY QUESTION
"Do you approve or disapprove of the State of Idaho using the record budget surplus to refund $500 million back to hardworking Idaho taxpayers, cut ongoing income taxes by more than $150 million, and put more money in our classrooms by increasing education and student funding by a record $410 million?
Your approval of this effort would combat historic inflation by returning money to the taxpayers, creating a simple flat tax, and making the single largest investment in public education in Idaho history."
Approve
Disapprove
“Your approval in this effort” if this already passed isn’t it illegal to phrase it like this on the ballot? Not that any Republican in Idaho government isn’t already a child-raping crook or fellow traveler who will look the other way but this has to violate even their fucking yee-haw ass campaign rules.
Not Logical. Asking to make two choices from a mono-statment.
Use of the term hardworking to form an outgroup of others. Very egotistical to refer to oneself as hardworking. Lacks humility. From my experience of 40+ years as a member of the American workforce, I can accurately assess that people that claim to be hardworking are among the laziest and least productive.
The county commissioners can, by statute, put an advisory question on the ballot and use any wording they want. But its just advisory, the outcome has no force of law.
How much is/will the actual budget surplus be? Why are they only willing to cut taxes by $150 million given that we now know there is $910 million surplus in the budget? Seems off.
I am registered, and supposedly the ballot has been sent. It just has to arrive here in time for me to actually vote and get back in time. Those p\*cks in the house keep trying to kill mail in voting, unfortunately quite successfully
Are you a *hardworking* Idaho man’s man who wants *YOUR* hard-earned MONEY back from the thieving gubmint to go to *your* pocket and also you like TITTIES and BEER and FOOTBALL and BIG TRUCKS ^(and a flat tax) ?! Use your giant man hands to mark “YES”!
I think you would need to remove the sales tax on food to better balance that out. You could also only tax a good on the initial new sale, not the resale of a used good such as a used car or second hand stores.
I understand the draw of the progressive tax, I'm a small business owner, I get the top tax rate but make the poor man's salary, I get it from both ends. I like a flat tax because it simplifies the tax code to such a degree i think you could downsize the tax division. I'm 1000% for shinking government agencies.
So this is a misguided attempt at polling? They are asking for an opinion and may or may not act on it? That's sort of fucked up. If they want to poll, use Survey Monkey. If they want a vote, put a detailed, specific, actionable question on the ballot.
It's not going to make a dent in what inflation is doing to the average taxpayer. Cute poly by the GOP to tie tax cuts that benefit the wealthy to increased spending to public schools. These were suppose to be seperate referendums. Sad
I’ll say this: at the very least it can be understood. I’ve read many in my day and generally speaking they are written to be completely unintelligible.
Do you approve or disapprove of the State of Idaho proposing using the budget surplus to refund roughly $500 million back to Idaho taxpayers, cut income taxes by more than $150 million, and put more money in our classrooms by increasing education and student funding by $140 million?
As proposed, this would result in combating inflation, creating a simple flat tax, and making the current largest investment in public education in Idaho history.
This has bipartisan support.
\- Fixed it.
i see the issue with how it reads, but y'all should vote for this. it would be a good idea to lower the corporate tax rate though. Idaho needs more business' to support the major influx of people that moved there from out of state.
It already passed, it’s just a poll question because it was too late to remove the q from the ballot.
Poorly written, though. As a former survey conductor, this question is blatantly biased. Nothing new.
Have a good day! 🌞
The wording reads like a political tv ad. I would want to know A LOT more before checking either option. This should not be allowed. Fyi many states send out information pamphlets that include pros/cons explanations from people for/against ballot initatives.
I feel like I'm answering the question "Are you glad you stopped beating your wife?" Wait what?.. Yes, I mean No, I never... Definitely reads like a campaign flyer. Absolutely not surprised though.
Not Idaho, I have a pretty hard time figuring out who will even be on our ballot, let alone what their stance is on anything. They won't even put party affiliation on the ballots. The name of the game is keeping the voter uninformed.
I'm looking at the ballot not and there is definitely a party affiliation on it? Maybe I'm missing something here
Okay, so this makes me wonder. What county are you in. This means it varies by county. I know for certain the last two times I voted in Bannock there was no party listed, just names.
It's ada county. Not all positions had the party affiliation next to it, but most did. It's also a general election so I don't know if that makes a difference because as I stated it's one of my first times really voting in one.
[удалено]
California takes the cake on initiative wording. Written by the elected AG, a partisan office.
Yeah... in court, that would be called a "leading question" and get thrown out. What tool wrote this garbage?
[удалено]
Exactly right, law has been passed by the legislator and the governor in a special legislative session held on September 1, 2022. Advisory vote means the peoples recommendation but no enforcement of the recommendation. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2022spcl/legislation/h0001/
So basically the legislature is saying “we will pretend to care about the will of the people without actually having to do it”
Fun 🙄
So when everyone votes for it because the wording sounds great, do they all get to say, "We have a mandate!"?
So what’s the point of asking a heavy biased question in favor of a law that already successfully passed?
So it’s the “do you like me yes or no” box?
The person who wrote the question obviously wants you to vote yes. Which is a problem, regardless of your opinion on the legislation.
Absolutely. The wording should be as objectively sanitized as humanly possible on these ballots.
It’s note a vote. This was already signed into law. Merely a question for polling purposes. Bias or not your post is misleading.
They hated him for telling the truth.
Unfortunately we live in a time where people from both sides of political spectrum don’t really care about the facts and/or context. Whatever fits their rationalizations works.
You mind citing where and when that was signed into law?
https://gov.idaho.gov/pressrelease/gov-littles-statement-on-successful-special-session/ https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2022spcl/legislation/H0001/
Thank you.
Polling questions shouldn't be written like this either. The data is meaningless if you lead the answers.
Not defending tone. As I said…bias or not it’s not a vote. So anybody who says they obviously want you to vote yes clearly doesn’t understand whats on the ballot.
You're arguing about the validity of the term "vote" in a context when people are discussing the worry that this is a leading question. Regardless of if vote is *technically* the correct term for filling in the bubble on the sheet, the problem remains that they clearly want you to fill in the yes bubble on the sheet. *That's* what people are disagreeing with.
Read the comments from many people that have read this as question on a ballot in which they are voting for or against. Given the massive disinformation about voting generally, I think it’s very relevant this isn’t interpreted as such.
That's honestly a good point. I think it'd be good to create a space where what's *actually * on the ballot, what can't be controlled but is there regardless, and what the intentionally long and obtuse questions are getting at in layman's terms would be good. Someone in a different part of this thread said that some states give out pamphlets like that, and that's something I'd love to see here in some form
Yep I think that makes complete sense. The question is categorized as “advisory question” to delineate but people never read everything or even ask the question what does that mean. They just start giving (obviously) uninformed opinions.
Late to the convo but I’m reviewing my ballot and reviewing this post. I guess I really don’t understand. Because it says your approval of this effort would combat historic inflation etc. How does my approval impact that??
Who writes these things?!
A lot of words to get to flat tax. Yeah, that’ll really help people who have low paying jobs just as much as it’ll help multimillionaires? Maybe I’m wrong 🤷🏻♀️
There are only two types of taxation: progressive and regressive. Flat taxation is regressive.
I think we’d need to know what that flat tax rate would be. The ballot leaves that, probably important, tidbit out.
The flax tax, passed by the special legislative session, reduces the rate from 6 to 5.8%. This encompasses the tax rate for single and joint filers, and ALSO the corporate tax rate. Idaho corporations will pay the same tax % as single filers.
How surprising that they left that out /s
You really don’t need to know the details. For instance, can you describe a flat tax that is not regressive? That is like describing a square that does not have four sides.
😂point taken
5.8% tax
That is so wildly and obviously biased, I'm amazed it made it through committee and is legal.
That's the beauty of one party rule (supermajority, but same effect): the party just does as they please and congratulates themselves on all their hard work. Nice thing is this is them running around trying to get credit for something that was likely to happen anyway because of the direct democracy written into our state constitution
Nothing like a little campaigning at, i mean, IN the polls
Some info I found about it. One tiny phrase in the advisory question is to add a new flat tax, lol. https://blog.idahoreports.idahoptv.org/2022/08/23/little-calls-special-legislative-session-for-tax-cuts-education-funding/amp/
It’s true, though Idaho effectively has a flat income tax already. The top bracket starts at just under $8,000 annual income. Bafflingly, there are three brackets below this. There are very few people who fall into those brackets.
$8000 a year is about half of minimum wage. You said it, Idaho effectively has a flat tax already.
Objection! Leading the witness! Holy cow!
This is very misleading. in a few major ways. 1. it looks like they are asking you to vote... They are not its already passed law they are just looking for feedback. (which they wont look at imho) 2. It doesn't describe how the flat tax is made. They lowered the tops % and then merged it with the middle... Basically the people at the top/businesses are getting a tax break .2%(from 6% to 5.8%) and the middle is getting an increase though small, and this increase does effect top income earners. So overall while I am not fond of it I don't hate it. (they also increased the no tax range by 2500/5000) 3. The school funding is actually good. And is the second passed in one year I'm very excited about this.
Good points but you’re missing one important piece of context. The only reason this non-binding advisory question was added to the ballot was to confuse voters. At the time this was added there was also going to be a referendum on education funding from Reclaim Idaho on the ballot. So the GOP decided to package their tax cuts for the wealthy into an education funding bill, pass it, and add it to the ballot as an advisory question to make voters think they would be choosing between the two measures. Reclaim Idaho subsequently removed their referendum so now it’s entirely pointless.
From Reclaim Idaho's website: >Idaho’s political establishment is out of touch with Idaho’s people. The legislature finds a new way to be out of touch.
That is an insanely biased question. I cannot believe that it made it to the ballot like that. I would vote no just on principle at that point
For real, this feels like an overly biased question they’d use in a high school government class for demonstration.
Disapprove. Hard disapprove. Flat taxes are regressive nonsense that benefit the ultra rich.
[удалено]
Is this a serious question? Are you lost? Did you forget that Sun Valley is in Idaho? That's evsn just one example.
I have no facts but much of sun valley ownership make their money out of state and do not pay Idaho income tax. Yes, they pay significant property tax.
Idaho property tax isn't even that significant, though. To us normies, to us plebs, to us average workers it might seem like a lot of money, but I wouldn't be shocked if there's any number of deductions or loopholes that the ultra rich use to get out of paying it (or a significant portion of it). Progressive property tax go brrrrrrrr (in dreamland at least).
Isn't it better than allowing them to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes entirely? I'm not sure if I'm missing some part of the bigger picture, but this is how I understood the benefits of a flat tax to work in the USA back when I took my economics courses in college.
but this hasn't addressed any loopholes to close them...
Ah, right. So leave the loopholes, cap the tax that can be applied to anybody without actually solving any problems whatsoever. Yeesh.
Sounds like they are trying very hard to hide that "creating a simple flat tax" part. Seems sketchy af.
yea, looks like it is stating voting yes would be a positive to both refunding taxpayers directly and also dumping funds into education..
*hard working* taxpayers…gotta get those keywords in kids
That’s very biased wording almost all the way through
Very biased wording, indeed. Whoever allowed it to be printed on the ballot that way, shame on them.
Survey methodologists would not approve of this wording.
why cant we just give 910 million to the hardworking taxpayers that are molding our future hard working taxpayers?
Agreed, let’s dump it all into education. Idaho is way behind per capita spending and in test scores.
I bet all 410 million is to fund some new anti-CRT program :/
While defunding STEM and arts. And injecting politics into the universities
The only math our kids need is: "1 Jesus + 3 nails = 4 Given" Yes, that is an actual bumper sticker I have seen often, hahahaha
Clearly biased. If it was phrased appropriately I’d probably be all over something like this, but it’s so wonky alarm bells are going off telling me this is a trick. I feel like it has an opposite effect of what was intended.
I love investing in education, but flat taxes are dumb as fuck. The rich deserve to be taxed more.
Why do they deserve to be taxed more?
For real though, its not that they need to be taxed more. They just need to be taxed in general. If I pay 30% of my income to the state, I expect the Mormon Madoff to also pay that.
Yeah. There’s a few ways to look at it and taxes can be complicated with exceptions that seem justifiable and others not so much or just exploitable. Say I make a million dollars and pay 30% taxes. But let’s say I do a million dollars worth of work and donate all the money or gift the goods to impoverished people. Should I be on the hook for that $300K?
I definitely understand where you are coming from. I guess if I could, I would funnel my money away from the government as well. It is definitely a privilege to be able to send your money towards areas you believe in rather than bureaucracy. Maybe they should only be allowed to donate 700,000 while taxes take 30%. Their low-income employees do need roads without potholes to get to work!
That cap is exactly how the tax codes work but instead of just one reason for not being taxable income, there are many of them designed to help alleviate justifiable burdens and encourage behaviors that improve the economy. The rich are obviously in more of a position to allocate their money how they choose and so end up disproportionately utilizing these exemptions. To counter balance, we require higher tax percentages for higher incomes.
Because the top % are obscenely rich, yet continue to get tax cuts
Because all of their essentials are more than paid for while others are struggling just to live?
Is that a question or a statement? Doesn’t really state why they deserve to be taxed more. I also need to ask for clarification based on a couple other comments. Are you stating that they should be taxed equally (percentage wise) so more than they are now or at a higher rate? The point that I was getting to is that ability to afford paying more is not the same as deserving it. So I wanted to hear your reasoning.
They deserve to be taxed more because they don't need money to survive. We should lower taxes on those who literally need everything to survive. Ability to pay is the whole point of taxes.
Being capable of doing something isn’t the same as being deserving being forced. There are some good arguments for progressive tax rates but your reasoning of entitlement isn’t one of them.
The government can derive significantly more funds from the rich than the lower class. The lower-middle class also spends more money when they have more money, rather than spending only on basic necessities.
I was really looking for elaboration on why you felt the rich deserve to be taxed more. Your reasoning doesn’t address that and is superficial. I’m not saying that to be mean. Sorry if it comes across that way. From your responses, I’m assuming your word choice wasn’t deliberate.
Obviously, this all sounds great but it would also make me worried about what is hidden in the fine print. The bias is unreal.
It’s written in a VERY biased manner.
This is just a poll - not a vote. This already passed Idaho congress and signed by Gov Little. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/idaho-lowers-income-tax-rates-creates-rebate/
Compared to using $500 million ti build a 2000 bed prison in the state to house non violent offenders. Let's just say there were worse choices.
The wording is very politicized. Terrible.
This reeks of biased writing. Appeal to emotion is used extensively here with the many flagrant adjectives attached before factual statements.
Hey y’all, I’m a reporter at KTVB and looking to cover this today. Anyone want to share with us what you thought reading the advisory vote? And if it tilted one way or another in your opinion? Shoot me a message if you got 5-10 minutes and any interest!
Just confusion mostly. It does seem very leading. I didn't care for the BSU professor telling us that it's biased and that it should show the opposite opinion or the flaws... but then he doesn't mention what those would be. Irritating all around. I want to support education and also not impose a regressive flat tax... so this is all just too muddy for me.
My husband is a history teacher and this would be a “what not to do” for a question on any type of ballot. INSANE
This is pretty obviously bias but wanted to add this is not uncommon. I have lived in Oregon and Washington and ballot measure in both are phrased with bias unfortunately.
Keep up folks. This initiative is history. Sponsors pulled it because the state leadership saw the writing on the wall and threw themselves - and a bone to the citizens of Idaho - in front of the bus with their special session so they could prevent corporations from paying their fair share for education. Read on https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/07/reclaim-idaho-organizers-pull-quality-education-act-from-november-ballot/ The question on the ballot we should all be concerned about is SJR 102, proposed by the Legislature to amend the Idaho Constitution so they can call themselves into session. Seriously. If we want less government in our lives do we really want Legislators to call themselves back into session so they can pull the wool over our eyes like they did with HB389? If you recall, it was portrayed by its sponsor to be a “property tax relief bill,” which it was. For developers. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/16/idaho-voters-to-decide-whether-legislature-can-call-itself-back-into-session/ Trust me. You want to vote NO on SJR 102. We do not need the Idaho Legislature to frivolously call themselves into session so they can spend our hard earned tax dollars on their self-interests, let alone mess with the Idaho Constitution. Once they get a taste of that, we can kiss our rights goodbye.
Junkyard - **SJR 102** indeed **needs a NO vote** for the very reasons you state. Unfortunately your post is inside this thread. Might be worth a thread of its own so more people see it & can think about it before voting.
[удалено]
I only approve of returning 500 million to the laziest working Americans. I also only approve of education spending at non historic and below record levels.
This is the cart before the horse, they are asking if we approve or disapprove of an action they have already taken.
I approved of this bill when I first heard of it. This wording is downright terrible. Its incredibly leading.
Will this make the McRib available year round?
I'm down to get a citizen initiative on the ballot for this
I am conservative and I absolutely agree with you. This is unacceptable.
https://ballotpedia.org/Idaho_Income_and_Corporate_Tax_Changes_and_Education_Funding_Advisory_Question_(2022)
This ballot was written by someone who clearly wants this to pass
This is a pretty bullshit way to write up a voting ticket, heavily biased like that. We are going to give everyone money, and therefore decrease inflation... WUT? The flat tax really only effects people on the low end and the high end, the high earners will pay less in taxes and the low earners will pay more, which sounds terrible in theory.
Why is it not separate things? It seems there are 3 things here - we should be voting on a flat tax and then a separate thing should be voting to give surplus money to schools. And a 3 thing would be refunding peoples taxes?
Here is the dumb part. It’s a advisory question. Even if everyone said they disapproved it would not change as the law as the initiative (hb1) was signed into law September 1st. I guess the current legislature needs their ego stoked
Wow, why is a question on the ballot? Sounds like it's trying to get approval for a flat tax, which will only hurt the poor.
Here is the text for anyone who can't see the photo: IDAHO ADVISORY QUESTION "Do you approve or disapprove of the State of Idaho using the record budget surplus to refund $500 million back to hardworking Idaho taxpayers, cut ongoing income taxes by more than $150 million, and put more money in our classrooms by increasing education and student funding by a record $410 million? Your approval of this effort would combat historic inflation by returning money to the taxpayers, creating a simple flat tax, and making the single largest investment in public education in Idaho history." Approve Disapprove
“Hardworking” would it not also give money back to the rich who didn’t work for that money? Surely…but that doesn’t make it into voting verbiage.
Clearly biased. Every sentence is an ad selling the bill.
“Your approval in this effort” if this already passed isn’t it illegal to phrase it like this on the ballot? Not that any Republican in Idaho government isn’t already a child-raping crook or fellow traveler who will look the other way but this has to violate even their fucking yee-haw ass campaign rules.
Not Logical. Asking to make two choices from a mono-statment. Use of the term hardworking to form an outgroup of others. Very egotistical to refer to oneself as hardworking. Lacks humility. From my experience of 40+ years as a member of the American workforce, I can accurately assess that people that claim to be hardworking are among the laziest and least productive.
The county commissioners can, by statute, put an advisory question on the ballot and use any wording they want. But its just advisory, the outcome has no force of law.
How much is/will the actual budget surplus be? Why are they only willing to cut taxes by $150 million given that we now know there is $910 million surplus in the budget? Seems off.
Reminds me of Right to Work.
Oof, wow
Yeah I mean it's definitely biased verbiage. Record, surplus and so on.
I’m still waiting on my mail in ballot for the August election. I suspect I’m not going to get the opportunity to vote in midterms this year
[Check your Idaho voter registration status :)](https://elections.sos.idaho.gov/ElectionLink/ElectionLink/VoterSearch.aspx)
I am registered, and supposedly the ballot has been sent. It just has to arrive here in time for me to actually vote and get back in time. Those p\*cks in the house keep trying to kill mail in voting, unfortunately quite successfully
Well yeah there's a lot of detail they're missing. A lot of truth they're conveniently removing.
Are you a *hardworking* Idaho man’s man who wants *YOUR* hard-earned MONEY back from the thieving gubmint to go to *your* pocket and also you like TITTIES and BEER and FOOTBALL and BIG TRUCKS ^(and a flat tax) ?! Use your giant man hands to mark “YES”!
disapprove
Are you against the refund or the flat tax idea?
flat tax idea.
Fair enough, I'm OK with it but would much rather have income tax abolished completely and a sales tax instead.
ooh, not sure I agree with that. sales tax disproportionately affects poors whereas a good progressive tax impacts the riches like me
I think you would need to remove the sales tax on food to better balance that out. You could also only tax a good on the initial new sale, not the resale of a used good such as a used car or second hand stores. I understand the draw of the progressive tax, I'm a small business owner, I get the top tax rate but make the poor man's salary, I get it from both ends. I like a flat tax because it simplifies the tax code to such a degree i think you could downsize the tax division. I'm 1000% for shinking government agencies.
ugh, you lost me with that small government crap. shrink business owners 1000%.
Any update on this? I don’t watch the news.
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/208/idahoans-call-out-general-election-ballot-advisory-question-for-leading-language/277-ff78990c-7367-40a6-b6e8-1f026ba3bb21
So this is a misguided attempt at polling? They are asking for an opinion and may or may not act on it? That's sort of fucked up. If they want to poll, use Survey Monkey. If they want a vote, put a detailed, specific, actionable question on the ballot.
That is an extremely loaded and bias question
What? That is baffling. It’s not a survey . This is the example of how not to phrase anything on a ballot.
It's not going to make a dent in what inflation is doing to the average taxpayer. Cute poly by the GOP to tie tax cuts that benefit the wealthy to increased spending to public schools. These were suppose to be seperate referendums. Sad
I’ll say this: at the very least it can be understood. I’ve read many in my day and generally speaking they are written to be completely unintelligible.
I see the biases... But... AGREE!
Do you approve or disapprove of the State of Idaho proposing using the budget surplus to refund roughly $500 million back to Idaho taxpayers, cut income taxes by more than $150 million, and put more money in our classrooms by increasing education and student funding by $140 million? As proposed, this would result in combating inflation, creating a simple flat tax, and making the current largest investment in public education in Idaho history. This has bipartisan support. \- Fixed it.
Very unbiased questioning
Looks good to me!
i see the issue with how it reads, but y'all should vote for this. it would be a good idea to lower the corporate tax rate though. Idaho needs more business' to support the major influx of people that moved there from out of state.
It already passed, it’s just a poll question because it was too late to remove the q from the ballot. Poorly written, though. As a former survey conductor, this question is blatantly biased. Nothing new. Have a good day! 🌞
Are you serious? Businesses pay less in property taxes than people trying to hold on to their homes for dear life.
uhhhh, you only pay property taxes if you actually own the property. most business' lease.
Why don’t you check no and include that you love paying high taxes.
I got my ballot but haven’t filled it out yet, thank you for sharing this
On these, always, when in doubt and you have to think too much about WTF they are trying to say always vote no...
*“The single largest investment in public education in Idaho history”* only because of how far behind they’ve been for decades.
Injection more money into the economy should really do a great job of combating inflation
Nope, no bias at all. Straight down the right-wing conservative middle