The Arizona Supreme Court will allow the Invest in Education initiative to appear on the November 2020 ballot after it was previously tossed out by a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, who ruled its petition summary was “fraudulent or substantially confusing to Arizona voters.”
The initiative proposes a 3.5 percent surcharge in state income tax on Arizona’s wealthiest residents—individuals earning more than $250,000 per year or couples earning more than $500,000 per year.
The measure could potentially raise about $940 million in tax revenue per year for the benefit of Arizona public schools and their stakeholders and would affect only the top 1 percent of Arizona earners, according to the Invest in Ed campaign.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury made the ruling to toss the initiative last month, saying that their 100-word description on petitions signed by voters didn’t include key components of what the initiative would actually do.
The Invest in Education campaign appealed his ruling, and today the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the initiative’s description “did not create a significant danger of confusion or unfairness and reverses the trial court ruling.”
“Today’s ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court keeping Invest in Education on the November ballot is an important victory because it gives millions of Arizona voters the opportunity to put more resources into our schools,” said Invest in Education Chairwoman Amber Gould in a press release. “We are confident voters will say ‘yes’ to improving Arizona’s K-12 schools by voting ‘yes’ on Invest in Education this November. The Invest in Education Initiative was crafted to benefit all Arizona’s 1.1 million K-12 students while not taxing working and middle-class families impacted by the pandemic.”
Election officials are expected to complete a review of petition signatures for the proposition this week.
To learn more about the ballot initiative, visit investined.com.
This article appears in Aug 13-19, 2020.
Now, we too can join Connecticut with a personal income tax rate over 7%. How many jobs has Connecticut created in the last 30 years? Zero. Connecticut has fewer jobs today than any time in recorded history.
In 1990, Connecticut had 10% more jobs than Arizona. Now, Arizona has 90% more jobs than Connecticut.
The idea that an 8% income tax will well serve Arizona’s students is a nightmare. These students need jobs when they graduate from High School and College. We have 71,000 high school graduates every year and 22,000 college graduates. This 8% income tax will bring our growth in critically important high compensation jobs to a screeching halt.
We have a city, Tucson, that has created no jobs in the last ten years, Now, we can join this performance at the state level.
What’s worse is that there will be no recovery from this. The only thing that can reverse a citizen initiative is another vote by the citizens. Will never happen.
Right now, we are an example to the nation of the incredible prosperity you can generate with state government frugality. Soon, we will be an example of how much you can stunt your job growth with egregious personal income taxes on highly successful businessmen and businesswomen.
A tragedy is about to unfold.
tax the rich feed the poor. Tax the rich till they aint rich no more! Had you rich mo fo’s and your republiscum running dogs properly funded educations instead of trying to destroy education with your charter school boondoggles this would not be necessary. Low taxes on the rich is over time to pay up richies!
To modern Republicans, there is nothing more tragic than the wealthy paying taxes; they have nothing else to offer.
That is until the wealthy stop funding the criminal university foundations that invest in China. Cut off the donations and watch them straighten out.
By the way you still can’t tax your way out of debt. It only creates more.
How will the quality of life of the wealthy be affected by this increase in taxes. I imagine in some cases they will have slightly less to invest. Will that have a significant affect on their quality of life? Will it decrease the amount or the nature of the stuff they acquire, e.g.,, fewer bathrooms? I’m elderly and retired and my annual income is much less than $250,000, but a 3.5% surcharge would have no negative effect on my quality of life. And isn’t that what it’s all about: Quality of Life? Am I having fun?
Mr. Huppenthal tries desperately to find a way to condemn the Invest in Ed initiative, seeking to compare and contrast the economies and tax rates (past, present and future) of CT and AZ. The two states and their populations and their economies could hardly be more different. And the 7% tax rate of which he speaks would, here in AZ, affect a pretty small percent of the population since it would be applied only to the dollars over 250K earned by an individual, over 500K by a couple filing jointly. And let it not go unchallenged that he has said: “Connecticut has fewer jobs today than any time in recorded history.” Fewer jobs than in 1720? in 1820? in 1920?
The Dem Convention told us we are in a recession.
What did Obama say about raising taxes and what happens? let’s take a look back in history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE
The very rich and the mega-corps paid roughly 4 times the present effective percent in total taxes back in the 50-60’s. As I recall, those at the top were doing just fine back then. OK, their yachts were smaller and they didn’t own as many private jets, so sad. I also remember that the working class was doing much, much better. The majority of families were even single earners. Funny how that works.
This will increase taxes on the money OVER $250,000. The first $250,000 will be taxed the same as it is now. All of this fear-mongering about the burden placed on income after that very high bar is disingenuous or uniformed.
Sorry Nannette but taxes raised on any level punish everyone below that level, even while their taxes stay the same. When those above you forfeit investment money they reduce investing which eliminates jobs.
I wish they could go back to teaching this in the public schools. But I guess you couldn’t fool so many if they did.
Thanks NEA. You did it.
“The very rich…paid roughly 4 times the present effective percent in total taxes back in the 50-60’s. As I recall, those at the top were doing just fine back then. OK, their yachts were smaller and they didn’t own as many private jets, so sad. I also remember that the working class was doing much, much better.
Nope. Bad recollection.
The economy only grew 14% in Eisenhower’s second term as compared to Reagan’s 25% in his second term. And, the economy only grew that much because of the huge tax cut in 1948 which introduced income splitting, a huge tax reduction on second incomes.
Further, read the IRS reports on that era. The tax code expanded to 1,500 pages as the economy grew around the proliferation of political corruption invited by the 90% tax rate. You are chanting political mythology, not facts.
hey huppy do its election season keep your stinking hands off of democrats campaign signs. nobody likes a thief.
“Connecticut has fewer jobs than any time in recorded history”
Ok, let me be more defined: Connecticut has fewer jobs than at any time since 1990. Connecticut has fewer jobs today than they had in 1990. The Federal Reserve Data only goes back to 1990.
Arizona has 90% more jobs.
Just as importantly, for this debate, Arizona has 71,000 teachers today. Up from 15,000 in 1990.
Connecticut has 42,000 teachers. That’s a 29,000 teacher difference.
This proposal will be an unmitigated disaster for Arizona school graduates.
“… because it gives millions of Arizona voters the opportunity to put more resources into our schools,”
Seems to me it’s not millions of voters but just some higher income people.
Playing with words; surcharge sounds so much better than tax increase.