The #RedForEd movement in Arizona succeeded in getting an initiative on the Arizona ballot to tax the highest income people to pay for education. Arizona is one of the lowest-spending states in the nation for education.
A judge has slapped down efforts by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to block people from voting whether to hike income taxes on the rich to generate $690 million a year for education.
In an extensive ruling Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Smith acknowledged that, strictly speaking, hiking the top income tax rate from 4.54 percent to 8 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year actually increases the tax rate on those earnings by 76 percent. Similarly, taking the tax rate for earnings above $500,000 for individuals to 9 percent is a 98 percent increase over the current rate.
But Smith said that did not make it inherently misleading for organizers of the Invest in Ed initiative to describe the tax hikes as 3.46 percent and 4.46 percent, the absolute difference between the current rate and the proposed new ones.
It is true, Smith said, that technically speaking, the 100-word description of the key provisions of the measure, required by state law, should probably have said it was raising the tax rate by 3.46 and 4.46 “percentage points,” respectively.
“While that likely would be more precise, the existing summaries are not fatally misleading without that verbiage,” the judge wrote, meaning the use of the smaller numbers is not enough to block a vote.
Attorneys for the chamber had argued the use of 3.46 and 4.46 percent was misleading, causing some people to sign the petition to put the issue on the November ballot who would have balked at a measure described as hiking tax rates by 76 and 98 percent, even just for the rich.
Smith conceded that initiative organizers crafted the description “undoubtedly … to appeal to potential voters.” But he said that does not make it inaccurate or misleading.
Anyway, the judge pointed out that the full text of the initiative — including the current and proposed tax rates — were attached to the petitions, so those who might have been confused could check for themselves before signing.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
At last.
I wish something like this would happen in Illinois. The tax on the wealthy and corporations cannot be raised without a change in the state constitution. Everyone is charged the same flat rate.
Our state pensions are one of the lowest funded in the nation. Illinois thought it was fine to underfund for years and borrow to pay state bills. Now the time of reckoning has come and even a Democratic dominated state refuses to do anything.
Opps. Let me rephrase that. I do not know what the corporate rate in Illinois is. Maybe some readers know. I do know that people are all taxed at the same rate.
May the 2018/2020 elections bring much FOCUS on this truth: Democrats, this is your side of the aisle.
Awww, my heart bleeds for the poor reformyists who feel they fooled by words, these are the same folks that use phrases like “parent trigger” & school choice to get what they want. Let me mourn for them. Okay, I’m done mourning.
I find a statement saying the rate went up by 76% and 98% more misleading. It is more honest to give examples of real dollar amounts associated with different incomes. After all if I paid $5 in tax and had my rate raised 100%, I still would only be paying $10. The question really is how adversely such rates would affect their economic welfare. If they can only afford 3 houses as opposed to 4 or 5, I really don’t feel a great deal of sympathy, especially when someone else is homeless and/or living pay check to pay check.
Exactly. The wording the rich prefer is far more misleading than simply stating the old and new tax rates.