EDITORIAL: ‘Progressive’ tax hike would fleece Colorado ⁠85%

By The Gazette Editorial Board⁠89%

8/5/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.6% saturation with 232 hits. Analysis detected 1,478 faulty-reasoning hits from 601 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (4,332 of 28,653 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

Voters beware: That petition you might have signed the other day for a pending ballot proposal to “lower your taxes” — actually would raise taxes statewide by over $2 billion. 
Read the fine print. 
The disingenuous pitch by some petition circulators — technically true in some cases — obscures the massive tax hike. 
And it would impose a new and much more complicated tax code on taxpayers. 
Initiative 195 would replace Colorado’s simple, 4.4% flat tax with a dizzying array of tax brackets ranging from 3.7% for the first $25,000 to 8.4% — nearly doubling the top rate. 
Coloradans in some lower tax brackets would pay marginally less while those in higher brackets would pay more — some, a lot more. 
The upshot of the measure overall is it would hand the state government a windfall — at taxpayers’ expense. 
A legislative analysis estimated the measure would siphon off another $2 billion to $2.7 billion a year of Coloradans’ tax dollars and funnel it into state coffers. 
That amounts to more play money for lawmakers to create more programs. 
It also amounts to another ball and chain shackling our state’s economy — which already is turning off new business investment. 
No wonder even progressive Democratic Gov. 
Jared Polis has denounced the idea, predicting Initiative 195 would be “absolutely devastating.” 
Polis, a highly successful internet entrepreneur before entering politics, gets economics. 
And he knows economic snake oil when he sees it. 
Nevertheless, the fast talk behind the proposal appears to have succeeded in netting enough signatures to get the measure onto the fall ballot, as reported in The Gazette on Tuesday. 
The signatures of registered voters still have to be authenticated by the Secretary of State’s Office. 
If 195 becomes law, it will send shock waves through Colorado’s economy. 
The measure’s permanent tax hike stands to chase off higher income earners as well as businesses — our state’s job creators — to states with more reasonable tax codes. 
Which means a large potential loss of tax revenue even as the measure raises taxes. 
While 195 camouflages its aggregate impact with nominal cuts for the state’s lowest income earners, a Common Sense Institute study released in June revealed how the average, across-the-board rate for all taxpayers combined would rise under 195. 
It would go from the current 4.4% to approximately 5% of taxable income, “making Colorado’s average rate higher than all but one neighboring state,” the think tank’s analysis concluded. 
“Colorado would lose approximately $186 million in individual earnings annually due to migration effects, despite a modest net gain in individual taxpayers,” according to the analysis. 
It also found, “Colorado would experience a net loss of approximately 14 businesses annually and nearly $200 million in corporate profits due to interstate business migration.” 
It’s a grim scenario that makes for an even stronger endorsement of a counter measure that already has made it onto the Nov. 3 ballot, Initiative 232. 
It would cap the state’s rate at 4.4% — rates still could be reduced — effectively blocking 195’s massive tax hike by keeping Colorado’s flat tax in place. 
If both measures win voter approval? 
The highest vote-getter would prevail on any provisions of either measure that are in conflict. 
A vote for 232 would be wise in any event as an added safeguard against future tax hikes — but it’s essential with 195 poised to make the ballot. 
Meanwhile, 195 deserves a firm “no” from voters. 
Some were fooled once into signing 195’s petitions — and shame on the circulators — so let’s not be fooled twice. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.1%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.6%Denver Gazette: 2.3%Confirmation Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 1.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.4%Denver Gazette: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 16.8%Denver Gazette: 5.0%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 18.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.2%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Loss Aversion18.5%This article: 11.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.5%Denver Gazette: 0.9%Status Quo Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.8%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias12.5%This article: 21.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 7.3%Denver Gazette: 3.3%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 3.2%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.8%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.5%Denver Gazette: 1.0%Ad Hominem6.7%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.7%Denver Gazette: 1.9%Appeal to Authority23.3%This article: 9.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.1%Denver Gazette: 1.2%False Dilemma9.5%This article: 2.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.3%Denver Gazette: 0.8%Slippery Slope2.0%This article: 2.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.0%This article: 3.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.9%Denver Gazette: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.0%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.3%Denver Gazette: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion8.3%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.8%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 3.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Tu Quoque3.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Composition/Division8.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 4.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.0%No True Scotsman4.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.2%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy3.2%This article: 14.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Unattributed Quote14.3%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.2%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 38.6%The Gazette Editorial Board: 21.8%Denver Gazette: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice38.6%This article: 19.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.8%Denver Gazette: 1.8%Indoctrination19.3%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 8.6%Denver Gazette: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.5%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

601 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.2%attributed speech588writer words
Selected voice

Jared Polis

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.5 ptsWriter: 39.5%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.