The best reason for a tax increase is often for education. Despite my reluctance on any tax hike, I find it very hard to suggest reasons why a tax increase for education is a bad thing. However, Amendment 66 in Colorado, which would change the state’s income tax system for the purpose of raising more funds for education, is one of those tax increases that I cannot support.

My number one qualm with Amendment 66 is that it would change the state’s income tax system from a flat tax of 4.63 percent to a two-tiered system of five percent for households with incomes under $75,000 and 5.9 percent for households making over $75,000. In terms of percentage increase, households making under $75,000 will be paying eight percent more in income tax while households in the upper bracket would be paying 27 percent more tax from the current rate, according to the Tax Foundation on Oct. 17. That is a whole lot of increase considering that households still have to pay all the other countless state and federal taxes.

But my greatest fear is that this creation of a tiered system for income tax will become a slippery slope. If we have two tiers, why not have three? Four? Why not make another tier to distinguish between families that make more than $75,000 and $150,000? Let us just keep raising taxes on higher levels of income because they can afford it, right? What this would do is create an unnecessary burden on the lives of middle class Coloradans because while $150,000 may look like a lot on paper, families with those incomes struggle too.

This tax increase would also create a burden for small businesses. A little known fact is that many small businesses in Colorado report their business income on personal tax returns, which means that small businesses would be affected by this tax increase. Colorado and the rest of the nation are still in the recovery stage of the recession, and hurting small businesses would only hamper that recovery.

Another problem with this amendment is that it unfairly distributes the allocated funds between school districts. For example, as reported by the Denver Post on Oct. 13, if Amendment 66 passes, Douglas County schools will go from having $399 million to $451 million (a $52 million increase) while Denver Public Schools will increase from $561 million to $693 million (a $132 million increase). I should also note that Douglas County residents will be paying $90 to $100 million more in taxes for only a $52 million increase in funding for their schools. The amendment takes from one part of Colorado to give it to another. This is a result of the amendment’s aim to funnel the raised funds toward early-childhood education, at-risk students and English-language learners.

As a final opposition to this Amendment, I offer that an increase in funding for education does not always translate into better results. A CATO Institute report in 2008 showed that since 1970, federal spending for education rose almost 150 percent while test scores in math and reading showed virtually no increase and test scores in science actually went down. So if increased federal spending does not result in better education, why should we believe that increased state spending will do the same? We should not.

There is no doubt that the education system in Colorado and the U.S. can be improved, but Amendment 66 is not the answer. Instead of putting more burdens on the taxpayers for questionable results, we should look at firing incompetent teachers and replacing them with better ones. We should focus efforts on better teacher training programs so that we can have better teachers in the state. We should re-examine the statewide tests to make sure that they are accurate measures of the quality of education in each school. We should see exactly where funding has shown positive results and continue and expand upon those areas. We shouldn’t raise taxes with the likely possibility that little positive change will result from them.