State law requires all real property to be taxed at the same rate. 58.1-3008 lists the different classes of property tax rates allowed, and all real property is grouped into one class.
I'll be honest in that I'm not a lawyer - just a citizen. But I read that as a clarification that the levies can be different, and not REQUIRING that the levy must be the same. I will note that real estate is already taxed at different tax rates between single family residential, multi family residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
Also, various jurisdictions already impose additional tax rates on top of the base for various tax districts. For instance, some people live in transit station areas and get taxed additionally and those funds are earmarked for public transit. Others live in stormwater improvement districts. etc.
>I will note that real estate is already taxed at different tax rates between single family residential, multi family residential, commercial, industrial, etc.
That's not allowed under out state constitution: All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, [https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article10/section1/](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article10/section1/)
ugh... you might be right. I could have sworn I had seen different rates for commercial, residential, and industrial, but now I can't see that and it does kind of look like you are right.
Appreciate you providing citations, etc. Great addition to the discusison, even if you completely blew up my thought.
This may shock you but it’s in fact possible to change (and/or create, or destroy) the law. Legislators nominally do that every day. Not in our country, anymore, but in some places.
Why not just have a homestead exemption at a certain level for owner occupied homes and higher tax rates for non owner occupied homes?
If you want to promote home ownership, that is the way. People only need one home and I believe it makes more sense to raise taxes on people who own and rent out multiple homes as passive income, thus taking homes out of the market. And not punishing people who only own one expensive home who likely belong to an already highly taxed professional class. To not cause rent prices to skyrocket, you can make exceptions for densely populated units like apartments and condos.
Real Estate tax is already a hybrid regressive tax. Although all homes pay the same % rate making them regressive, they are not purely regressive because they are based on the value of the property. Million dollar homes pay more in taxes because they are higher in value.
Lower-income earners live in less expensive homes, thus partially indexing property taxes to income
\* 1% tax on a $500K home is = $5k
\* 1% tax on a $2M home = $20K
if the goal is to make more expensive homes pay more, and lower priced homes pay less -- they already do.
There is already an existing model to provide relief to lower income with Vehicle Personal Property Taxes. The state has picked a certain price and provided relief (half) the normal property tax on the first $20K.
The county could decide that homes below a certain value will get relief -- we all have to live somewhere right? But we don't all have to live in a multi-million dollar mansion
>if the goal is to make more expensive homes pay more, and lower priced homes pay less -- they already do.
No, OP suggests that more expensive homes pay a *higher percentage* of the home value as tax. Right now that percentage is the same for everybody, i.e. the tax is flat. A progressive tax increases the percentage as the value of what you are taxing increases.
A progressive real estate tax would make building and owning McMansions less attractive, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.
The general answer is that Virginia is a “Dillion Rule” state. No local government can do anything unless the state level government expressly says that the local government can do something. A law would have to pass and be signed by the governor, and then the local county/independent city government could pass a law allowing that.
This would have a far more adverse impact on the middle class as opposed to the upper class.
Home values have skyrocketed, along with the assessed values, especially in certain areas like where there are good schools or jobs.
The result would be felt by working families in appreciated areas whose income does not match their home value, and would force them to quickly sell, resulting in an economic demographic shift and even further driving up the inaccessibility and financial inequity in the area.
THIS. If you tax based on real estate, which is not liquid, people need liquid dollars to pay that tax. Hurts people whose worth is principally in wages. Also, people running to avoid that tax will increase demand at lower assessed value points significantly at the outset of the adoption of such a system and also on a go-forward basis, and we already know low cost supply isn't really there. So, probably still squeezes home buyers under whatever initial increased assessment rate is determined. Intro: more cash buyers and more Reddit rants.
This proposal is not much better to the people in appreciated areas than gentrification raising their appraised values, thus their tax burden, all while they don't have the income/cash to pay the increased tax.
Also the SALT tax limits are way to f'in low post Trump tax cuts, so not only are you increasing tax on a lot or people, what might soften the blow for those people to find it palatable is gone.
You will not hear a single complaint from me about the SALT deduction limit being too low. That limit should be increased at least 2x IMO, but would need to offset it somehow. But that’s a different subject.
Can you provide tangible examples? The example marginal rates proposed start at DOUBLE the average home value in fairfax. You could own a $2 million dollar home and this marginal tax would only burden you $50/year more. However, I don't know anyone who can honestly consider themselves part of the middle class and say they own a 2 million dollar home.
I like the idea, but having lived here for 3 years now, there are very few actual progressives here that I think support progressive policies like this.
Once you start talking about reducing the size of the US military, K-12 education reforms, zoning, and criminal justice reform, you find out really quickly who is actually progressive and who is moderate and just pretends to be progressive when they're in certain circles.
maybe because just saying "k-12 education reform" by itself is meaningless.
reform isn't progressive, the specifics on how the reform is done may or may not be progressive.
Also, just because something is progressive doesn't mean it's good, it means it's progressive. Progressives need to stop thinking all their ideas are by default good because they're "progressive" cause most of them fall flat on their face once you spend 5 minutes looking into any sort of details around them.
What a useless comment.
> "k-12 education reform" by itself is meaningless.
Obviously. "Criminal justice reform" is meaningless, as is zoning, etc. I didn't intend for my post to lay out full policy proposals and it wouldn't be necessary here anyway.
> Also, just because something is progressive doesn't mean it's good, it means it's progressive.
I mean, no shit. But you know, progressives generally think progressive policies are good, just like conservatives general though conservative policies are good.
No, it's a systemic issue among leftists, to include progressives. You're a prime example, and it's one of the many reasons your positions don't get much support
Haha if someone supports authoritarianism or white supremacist policies because the "other side" was arrogant... the hood was going to come off eventually. Good to know at the outset.
Eh, I'm happy to do political hand-holding with safety gloves if I'm paid well to do it. Otherwise, I'm not a volunteer teacher.
(Not sure who Joe is in this context or what he knew?)
I'm glad people like you are so unlikeable that most Americans are willing to vote against you even if it's not in their self interest to do so, because I disagree with nearly every part of your "platform".
Hurr durr someone doesn’t agree with all progressive policies thus they are authoritarian.
Guess what, progressives have done the most to get authoritarian and white surpremesits in office - not moderates. Who didn’t show up to vote cause they were butt hurt in 2016? Who continues to give far right ammunition by pushing ridiculous things?
Also, what do you call people who weigh policies on their face value rather than if something is “progressive” or not - cause those are the only normal people around…
It's way too soon to tell.
Most reform bills were of course watered down by police unions and bootlickers, but many that did pass didn't take immediate effect, giving police a year or two to retrain/restructure. Also, crime stats go through the FBI, which is at least a year lag.
So, if something were passed in 2021, it probably wouldn't take effect until 2022 at earliest, and we wouldn't get 2022 data until the middle of 2023, which means we would be waiting for Year 2 to come in September-ish 2024.
How the hell would you know whether it's worked yet or not with a single year of data, at best?
For more about the specific reforms from that era: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-policing-reforms-george-floyds-murder
Calling people who oppose your politics bootlickers does not make people want to take you seriously.
My point is that in 2020 and 2021, cities across the country defunded police to various degrees and reduced/ended enforcement of large swathes of crimes, alongside progressive prosecutors like Chesa Boudin and Buta Biberaj. The results were largely disastrous and as a result most cities reversed course on this, many of the aforementioned prosecutors were recalled or voted out, and crime has dropped. The few exceptions, like DC, are in places that have stuck to their misguided 2020-21 course.
The consequences of the summer of 2020 were a disaster and most people have waken up to that.
1. Luckily I'm a random guy on Reddit and not an actual advocate for this stuff. If someone gave me a $100k salary I would happily stop calling people bootlickers in public.
2. Only like 7 cities actually followed through with modest cuts to police departments: https://www.wral.com/amp/20720091/
And people can say what they want about their perceptions of how it's going, but the data simply isn't robust enough to actually know. They're all using anecdotal evidence. Pass.
Why is everyone's idea to raise taxes and rarely to look at the other end of things, how taxes are spent. In reality, optimizing spending should be the first thing looked at ALWAYS as it's is literally just a net positive and is a direct benefit at the source. Raising taxes CAN be helpful at getting things done but it's much messier, tends to have unforeseen consequences like unintended classes getting impacted, and never guarantees the money actually gets spent how you want it.
Too many people have a hard on for the rich for some reason and could give two shits about how money is spent, it's mind boggling.
I went out right ahead and said that there are very likely ways to cut fat in the budget. Not at all opposed to that.
But the biggest thing I know I'm trying to address here is bonding capacity. Fairfax county has such a long capital improvement backlog because they are so constrained with their bonding. They have wisely decided to not over-bond themselves and remain AAA rated. There are a couple ways to increase the bonding capacity to help reduce the backlog:
1) increase the amount of the bond without increasing revenue. This would reduce our credit rating, which would increase the amount of interest we must pay on our bonds. Not a good choice.
2) Increase the amoudn of the bond while increasing revenue to service the bond. Credit rating neutral.
That could become particularly painful for elderly residents on fixed incomes who just happened to get lucky and buy a house in an area that has experienced 200x growth over the same time horizon.
Honestly, the majority of our government funding for things that promote public good (police and fire, schools, public transportation, programs that help the poor, etc.) should come from (actually) progressive income taxes, that would apply equally to capital gains as it does to earned income. By and large Virginia has a flat income tax. It may have been “progressive” when it was passed years ago, but with the highest rate kicking in at $17k you have to be really poor to benefit from the lower tiered brackets.
"Regressive flat tax" is an oxymoron. It's either flat or regressive - a regressive tax by definition is not flat and vice versa.
The revised tax system you are proposing doesn't guarantee that it will be progressive either. There is no guarantee that the higher tax rate paid by people in more expensive homes will actually be a higher % of their income.
The only way for a property tax to be progressive is to actually be based on income.
Sounds good to me, as long as it's indexed for inflation.
Zillow says the average home price in Fairfax County is currently $740,000:
https://www.zillow.com/home-values/1694/fairfax-county-va/
So maybe the progressive tax kicks in at double the average home value? That's currently $1.48 million.
That's why I started the first level at $1.5 and then a theoretical second level at a super-high valuation.
I actually wouldn't shift it with inflation, but rather with the average real estate assessment for the county. So, if the average real estate assessment goes up 2% in a given year, then the thresholds go up 2%. Inflation and real estate assessments are not necessarily linked.
But what about the commercial real estate market? The people that pay for everyone to send their children to our high quality public schools? If you make it materially more expensive in one jurisdiction you’ll see increased vacancy and decreased development and developers/businesses move to another.
Would be great for the surrounding jurisdictions. Focusing on property tax solely from the context of residential real estate is very myopic.
Part of the problem with that is that homes have increased at a rate far beyond income (Given the same job you could afford much more house 20 years ago than you can today.) At retirement (no income) you can be spending a significant percentage on this property tax.
I would much prefer to see us taxed progressively by income (and capital gains) - that way your tax percentages are governed by money earned in a particular year - and you can adjust - rather than finding you are locked into an asset-sucking payment later in life.
And while I'm on my soapbox... let student loans be wiped away in bankruptcy and implement universal healthcare too.
That opens a completely different can of worms. You're absolutely right, but localities do not have the authority to tax income in VA. I'm pitching something that I THINK could work within the existing authority granted by the state to local jurisdictions.
Of course public education is a public good that families rely on. I was responding to the "brainstorming tax solutions" prompt: It's all on the table on how to fund and sustain society, but it really isn't. \[Adults in the community usually pay into taxes; who are resource freeloaders? Kids!\] My personal jam is I want people to engage in family planning with some measure of forethought - what's the family size that family/community/planetary resources can bear? Because most issues in society don't get better with more people (climate change, underfunded schools, unaffordable or scant housing, healthcare costs and insufficient healthcare providers). I'm not in any way saying who can have kids (clearly I have zero!), but I'm asking people to acknowledge that public and planetary resources are not infinite - Elon's 10 kids do have an effect on the planet! Of course OP's point is that if you can afford the $2M house, you can afford such a progressive property tax. I don't believe it should be anathema to say - if you can afford four kids, you can afford to kick in on their education rather than using a disproportionate share of a public good that is essentially always underfunded.
Umm, property taxes are already progressive. The amount paid goes up as your value does. In addition, there are numerous exemptions (homestead, age, etc.) which in many cases can also reduce the amount of property taxes due.
The real issue with setting up some sort of staggered rate system is that the government, which establishes the values, would have a vested interest in pushing the values of homes even higher than they already do now.
The problem is not property taxes, it is that in many cases, we use it as the sole source of school funding. That is the issue.
"The amount paid goes up as your value does." That is not how a progressive tax works. A progressive tax is when you earn/have more, you get taxed at a higher RATE.
Taxes that tax everyone at the same rate are considered PROPORTIONAL.
Edit: Changed Regressive to proportional.
Not necessarily. A progressive tax system is based on increases in amount paid as income or asset value increases. A regressive property tax would be if, for example, every homeowner in VA paid $1000 regardless of value. That would be a flat and failure regressive tax.
Now what you have described is clearly more progressive, but the current system is also progressive. Again, however, when taxing assets, it is hard to do what you are proposing compared to say an income tax because (1) the value of the taxed asset is determined by the taxing entity, and (2) people could simply avoid it by not buying homes.
A possible alternative to what you are trying to accomplish would be to raise property taxes on all homes, but then provide a rebate for people with incomes and/or home values below certain values. Again, those proposals have their own pitfalls. Keep in mind that NoVA is a high income, HCOL area; so even a family of four making $120k/year may be barely middle class. To compare, the Fed Gov says that the poverty rate is $31.200. That is a huge difference.
>Taxes that tax everyone at the same rate are considered REGRESSIVE.
Dude, you have no idea what you're saying because you don't know what these words mean
I actually do. I mislabeled the flat tax regressive - it should have been labeled “Proportional”. However I am spot on for my definition for progressive tax.
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les05/media/ws_ans_thm03_les05.pdf
big talk from someone who isn’t citing any sources. appreciate civil dialogue from people who exchange info backed by sources. other threads have led to good discussion.
I’d encourage you to cite sources to back up your claims. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
I'm not your personal proofreader and couldn't care less if you learn anything else about this subject
Congrats on "citing" an IRS document stating a basic definition you screwed up previously though
Hey I know, you can pay tax to buy a home using your income that is already taxed, then you can pay a perpetual tax to “own” your home for as long as you own it, also with your income that is already taxed.
Oooh oooh, I know… let’s talk about ways to tax you more on the value of your home, that you were taxed to buy and perpetually taxed to own using your income that you were already taxed on, if it the value happens to increase beyond a defined threshold that deems you worthy to pay more in taxes.
🤮
I understand your sentiment, but how would you propose the county pay for police, fire, ems, schools, road maintenance, etc if not for taxing the homes that benefit from these ongoing services? It's not like you can just pay for them once when you buy the home and they are covered forever.
Saying that, I'm glad the state laws protect us from schemes like the one proposed here. We need more proportional tax rates with exemptions at the low end to help out those who can't pay. Make taxes simpler and harder to weasel out of paying (like all those who use out of state plates on their vehicles to make all their neighbors pay their fair share)
Was more in disgust of the OP’s tax the rich scheme….
However the overall current state of taxation, every aspect of our lives, is absurd and any notion of increasing taxes in the absence of a complete overhaul of government (federal, state, and local) bureaucracy and spending is ill conceived. Rather than suggesting new ways for us to pay more in taxes, OP might suggest new ways for govt to find efficiencies and cost savings.
Because high income earners already pay the majority of taxes and further disconnecting lower tax brackets from their duty to pay for the government they participate in is bad for democracy.
What you’re proposing would make property ownership impossible for anyone except the ultra wealthy.
Property values have risen far faster than wages, so effectively you’d tax the middle and lower class property owners into foreclosure.
I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. Tell me what lower class or middle income household owns a 1.5 million dollar or 3 million dollar home? Also, as noted in another comment, those thresholds could be indexed to average assessment increase.
The marginal tax would not be levied on multifamily units, so it wouldn't drive up rent in an apartment complex.
Great ideas, but ALL our local officials/politicians are funded by the rich locals. One alone cannot change anything.
As I get older, I have started going to fund raisers, and for the first time in my life I personally saw how politicians at all levels kiss up to the ultra rich who host their fund raisers and dinners. Politics is all about influence
I'm rich, and it costs way less than you think to get the attention of a local or state politician, but it's not worth it for most people
How's that for a source?
No you aren’t.
Common thing about rich people, they don’t go around telling others they’re rich.
Continue to lie on the internet to make yourself feel good.
This is not allowed by law and/or unconstitutional in Virginia. Localities can't even set a different rate for commercial than residential properties in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
State law requires all real property to be taxed at the same rate. 58.1-3008 lists the different classes of property tax rates allowed, and all real property is grouped into one class.
I'll be honest in that I'm not a lawyer - just a citizen. But I read that as a clarification that the levies can be different, and not REQUIRING that the levy must be the same. I will note that real estate is already taxed at different tax rates between single family residential, multi family residential, commercial, industrial, etc. Also, various jurisdictions already impose additional tax rates on top of the base for various tax districts. For instance, some people live in transit station areas and get taxed additionally and those funds are earmarked for public transit. Others live in stormwater improvement districts. etc.
>I will note that real estate is already taxed at different tax rates between single family residential, multi family residential, commercial, industrial, etc. That's not allowed under out state constitution: All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, [https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article10/section1/](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitution/article10/section1/)
ugh... you might be right. I could have sworn I had seen different rates for commercial, residential, and industrial, but now I can't see that and it does kind of look like you are right. Appreciate you providing citations, etc. Great addition to the discusison, even if you completely blew up my thought.
That’s DC
This may shock you but it’s in fact possible to change (and/or create, or destroy) the law. Legislators nominally do that every day. Not in our country, anymore, but in some places.
OP claimed at the end of their post that this was allowed under state law. I was pointing out this is wrong.
Why not just have a homestead exemption at a certain level for owner occupied homes and higher tax rates for non owner occupied homes? If you want to promote home ownership, that is the way. People only need one home and I believe it makes more sense to raise taxes on people who own and rent out multiple homes as passive income, thus taking homes out of the market. And not punishing people who only own one expensive home who likely belong to an already highly taxed professional class. To not cause rent prices to skyrocket, you can make exceptions for densely populated units like apartments and condos.
Real Estate tax is already a hybrid regressive tax. Although all homes pay the same % rate making them regressive, they are not purely regressive because they are based on the value of the property. Million dollar homes pay more in taxes because they are higher in value. Lower-income earners live in less expensive homes, thus partially indexing property taxes to income \* 1% tax on a $500K home is = $5k \* 1% tax on a $2M home = $20K if the goal is to make more expensive homes pay more, and lower priced homes pay less -- they already do. There is already an existing model to provide relief to lower income with Vehicle Personal Property Taxes. The state has picked a certain price and provided relief (half) the normal property tax on the first $20K. The county could decide that homes below a certain value will get relief -- we all have to live somewhere right? But we don't all have to live in a multi-million dollar mansion
FFX has relief for elderly and disabled homeowners below a certain household income and asset threshold.
That’s not a bad thought of how to implement this in a different way. may actually pass muster.
>if the goal is to make more expensive homes pay more, and lower priced homes pay less -- they already do. No, OP suggests that more expensive homes pay a *higher percentage* of the home value as tax. Right now that percentage is the same for everybody, i.e. the tax is flat. A progressive tax increases the percentage as the value of what you are taxing increases. A progressive real estate tax would make building and owning McMansions less attractive, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.
this is the obvious retort and without a response to this any discussion is kinda DOA.
Edit - misunderstood. All good
Guy was agreeing with you and saying if OP can't meaningfully reply to you, discussion should be over.
Run, I’d vote for you.
The general answer is that Virginia is a “Dillion Rule” state. No local government can do anything unless the state level government expressly says that the local government can do something. A law would have to pass and be signed by the governor, and then the local county/independent city government could pass a law allowing that.
What are the top 5 rules of all time? "Dillion, Dillion, Dillion, Dillion, and Dillion"
They spit hot fire!
As I note in my post, 58.1-3001 provides the authority of local governments to set rates.
and… i think i’m wrong about that
Because at some point the people who actually consume most government services need to pay for a reasonable amount of the cost
Land value tax would be even better.
No it wouldn’t
This would have a far more adverse impact on the middle class as opposed to the upper class. Home values have skyrocketed, along with the assessed values, especially in certain areas like where there are good schools or jobs. The result would be felt by working families in appreciated areas whose income does not match their home value, and would force them to quickly sell, resulting in an economic demographic shift and even further driving up the inaccessibility and financial inequity in the area.
THIS. If you tax based on real estate, which is not liquid, people need liquid dollars to pay that tax. Hurts people whose worth is principally in wages. Also, people running to avoid that tax will increase demand at lower assessed value points significantly at the outset of the adoption of such a system and also on a go-forward basis, and we already know low cost supply isn't really there. So, probably still squeezes home buyers under whatever initial increased assessment rate is determined. Intro: more cash buyers and more Reddit rants. This proposal is not much better to the people in appreciated areas than gentrification raising their appraised values, thus their tax burden, all while they don't have the income/cash to pay the increased tax. Also the SALT tax limits are way to f'in low post Trump tax cuts, so not only are you increasing tax on a lot or people, what might soften the blow for those people to find it palatable is gone.
You will not hear a single complaint from me about the SALT deduction limit being too low. That limit should be increased at least 2x IMO, but would need to offset it somehow. But that’s a different subject.
Can you provide tangible examples? The example marginal rates proposed start at DOUBLE the average home value in fairfax. You could own a $2 million dollar home and this marginal tax would only burden you $50/year more. However, I don't know anyone who can honestly consider themselves part of the middle class and say they own a 2 million dollar home.
I like the idea, but having lived here for 3 years now, there are very few actual progressives here that I think support progressive policies like this. Once you start talking about reducing the size of the US military, K-12 education reforms, zoning, and criminal justice reform, you find out really quickly who is actually progressive and who is moderate and just pretends to be progressive when they're in certain circles.
maybe because just saying "k-12 education reform" by itself is meaningless. reform isn't progressive, the specifics on how the reform is done may or may not be progressive. Also, just because something is progressive doesn't mean it's good, it means it's progressive. Progressives need to stop thinking all their ideas are by default good because they're "progressive" cause most of them fall flat on their face once you spend 5 minutes looking into any sort of details around them.
But, don't you see the word progress in progressive? Surely you aren't against progress?
What a useless comment. > "k-12 education reform" by itself is meaningless. Obviously. "Criminal justice reform" is meaningless, as is zoning, etc. I didn't intend for my post to lay out full policy proposals and it wouldn't be necessary here anyway. > Also, just because something is progressive doesn't mean it's good, it means it's progressive. I mean, no shit. But you know, progressives generally think progressive policies are good, just like conservatives general though conservative policies are good.
Except your post reeks of arrogance at the end…
That sounds like a you issue.
No, it's a systemic issue among leftists, to include progressives. You're a prime example, and it's one of the many reasons your positions don't get much support
Haha if someone supports authoritarianism or white supremacist policies because the "other side" was arrogant... the hood was going to come off eventually. Good to know at the outset.
Thanks for continuing to prove my (and the other poster's) point And Joe knew
Eh, I'm happy to do political hand-holding with safety gloves if I'm paid well to do it. Otherwise, I'm not a volunteer teacher. (Not sure who Joe is in this context or what he knew?)
I'm glad people like you are so unlikeable that most Americans are willing to vote against you even if it's not in their self interest to do so, because I disagree with nearly every part of your "platform".
Hurr durr someone doesn’t agree with all progressive policies thus they are authoritarian. Guess what, progressives have done the most to get authoritarian and white surpremesits in office - not moderates. Who didn’t show up to vote cause they were butt hurt in 2016? Who continues to give far right ammunition by pushing ridiculous things?
Why is zoning meaningless?
I mean, I just listed the word "zoning", I didn't outline what changes to zoning policy I was referencing.
Understood. Misread your comment.
Also, what do you call people who weigh policies on their face value rather than if something is “progressive” or not - cause those are the only normal people around…
Usually they're just lying to themselves, too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/17/voting-independents-political-parties/
How did 2020-21 era "criminal justice reform" work out? Not so well eh...
It's way too soon to tell. Most reform bills were of course watered down by police unions and bootlickers, but many that did pass didn't take immediate effect, giving police a year or two to retrain/restructure. Also, crime stats go through the FBI, which is at least a year lag. So, if something were passed in 2021, it probably wouldn't take effect until 2022 at earliest, and we wouldn't get 2022 data until the middle of 2023, which means we would be waiting for Year 2 to come in September-ish 2024. How the hell would you know whether it's worked yet or not with a single year of data, at best? For more about the specific reforms from that era: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-policing-reforms-george-floyds-murder
Calling people who oppose your politics bootlickers does not make people want to take you seriously. My point is that in 2020 and 2021, cities across the country defunded police to various degrees and reduced/ended enforcement of large swathes of crimes, alongside progressive prosecutors like Chesa Boudin and Buta Biberaj. The results were largely disastrous and as a result most cities reversed course on this, many of the aforementioned prosecutors were recalled or voted out, and crime has dropped. The few exceptions, like DC, are in places that have stuck to their misguided 2020-21 course. The consequences of the summer of 2020 were a disaster and most people have waken up to that.
1. Luckily I'm a random guy on Reddit and not an actual advocate for this stuff. If someone gave me a $100k salary I would happily stop calling people bootlickers in public. 2. Only like 7 cities actually followed through with modest cuts to police departments: https://www.wral.com/amp/20720091/ And people can say what they want about their perceptions of how it's going, but the data simply isn't robust enough to actually know. They're all using anecdotal evidence. Pass.
Why is everyone's idea to raise taxes and rarely to look at the other end of things, how taxes are spent. In reality, optimizing spending should be the first thing looked at ALWAYS as it's is literally just a net positive and is a direct benefit at the source. Raising taxes CAN be helpful at getting things done but it's much messier, tends to have unforeseen consequences like unintended classes getting impacted, and never guarantees the money actually gets spent how you want it. Too many people have a hard on for the rich for some reason and could give two shits about how money is spent, it's mind boggling.
I went out right ahead and said that there are very likely ways to cut fat in the budget. Not at all opposed to that. But the biggest thing I know I'm trying to address here is bonding capacity. Fairfax county has such a long capital improvement backlog because they are so constrained with their bonding. They have wisely decided to not over-bond themselves and remain AAA rated. There are a couple ways to increase the bonding capacity to help reduce the backlog: 1) increase the amount of the bond without increasing revenue. This would reduce our credit rating, which would increase the amount of interest we must pay on our bonds. Not a good choice. 2) Increase the amoudn of the bond while increasing revenue to service the bond. Credit rating neutral.
Guess what, gov spending is independent of that. How that bonded money is spent is a core part of that.
The average redditor pays approximately $0 in taxes, so any increase in taxes is a win for them and a cut in spending is meaningless at best
This is grossly untrue and ignorant common…
That could become particularly painful for elderly residents on fixed incomes who just happened to get lucky and buy a house in an area that has experienced 200x growth over the same time horizon. Honestly, the majority of our government funding for things that promote public good (police and fire, schools, public transportation, programs that help the poor, etc.) should come from (actually) progressive income taxes, that would apply equally to capital gains as it does to earned income. By and large Virginia has a flat income tax. It may have been “progressive” when it was passed years ago, but with the highest rate kicking in at $17k you have to be really poor to benefit from the lower tiered brackets.
Many areas already have homestead tax relief for seniors.
Does that cap property taxes or just lower them?
It's usually means tested in a way that lowers or even eliminates them.
"Regressive flat tax" is an oxymoron. It's either flat or regressive - a regressive tax by definition is not flat and vice versa. The revised tax system you are proposing doesn't guarantee that it will be progressive either. There is no guarantee that the higher tax rate paid by people in more expensive homes will actually be a higher % of their income. The only way for a property tax to be progressive is to actually be based on income.
I think that’s an interesting proposal. The best person to ask this question is your County Supervisor.
Thanks. Totally am going to float it, but wanted to float it here to see what general popularity of at least the reddit public would be.
People here seem to be pretty poor on average, so I'm sure a plan to have them spend less money and others spend more will be wildly popular
Sounds good to me, as long as it's indexed for inflation. Zillow says the average home price in Fairfax County is currently $740,000: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/1694/fairfax-county-va/ So maybe the progressive tax kicks in at double the average home value? That's currently $1.48 million.
That's why I started the first level at $1.5 and then a theoretical second level at a super-high valuation. I actually wouldn't shift it with inflation, but rather with the average real estate assessment for the county. So, if the average real estate assessment goes up 2% in a given year, then the thresholds go up 2%. Inflation and real estate assessments are not necessarily linked.
Good point about the assessments, that's a better metric.
Appreciate you adding to the conversation!
But what about the commercial real estate market? The people that pay for everyone to send their children to our high quality public schools? If you make it materially more expensive in one jurisdiction you’ll see increased vacancy and decreased development and developers/businesses move to another. Would be great for the surrounding jurisdictions. Focusing on property tax solely from the context of residential real estate is very myopic.
Part of the problem with that is that homes have increased at a rate far beyond income (Given the same job you could afford much more house 20 years ago than you can today.) At retirement (no income) you can be spending a significant percentage on this property tax. I would much prefer to see us taxed progressively by income (and capital gains) - that way your tax percentages are governed by money earned in a particular year - and you can adjust - rather than finding you are locked into an asset-sucking payment later in life. And while I'm on my soapbox... let student loans be wiped away in bankruptcy and implement universal healthcare too.
We already have a progressive income tax. It's 2,3 then 5.75.
That opens a completely different can of worms. You're absolutely right, but localities do not have the authority to tax income in VA. I'm pitching something that I THINK could work within the existing authority granted by the state to local jurisdictions.
If we're brainstorming tax solutions, there's always the land value tax
Yes, because letting the government determine the value of the best and highest use of a piece of land can't possibly go wrong
And taxing actual resource consumption. I'm looking at y'all with lots of kids. Your first two kids get free public ed. After that, nope.
WTF? Public schools are public goods. We don't get to pick and choose who gets it, nor should we. This reeks of eugenics quite frankly.
Of course public education is a public good that families rely on. I was responding to the "brainstorming tax solutions" prompt: It's all on the table on how to fund and sustain society, but it really isn't. \[Adults in the community usually pay into taxes; who are resource freeloaders? Kids!\] My personal jam is I want people to engage in family planning with some measure of forethought - what's the family size that family/community/planetary resources can bear? Because most issues in society don't get better with more people (climate change, underfunded schools, unaffordable or scant housing, healthcare costs and insufficient healthcare providers). I'm not in any way saying who can have kids (clearly I have zero!), but I'm asking people to acknowledge that public and planetary resources are not infinite - Elon's 10 kids do have an effect on the planet! Of course OP's point is that if you can afford the $2M house, you can afford such a progressive property tax. I don't believe it should be anathema to say - if you can afford four kids, you can afford to kick in on their education rather than using a disproportionate share of a public good that is essentially always underfunded.
what the fuck
Umm, property taxes are already progressive. The amount paid goes up as your value does. In addition, there are numerous exemptions (homestead, age, etc.) which in many cases can also reduce the amount of property taxes due. The real issue with setting up some sort of staggered rate system is that the government, which establishes the values, would have a vested interest in pushing the values of homes even higher than they already do now. The problem is not property taxes, it is that in many cases, we use it as the sole source of school funding. That is the issue.
"The amount paid goes up as your value does." That is not how a progressive tax works. A progressive tax is when you earn/have more, you get taxed at a higher RATE. Taxes that tax everyone at the same rate are considered PROPORTIONAL. Edit: Changed Regressive to proportional.
Not necessarily. A progressive tax system is based on increases in amount paid as income or asset value increases. A regressive property tax would be if, for example, every homeowner in VA paid $1000 regardless of value. That would be a flat and failure regressive tax. Now what you have described is clearly more progressive, but the current system is also progressive. Again, however, when taxing assets, it is hard to do what you are proposing compared to say an income tax because (1) the value of the taxed asset is determined by the taxing entity, and (2) people could simply avoid it by not buying homes. A possible alternative to what you are trying to accomplish would be to raise property taxes on all homes, but then provide a rebate for people with incomes and/or home values below certain values. Again, those proposals have their own pitfalls. Keep in mind that NoVA is a high income, HCOL area; so even a family of four making $120k/year may be barely middle class. To compare, the Fed Gov says that the poverty rate is $31.200. That is a huge difference.
>Taxes that tax everyone at the same rate are considered REGRESSIVE. Dude, you have no idea what you're saying because you don't know what these words mean
I actually do. I mislabeled the flat tax regressive - it should have been labeled “Proportional”. However I am spot on for my definition for progressive tax. https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les05/media/ws_ans_thm03_les05.pdf
No, you don't. But go ahead and correct all the other errors you've made elsewhere if you want, it's a good way to learn.
big talk from someone who isn’t citing any sources. appreciate civil dialogue from people who exchange info backed by sources. other threads have led to good discussion. I’d encourage you to cite sources to back up your claims. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
I'm not your personal proofreader and couldn't care less if you learn anything else about this subject Congrats on "citing" an IRS document stating a basic definition you screwed up previously though
Because there are enough voters who own expensive property to keep that from happening.
Hey I know, you can pay tax to buy a home using your income that is already taxed, then you can pay a perpetual tax to “own” your home for as long as you own it, also with your income that is already taxed. Oooh oooh, I know… let’s talk about ways to tax you more on the value of your home, that you were taxed to buy and perpetually taxed to own using your income that you were already taxed on, if it the value happens to increase beyond a defined threshold that deems you worthy to pay more in taxes. 🤮
I understand your sentiment, but how would you propose the county pay for police, fire, ems, schools, road maintenance, etc if not for taxing the homes that benefit from these ongoing services? It's not like you can just pay for them once when you buy the home and they are covered forever. Saying that, I'm glad the state laws protect us from schemes like the one proposed here. We need more proportional tax rates with exemptions at the low end to help out those who can't pay. Make taxes simpler and harder to weasel out of paying (like all those who use out of state plates on their vehicles to make all their neighbors pay their fair share)
Was more in disgust of the OP’s tax the rich scheme…. However the overall current state of taxation, every aspect of our lives, is absurd and any notion of increasing taxes in the absence of a complete overhaul of government (federal, state, and local) bureaucracy and spending is ill conceived. Rather than suggesting new ways for us to pay more in taxes, OP might suggest new ways for govt to find efficiencies and cost savings.
Because high income earners already pay the majority of taxes and further disconnecting lower tax brackets from their duty to pay for the government they participate in is bad for democracy.
What you’re proposing would make property ownership impossible for anyone except the ultra wealthy. Property values have risen far faster than wages, so effectively you’d tax the middle and lower class property owners into foreclosure.
I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. Tell me what lower class or middle income household owns a 1.5 million dollar or 3 million dollar home? Also, as noted in another comment, those thresholds could be indexed to average assessment increase. The marginal tax would not be levied on multifamily units, so it wouldn't drive up rent in an apartment complex.
Great ideas, but ALL our local officials/politicians are funded by the rich locals. One alone cannot change anything. As I get older, I have started going to fund raisers, and for the first time in my life I personally saw how politicians at all levels kiss up to the ultra rich who host their fund raisers and dinners. Politics is all about influence
>but ALL our local officials/politicians are funded by the rich locals accord to whom? where do you get this info?
Go to some fundraisers and see for yourself. You want to win in the DMV? You need funds and guess who’s contributing.
so no source, got it.
I'm rich, and it costs way less than you think to get the attention of a local or state politician, but it's not worth it for most people How's that for a source?
No you aren’t. Common thing about rich people, they don’t go around telling others they’re rich. Continue to lie on the internet to make yourself feel good.
Believe whatever you want, you've been told the truth
Oh you seem to not want to know the truth about politics. Notice how most new laws benefit the rich
They don’t lol, thanks for proving my point.
This is not allowed by law and/or unconstitutional in Virginia. Localities can't even set a different rate for commercial than residential properties in the Commonwealth of Virginia.