Yes, Virginia…we have amendment questions
By JR Hoeft | Monday, October 25th, 2010 | PolicyGuess what…come Nov. 2, you, the Virginia voter, have to make some decisions regarding our state constitution. Courtesy of Del. Brenda Pogge (R-Yorktown), those ballot questions are:
1: “Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation that will permit localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for purposes of granting property tax relief for homeowners not less than 65 years of age or permanently disabled?”
Currently, localities are only authorized to make exemptions for those who bear an “extraordinary tax burden,” or with the express approval of the General Assembly, which occasionally passes legislation authorizing specific localities to afford local property tax relief to senior citizens or the disabled. This amendment, if approved, would allow local governments to make the decision on their own, without going to the General Assembly for approval.
2: “Shall the Constitution be amended to require the General Assembly to provide real property tax exemption for the principal residence of a veteran, or his or her surviving spouse, if the veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability?”
If approved, this amendment would require a statewide exemption from local property taxes for the primary residence of any 100% disabled veteran, provided that the veteran’s disability is service-related. A surviving spouse could continue to claim the exemption so long as the same home remains his or her primary residence, and s/he does not remarry. There are currently approximately 8000 100% disabled vets in the state, approximately 4200 of them are homeowners.
3: “Shall Section 8 of Article X of the constitution of Virginia be amended to increase the permissible size of the Revenue Stabilization Fund (also known as the “rainy day fund” from 10 percent to 15 percent of the Commonwealth’s average tax revenues derived from income and retail sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years?”
In other words, should we expand the allowable size of Virginia’s “rainy day fund,” to which state government contributes in good years to provide resources for lean years? Currently, the maximum size of the Fund – which is almost empty at present – is 10% of the Commonwealth’s average annual tax revenues from income and sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years; this amendment would up the maximum allowable amount to 15%.
Thanks to Del. Pogge for the synopsis.
How do you, the BD reader, feel about these initiatives? Anyone have a particular opinion one way or another?
Personally, I favor amendments one and two and will vote no on ballot measure three.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
26 Responses to "Yes, Virginia…we have amendment questions"
we agree on question 1. 2 concerns me because it is mandatory on a locality whereas 1 is optional. As far as question 3 am leaning towards yes.
I’d expect all of these to pass without much trouble.
SE: 2 is mandatory on the locality but only affects 4200 people statewide at this time. That means the effect on any one locality will be slight. If anybody deserves a property tax exemption, I’d think it would be people who incurred a 100% disability in the service of their country.
Given the budget shortfalls we’ve seen in recent years, 3 just seems to be a prudent, good government measure, allowing the state to save for even more rainy days.
SV-I dont dispute the merits of it but I dont like the idea of forcing it on the localities. If it was optional I would support it. If the state wants to make it mandatory they should rebate the localities the difference
Steve – a higher percentage into the rainy day fund means more leeway for the government to spend more than what they collect in revenues. It also means having to collect more in taxes to pay into the rainy day fund. No thanks.
JR-in down years you are correct. However in good years you would offset that by not spending as high a percentage of your revenues and putting in into the rainy day fund instead.
I’m voting no on all three.
Government shouldn’t overtax me to build up a slush fund.
Tax cuts for others mean tax increases for me.
No thanks.
Yes on 2, no on 1 & 3.
Brian: I’m surprised you don’t have a little more love for the tax cut for disabled vets amendment.
I think you could certainly make a pretty good argument that Virginia already has enough tax breaks for senior citizens. And I certainly understand, if not necessarilly agree with, where conservatives are coming from on the Rainy Day amendment.
Do you ideologically oppose any tax cut that doesn’t affect you personally? Not trying to insult you. Just asking.
Yes on one; no on two and three.
If two said that “localities” could decide that issue, I would vote yes.
If three said that when unemployment goes under say 5% and raises the limit to say 12%, I would vote for that.
Steven, it has nothing to do with ideology.
What ever happened to the Republican plan to overhaul and simplify the tax code? Instead we get more BS to clutter up the constitution, which in turn will add another 2000 pages of exemption legislation to an already unreadable Title 58.1. Big government politicians, still clueless.
Brian: Um, enlightened self interest, then?
I’m just a little perplexed. Why do we need to amend the State Constitution to cut taxes?
CF-because they are cuts in locally levied taxes, not state taxes. Thinking this goes back to the Dillon Rule.
SV-I will defend Brian here. He is voting his own self interest. Far more Americans do that than vote an ideology whether that be right, left or center.
1. Allow city council to decide who gets tax exemption? No way.
2. Give disabled vets a tax break? You betcha.
3. Make rainy day fund bigger? No. When tax revenues fall, cut spending…it’s pretty simple.
Liberty-loving Virginians should vote NO on all three questions.
Full analysis of each measure is here: http://blog.schillingshow.com/2010/10/26/virginia-ballot-questions-2010-vote-no-on-1-2-and-3/
I’m torn on all three. Obviously, it would be great to enact any sort of property tax relief… but #1 provides the chance of exempting some taxpayers at the will of an elected BOS or City Council — not exactly the broad based rule of law Americans are used to.
#2 creates a protected class… it starts with veterans, but where else does it lead? Who else gets protected status from the dreaded property tax?
#3 is a no-brainer. Recessions are opportunities to locate and eliminate waste in the gov’t budgets. Insulating the gov’t by providing a bigger mattress to hide the cash? Not sure if that’s really what we want.
On the other hand, it would be nice if the General Assembly totally reformed the state’s relationship with localities. It would be even better to abolish the property tax completely and give localities the option to levy a flat across-the-board income tax instead.
That is far more equitable, with the added advantage of ensuring that everyone is contributing to their government, regardless of whether they are property owners or not. It eliminates class distinctions as well… something that I believe to be a net benefit.
So while the amendments tickle what we’re all looking for, in good conscience do they really fix the problem? Or patch over the structural problems with Virginia’s system of taxation?
Shaun..in a perfect world, I agree with you about the real estate tax.
Although Republican are continually labeling taxes “the most unfair” — personal property tax, estate tax, etc. — the real estate tax is really the most unfair because taxpayers have to pay real money in taxes on hypothetical increases in the value of their property.
Ask folks in NoVA who’s $300,000 house they’ve been paying taxes on for years is now worth $150,000.
Short of a repeal, I’d propose that the value of a property for real estate tax purposes should be the last amount it was sold for or the amount of leans against it, whichever is greater.
Number 1 — No. This is an invite for local government to pander to one constituency group at the expense of others. Localities like Portsmouth that already have extreme property tax rates will only shift more burden on current workers in underwater houses.
Number 2 — No. Again for many of the same reasons as number 1. As much as I favor supporting the military, this again will only shift the tax burdens to others who may not be in any better financial shape.
Number 3 — Absolutely Not. Government is not a for profit business. Ten percent is more than adequate for hoarding purposes. Increasing the limit will only increase the spending by politicians pandering for votes.
[...] “Yes, Virginia, we have amendment questions” [...]
NO!
ON
ALL
THREE!
No on all three. One and two allow politicians to pick winners and losers. It would also make our state the home of choice for retirees seeking this benefit which would have an adverse impact on the tax base. These are just two of the ‘unintended consequences’ that these ideas, which on the surface seem great, have. I’m sure if you give it real thought, you can come up with more. Remember the old saying: ‘A dead fish laying on the beach in the moonlight shines like silver, but when you get close to it, it smells just like a dead fish.’ Number three is definitely a ‘no.’ Politicians need to cut spending to meet a balanced budget. The state is not a bank, and increasing the rainy day fund from 10% to 15% is not a solution to anything. They need to cut spending and live within their means just like you and I do. Of course, under the current progressive federal scheme of taxation just under 50% of Americans don’t pay income tax. When that number reaches 51%, this great experiment in self government will be over.
P.S. I’m a Vietnam vet.
[...] as the Right-Wing Liberal supports the first and third while opposing the second and JR Hoeft of Bearing Drift will vote for the first and second and is against the [...]
It passed Thanks for all who supported us Veterans. Who pay taxes but get nothing return this is our tax refund.
I think people should really talk to a veteran and people who serve before the make senseless comments.
I dont agree with the increase on the third amendent. because by raising the fund it will take the money not only from sales tax but from our paychecks. its just another way to get money from us for them to us on any thing thing they want. …..Just like when Obama is going to take 40 plane of friends with him on vacatio. Guess who going to pay for that. It sure not going to be him. Ya’ll just vote yes and passed a tax raise when along we have been trying to lower them THANKS!
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.