The loss of the car tax and the recent cut of state funds has left the county with a $2.8M deficit from their ~$200M annual budget. $2.7M of that is from decreased car tax revenues, a tax that provided a great deal of funding directly to localities. The county is trying to figure out what to cut, with $1.3M from the schools and $400k from the Conservation Easements Program making up a significant part of the current proposal. Peter Savodnik has the story in today’s Progress.
News and meta-news about Charlottesville, VA, since 2001.
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
foursix and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
“To pick up the slack, county budget officials have proposed cutting about $1.3 million from schools and $400,000 from the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program.”
Is this what was intended w/ the ending of the car tax?
from the daily progress, in an article about the tax referendums that didn’t pass…
“Deeds said speculation that the defeats will doom any tax increase next year ignores the political reality that three or more key Republican state senators already passed a death sentence on tax increases.
“[Senate Finance Chairman] John Chichester said there will be no tax increase this year, and I think that can be put in the bank,” Deeds said. The state is in a recession and will weather it, he said.
“I don’t think the referendums yesterday took anything off the table,” Deeds said. “Lots of things will be considered.”
Democrats such as himself are in no mood to take an ax to the state’s education budget, he said.
“To me, it is unacceptable to cut public education,” Deeds said. “It is bad enough that we cut higher education” and forced tuition increases on university and college students and their parents to save jobs at those institutions.
…
There may be no direct relation between any of this, but becuase of the fact that the state has no money, and that counties are considering cutting education funds due to lost money from the state, it sure looks like the lost referendums (referendi?) do mean something tangible.
And the moral of the story, boys and girls, is "Beware of politicians promising to cut your taxes"…
<i>$2.7M of that is from decreased car tax revenues, a tax that provided a great deal of funding directly to localities.</i>
I’m sure that the county is having a tough time and all, but I’m not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for them right now. The car tax thing came down, what, 5 years ago now? It’s not like they didn’t know that this revenue shortfall wasn’t going to be there. This seems to me like a case of abysmally bad planning on the county’s part.
You might not feel sorry for the county, but do consider county employees and students in their schools. It looks like the schools will be hard hit, with money for instructional supplies cut drastically (can you tell I’m a teacher?). Without county money, many teachers will dip into their own pockets to make sure students have the materials they need. At least we can deduct at least part of our expenditures on this year’s taxes.
Don’t know a darn thing about the county’s budget, but unless the school budget is nearly half of the entire $200 million, I’m looking for a good reason why nearly half of the cut ($1.3M out of $2.8M) is to come out of the school’s budget.
The election of Governer Jim Gilmore. He got his term, and we continue to pay the price.
another moral might be, "when you think about taxes, think about all the useful things they pay for and don’t be so damn hasty to abolish them, unless you have figured out an alternative way to pay for highways, public schools, public services, etc."
that’s kind of like saying 5 years ago someone cut off your head, and today you don’t have a good alternative plan for a new head. "what, didn’t you PLAN? you’ve had 5 years to figure out a way to grow a new head! i have no sympathy for you if you haven’t grown a new head by now!"
my point is, cutting the car tax was the kind of blow to local government that can’t easily be planned away–ESPECIALLY in a state like Virginia where citizens seem unwilling to kick in any money at all into the general pot (i.e., taxes).
what’s happening is we’re reaping what we sowed: people voted for Jim Gilmore on the basis of the car tax cut. they got the car tax cut. they should have also realized that with a car tax cut comes the loss in revenues that public programs depend on. with that loss comes cuts in funding for things people like (schools, for example).
Don’t blame the county government for not figuring out how on earth to give the people their cake (car tax cut) and let them eat it too (no cuts to public services).
The road system should be private… Individuals own the roads, and everyone pays as they use them through RF tag based micro-payments.
Simple, REPUBLICANS EAT CHILDREN!
Thanks Gilmore. I know it really hurt a lot to have to pay that $20 a vehicle. My life has really changed for the better now that I have an extra $40 in my pocket. My lifestyle has genuinely improved- I now have some lovely new plastic furniture from Wal-Mart for my living room- and that’s definitely worth the sacrifice of some education money. They don’t need it anyway, right? Good job.
Absolutely right. The best part is that it’s clear Gilmore has never had any intention of running for another elected office. He had a sort of rape and pillage kind of term in office. He wanted his name in the Virginia history textbooks, which the elementary school kids won’t be able to afford to read because their education money gets cut. This isn’t a slam against republicans, just him.
Yes, thank you. I never understood the logic of "putting money back in the people’s pockets" as if the greatest problem facing the state was that not enough people had an extra $80 to buy a bunch of new CDs. I know that whatever money I got back from the car tax rebate, I undoubtedly crapped away on coffee at Greenberry’s and maybe a few more spendy trips to the salad bar at Whole Foods.
How much better off would we be if all those car tax $$ had been pooled and directed towards more important things like schools and highways?
The ol’ memory is a little foggy, but wasn’t the state supposed to reimburse localities for lost car tax revenues? Isn’t that how it was made digestible inthe first place?
To quote from nocartax.net, “Under the Governor’s No Car Tax initiative, the Commonwealth has reimbursed all Virginia counties, cities and towns dollar-for-dollar while relieving citizens of the personal property tax burden. Relief is funded through General Fund appropriations and preserves the local revenue base.”
Therefore, with the state’s Gilmore-induced revenue crisis, the state just doesn’t have the money to continue this reimbursement, I imagine.
So, it seems disingenuous to somehow blame the County for not planning for this shortfall (which is suggested elsewhere in this topic’s thread). If blame is at issue, let’s look instead at the candidate and electorate who supported this misguided, irresponsible approach to vote acquisition.
Why blame the shortfall on the car tax when the rotten economy has bitten so much out of revenues? It’s not like every government and company in the country isn’t feeling the squeeze. Anyway, if the car tax hadn’t been cut, the state and/or localities just would have found something else to waste the money on. Cutting taxes is the only way to force legislators to get serious about cutting costs, because if they have the money they will *always* spend it. I may be the only one here, but I applaud Gov. Gilmore for rolling back the usually one-way ratchet of more taxes, more spending, more taxes, and at the same time striking a blow for a simpler and more rational tax scheme.
Oh, and any of you who have no use for the $40 (more like $400 for a new car) are free to donate it back to the county and do your part to reduce the shortfall.
Actually, mine are more like $10-20 per vehicle for the city. Which makes me wonder, what is/was the rate difference between the city and the county on the car tax? Your suggestion about donating is a fine idea. I believe in karmic spending. :) As far as the tax cutting is concerned, I think that we shouldn’t be making constant tax hikes, but we shouldn’t cut mindlessley either. While I don’t agree with Warner on everything, I applaud his efforts to fix Virginia’s budget. It gives us all a wakeup call about where our tax money goes, how much gets spent where, and it gives us an opportunity to figure out where our priorities are as a state. I think everyone can agree that we need to think ahead more on just about everything.
You don’t suppose it’s time to raise the tobacco and/or the gas tax so that the state can provide the county funds that were originally promised?
I’ll use any tax money I’ve saved on my PVCC tuition bill which has gone up about $200 per semester in the past 2 years… thanks in part to the car tax cuts. I will continue to attend bigger classes and browse a smaller and smaller course offering… thanks in part to the car tax cuts.
I realize that the car tax is not totally to blame, but when money is coming out of the revenue stream, one can only come to the conclusion that somebody is going to feel the effects.
I agree that the car tax cut was simply a scheme to get Gilmore elected and cause problems for whoever came after him. Maybe this is a good argument for abolishing the one term limit? Maybe if a governor wants to get re-elected someday he might be more responsible?
With impending war in Iraq and gas prices already fluctuating pretty wildly, I doubt very many people would support a gas tax. On the other hand, maybe it would convince people to get rid of their damned SUVs.
KMA
No, it’s not time to raise the tobacco and gas taxes.
Tabacco taxes are nothing more than government sanctioned exploitation of the addicted. Nicotine is one of the most adicting drugs in the world, yet liberals like yourself think it’s OK for the government to wrench money out of people who are addicted.
You’ll give money to people who don’t want to work, but not a dime to help people quit smoking.
Drug pushers take advantage of an addiction to charge high prices for their products. High taxes on tobacco does exactly the same thing, except it’s bleeding heart liberals who are the pushers. Hug a tree, screw a smoker?
How much of that cigarette tax money is going to go to helping people quit smoking? NONE. So go find your money elsewhere, liberal, cause your not getting your cash here.
The gas tax – rasing that would be a boon for the state, especially in this area where people have to commute 20+ miles each way because they can’t afford the $350,000 houses in the county, and don’t want to live in 60 year old neighborhoods in the City. So, yeah, let’s have a county that deliberately drives up the price of real estate, forcing people to commute, and then screw the commuters out of money with a higher gas tax.
All you liberals are oh so ready to spend everyone else’s money. I’ll bet that most of you live right in the city and can walk to work, and have crappy cars that you don’t pay any taxes on anyway.
Under the old tax structure, my car taxes would have been over $800 a year. I have a new car, but it’s certainly no Mercedes. I think that’s a little steep. The car taxes at the current rates (~ $320 a year) are more feasable and I would not mind if they stayed at this level. I don’t think people should have to save up to pay their car tax. It’s ridiculous.
The liberal solution to every problem in America always comes down to "raise taxes". You guys need to get a new tagline, otherwise you’ll keep losing elections. A little creativity in solving problems goes a long way. Perhaps new revenue is needed – but let’s find it from a source that EVERYONE pays into rather than picking on select groups that you obviously do not belong to.
Am I generalizing all liberals – you bet. But no more so than the idiotic "Republicans Eat Children" comment in another post. For the record, I am not a Republican. I don’t smoke, but have watched family members struggle for years to successfully quit. No, you don’t have the right to exploit them.
I agree that the car tax cut was simply a scheme to get Gilmore elected and cause problems for whoever came after him.
I don’t think Gilmore has the ability to be that forward-thinking. I doubt he realized or gave a rat’s ass about what problems the car tax repeal would cause down the road. If you remember, he advertised the scam as painless for the Commonwealth’s localities. I really think he latched onto the idea to get elected, period. Didn’t know about or care about the realities of it.
Sure, cigarettes are taxed. But extra taxes are also imposed on other essential goods such as food (meals tax) and gasoline. It has nothing to do with exploiting an addiction, at least not directly. The government is simply placing taxes on goods that will always be in demand, ensuring a constant tax revenue stream. It’s not specifically targeting those addicted to nicotine, it’s economic sense.
I’m a Democrat. I would support a gas tax increase. And I live 40 minutes from where I work and go to school.
The conservative solution to every problem is to throw a bunch of money at it and then CUT TAXES! That makes no sense. It only took Bush what, six months to totally spend the surplus?
I guess I am in the minority. I really like having more money in my pockets. I would rather spend it on something I know I could use rather then it going to something I wouldn’t care for.
One thing I always can’t figure out is this. If Bush is spending the surplus where does that money go to? Oh I know, the ecomony is getting the money. But wait a sec, Dubya is the only reason why the ecomony is in the crapper. We need to raise more taxes. I just don’t understand.
Well the people of Va voted him. If you don’t like it, then live with it. As I recall the other guy wasn’t better.
George W Bush has spent a ton of money on all sorts of things. Lots of that money has been spent on the “war on terror.” That’s fine, as long as that money is spent prudently.
What I don’t understand, however, is how he can throw a few billion at this problem and a few billion at that problem and still cut taxes at the same time.
Maybe a lot of things could be done without necessarily raising taxes, but spending much more money and then cutting taxes seems counterproductive to me.
My recollection is a little faulty right now. Maybe the novacaine I got this morning numbed my brain as well. Who did Jim Gilmore defeat?
Sure, taxes are one thing. But when the tax exceeds the cost of the item, it’s ridiculous.
Not necessarily. Many economists have theorized in the past that in times of economic downturn it’s beneficial to deficit spend. FDR used this technique with the WPA, TVA, etc. throwing the governement into huge deficit spending programs to create jobs for the populace. The theory is that eventually, with the extra jobs and money in people’s pocket, that you’ll catch up and again be in the black through increased future tax revenue.
It’s a controversial theory, but the huge industrial spending brough on by WW2 did in fact bring us out of the Great Depression.
I’m not implying that this is the case here, but to say that it’s counterproductive is not really looking at the big economic picture. There is evidence to support this course of action.
One thing IS certain – increasing taxes is NOT going to help the economy either, and if I had to bet on higher or lower taxes helping the economy I’d go with lower taxes anyday.
It’s also impotant to note that we cut taxes BEFORE September 11th. The tax cut package may not have passed in a post September 11th US.
Persoanlly, the low interest rates, reduced car tax, and federal income tax cuts have added up to a lot of savings for me. It enabled us to buy a house and tons of stuff to go in it. I can honestly say I have done my fair share to support the area economy this year, and I was able to do that PARTLY because of the tax cuts that put nearly $1500 in my pocket, all of which I spent locally on household items (lawn mower, stove, etc.)
So, it’s not BS to say that tax cuts help people. Sure, it didn’t change my life, but it did help out some, and I was glad to have it.
As far as the government spending money prudently – I ask you this. Has the government – any government – ever spent money 100% prudently? Isn’t pretty subjective as to what prudent is.
No, you are not the only one here who thinks that taxes need to be rolled back occassionally. No matter how much the government gets, people will finds ways ("social programs") to spend it.
Sure, they may be good causes. We can tax the crap out of ourselves in the name of good causes. When is it enough? Ah, when YOUR programs are funded, THEN it’s enough.
Taxes need to be cut periodically to force politicians to be frugal. The welfare states of Europe will be bankrupt in 20 years (yup, do the research, it’s true) and we cannot allow ourselves to go down the same road.
I’m happy with the car tax at the current rate. It’s an important source of revenue, but the $700 or $800 a year I would be paying without the cuts was way too high.
So, no you are most certainly not the only realist here.
It’s a controversial theory, but the huge industrial spending brough on by WW2 did in fact bring us out of the Great Depression.
Interesting theory. I still have a lot to learn about historical economics.
It’s also impotant to note that we cut taxes BEFORE September 11th. The tax cut package may not have passed in a post September 11th US.
Then why is the new Republican controlled Congress all excited about making that tax cut permanent after September 11th?
I was able to do that PARTLY because of the tax cuts that put nearly $1500 in my pocket, all of which I spent locally on household items (lawn mower, stove, etc.)
I doubt all of that money was really spent locally. Where did you get your new stuff? Sears? Lowe’s? Sure, some of that money gets put back into the local economy in the way of employee salaries and some other expenditures, but the profits most likely won’t be reinvested here.
As far as the government spending money prudently – I ask you this. Has the government – any government – ever spent money 100% prudently? Isn’t pretty subjective as to what prudent is.
I never mentioned spending money 100% prudently. Any organization as big as the money is gonna do some weird things. But I basically mean more prudently than is being done now. And I admit that the idea of prudent-ness is pretty subjective.
Just like everything else in politics and life.
Not a rate difference: a value difference. Poster-girl for poverty that I am, my 16 year old car had already fallen below the minimum value to activate any tax to be paid BEFORE the car tax cut.
However, city government still sends me a piece of paper twice a year telling me that I don’t have to send them any money.
Or should I say "any organization as big as the government is gonna do some weird things…"
Jim Gilmore defeated Don Beyer. Former Lieutenant Governor and Volvo dealer.
How much of that cigarette tax money is going to go to helping people quit smoking? NONE.
But it will go to fund state hospitals, as a part of general spending. It’s reasonable to expect that a lifelong smoker will incur significant medical bills at some point, whether from emphysema, asthma, cancer, or some other condition that’s bound to incur from the inhalation of millions of cubic meters of smoke, particulate ash and dozens of nasty chemicals. The simple fact of the matter is that smokers place a heavy burden on society, fiscally-speaking.
I figure we can do one of these two things: We can have a cigarette tax that generates enough revenue to cover smokers’ state-subsidized (or state-paid health insurance) medical costs, or we can refuse service to smoking-induced medical conditions at state-funded hospitals and to smokers covered by state insurance plans. I prefer the former.
Smokers average the same end-of-life costs as the general population. They usually incur those costs earlier in life than the general population and consequently consume fewer health costs than folks who live long enough to get a bunch of other age-related health problems. Smokers also lower the burden on retirement plans.
Don’t know how overall lifetime tax generation expectations vs. shortened-lifetime service consuming statistics pan out for smokers, but the direct smoking/health services connection is already on the plus side financially for the non-smoking population.
How about taxing grams of fat in grocery items to pay for the heart attacks they cause?
Don’t know how overall lifetime tax generation expectations vs. shortened-lifetime service consuming statistics pan out for smokers, but the direct smoking/health services connection is already on the plus side financially for the non-smoking population.
I’m not sure if that’s accurate. Though your thesis regarding shorter life == less costs without regard to medical expenses is surely accurate, I suspect that the medical expenses incurred by smokers is likely quite significant. That said, neither of us have any numbers, so I don’t know that we really know. :)
How about taxing grams of fat in grocery items to pay for the heart attacks they cause?
That has certainly been proposed. Just a couple of years ago in the UK, and in the US just last April. The concept of a sin tax raises all kinds of interesting questions, but a fat tax is certainly not out of the realm of reality.
Smokers average the same end-of-life costs as the general population…Smokers also lower the burden on retirement plans.
That so? Then by all means let’s start distributing smokes on the street – in fact, let’s develop a tax incentive for smoking!
Seriously, I read once that there’s a difference between cold, or numeric, and warm, or human, economics. A search on the web turned up this passage: “Cold economists say that a person who dies upon retirement saves the Federal purse and private pension plans the costs of Social Security benefits and retirement annuities. Warm economists say that this is not the kind of calculation that a civilized society engages in…When Congress considers the merits of increasing Federal funding for breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment, it does not remind itself that most women who die from breast cancer have already passed their sixty-fifth birthdays. It does not consider whether an improvement in breast-cancer survival would impose a burden on Social Security or private pensions. Congress considers the funding of breast cancer research primarily a matter of health. The same standard should apply to the taxation of cigarettes. ” (JEFFREY E. HARRIS MD PHD, Before the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, November 18, 1993)
There was an interesting footnote: “On average, an adult cigarette smoker (current or former) spends 20 percent more on health care than an adult who has never smoked. This excess rate of spending varies from 10 to 30 percent, depending on the source of data and the methods used by researchers to compare smokers and nonsmokers, but in some studies it runs as high as 100 percent.”
Sorry to quote so much – I found it and it seemed relevant to the topic. Here’s a link.