Democrats Lose Concerns About Taxing the Poor

Econ 101 Quiz. Virginia Democrats are poised to raise the sales tax 1% in most localities, add digital products to the taxed services, and create a new payroll tax. How will those changes impact that chart? Click for larger view.

By Steve Haner

A piece of Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin’s tax package has survived after all, but only the part that increases the sales tax base to collect about $1 billion or so more per year from citizens. Democrats who recently complained that sales tax increases were unfair to the poor are suddenly embracing them. 

On Sunday, both the Virginia Senate and the House of Delegates budget committees approved Youngkin’s budget language to impose the sales tax on a host of digital products and services, adding 6% or more to the prices of downloads, streaming services, and online data storage. The full range of newly taxed transactions is not yet clear. 

The Senate then increased the gain to the treasury by making sure the new taxes will also cover business-to-business transactions, something the governor sought to exempt and something which is just passed along in higher prices.  

The risk of including that tax policy initiative inside Youngkin’s introduced budget bill was obvious from the start, and General Assembly Democrats have now pounced on the opportunity to capture that revenue. The tax increase is now wrapped in with all the state spending for two years, a hard bill to vote against.  

When Youngkin first announced his package in December, its inclusion of higher sales taxes and applying it to more transactions brought complaints from progressives, especially the Commonwealth Institute for Public Policy (see chart above.) Lower income families pay little or no income tax, but the sales tax takes a big bite of their stretched finances, they pointed out (correctly). 

Will the same voices now be raised complaining about the impact of these sales tax changes? While the income tax reductions at the lower income level were minor, they were real. The people those progressives claim to worry about were better off under the Governor’s plan than they are with this. That is indisputable. 

Remember, the Governor also proposed a modest increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was also yanked out by the House and Senate Democrats.

The Senate’s revenue spreadsheet pegs the tax increase at $380 million in 2025 as the tax kicks in and then $950 million in 2026. The Governor’s initial proposal was a net tax cut, but that prospect is long gone. The Senate and House removed Youngkin’s related tax provisions to lower personal income taxes, which he intended to counterbalance the sales tax changes. 

Assuming the budget provisions survive the coming floor votes and the budget conference committee process, Youngkin will then be able to offer amendments to remove the sales tax expansion or to veto it. This game will run into April at least. He will need majority votes in both chambers to impose amendments, but only 34 House or 14 Senate votes to sustain a veto.  

The expanded sales tax base joins the two other major tax changes described earlier which are also still alive as the 2024 Assembly enters its final phase.  Governor Youngkin had also proposed an increase in the state’s sales tax rate, applied to all taxable purchases.  The Democrats rejected that but are instead passing bills to let local governments raise the local sales tax by a similar amount.

Once the local governments take advantage of the local option to raise the tax another 1%, the tax will range from 6.3% to 8% across Virginia, with many localities imposing even higher tax rates on restaurant meals.  

And there is still pending legislation to create a new state-funded wage replacement benefit for employees who take time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act.  That will be funded by a payroll tax imposed on both employers and employees, with the amount to be determined, but 1% assumed for planning purposes. That is a Senate bill, and the Senate budget showed no costs or revenue but acknowledged the program is coming.  

Instead of applying cash it creates a line of credit for the Virginia Employment Commission to begin work on establishing the program, scheduled in the bill to start in January 2026. The fiscal impact statement projects a $1.5 billion initial cost that year, even though employers already providing a wage replacement plan might be exempt. 

By killing off the parts of the Youngkin tax plan that would have reduced revenue, and keeping the provision that increased taxes, the legislators on both sides were able to increase their spending plans by about $2 billion over the two- year budget cycle. Most of the extra money is flowing to K-12 public schools and teacher salaries.  

Raising the sales tax, state or local, is regressive, hardest on the poor. Expanding the sales tax base is also regressive. And the final pending tax, a payroll tax to fund the FMLA wage replacement benefit, is highly regressive and, unlike the sales tax, impossible to avoid by making fewer purchases.  

Adding more injury to insult, the House budget draft also orders the reinstatement of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, repealed last year under Governor Youngkin.  That cap-and-trade regime for electricity comes with an annual carbon tax take of $300 million or more, simply passed directly to consumers. That is yet another regressive tax, but who is counting?  

First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

54 responses to “Democrats Lose Concerns About Taxing the Poor”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    Why am I not surprised at your “take” on this? 😉

    I’d agree that sales taxes that apply to all are regressive but the Dems took only one that should have been in place anyhow instead of the much wider proposal that Youngkin had with respect to the “hated” car tax.

    What we could have done if we really feel like sales taxes and payroll taxes are too regressive is provide an earned income credit at tax time to offset it for the lower income with the proviso of course that it’s “earned” income that gets you the credit.

    Conservatives are not so interested in offsetting as they are in finding a way to reduce taxes on the higher income. I bet you agree. The “highly regressive” stuff is mostly crocodile tears talking points rather than real tax policy angst.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      As usual you are intentionally making up a position for me, which I deeply resent. But you are a hack and I’m used to it and I know that the readers in general are On To You.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        My apologies if you took this personally and I won’t being calling you names that seem to be the standard for some here.

        But I feel you tend to take some positions that purport to be totally fair and objective but really are a particular position so I feel the need to get the other side of it out.

        There are easy solutions to higher sales taxes, it’s not the bugaboo that is claimed IMO.

  2. It is bizarre,”progressives” making taxes less progressive and more regressive. Taking more from those who have more used to be one sure fire way to tell Dems from Repubs. The world turned upside down.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Mushrooms, that’s how they like their voters. That and a politician ain’t met a tax they didn’t like and would never rescind.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    Here’s the other “funny” thing. The claim is that the lower income “pay no taxes” , yet almost in the same breath, it is said that sales taxes hurt them.

    Which is it?

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Sales taxes hurt everybody, including the poor and lower middle class.

      How can that possibly be hard to understand?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        EITC offsets it effectively. How is that hard to understand?

        re: ” Democrats Lose Concerns About Taxing the Poor”

        I’m quite sure the Dems would be more than willing to increase the EITC to compensate for higher sales taxes if it would not be vetoed.

        RIght?

        The narrative that sales taxes hurt the poor … and therefore are not good tax policy – is just not true if for any given increase in sales taxes, the lower income are compensated for it with EITC credits.

        ANY proposal for a sales tax increase should include the offset IMO if the proposal is serious and wants to address the regressive nature.

        The fact that this is not done, makes me wonder why not.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Is someone who is on SSI eligible for the EITC?

          When I think of the really poor, I think of people on SSI.

        2. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Is someone who is on SSI eligible for the EITC?

          When I think of the really poor, I think of people on SSI.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Well, you won’t get it unless you file taxes and have earned income. People who get SSI and other entitlements exclusively won’t get the EITC as far as I know.

            I think it is good tax policy myself and used to be one the GOP liked and it rankles me a bit when folks go on and on about how “regressive” the sales tax is and it “hurts the poor”… ergo… therefore , not a good thing .. and depending on whom they say instead that tax cuts are “better” because everyone is better off even if the poor don’t benefit. Just not a truly objective approach. Both are needed, income and I would not support
            increasing the income tax but at the same time , reducing the income tax so that we have to increase sales taxes to compensate , means we need to addess the EITC enough so it really offsets.

            Again – it’s a credit for working people – i.e. the working poor.

            THe idea of letting localities increase sales taxes without an EITC offset is not a good thing either IMO bit again, the State can do the analysis and insure it’s put in the Va taxes.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            So, the EITC offset will NOT help those on SSI or SSDI, so they’re getting screwed by these tax increases.

            Don’t become disabled in Virginia.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            I might have lied…

            ” Am I eligible for the EITC if I get Social Security or SSI?
            Yes, if you meet the qualifying rules of the EITC. Receiving Social Security or SSI doesn’t affect your eligibility for the EITC.”

            https://blog.ssa.gov/tax-season-what-to-know-if-you-get-social-security-or-supplemental-security-income/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20if%20you%20meet%20the%20qualifying%20rules%20of%20the%20EITC,your%20eligibility%20for%20the%20EITC.

            I thought you had to have earned income. Maybe SSI and SS are excluded?

            also look at: https://www.tax.virginia.gov/low-income-individuals-credit. Apparently there is both
            a refundable and non-refundable credit. I need to go look.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Again, you falsely and intentionally create a position for me which I have never taken. You are successful, however, Larry. I’d file twice as many pieces if you just went the hell away.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        “the claim” was not you Haner. You decided to make it your personal affront? geeze guy.. .butt hurt?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Rent it in an adjacent state.

  4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    We need to find a way to benchmark against other states, but Virginia probably one of the most tax friendly for lower incomes, so there is possibly room for a little give and take. I know a few years ago Maryland was lamenting that they hit lower incomes fairly hard, but I am not aware that MD fixed anything. MD does have a little higher tax rate on higher incomes (slightly progressive structure) as well as local taxes based on income instead of taxing the bejesus out of autos.

    Virginia exempts so many from taxes at least nobody can get out of sales tax, or can they?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      They can if the tax code provides a credit for low income folks. They already do and they can increase it to compensate for higher sales taxes.

      It’s also good policy in two other ways.

      1- the credit is for “earned” income, they have to work to get the credit. Even conservatives like this idea!

      2. – it encourages people to file returns, something low income folks will tend to not do unless there is some benefit to it – like a credit!

      Haner and TJ have their axe to grind but the sales tax thing is not the big monster they say it is, it’s their way of arguing that something else should be done and that something else usually is something that benefits the higher income folks.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Hey, blind partisan guy, the Governor included in his package an increase in the EITC and the Dems killed it! I can always tell when an arrow hits home because you being making stuff up and posting like a banshee.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          12% tax cut across the board with the EITC bone, Can’t kill part of it , right? A “good” bill that had a chance would be a stand-alone EITC bill or one with both sales taxes and EITC and data showing a no-harm, no-foul offset for low income. Lots of ways to do it other than the way Youngkin did it IMO.
          counting posts this morning.. you got a few also .. banshee too? 😉

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Find one paragraph, one word, where I endorsed the Governor’s income tax idea. You cannot. And the Dems had every chance to put in their own EITC bill, and I think actually did. But that won’t fit your narrative so you ignore.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            In this post or prior posts?

            A Dem EITC would get vetoed, right?

            Youngkin kept talking about across the board tax cuts without regard to forecasts or other unmet needs not addressed and did not appear interested in negotiated from what I read.

            I’ll admit to the highly partisan nature of the GA – both sides.

            But I stick to my guns that sales taxes are good ways to raise revenues as long as there is an offset for low income thus negating the claim that it’s “highly regressive”.

            I just think any proposal for increases in sales tax should be in tandem with what it takes to offset it’s impact to low income.

            And obviously, across the board tax cuts do not benefit the lower income at all and if they ignore forecasts and/or neglect other needs in the budget – adding an EITC to that – won’t help it and shouldn’t IMO.

            This needs to be added to whatever TJ is saying if we are to get better context of choices in the budget.

            Youngkin did have the opportunity to do this – to offer a budget that really did address the key issues.

            He chose not to and the GA Dems did their partisan thing in response.

            Neither side covered in glory!

          3. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            On the simple tradeoff of having a higher sales tax and helping lower income folks with a EITC, it does nothing to help out retirees, disabled people not working, or those relying on Government assistance. Not taxing dugs and the lower tax on food does help, but not sure its enough. I also don’t now where you draw the line, very low income people get relief all the time, but what about those living paycheck to paycheck?

            It would be far better to not have the tax to begin with. Trading higher sales tax for a EITC makes no sense.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            THe whole thing is debatable for sure but even Youngkin was talking about increasing sales taxes for
            digital and in exchange for cuting income and car taxes, while the no tax increases at all folks were
            arguing that sales taxes are “regressive”.

            Cutting taxes when we have outstanding needs like increasing pay to teachers and mental health, etc
            is bad enough but suggesting we make up the loss with sales taxes is even worse if you don’t offset
            with EITC – and more if other low income who can’t get EITC are also harmed.

            I favor EITC because it incentives people to work which means they can take care of themselves
            and families and pay taxes – as opposed to depending solely on entitlements.

            I favor policies that provide sick leave and health care and child care if in doing so, it incentivizes
            people to work, pay for their needs and pay taxes.

            The more folks that can and will work and add to the economy and take care of their own needs, the better and the better for those that pay taxes that go to pay for others that don’t or won’t work.

            We need income tax, sales tax and property taxes to pay for the services we all depend on. The more folks that can be incentivized to work, to get better educated to do more productive work, the better for all of us.

          5. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            good points, but isn’t teacher pay supposed to be a local jurisdiction matter, other than State allocations for allocations for at risk students and help out school districts with less resources (rural, cities), versus a Fairfax county? I am sure this is a tar baby so maybe don’t want to step in it……

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            Teacher pay is half state and half local for State-required SOQ positions. (non SOQ are 100% local including health ins and retirement).

            That’s where the locality can make choices of taxes vs school “needs”.

            In addition the state level composite index provides additonal funding to counties/cities that lack enough local wealth and economy to pay for even their basic education needs.

            Not a tar baby.

            It bubbles up to the state when then becomes how to fund the state budget from income and sales taxes.

            The balance between is essentially one between taxing wealth/income and taxing consumption and transactions.

            I don’t mind debate. I learn from it and can change my opinion also.

          7. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Thanks.

        2. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          But of course that is how he always responds. A hopeless progressive who doesn’t understand real conservative principles or economics and incentives.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I love it when you post BIll.
            Have another!

            😉

          2. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            No but I wish I could say the same about you.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            You did! Have another guy!

            Regale me again on Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics as it applies to modern economies?

            Get rid of the Fed, as Hayek advocated, right?

          4. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry, you are at least a consistent cherry picker. Are you referring to comments Hayek made 100 years ago?
            Don’t bother to respond as you have used up my allocation of nonsense from you. Bye!

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            comments you made with respect to Hayek and his ideas of socialism.

          6. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            You do remember the story about the tar baby, right? Engaging Larry is touching the tar baby…I regret it when I do.

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You are oh so right. I know better but I’m Irish and just can’t help myself at times.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Your point about the use of taxes that mostly regressive is well taken. I wonder if there are some offsetting considerations. The sales tax is being expanded, but the rate is not being increased as Youngkin proposed. That base is being expanded to include downloads, streaming, and data storage. In my mind, if someone can afford streaming services and data storage, they can afford paying the sales tax on those services. It may be regressive, but it will not be hitting those at the lowest income levels.

    As for the local sales tax, that is a local decision.

    It is true that a payroll tax hits those with the lowest incomes the hardest. But those folks probably stand to benefit greatly from the availability of family and medical leave. Currently, many have to go to work while they are sick or leave their sick kids home alone because they can’t affort to miss work.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      In general, the ability to work, to get medical care you and/or family when needed and be able to return to work.

      The ability to work when you have kids and need child care.

      These are things that increase productivity in general and a working person not only can care better for themselves and their family but pay taxes also

      Is there any impact analysis on things like this?
      Is there such a thing that some will “pay for themselves’ or even add to tax revenues?

      Or is it that such impact analyses are way overrated and don’t really get to a true bottom line impact ?

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      “Currently, many have to go to work while they are sick or leave their sick kids home alone because they can’t affort to miss work.”

      You’re talking about the Middle Class (or lack thereof now), who have born the brunt of all the taxes for a very long duration of time.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Then the middle class would benefit from this proposal as well.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          They wouldn’t benefit, they’d be paying taxes to pay themselves in the event the had to take FMLA instead of keeping more of their income for a rainy day. So it’s the another instance where the Government knows “better” what to do with your money than you do.

          All this proposal does is increase taxes and didn’t implement the tax reduction or removal meant to offset. So it’s just multiples taxes on people who already pay too many taxes.

          “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I realize that it is tilting at windmills or spitting in the wind, but I want to complain (again) about the practice of incorporating tax changes in the budget bill. As you note, the revenue from those proposed tax increases are incorporated in the spending proposals, thereby making it difficult to oppose the tax changes.

    Ideally, a budget bill would propose appropriations based on only the revenue projected from existing tax policies. Changes in tax policy (increases or decreases) would be introduced and considered separately. If adopted, the revenue changes resulting from those tax policies would be reflected in future budget bills.

    The first time that I remember this policy being bypassed was under Gov. Mark Warner. He introduced a budget that, as I remarked at the time (but not publicly, since I was working for him at DPB), he was proposing to spend revenue that did not exist. I can’t remember if the budget bill proposed the tax increase or if there were a separate bill. (I could do the research, but I don’t feel like taking the time to do so and the principle would be the same either way.) I think there was a separate bill because I remember Speaker William Howell instructing the House Finance Committee to report the bill to the floor where it passed.

    That brings up another aspect of this question. Technically, there is separation in the House between taxing and appropriating. The House Finance Committee has jurisdiction over tax policy and the House Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over how to spend tax revenue. Therefore, the Appropriations Committee would be restrained by the House Finance’s action regarding what it could recommend spending. In the Senate, the taxing and appropriating powers were concentrated in the same committee, Senate Finance

    At some point, the House Appropriations Committee must have become frustrated with the advantage this arrangement gave the
    Senate Finance Committee. If Senate Finance approved a tax increase bill, it would include that projected revenue in its budget bill amendments. However, if House Finance killed that tax proposal, House Appropriations could not include that revenue in its budget bill amendments, thereby looking like a
    Scrooge compared to Senate Finance.

    House Appropriations solved this dilemma by taking over the major tax policy function from House Finance, incorporting tax changes in its budget bill amendments and spending the projected extra revenue, just like the Senate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I did not realize what you say above. Thanks.

      So do you think Youngkins proposals would have fared better if he had done both revenues and expenditures?

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        No. Youngkin did introduce individual bills to effect the changes he had proposed in the budget. They were all either carried over or referred to a special committee that is supposed to study tax policy during the interim. (I have my doubts as to whether there will be any serious consideration of tax policy during the interim.)

        While the Democrats were declaring there was a need to conduct a thorough study of future tax policy, they were happily proposing some tax increases in their budget amendments.

        As I have thought about my initial comments here, I realized that, if a governor is proposing tax decreases, those actions need to be reflected in his introduced budget amendments. Otherwise, he would be proposing to spend money that would not exist if his tax decrease proposals were approved.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          ” As I have thought about my initial comments here, I realized that, if a governor is proposing tax decreases, those actions need to be reflected in his introduced budget amendments.”

          that’s what I would have thought.

          In other words, how would the tax cuts be “paid” for?

          what services would need to be cut to balance the budget?

          Instead, I think he was essentially arguing to cut income taxes and replace them with sales taxes while the Dems are saying no tax cuts and digital sales taxes and payroll to pay for teacher pay, sick leave and other priorities (and I assume, with a proper offsetting EITC).

          Why is there no negotiation going on between Youngkin and the GA (or is there but not apparent)?

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I would assume there are talks or negotiations going on behind the scene. But those talks are not about taxes; they are about the Potomac Yard arena and Metro.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            And I’d probably be cynical to think that the Dems are horse-trading what they want in exchange
            for what Youngkin wants.. maybe.. Otherwise, gonna be vetoes all around.

          3. Cynthia Phillips Avatar
            Cynthia Phillips

            no negotiation as Louise Lucas is against everything the governor wants. no comporomise. he proposed, she makes sure it is defeated.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            that’s her initial position. Let’s see if it changes especially if other Dems also change.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      One of Virginia’s best ideas is that of a single purpose bill. Tax policy and budget issues should be covered in separate bills. The alternative is to give politicians far too much cover for their votes.

  7. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    The tax issue in Virginia will be ongoing. How can anyone expect worthwhile legislation when the GA only meets a few months and all Gov’s are term limited?
    Most members of the GA are challenged with anything financial. Dept of Taxation is built for administration.
    God help us if the VEC has to administer a new program.

  8. Cynthia  Phillips Avatar
    Cynthia Phillips

    I’m a senior dependent on SS. no way to earn any extra. as self employed in sales for most of my working life, I also didn’t qualify for the EIC.
    Certainly don’t know now. I was ok with a slight sales tax (after all visitors will have to pay it also) if it got rid of the personal property tax for cars. but from what I’m understanding from the comments we are going to still have to pay the car tax along with an increased sales tax? Please correct me if I misunderstood.

    And a lot of people cut the cable, especially seniors and do a bit of streaming because they could no longer afford the cable bill. As it is the internet bill is very high and we have to have internet. I only stream a few of services that have the programs I like. and my antenna doesn’t get.

    I don’t know what the answer is but instead of Lucas always blocking what the Governor wants, she should be encouraging the best of both plans and work, dare I say it, a real compromise. Both of them need to work on compromise. neither can have it their own way.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      If you’re a senior on SS, EITC at the Fed level is limited to 64…

      To qualify for the credit, your adjusted gross income (AGI) must be below a certain amount, and you must:

      be age 25 but under 65 at the end of the year,

      Don’t think it’s age limited for Va:

      https://www.tax.virginia.gov/low-income-individuals-credit

      The sales tax at this point is just on digital products and services.

      The govt wanted to reduce the tax on income which won’t help those on SS because Va does not tax SS. Many seniors with low or modest incomes also get a 12K deduction.

      Only seniors with substantial income from investments and similar get taxed heavily by Va.

      He also wanted to increase the sales tax at the state and local level (in exchange for getting rid of the car tax) and income tax.

      Most folks that are seniors on SS are not going to benefit from reducing the income tax nor the car tax and without an increase in EITC (or other offsets)

      IOW – Youngkin was trying to do what most GOP governors do and reduce taxes on the higher income and pay for it by increasing the sales tax on everyone across the board including low income unless there are offsetting EITC (and other reductions for low income).

      I don’t think Lucas is Youngkins only problem on these kinds of tax proposals…They only serve the higher income taxpayers for the most part.

  9. Was this a party line vote and the GOP voted against? Why are you criticizing only Dems for supporting Youngkin’s proposal? I’m guessing the Governor also supports his own proposal?

Leave a Reply