In Virginia Beach: Hang On to Your Wallets

by Kerry Dougherty

How to ruin an otherwise lovely early spring-like weekend, Virginia Beach-style:

Send out real estate assessments that show double-digit increase in the value of property (that’s a good thing, by the way) and a huge jump in taxes.

That’s not good.

Yep, many of us opened our mail on Saturday and wished we hadn’t.

While it’s nice that the city assessor believes property values are soaring, we all know what that means: the city council will quietly vote to “keep” the tax rate the same as last year and the year before, and then pat themselves on the back, crowing:

WE DIDN’T RAISE TAXES.

Ahem. Yes they did. They do it every year, just a little sleight of hand.

Let me explain: if your assessment rose 20% – as mine did – and the council votes to keep the rate at 99 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value rather than cutting it to a rate that would keep revenue about where it was last year – your taxes are going up.

A lot!

Look, rising assessments are a good thing. For most of us, our homes are our biggest assets. No one wants their asset to lose value.

If your stocks go up but you leave your money in the stock market, you aren’t taxed on unrealized gains. You’re taxed when you sell shares.

But when assessments skyrocket and you stay in your home, you’re being taxed on your “wealth.” In the parlance of the world of finance, you’re paying taxes on unrealized capital gains.

“Your assessment has nothing to do with your ability to pay your taxes,” explained former councilman John Moss, noting that when real estate taxes go up, so do rents, making the dream of “affordable housing” in the Resort City even more elusive.

“The city is lowering residents’ living standards with increased taxes,” Moss added.

Good point, John. The taxpaying schlumps of Virginia Beach miss you. Now more than ever.

When I Tweeted about my real estate assessment and the alarming tax estimate that came with it on Saturday, a slew of residents chimed in with their rates of increase.

The winner: someone who Tweets under the name Jagsfan72 who said he (or she) got a 26.6% increase in assessed value.

Excellent if Jagsfan72 is ready to sell. If not, the city’s about to pick his pocket.

And for what?

A surf park a block away from the ocean? To pay off the family of a man who was related to Pharrell Williams and was shot to death by a police officer, who acted legally? To rebuild three schools at a cost of $714 million (and only two bids)?

Worse, after the cronies in town managed to get budget hawk Moss off council in the last municipal election, there won’t be anyone in the meetings raising a ruckus about the rape of the residents and trying to goad his colleagues into lowering the rate.

When we spoke by phone last night, Moss pointed out that the city is constantly boasting about how healthy the economy is and how tourism is booming.

Ever wonder why all this good economic news never seems to translate into relief for residents?

“The governor managed to reduce taxes,” Moss pointed out. “The city ought to be able to do what families do: Live within their means.”

There’s a note at the bottom of the city’s cheery assessment letter that’s worth noting:

As of the date of this notice the real estate tax rate for FY2023/2024 has not been established, therefore the estimated annual tax levy and percentage change for the new assessment is a projection based on the FY2022/2023 tax rate. Tentatively, a public hearing before city council to discuss the real estate tax rate has been scheduled for April 25, 2023 at 6 p.m. in the city council chambers.

There’s only one way to stop the madness: Show up and tell these politicians to stop gaslighting the public and start cutting the tax rate.

Mark your calendars.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

70 responses to “In Virginia Beach: Hang On to Your Wallets”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    As I have said this is an illegal tax and the legislature should go to a flat income tax for localities.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      If the process is in accord with the state constitution and state law, how is it illegal? It may be unfair or unreasonable, but that does not make it, per se, illegal.

  2. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Also assessors artificially raise the value of property far above what people will actually pay.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Our county swears they use “comps” and they will show them to you. You also can do this on appeal. You can do “comps” also.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      If assessors do that, there is an avenue to appeal an assessment. In actuality, in rural areas, the trend has been to keep assessments as low as legally possible.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    One more time, a fixed RE tax based on sales price and a gains tax when sold/transferred.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I have long advocated that procedure. To institute it, however, would require amending the state constitution.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Well, get busy amending or get busy paying… to paraphrase a great movie quote.

        The method will help to keep people in their homes. The poor and fixed income cannot be taxed into moving. Slows gentrification.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      In addition to the grantors and grantees taxes already imposed? Or did you forget those…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I did. But yes, in addition. If necessary the gains tax could be assessed as the RE tax lost using a linear fit across ownership years too. At least it’s a system based in reality.

    3. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      That is an extremely good idea. It has the additional benefit of eliminating the costs of assessments, adjudicating assessment disputes, etc.

      Less government is good.

    4. VaPragamtist Avatar
      VaPragamtist

      Might you miss out on some properties/undervalue others? For example:

      –An undeveloped piece of land in a rural county was sold to a major corporation for 100k 25 years ago. That corporation puts a big box store on it. Today the tax assessed value of land + improvements is over $4 million. Massive tax revenue for the locality. But under your proposal, would the corporation be taxed at the 100k rate?

      –What of intergeneration property transfers? Do localities lose out on revenue because the 1,000 acre farm was last purchased by great-great-great grandpa for $200 and a mule?

      –Could this proposed policy also disproportionally benefit the wealthy? For example, in a cash transaction could a savvy seller and buyer strike a deal whereby the purchase price is significantly less, but the buyer also provides additional cash under the table? Loopholes that keep tax rate low but aren’t available to those who have to finance?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Don’t know about the rest of Va but in our county, a developer (or property owner) can own/buy a piece of raw land and defer increased value taxes until it is developed.

        1. VaPragamtist Avatar
          VaPragamtist

          Sure, and that makes sense under the current system. But unless I’m misreading it, Nancy’s proposal seems to be saying that the RE tax rate will be determined by the most recent sale.

          Does that mean that any raw land would only be taxed for its improvements if its ever sold (like with the big box store example); and does that mean that land transferred rather than sold for generations would still reflect a decades/centuries-old sales price?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I see what you are saying. But most development generates subsequent transactions after the raw land has been acquired and then developed. Maybe multiple transactions. Perhaps leasing rather than selling? But yes, I think your point is valid.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            You make a good point about the big box store. I doubt that a major corporation would hold onto a piece of raw land in a rural area for that long. I think Larry’s scenario is more likely–multiple change of hands.

            As for intergernerational transfers, the land has changed hands. Therefore, it should be taxed at the fair market value beginning with the time of the inheritance.

            As for the money-under-the-table scenario, there are always tax cheats. The solution may be that the land would be taxed at its assessed fair market value at the time of sale or the actual sales price, whichever is larger.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yes. Exactly. Now, improvements are real. If you buy a house, you are taxed based on purchase. Build a spa and swimming pool, the tax can be raised according to the cost of improvements. So, as long as the property is only maintained, the tax remains the same.

        But remember, the locality controls tax rate. If the cost of services becomes burdensome, the locality can raise rates to cover increased costs of the services they provide. At least this can be “known” throughout the process. You won’t get in the situation where the locality is upping the assessment and lower the rates just to keep from killing people with taxes.

        You are describing a crime. Laws always disproportionately affect the law abiding.

        1. VaPragamtist Avatar
          VaPragamtist

          I’m still not following. Your proposal seems to be saying that the RE tax rate will be determined by the most recent sale (and maybe at actual cost of improvements, vs value).

          Does that mean that any raw land would only be taxed for its improvements if its ever sold (like with the big box store example); and does that mean that land transferred rather than sold for generations would still reflect a decades/centuries-old sales price?

          Does that also mean that, in the first example provided, a commercial building + land valued at $4 million would only be taxed at its purchase price ($100k) + cost of construction (say, $900k for ease of math), from 25 years ago?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yep, you have a point. Someone who has been in a house or a business 30-40 years verses how fast the county is (or not) growing…

            Does ANY place do this?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Not the rate. The RE tax = rate*(last sale $ + improve $). Currently localities adjust both the rate and the assessed value. When markets get blistering, they are almost forced to lower the rate to keep the burden reasonable. That, or deliberately assess low.

            The locality isn’t supposed to rake it in hand and fist, ya know. They’re only supposed to pay the bills.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the tax rate would vary according to sales, no?

          4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Commercial land and improvements could be taxed differently that residential.

          5. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            Sure. But according to Nancy’s proposal, the tax revenue would be based on sale price + improvements:

            RE tax = rate*(S + I), where S is sale and I is improvement.

            Take two scenarios: the first is a wealthy family with a large house and piece of farmland in Brandermill that has been passed down for generations. The “S” stays constant at the original sale price (virtually nothing), because it’s never been sold since. The “I” changes every now and then when a new roof is needed, or the missus wants to remodel the kitchen. But those are infrequent. Meanwhile, the land around them has developed, and their property value has increased significantly.

            In scenario 2, a first time homebuyer just purchased a modest house in an older part of Chesterfield. It needs a few renovations. “S” is based on current market value. The “I” also increases the tax burden because of the renovations needed.

            The property owner in scenario 2 could be paying the same amount in taxes as the property owner in scenario 1, despite living in a house of much lower value.

            Edit: just saw your response about taking the fair market value at the time of intergenerational transfer. That’s better, but would still take a generation to get to that point.

    5. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I like it.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s a “fair tax”. Based entirely on the exchange of actual (as opposed to real) money, and not the fairy tale assessment. It also slows gentrification. It cannot tax the poor and elderly from their homes. If someone builds a McMansion next to your double-wide, your taxes don’t go up.

        1. VaPragamtist Avatar
          VaPragamtist

          But the government has to make up for lost revenues by increasing the RE tax rate across the board. Currently those in wealthy neighborhoods pay more on a lower rate because their homes are valued higher; commercial developments pay more as the real value of their property increases; those in older or poorer neighborhoods pay less because the value of their property is lower. It’s an equitable system.

          But if it’s all based on cost at time of purchase (whenever that was), or time of improvement (whenever that was), localities need to make up for lost revenue by increasing the rate on everyone. The poor and elderly pay more.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Houses and property sell continuously. The gains tax makes up a lot of any shortfalls.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            in fast growing districts? in older rural localities where sales are infrequent?

          3. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            In that case the locality is dependent on additional factors outside of its control, including housing stock and interest rates (both of which contribute to the real estate market).

            So what you’re saying is that tax revenues would based on cost at time of purchase (whenever that was), or time of improvement (whenever that was); and to make up for the inevitable loss of revenue, localities need to make up for lost revenue by increasing the rate on everyone, creating an inequitable system; and hope for an active real estate market.

            To me that seems much more complicated than an assessment of the real value of the property.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            What I’m saying is when I buy and sell Amazon stock, it’s value is based on corporate management and the bid and ask of Amazon stock, not how much a tweet pays for Twitter. I’m just asking that my RE tax be based on the value of my house, not the price some tweet is willing to pay for the house on the corner.

            The only way to do that is to abandon the assess/rate variation approach in favor of a tax on known value (previous purchase) plus a gains tax. Now that “gains tax” can be determined in a number of ways, possibly including loss.

            How is adjusting the rate an inequity? The rate is not individual. Now, if you WANT equity, then the rate could be progressive, e.g., based on square footage. The Texas RE tax includes a premium for the size of the front porch. But that can have some strange consequences. Take Amsterdam for example.

          5. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            “I’m just asking that my RE tax be based on the value of my house, not the price some tweet is willing to pay for the house on the corner.”

            But your proposal is still based on what some tweet is willing to pay for the house on the corner. The sale price (one of your proposed factors in determining tax amount), is generally the market value of the house, determined in part by comparable home values. How much someone is willing to pay for your house. . .and how much a bank is willing to lend for the purchase of your house. . .depends largely on how much the house on the corner sold for.

            Your proposal just adds another layer of complexity. . .instead of saying “this is the value of everyone’s property based on a process similar to determining market value, updated regularly”, you’re saying “a transaction based on market value must occur to trigger a change in taxable amount.”

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            So you want your tax based on what someone might pay for your house, or on what you did pay for your house plus a percentage of the profit when you do sell it?

            What if you’re forced to sell at a loss? What of years of inflated taxes?

          7. VaPragamtist Avatar
            VaPragamtist

            I want my tax burden based on an equitable system where everybody pays their fair share, and where the local government can more accurately forecast revenue so they know whether or not to raise or lower rates in order to remain revenue neutral.

            Your system introduces too much uncertainty into revenue forecasting: anticipating home sales, market conditions, etc. It creates an inequitable system where the taxable amount can remain the same for some over a period of decades.

            Paying too much in taxes? Ask your board or council rep if the RE tax rate is revenue neutral given reassessment. If not, that’s the equivalent of a tax increase; that’s also illegal. By state law, the Board must just and equalize the tax rate such that its revenue neutral to 101% of the previous year’s tax revenue. To generate more than 101% of the previous year’s revenue, they must hold a public hearing separate from the budget (basically the same for any tax increase).

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Our county at budget time, works off of the “equalized rate” but the thing is that assessments are not “equal” and some will pay more even at the equalized rate.

            This “gain” is used instead of increasing rates overall.

            In addition, our county taxes the bejesus out of new cars. You can pay half again as much as real estate tax and more if you pay 30-40k for a new vehicle.

            Our county essentially uses cars as an indication of wealth,

            I’d not be opposed to change per se as long as the taxes themselves stay relatively staple and not vary substantially from year to year so we can budget also.

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, I disagree, but this is Virginia. Took 200 years to end slavery, another 150 more to stop idolizing the men who would have kept it another 100 years, so I don’t suspect that they’ll fix tax inequity for another 1000.

            But here’s an idea. Most basic services we use somewhat equally, e.g., roads, pipes, sidewalks, trash removal, parks, etc. Other services provide some more than others based on size of house, and well, our monied lifestyle.

            So, uh, let’s say the locality is 500 million square feet, and you own 10,000 square feet….

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We need to recognize the “tax the man behind the tree” thing…. a little….

          11. CJBova Avatar

            That why the Code of Virginia https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title58.1/chapter32/article5/ mandates reassessment every two to six years deopending on whether a locality is a city and its population, or a county.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          right…. but will it result in less revenues and the cost of running the govt will have to increase on others? No free lunch on the costs of govt. Folks argue about “waste”, etc, but at the end of the day, you gotta pay the teachers, deputies, courts, etc… someone has to.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I assume that the sale on transfer or sale of the property would be at a considerably higher rate than the annual real estate tax.

            Consider the following example (which forgets about compounding):

            1. You buy a house for $200,000. You pay 1% (or $2,000 per year) in real estate taxes.

            2. You sell the house 20 years later for $400,000. You pay 20% of the increase or $40,000 at the time of sale.

            Under that scenario, government would actually get more money since the 1% would be applied all at once at the end of the 20 years rather than 1% of $205,000 in year 1, 1% of $300,000 in year 10, etc.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so , taxing the gain at the local level? Boy that WOULD change things!

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Pay me now, or pay me later.

            They always have rate adjustments.

            Look, I’m just about to get screwed royally on my RMDs. And because of the 2020changes to the law heirs to IRAs have to empty them in 10 years, and my daughter will be paying at +35% because I can’t empty this damned tax bomb fast enough.

            I’m almost ready to join the TEA party. Not because I loathe taxes, just the unnecessary complexity.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Lord! can’t convert it to a ROTH?

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            BTW, the worst mistake Uncle Sam ever made was the Roth IRA, and other variants, e.g., the Roth 401(k).

            By law, the government cannot invest. Bail out an insurance company, yes. Invest in them, no. The Traditional IRA, 401(k), etc., allowed the government to invest in all manner of businesses by proxy.

            He’s missing out on a whole bunch o’money.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Are you talking about govt employees or anyone? How does the gov invest by “proxy” in ANY retirement plan?

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            If you put $1 in a Traditional 401(k) and Uncle Sam gives you, say, a 24 cent deduction based on the notion that when you pull a dollar out, you pay taxes on that dollar, then when you invest that $1 in Amazon, you’re investing 76 cents of your money and 24 cents of Uncle Sam’s money. If in 20 years, that $1 of Amazon is worth $10, then Uncle Sam will get $2.40 in tax. He just invested in Amazon.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            depending on your tax bracket, when you do the RMD? 😉

          9. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Right.

            What would have been a good idea would be to offer a fixed deduction, say 20%, and then tax the outflow at the same rate and do away with Roth’s altogether.

          10. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Of course, but you’re still paying tax on the conversion. So, you pull your RMD at say 24%, and then convert as much as you can and still be in the 24% bracket. Next one up is 32%. And all those generous Trump tax breaks go away in 2026.

            When I put it in, I partnered with Uncle Sam at the 28% tax bracket for most of those years. It ticks me off that my daughter, or I for that matter, have to pay him 32, 35, 39.6% coming out.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            how so the daughter?

          12. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, we’re not going to live forever. Unless I draw it down, she only has 10 years to empty it when she inherits. Prior to 2020, heirs had until age 85 to empty inherited IRAs.

  4. Jonathan DeWilicker Avatar
    Jonathan DeWilicker

    Mine went from 575 to 640k in one year. Last year it went from 575-675, until I argued that I had purchased the home for 575 literally a week before the assessment, so they lowered it back to 575. I knew I’d be paying for that this year though…

    I wouldn’t mind if the 5-6K a year I pay in property tax actually went for something that I benefited from. Instead it goes to holding pens for kids that will, or should be going to prison within a few years to be taught to hate the very people that pay for their public housing and government schooling. I drive by Albemarle High school every day while they’re letting out, and I am absolutely disgusted what has become of it in just a short 20 years. You couldn’t pay me 100 grand to subject my kids to that school.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      prisons cost more than schools, no?

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Inflation is the Tax Man’s best friend. This is why Virginia will never, ever set an automatic system to index (adjust) its tax code to compensate for inflation. For real estate, that would mean automatically going to the lower rate which produces a flat level of tax revenue, unless the politicians make an affirmative vote to raise it.

    No different here in Henrico. I now have four years of values on our townhome, which we bought in late 2019. The value rise has exceeded 50% in four years, about 1% a month. Looking at recent sales, I can’t really dispute it.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Sell at a loss and demand return of the excess!

    2. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      One of the major independent groups went to Del. McNamara about taxes and where they stood. I set up the appt and had another meeting with a different General Assembly member at the time. They know.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      but the Feds adjust the std deduction every year based on inflation, right?

      And my county speaks in terms of “equalized rate” at budget time.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Speak of it? Or adopt it? 🙂

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    $5.42. That’s the personal property tax on autos in Spotsylvania.

    Buy a new car at $25K? Do the math.

  7. Bloodthirsty Vegan Avatar
    Bloodthirsty Vegan

    Yes….came here from Oregon 40 years ago, waaay more taxes and lower pay, but family ties. Can’t afford to live here anymore. Going to sell and embrace a stylish version of housslessness. Greatest country in the world my A.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Greatest country in the world my A.

      I hear Belize is nice…

  8. Real estate property taxes are essentially the “wealth tax” “progressives” like Elizabeth Warren often propose.

    Except property taxes only hit one category of wealth, the category that makes up most of the equity of working class people.

    And that funds one of the most expensive social programs, public schools. Which provide the day care for illegal immigrants’ kids so they can work at low paying jobs. Immigrants and their kids comprising 26% of public school students.

  9. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    We are out-Jerseying New Jersey, and that’s not easy.

  10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “If your stocks go up but you leave your money in the stock market, you aren’t taxed on unrealized gains. You’re taxed when you sell shares.”

    When you sell your house, you are typically not taxed on your capital gains… you know that, right…?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      When that 1099B shows up in the mail………..

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          1099S

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Exclude the gains…. Section 121… Of course, if it’s your second home, you are out of luck… alas…

  11. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    NN’s proposal for “a fixed RE tax based on sales price and a gains tax when sold/transferred” sounds a lot like rent control. The effect would be that two families (or people) living side by side in basically identical houses built around the same time could have widely different tax bills based on when they bought their house.

    If I understand this correctly, a real estate tax rate that produces more total dollars than the previous year is considered a tax increase. State law requires the county or municipality to notify taxpayers of this increase, but doesn’t require them to reduce the tax rate. The total dollars raised in taxes should at least be adjusted for population growth (or a percentage of decrease) and inflation. A government can’t serve more people and pay more for salaries and other expenses if they can only get the same amount of money they spent the previous year.

    Another problem is when a county or municipality has a large influx of wealthier residents who want a higher level of services, and are willing to pay higher taxes than many people who have lived in the area for a long time can afford. Once there are enough newcomers they will be able to elect representatives who will spend more, and they will vote for the higher taxes in a referendum.

    Requiring a referendum if the increase exceeds a couple percent after adjusting for population change and inflation might make supervisors and councils more cautious. I don’t think governments will be anxious to hold a referendum because it costs money to hold one, and they are more likely to attract people who will vote against a tax increase than people who will vote for for the expanded services that an increase should bring.

    It will take wiser people than I (and most of our legislators) to devise a system that is fair to all and meets the needs of our county or municipality without giving them the opportunity
    to gold-plate everything.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I see some possible unintended consequences, which might well include HOW real estate business is conducted in accordance with incurring less taxes!

      Also , how is a county supposed to deal with inflation, higher salaries, replacing facilities, new facilities , etc without increasing revenues somehow?

      I note, for instance, when a new water supply or wastewater facility is built, it’s built for future capacity but has to be paid for up front with loans/bonds which have to be paid back over time and citizens get notice and have hearings but at the end of the day, are they going to vote out BOS because a new plant has to be built and paid for?

Leave a Reply