Without Full $1B Tax Cut, Let July 1 Deadline Pass

by Steve Haner

Because the federal government cannot operate without constantly borrowing money, members of Congress in both parties recently held their noses and voted for a compromise budget and borrowing deal. That need not and should not happen now in Virginia.

There is no similar pressure in Virginia, even though the June 30 end of the state fiscal year approaches. Virginia has a viable, fully balanced budget that runs through June 30, 2024. The stalemate underway involves only unadopted second-year amendments.

Governor Glenn Youngkin and the House of Delegates should insist that any amendments to that new fiscal year budget include every dollar of tax relief they approved earlier this year. None of the spending increases approved by either the House or the Virginia Senate should be included unless the full amount of tax relief accompanies them.

If the July deadline passes with no action, with no agreement to couple tax cuts with spending increases, Virginia’s Republican legislators will have accomplished what their colleagues in Washington failed to do (and in fairness couldn’t do). They will have stood firm until the taxpayers received the same level of consideration as those who consume those taxes.

The real decision deadline is Election Day in November. Continuing the stalemate would give the voters a clear choice between the House vision of tax relief coupled with reasonable spending growth, or the Senate vision of mainly higher spending and zero tax relief.

Because it rejected all the proposed tax reforms, the Senate budget would spend about $1 billion more than the House next year. In a recent broadcast news account on the debate, Senator Lamont Bagby, D-Henrico, stated the Senate’s position clearly:

Bagby says after tax cuts last year, all the money should go toward paying teachers and improving Virginia’s roads and healthcare systems.  “Every dollar that we send back to individuals who don’t need it, and quite frankly aren’t asking for it, are dollars that we are wasting that we could be using for our priorities,” Bagby said.

So the tax cuts would go “to individuals who don’t need it and quite frankly aren’t asking for it?” Money not taken from taxpayers is “wasted?” Perhaps in the Bagby household somebody else handles the finances. No one actually paying household bills through this long stretch of broad inflation could believe people are not feeling real financial pain, even those with steady incomes. Lower income folks are being crushed.

Senator Bagby’s claim that Virginians “don’t need” more money for those bills is both wrong and a dangerous political stance. It is just as tone deaf as what former Governor Terry McAuliffe said about parents and schools.

The recent sticker shock in this household came from the auto insurance bill, which has now gone up 66% in three years despite higher deductibles. For many others, real estate and car tax bills provided heartburn. What did a cable and internet bundle cost just three years ago compared to now? Groceries? Few can look over their household budget and find any category that has stayed the same, especially not state and local taxes.

The inflation ravaging the budgets of most Americans has been a bonanza for state and local governments. Higher prices lead to higher sales tax collections. Rising real estate and automobile values force up those taxes. Because the state tax code doesn’t adjust for inflation, a raise in pay benefits the government as much as it does the workers, including low wage workers. Even the higher insurance premiums provide extra tax dollars to the state.

Bagby may have one point. The business community in the state has not mounted any campaign to support the lower corporate income tax rates which were approved by the House of Delegates, so apparently doesn’t want those reductions badly. A similar proposal from the Thomas Jefferson Institute a few years back was also greeted with apathy.

So, the dollars Youngkin and the House earmarked for corporate relief (about a third of a billion dollars annually) should go into individual tax relief instead, providing consumers more help for the higher prices coming at them from those same corporations. The modest proposed increase in the standard deduction could become more significant. Instead of dropping the top personal tax rate to 5.5%, it could go down to 5%.

Or abandoning the corporate income tax cut could allow the state to finally begin to annually adjust for inflation provisions such as the standard deduction, various exemptions, the Earned Income Tax Credit and even the tax brackets themselves.

Indexing the state tax code to help families in the same way the federal tax code is adjusted would be the most permanent and effective way to relieve pressure on working Virginians. Which is why there is little stomach for it among legislators, especially those in both parties who make the spending decisions.

Congress was up against the wall in May, admittedly a high brick wall that both parties built over decades. Virginia on the other hand has long enjoyed bipartisan support for a budget based on actual cash flow, with strict limits on debt, and is now awash with unspent cash thanks to inflation and this budget stalemate.

Rushing to a bad outcome is not required. This time, the big spenders need to blink.

First published today by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

30 responses to “Without Full $1B Tax Cut, Let July 1 Deadline Pass”

  1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
    Virginia Gentleman

    I agree. There is no better time for the Republicans to hold the line on the spending being offered in the Senate Bill. I can think of no better way to bring more Democrat voters to the table in November.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No idea who you are since you haven’t got the cojones to identify yourself, but please stick with that and I’ll take the outcome that comes. The Youngkin/House position will be greatly preferred, especially by the low and middle income folks really being crushed by Bidenflation…

      Your voters are coming to kill babies.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      No idea who you are since you don’t identify yourself, but please stick with that and I’ll take the outcome that comes. The Youngkin/House position will be greatly preferred, especially by the low and middle income folks really being crushed by Bidenflation…

      Your voters are coming to kill babies. That will be 85% of your campaign messaging. The main primary issue on your side is who is more supportive of killing babies. Never been prouder to not be a Democrat.

      1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
        Virginia Gentleman

        Hmmm … my comments like this get deleted when there is a personal attack. I am unable to identify myself because of employment requirements. But I have no issue with the size of my cojones – but thanks for your concern. BTW – I think you agree with me that let’s let the voters decide. But, by the tone of your message, I think you are a little less confident than you like to admit. And, my guess is that you really don’t know much about low and middle income folks. And Republicans only care about babies while they are in the womb. Once they are born, the hell with them. And I have never been prouder to be a Democrat. Your Presidential frontrunner is twice impeached and has been found liable for sexual assault. Now that is a party everyone should want to join.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          ” I am unable to identify myself because of employment requirements. ”

          Hatched Federal employee?

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Posting on taxpayer time? 🙂

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “Maybe he just wanted our wire cutters,”

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Wouldn’t apply, unless he was pontificating using his position to stump for a particular party member.

            In reality, he doesn’t want the things he says tied to his name.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Some years ago there was a situation where a Federal employee running as an independent did NOT want to be endorsed by a party because he said it would violate the Hatch act.

            In reality, that Federal employee was claiming to be an “R” when he was speaking with someone he thought leaned that way, and a “D” when he was speaking with someone he thought leaned that way.

            It became clear when I observed someone he had clearly spoken with previously go off on him about lying to them about his positions.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Sounds like a standard politician.

            Unless they are using their “position” to promote a political agenda, there is no violation of the Hatch Act.

            Generally, unless it’s only company time, company resources or on company property they are free to make any statements the like. They aren’t the military who gives up certain rights IOT be a member.

          6. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            I do know they aren’t allowed to run as anything other than an independent, since running as a party candidate IS a violation of the Hatch Act.

          7. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Yes, that’s why most of the cities, towns, and counties around DC allow candidates for local elections to run as independents. And, as I mentioned, some of those candidates play both sides of the aisle when they do.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          You are right and I took out the cheap shot. If this were my site names would be required. To your other point, Trump isn’t nominated yet and I said I was happy to not be a Democrat. He gets nominated again and we’ll see what label I claim. It won’t be Democrat, though. The many Democrats I’ve respected were not so happily pro-death.

          1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            This Democrat is not happily pro-death but one that understands government should never be involved in woman’s health care decisions. BTW – I respect people who are Pro Life. If they don’t want to have abortions, don’t have them. But when you demand that a woman who has been raped have a baby or require non-viable fetuses to be carried to full term, the issue becomes more difficult. I don’t know of a single Democrat who wants to allow women to have abortions in the final trimester – unless the fetus is non-viable or the health of the mother is at risk. People who punish women in these conditions are just cruel.

          2. vicnicholls Avatar
            vicnicholls

            When you demand that life is ended solely because of convenience, and not rape, non viable (by real science) or the mothers’ health in the first 3 months, that’s where the problem is. The huge majority, studies show, is NOT for those reasons but for lack of responsibility. With all this sex ed in schools, way way too early in life, its obvious that the teaching sex is ok and you won’t suffer the consequences of acting like an adult with out taking adult responsibilities, is an huge issue. In Europe, they have strict guidelines. Act like an adult, take responsibility in ALL ways. Next, I DO know D’s who would abort up until birth.

          3. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            I will leave it to constitutional attorneys to determine if abortion is a right or not – obviously, one group of SC Justices believed it was and another group believe it wasn’t. But I think that the vast majority of Americans believe that the framework of RvsW was mostly good. During the first trimester when there is no medical opinion that supports a fetus being viable outside the womb, allow women to make their own choice. If they choice unwisely, they will have to explain that to God when they die. In the second trimester and beyond, only allow abortions to protect the health of the mother OR if the fetus has been medically determined to be non-viable. And yes I am fine with schools teaching sex ed and if you aren’t, then tell your school and remove your kid from the class. But, please leave my kids alone.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            And how would you verify those names? Blue Badges?

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “I am unable to identify myself because of employment requirements”

          There would be nothing to prohibit you from identifying yourself. You choose anonymity, as to say whatever you like no matter how distasteful and suffer no repercussions.

          1. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            Thanks Matt for your confident statement of your opinion without any basis of knowing what you are talking about.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Virginia Gentleman 40 minutes ago
            Thanks Matt for your confident statement of your opinion without any basis of knowing what you are talking about.”

            That’s a lovely statement, completely and utterly false as well.

            You see, if your employer is the “Government” as you’ve indicated you have 1st Amendment protections unless you’re using your formal position to promote a specific candidate (Hatch Act). Elsewise, you’re free to state your opinion without fear of recourse. There exists not law that would prohibit you from doing so or striping your ability to speak unless you were a member of the Military.

          3. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
            Virginia Gentleman

            Matt – you just keep digging yourself in a hole. Please stop. Who said that my employer is the Government? You really shouldn’t state your opinions so emphatically without a clue what you are talking about.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “Virginia Gentleman an hour ago
            Matt – you just keep digging yourself in a hole. Please stop. Who said that my employer is the Government? You really shouldn’t state your opinions so emphatically without a clue what you are talking about.”

            What and utterly nonsensical post.

            I was wrong, I confused your statement with another’s. So if you aren’t employed by the Government, there is nothing that precludes you from using your name other and than anonymity you enjoy being able to say things repercussion free.

  2. WayneS Avatar

    “Every dollar that we send back to individuals who don’t need it, and quite frankly aren’t asking for it, are dollars that we are wasting that we could be using for our priorities,”

    Senator Bagby should speak for himself.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That was on a Richmond TV report, not in a print newspaper, but still — if I ran GOP messaging, I’d have been all over that statement. It really does deserve to be as well known (and reviled) as TMac’s boneheaded comment about parents and schools. Same sentiment really — we Democrats know what is the best use of your money, just like we know what is best for your kids.

      First there would have to be a thing called “GOP Messaging” though.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    You had some good suggestions for changes in tax policy–larger increases in standard deduction and indexing. Too bad the Governor did not propose those changes. There was a comprehensive JLARC report on possible ways to make the income tax more progressive. Except for Vivian Watts, the GA ignored it.

    It was not just Democrats who had designs on spending more. The Republicans had their wish list, as well. For example (all GF): $150 million for I-81 (Senate: 0); $55 million for inland port in SwVa (Senate: $10 million); $450 million for business ready industrial develop. projects (Senate: $250 million).

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      First and foremost we must put aside any delusions that one party really does seek to spend less.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Sadly, the best we can hope for is a lower slope for growth, which can be achieved by giving at least a bit of a break to the taxpayers. This is a sweet spot moment and I hope they don’t blow it. My advice to the D’s is vote to cut the taxes and take the issue away for November. No one ever lost an election because they followed my advice.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, once you admit you are going to spend, you are forced to either increase revenue or credit. There are a multitude of sweet spots available, but by “sweet” we mean acceptable pain.

  4. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    The discussion should not be party oriented. Arthur Laffer proved that tax cuts increase Gov’t revenue, promote business growth, and increase available net income for taxpayers.
    Virginia state tax cuts should be passed for both business and individuals. A second round which reduces total taxes, expands brackets, and indexes to future inflation is in order. All in the state would benefit. And the politics of “I want, I want,” would be less of a burden on the majority who really want to have less money taken from their earned and unearned income.

Leave a Reply