Youngkin Promises to Reverse Northam Tax Hikes

by Steve Haner

Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin is proposing to reduce Virginians’ taxes in much the same way Governor Ralph Northam raised them: Use several individual proposals, some not all that large, which accumulate into a significant change.

As Northam ends his term, his attitude seems to be, what tax increases? He claims the current $2.6 billion general fund surplus and the almost $400 million transportation fund surplus are due to economic growth.

No. Tax increases greatly contributed to those surpluses and will keep the commonwealth’s coffers overflowing. Youngkin’s proposal tracks those tax hikes and softens their individual blows.

For example, a change in sales tax collections, imposing the tax on more out-of-state shippers just as online retail exploded, contributed to both surpluses. Youngkin proposes to counter that by removing the sales tax on groceries.

Exempting food purchases from the sales tax has been a longtime goal of some in both political parties, especially former Democratic Gov. Douglas Wilder. Northam had also promised it.

After the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act pushed the federal standard deduction to $25,000, millions of Virginians gave up taking state itemized deductions in order to enjoy that higher federal deduction. That one change produced the largest piece of the bonanza of additional state revenue that politicians are now plotting to spend in January.

So Youngkin proposes to increase the state standard deduction to $9,000 for an individual and $18,000 for a married couple. That will take hundreds of thousands of taxpayers entirely off the income tax rolls and provide a significant reduction for the millions who use the standard deduction: $518 per year for married filers.

It is something the Thomas Jefferson Institute recommended three years ago, and legislators in both parties have previously proposed higher standard deductions. Over the long term, this is by far the largest of the tax cuts proposed by Youngkin and the best one for the economy.

The surplus in transportation accounts was created by 2020 legislation which raised the gasoline tax by 17.6 cents per gallon in some parts of Virginia; 10 cents per gallon in others; and then created a new highway user fee imposed on vehicle registrations.

Youngkin’s proposal for a one-year suspension of the most recent 5-cent gas tax increase won’t save taxpayers much, but it does remind Virginians about the major 2020 tax increase under Northam, which was little noticed as gasoline prices fluctuated.

More surplus revenue came from the unfortunate decision this year to impose income taxes on the federal Paycheck Protection Program and state Rebuild Virginia grants. Under pressure from the Thomas Jefferson Institute and others, the General Assembly exempted the first $100,000 in grants from income taxes. Youngkin proposes to exempt it all.

His list of proposals includes a $40,000 exclusion for military retiree pay. Also one-time individual rebates of $300 per person or $600 per couple, larger than the 2019 rebates of $110 each that Northam and the legislature agreed to in pretending to return that year’s surplus back to the people.

The other truly major tax idea is related to the wave of inflation which is following the massive federal COVID relief spending. Real estate values are already exploding all across Virginia.

Higher house values produce higher real estate taxes unless local governments lower their tax rates. To capture the inflation-driven tax increase now, it takes a simple vote by the governing body. Youngkin would add the requirement for a voter referendum in those instances.

The complaints about that from local officials in both parties will be quick and loud, and this idea might produce the largest legislative battle next year. Former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore also sought to rein-in a local tax, the car tax, but had only mixed success. People still pay a portion of that tax.

Most voters who remember that battle 20 years ago blame the General Assembly for the tax surviving, not the former governor. They may appreciate the next governor making a similar push on another out-of-control local tax.

Stephen D. Haner is a senior fellow for state and local tax policy at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. This column, which appeared first in the Free Lance-Star, is republished with his permission.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

54 responses to “Youngkin Promises to Reverse Northam Tax Hikes”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Thank you, JAB, for getting this back up after I bollixed it this morning….

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I think Youngkin has some potent tax ideas on the standard deduction but losers on the gas tax and total fail on the local real estate tax and if he does not actually show how he balances the budget, he’ll be vulnerable to the other side making that point.

    But talk about top down big govt from Richmond! NOT a Conservative idea at all on the messing with local govt.

    Our county, every year, at budget time starts off with disclosing what the equalized tax rate is. From that point on, citizens know the issue and it’s legitimately a local issue that the state should not be messing with IMHO, bad or worse than the mess Gilmore created that we still have with us today.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Now you are talking Steve.

    (1) If Youngkin would kindly get rid of the new HUF tax on all cars over 25 MPG, I would strongly consider voting for that. What a stupid tax. It is as bad or worse than the defunct Hybrid tax, which I might add, McAuliffe killed on his first day in office way back. But the hybrid tax was recently brought back to life in a new formula called HUF (highway use fee – to punish owners of fuel efficient cars).

    (2) If I do not get Item-1, I am writing in for ChapP. Chap talks about getting rid of our ridiculous Virginia car tax. As far as Car Tax, I would vote for anyone who even talks about fixing that problem.

    (3) And yes, I did not like the way Virginia turned the Trump tax cuts into an opportunity to increase taxes on the middle class, which is already hit hardest here than anywhere I know (relatively speaking)

  4. You say, “To capture the inflation-driven tax increase now, it takes a simple vote by the governing body. Youngkin would add the requirement for a voter referendum in those instances.” Can you explain this a little? Do you mean Y. would make it harder to lower the property tax rate by requiring a referendum to affirm the local government’s vote to do so, or, do you mean Y. would require a referendum on the question if the local government did nothing — and if the latter, how would that work (i.e., what would the “question” be)?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, have to admit I’ve seen no details and haven’t been asked to write the bill. 🙂 But I expect if the locality just went with the “equalized” rate as Larry outlined above, there would be no referendum. Otherwise a ballot question might be: “Due to rising home values, the current real estate tax rate of $1.00 per $100 produces a ten percent increase in revenue next year. An “equalized” tax rate of $.91 would produce the same amount of revenue next year as this year. The Board of Supervisor has asked to keep the rate at $1 to collect the extra revenue. Do you agree?”

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Of course, it would be easier, as well as more fair, to tax the purchase price with a capital gains tax based on years held and the RE tax rate. That way the homeowner isn’t screwed on imaginary valuations in the interim.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          Not a bad idea.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            As it currently is, the locality jimmies the values and the tax rates in order to get what they need. When the market shoots up, they have to reduce the rates or under assess to avoid taxpayer revolt. What a stupid game.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The underlying premise of many of these top down constraints on local governments is that the voter is too stupid to figure things out for themselves.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          In fact, in some counties, they hold the RE rate down and whack folks with newer cars….

          Our county has a 6.55% tax rate on vehicles. A 30K vehicle – is taxed – well you do the math – it’s a bunch!

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        If there is to be such a referendum, there should also be a series of questions as to what budget cuts the local government should make to balance the budget.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          You actually think that would slow down the “no” votes? Au contraire… 🙂

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

            Given that most local spending goes to local public schools paired with the success rate of school bond referendums, I think you may be counting your chickens a bit here.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The people are still paying for all of the car tax, they just don’t realize it. To get the tax through, Gilmore had to agree that the state would reimburse localities for their lost revenue. A line item of almost $1 billion annually in GF in the state Appropriation Act goes to reimburse localities for this lost revenue.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      RIght – and that billion dollars comes from state taxes on the same folks.. It’s classic smoke and mirror stuff!

      And I still think, fundamentally wrong for the State to mess with localities in that way. Most of the time, Conservatives argue against top-down “edicts” from the State. Local elections are the epitome of government closest to the people, and they have the ability to actually replace their elected if not satisfied.

      Youngkin or folks on his team apparently have a very non-Conservative idea about top-down governance. Shades of Dillon and the Plantation Elite!

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

        “Most of the time, Conservatives argue against top-down “edicts” from the State.”

        Nope, not true! We are a Dillon Rule state and Conservatives refused to change that situation even when it was pointed out to them that they were losing control of the legislature. They enjoy the control they have on local government and only complain when they are not the ones at the top.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          talk-the-talk verses walk-the-walk.

          They talk against top-down “edicts” out the wazoo but it has been Northam who delegated things like schools and statue removal to the localities.

          And curious to me, we still won’t kill the top-down car tax abomination.

          Clearly not on Yougkins list.

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

            Nor is removing the special disincentive tax on hybrids…

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            I’m of the view that roads have to be paid for – an entirely separate thing from hybrids or HOV.

            For those that do use the roads -no matter their fuel efficiency – the maintenance and operations is the same.

            We all pay for deputies and EMS whether we use them or not – no special rate for those that don’t use.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Have to tax based on tax = taxrate*mass*g*velocity*time.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The hybrid disincentive tax is a user fee. The proper way to pay for roads through user fees is called a toll. Hybrid owners pay them as well…. The hybrid disincentive tax is just a way to remove the economic incentive (ie, using less gas) of owning a hybrid and was passed as a way to put the finger of government on the scales of the free market… yet again…

            Because everybody benefits from roads (whether you drive a car or not), we should pay for them like we pay for EMS and deputy services… as you note that does not include user fees.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Everyone should pay for their pro-rata use of the roads no matter how efficient their fuel use is. That economic incentive is direct to the choice of the car owner. Some drive big trucks and SUVs and others econo-boxes but they all require the roads to be paved, maintained, etc.

            Beyond that, EVERYONE who buys stuff pays for roads also. Part of the general sales tax is dedicated to transportation and, in fact, the revenues from the general sales tax is about equal to the amount collected from gas taxes.

            I just don’t think the choice of vehicle should affect the need for each vehicle owner who uses the roads to pay fair share of the use of the roads.

            If we give special discounts to some, then others will have to pay more and that’s not fair either.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Well then user fees for police, EMS, and schools it is!!

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            and schools and water/sewer?

            I’m still not really sure of your point.

            Eisenhower actually wanted to pay for the interstates solely with tolls a direct user fee.

            But he was convinced that doing so would mean no interstates would be built in rural areas, so it was agreed to put a tax on fuel to extend the interstates to places where there would not be even toll revenues to build them.

            That’s construction but in Virginia – if you go back to that page – you’ll see that a significant amount of the revenues are actually dedicated solely to operations and maintenance The Va Constitution requires that O&M be funded fully and first before any money is proposed for construction.

            O&M has to be paid for – if you don’t do that the roads deteriorate further and some say we already do not maintain them well.

            From that perspective, I feel that anyone who uses the roads is inflicting wear and tear on them – no matter their vehicle… and the heavier ones inflict more damage and generally pay more taxes before weight affects fuel economy.

            So in that realm – what is your view?

            do you think that folks who buy fuel efficient vehicles should pay less for O&M because they bought fuel efficient vehicles?

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            ““and schools and water/sewer?”

            I’m still not really sure of your point.”

            The point is we do not pay for schools through user fees the same way we should not pay for roads through user fees.

            From many levels, there SHOULD be a disincentive to drive cars that waste fuel. For this reason the fuel tax should be the same across the board and the free market would take care of the rest. If there is not enough income from the fuel tax to pay for road upkeep, then that tax would need to be increased to compensate across the board… or we could just spread the cost across all tax payers equally like we do for schools… and do away with the fuel tax altogether…

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            so the gas tax is much more of a direct user fee than other taxes and service although I gave the example of water/sewer which is also essentially user fees.

            I agree with you about the disincentive for wasteful use but that’s a different issue than how we pay for roads and some cars do get favorable tax incentives.

            on spreading the cost – you ought to take a look at that page I sent you. Virginia is pretty diversified on transportation taxes.

            fuel
            general sales tax
            sales tax on new vehicles
            tax on vehicle insurance premiums
            recordation tax

            Right now we pay as much in general sales tax as we do fuel tax.

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

            “Some drive big trucks…”

            Anything over 10,000 lb is exempt from the highway user fees… alas… hybrid and electric trucks are politically favorable I suppose…

          11. LarrytheG Avatar

            heavier vehicles like big SUVs and Pickup Trucks generally get poorer mileage than smaller more fuel efficient. In other words, they buy more fuel and pay more tax.

            don’t the bigger trucks pay fuel taxes also?

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            There are electric trucks and hybrids. Starting to see that even with big transport trucks. Exempt from the user fee.

  6. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    Just like NOVA brings in a lot of income tax, it takes a lot of the car tax relief/

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    50 States, 50 different SALT structures. If the States were to be the “laboratories of democracy” you’d think one of them would have honed in on a good tax structure by now.

    But to give you devils your due, the PPT on automobiles is infuriating and counterproductive — a tax on a depreciating durable good results in two things; less and less tax dollars, and gas-guzzling, oil-burning junk on the roads.

    I lived for awhile in Texas. No State Income Tax, but twice the Real Estate Tax. The RET was based on value and living space size, and included a very Dutch sounding tax on the size of the front porch, although given it was Texas, maybe it had to do with major appliances.

    But they didn’t tax your car and it was cheaper to inspect and register annually. The result was more newer cars on the road than here. But, again, the Lord giveth and … higher gas taxes plus insurance cost more.

    Don’t worry Steve, if Youngkin does actually lower a tax, he’ll raise another.

  8. DJRippert Avatar

    “As Northam ends his term, his attitude seems to be, what tax increases? He claims the current $2.6 billion general fund surplus and the almost $400 million transportation fund surplus are due to economic growth.

    No. Tax increases greatly contributed to those surpluses and will keep the commonwealth’s coffers overflowing. Youngkin’s proposal tracks those tax hikes and softens their individual blows.”

    In other words, Northam remains a dedicated liar.

  9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Higher house values produce higher real estate taxes unless local governments lower their tax rates. To capture the inflation-driven tax increase now…”

    FYI… That is really not inflation-driven. These property value increases are not the result of devaluation of the dollar but are instead from increased demand. I prefer to leave the decision on tax rates to local governments completely.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      and things like new schools, salaries, etc that the county has to purchase also are affected by inflation.

      The bottom line is the anti-taxers just don’t like taxes and they’re just fine with cutting services and infrastructure they don’t use or want.

      Folks like Youngkin promise tax cuts but are pretty much mum on the consequences of doing that and his apparent proclivity towards “Gilmore thinking” worrisome.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      True, and not. Remember, the value on which the tax is based is NOT market value but Tax Assessed Value. Two different things. Yet another way the very wealthy avoid getting taxed. Look at the difference between the market and tax assessments in your town’s wealthiest neighborhoods.

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Youngkin also promises to end abortion. Maybe he’ll copy the Texas law.

    I like IT! Wait until Massachusetts or California passes a similar law on owning a gun used in a crime! “Uh, your gun was stolen? Your kid took it for a school shooting? Oh well, you should have kept it secured in a safe deposit box. Now anyone who facilitated the crime can be sued by anybody for $10,000.”

    Like providing services leading to a Texas-declared illegal abortion, providing a firearm and accoutrements leading to an illegal use of that weapon may become a prohibitively expensive liability.

    All the gun stores, manufacturers, etc., etc., can finally be sued

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I’m thinking the Texas law thing may have an effect on voters in other states like Virginia cuz it’s pretty clear if the Texas law “sticks” what the GOP will do if they win back Virginia. It’s gonna incentivize voters both pro and con to vote – the question is how many pro and how many con. It’s close.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I dunno. But as soon as the Court refused to block it, some of the groups like Planned Parenthood started arranging travel to NY for women, but a lawyer shut it down. The Texas reach can now get you. The Texas law doesn’t restrict to abortions in Texas, but abortions received by Texas residents.

        PP sets up transportation to NY. You contribute to PP. A California Republican can sue you for facilitating an abortion in NY provided to a Texas resident.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Doctors and people moving to blue states from red states? Brain drain?

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      We need to pass liability immunity legislation for abortion providers like they did for gun manufacturers. Seems only fair…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        But it won’t protect them anymore. We need to codify RvW.

      2. You are aware that the gun manufacturers do not have immunity from liability for their own illegal acts and defective products, aren’t you?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          He doesn’t understand the PLCAA.

          I also really don’t know how he’s attempting to compare the two. Ones a good the other is a service.

          1. Ones a good the other is a service.

            Good point.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes, and no. Sometimes the line between goods and services, tangible and intangible gets blurred. This happens in the Twilight Zone, or as it is more affectionately known, Texas.

            https://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/how-dry-we-aint-6418999

            The trick is to believe, think, imagine, whatever word suits you, that you don’t buy alcohol in a bar or restaurant and they don’t sell it to you. Thet serve it to you and the buying and selling of the product is done someplace in the ether. You’re drinking a service, not a goods.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            No.

            A good is a product you purchase. A service is an action provided to you (T&M).

    3. All the gun stores, manufacturers, etc., etc., can finally be sued.

      They can all already be sued. You are an intelligent person. I would have expected you to do your own research, and perhaps even read the law itself, instead of simply believing and passing on the lies the anti-gun crowd tell about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yes, but you have to have “standing”, a gored ox, so to speak. That’s where Texas went nuts. They gave everybody standing.

        1. Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT defending the new Texas law. I think allowing a third party to sue anyone who facilitates an abortion is ridiculous.

  11. Paul Sweet Avatar

    Virginia’s income tax brackets and standard deduction are long overdue for a change.

    The so-called “gas tax” is actually a user fee to pay for road construction and maintenance, and is probably the least painful way to accomplish this. Collecting tolls costs money and slows down traffic, so they are only practical on the most heavily used roads. The annual fee on electric or high gas mileage vehicles is probably the most painful way to pay for roads. It is a lot easier to come up with a couple bucks per fill-up than a hundred or more bucks at registration or tax time. Hopefully somebody will be able to come up with a way to collect the road user fee that is as convenient as the gas tax for all vehicle sizes and fuels.

    If I understand it correctly, a real estate tax rate that produces more total dollars is considered a tax increase. It should at least be adjusted for population growth (or 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.

    I have mixed feelings about requiring a referendum for real estate tax increases. Our county supervisors and city councilmen are supposed to represent their constituents, and can be denied another term or possibly be recalled if they don’t. It costs money to hold a referendum, and it is more likely to attract people against a tax increase than people for the expanded services that an increase should bring. Maybe requiring a referendum if the increase exceeds a couple percent after adjusting for population change and inflation will make supervisors and council more cautious.

    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.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I pretty much agree with the possible exception of this.

      ” Virginia’s income tax brackets and standard deduction are long overdue for a change.”

      Why do we say this? If it is because Va is bringing in my tax revenue as a result of the TCJA – I’d like to know how much more and whether changing the standard deduction “balances” and gets us back to prior revenues.

      And second, my understanding is that TCJA will expire in 2024 or so. If it does, what do we do then?

      What Virginia has done – over the years – is more or less fiscal responsible finances. I’d like to see it stay that way.

      1. Paul Sweet Avatar

        Virginia’s income tax brackets and standard deduction are long overdue for a change because they haven’t changed since the 1970s. Back then the average income was $10 – 15K, which is less than you would make at a full-time minimum wage job today.

        The standard deduction was 15% of adjusted gross income, with a minimum of $500 and maximum of $2000. The exemption was $1000 each for husband and wife, and $300 for each dependent.

        Tax rates were the same as today:
        2% on the first $3000 taxable income
        3% on the next $2000
        5% on all over $5,000
        I’m not sure when the 5.75% on all over $12,000 took effect, but it was long ago.

        The Consumer Price Index has increased from 38.8 in 1970 to 258.8 in 2020, which is 6.67 times higher. If Virginia tax rates were adjusted by this amount for inflation, the standard deduction would be a minimum of $3335 and a maximum of $13,340. Exemptions would be $6670 for husband & wife, and $2001 for each dependent. Tax rates would be:
        2% on the first $20,010
        3% on the next $13,340
        5% on the next $40,020
        5.75% on all over $80,040

        Lower income people are paying higher rates than they would if there had been some adjustment for inflation over the past 50 years.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          You make a good argument. I’d still like to see the impact on the existing budget and what happens if/when the TCJA expires.

          I have to agree about the impacts on low income and independent contractors who get whacked.

          But I’d prefer that Youngkin put some more meat on the bones to make me feel like he knows what is actually talking about and it’s not just political pandering.

Leave a Reply