Who are the two Democrats who voted against the bill?

Hold them accountable.

about granting tax cuts to regular Americans. Funny, the claim that they will give a tax cut to most Americans, and turn and give it to their true masters: the richest people in the country.

It is strange that not one of the tax-cut happy Republicans would be willing to vote for this bill.

It seems that Republicans in Virginia are too busy being partisan instead of looking for the true interest of Virginians.

Or is there anyone out there that can explain why Republicans skipped on a tax break?

It's ridiculous to blame the Democrats for the death of this bill.  The Dems were 19-2 in favor; GOP 19-0 against.  It's the GOP (with a little help from 2 Dems) that killed it.

You're absolutely correct that the Dems have enough members of their party to pass anything.  From that perspective it is silly to blame the Republicans.

However, there's a larger dynamic at work.  The Republicans, as a party, are very good at controlling the votes of their individual members.  This is great from the perspective of speaking from one voice.  And, or course, either passing or blocking legislation.

On the flip side, the Democrats aren't so good at this.  There is less authoritarian central control and less of a single voice - leaving some to go in their own direction.

Normally I (not surprisingly) favor the Democratic approach.  Let the legislators decide for themselves instead of mindlessly towing a party line.  But it is a double edged sword which leads to situations like this, where the general party position is screwed by a few independent minded members.

So, IMO, the Republicans are not blameless.  But that blame should be focused on the general "all for one, one for all" approach.  Had a few Republicans voted for one of the standard party principles (i.e. lower taxes), the bill would have passed.  And I find it hard to believe that we couldn't find a handful of them who would have favored lower taxes.  But instead they did exactly as told, which resulted in a strong block vote - and the only way the Democrats could have passed the bill would have been to exert the same authoritarian control over its members.

Republicans provided 19 of the 21 votes (91%) to kill this.  So they get 91% of the blame.

raising the word "segregate" over and over again.  I didn't think it was even possible that someone could imply that there's anything racially motivated here.  Sadly, you've now confirmed that.  So, as soon as we call Republicans on their "no lobbyist left behind (but screw granny)" phliosphy, they throw out the smelliest of red herrings?  Why am I not surprised.

to marry?  Everyone having the right to top-notch, affordable medical care?  Everyone having the right to clean air and clean water?  Everyone having access to the same legal rights, regardless of race or income?  You do?  So you're a Democrat after all, congratulations!

Now I'm being stereotyped based on what you perceive as what every Republicans beliefs????  Who even said I'm a Republican????  

Maybe I'm a Libertarian.  Maybe I'm an independent.  Maybe I'm a Green Party Member.  Heck maybe I'm even a Dem who gets it.

Heck maybe I should start my own party, the Alex P. Keaton Party.  You want to register as an Alex P. Keaton, I'll let you...

Why not, oh master of the Red Herring?

The fact is since the Democrats have control of the Senate and the power to pass bills and make policy to imply that only Republicans are the ones satisfying the thirsts of lobbyists is disingenious. Lobbyists "lobby" those with the ability to pass legislation in their favor and thus if the lobbying powers ignored the Democrats in the Senate they would all be out of jobs rather quickly. It is their job the represent whatever special interest is backing them and to do so they must go after every Senator to secure votes, not just Republicans. I know you know this Lowell.

The bigger picture here is how can this General Assembly be on the verge of telling localities that the days of the cash proffer system are over thus lessoning all the localities ability to generate revenue through proffers to meet the increasing demands of roads and schools and make them implement an "impact fee" system which may bring in considerable less revenue for the area budgets. Your talking in NVA of taking away some 47K in proffers away in certain areas per lot---I am sure the developer lobby is smiling ear to ear.

Thus taking this future prospect in mind how will any locality be in a position to lower or reduce through exemption property of any sort in any locality in the coming years. The only way for localities to get ahead of the curve in terms of transportation will certainly be higher property taxes. The question will be will the localities have the political will (those controlled by either Democrats or Republicans) to raise business fees and liscense fees or will they place the burden solely on citizens.

It looks to me like it applies to all residences equally.

(k)  The General Assembly may by general law allow the governing body of any county, city, or town to exempt or partially exempt from real property taxation or provide for the deferral of real property taxes, within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed by the governing body by ordinance, of up to twenty percent of the value of residential or farm property that is designed for continuous habitation and is occupied as the primary dwelling of the individual owners.

The bolded section would in fact allow the BOS's or other governing bodies to chose who this would and would not apply to.

When you take away 20% in taxes, you better have a plan of getting that money back. Where would it come from? Businesses? I'm sure the Chamber of Commerce or some other pro-business lobby would fight hard not to have their taxes raised.

So with less money coming in, we would have less in services. Look at the mess we're in here in Fairfax. Taxes were cut during the good years. Nothing was banked away. Now we're going to be in a budget crunch. Everyone including teachers, fire fighters, police, and essential county workers will be sacrificed all in the name of saving money.

What happens to counties that don't have a strong business backbone? What recourse do they have? I believe that this bill was short sighted campaign promise that needed to go down.  

As a renter, I'm GLAD that the Republicans killed this bill.  Less taxes on homeowners means more taxes for renters, and that sucks.  In fact, property tax exemptions for homeowners is NOT progressive - homeowners are generally richer than renters.  Over the long-term, owners would get an exemption and renters would get the shaft.

Instead, the Dems should focus on more broad-based tax reform.  This reform could include several items:

1.  The ability for localities to assess different tax rates for commercial and residential property (but not different rates between rental and owner-occupied property)

2.  The ability to levy sales tax on more services (I think the current tax is limited to leases, rentals, and communications - someone correct me if I'm wrong)

3.  Strict limitations on tax reductions offered as economic development incentives - overall, the Commonwealth would be able to promise infrastructure improvements but not tax benefits for businesses to move to the state. (What are the limitations now?  I don't think there are any - but again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Overall, these reforms would be a LOT more progressive than "property tax relief" for homeowners.  Progressives shouldn't be worried about "tax relief" anyway - it makes it sound like taxes are an affliction (bad framing).  Instead, we should talk about tax fairness, and the reforms above would make Virginia taxes more fair.

I also agree that renters get shafted in our tax code.  Still, my understanding is that this legislation was targeted at helping elderly, poor people having trouble staying in their homes due to rising taxes.  To me, that's very progressive.

at incomes of, let's say, $250,000 per year or home values of, I dunno, $1 million?  After that, no more home mortgage interest deduction.  Use the money to help people who really need it or to reduce the deficit.

same obnoxious word over and over again.  That's "troll" behavior. Either make a real point or you're going to start getting troll rated/deleted for this garbage.

If someone is cash poor, but house rich, due to rising house prices, then that person should sell their home and realize their capital gains.  The "house rich" person is still MUCH richer (counting wealth) than the normal renter, and so a homestead exemption policy is still NOT progressive because very few poor people benefit.  Besides, if you allowed localities to set separate commercial and residential tax rates, localities could better adjust their tax rates when residential prices rise and fall.  

I'm not sure what we should do about the mortgage interest deduction.  You certainly couldn't get rid of it all at once because you'd severely hurt the value of the homes affected (which are already dropping).  Also, I think you want tax treatment to be similar on rental housing and owner-occupied housing to the best extent practicable and getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would affect that.  OTOH, the mortgage interest deduction sort of came about by accident, so changing it might be a good idea.

One problem (and I don't know if this is a problem) is that the policy you suggest would disproportionally hurt those living in denser and more expensive areas (like NOVA).  Is that a policy we should pursue?  I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not sure if I'd be for it.

Lowell...regarding your understanding that this legislation was targeted at helping elderly, poor people having trouble staying in their homes due to raising taxes....
Are you aware that Virginia has in place a program that addresses senior citizens and the disabled?
The details are as follows:
Those who are seniors(65+) or disabled are eligible for tax exemption under the following:
Income from $0-52,0000 - 100% exemption.
Income from $52,001 - $62,000 50% exemption
Income from $62,001 -$72,000 -25% exemption
The "hook" is one cannot have more than $340,000 in maximum net worth,(CDs, stock, etc) but that DOES NOT include equity in your home as well as one acre of land.
The State's net worth, I believe is $540,000 but both Fairfax County and Fairfax City have capped at the $340,000 figure.  
It should be further noted, there is NO requirment that this money forgiven be paid back when the property is sold either by the homeowner or the homeowner's estate.

or whatever you want to call the authority for local jurisdictions to select sections of homeowners for targeted property tax relief: relieving, say, fixed-income seniors of rising taxes on their property in order to permit them to stay in their life-long homes, rather than having to sell and go into a Florida trailer because they can no longer afford to stay. Believe it or not, that was one of the justifications for giving the ability to target certain groups for tax relief (present laws, as applied in the City of Fairfax, do provide some releif, but do not do so in an easily administered way across the board).

I agree about the question of replacing the resultant lost income, and this is one reason I was not totally for the homestead exemption in the beginning, and I said so in an earlier comment here on RK several days ago. Given the Dillon rule, sources of income for local jurisdictions are severely limited, mainly to the real property taxes, yet state and federal authorities keep dumping more and more unfunded mandates on these local jurisdictions.  Don't forget it is at the local level that most citizens are impacted by public services, roads, schools, fire, etc.

This Republican effort goes along with the proffers vs. impact fees bill, which would have limited the ability of local jurisdictions to control growth and pay for infrastructure.  There's a pattern here.

The real question is increasing sources for local funding of services, not hamstringing localities even more by reducing the flow of tax money into their coffers... a classic Republican effort at "strangling the beast."

First of all interesting side conversations going on here.  

It seems there is starting to be a split amongst the general community.  On the one hand you have some people that are focused on putting democrats in power.  On the other hand some people are focused on limiting the power of lobbyists and sticking up for the common person.  Nothing wrong with either goal just an observation.  

On to my post I might be missing something here (propably :-p I am more in tune with transportation issues) but can't localities already address this issue by cutting the real estate tax rate by 20%

Say the tax rate is $1 per 1000 in value
Your house assessment goes from 500k to 600k
Tax bill goes from $500 to $600 bucks an increase of 20%
The localities have the option to reduce the rate from $1 to 83 cents to keep the tax bill at $500 if they so choose

Also isn't there already a homestead exception for retirees in existing homes for a set number of years with income restrictions.  How is that allowed currently?

1) It is a correct statement that the bill passed the decision down to the localities
2) A locality can lower the tax rate without permission from Richmond so there is no reason for this legislation that is not completely political
3) In any case, before you advocate a 20% cut, you need to figure out where you are going to save the 20% in your budget  

How does the Dillon Rule relate to localities ability in this regard?  

Individual localities already can set whatever real estate tax rate they want as long as it is evenly applied. The Dillon Rule requires state law changes to treat residential owners differently from commercial owners. The homestead exemption law would in effect allow localities to exempt the first 20% in value on residential property-- which they can't do now -- so it in effect expands the localities options to give a break to residential owners over commercial ones.    

The Dillon Rule is also relevant because the state has given cities and counties limited taxing options -- the most important one being the real estate tax. They don't have anywhere else to go for revenue. If you limit their ability to use the real estate tax, there will be severe budget consequences -- particularly for schools.  I am all for lower taxes, but before you endorse a 20% cut, you need to know how you are going to absorb the loss.  Since this would be a residential plan only, those who rent (and presumably who are often the most needy) would not get a break -- businesses obviously wouldn't get a break either.

Also -- don't forget "no car tax" -- sounds great but how are you going to implement it?

Thanks.

This is a good example of where the facts sometimes don't match with the political rheotoric in a debate.
First, as to the contention that "ordinary citizens" had no such luck in getting their viewpoint across, I would argue that they did.  I argued it in front of the Senate and House committees.  I am a registered lobbyist and the Executive Director of a non-profit think tank called The Commonwealth Institute.  We do analysis of budget and tax issues with a focus on how those issues affect low and middle income Virginians (aka "ordinary citizens").  We studied this issue extensively and published a brief on the topic that we widely shared with lawmakers and the public.  The punch line:  the homestead exemption -- as laid out in this bill -- is a bad deal for ordinary citizens.  Why?  Because the bill did nothing for renters (a large portion of low-income residents in Virginia rent and this amendment only applied to owner-occupied properties.)  Also, it was a giveaway to the rich:  the amendment called for localitites to be able to provide a rollback of up to 20% of the home value.  Wealthier people own more expensive homes.  This would have been a windfall for them to shelter large segments of their expensive home values from local real estate taxes.  Also, the amendment laid out an approach where this would seem to be offered to all home owners.  It was not targetted at those who need it the most.  The other reason why "ordinary citizens" should be concerned with it is that by reducing local revenue through dialing down a critical source of local revenue (property taxes), it would put at risk the funding needed for key services that Virginia residents have come to expect: education, cops on the street, health services.  Local governments are pretty much banded from having income taxes in Virginia.  Property taxes are the key source to fund all these programs.  This bill would have pulled the rug out from under a key part of the funding streams and in a way that would have benefited the wealthiest in the communities.  It was a poorly structured approach to a key problem.  We can do better.  There are better ways to provide real estate tax relief in a targetted fashion.  We can exempt the "first dollar" of value (Say, the first $20,000) instead of 20% of the value which targets it at low and middle income folks.  Or we could adopt, like 18 other state, a property tax circuit breaker program where anyone whose propoerty tax bills are burdensome, regardless of their locality, can get a break.