We outnumbered them

The Prince William Area Young Republicans, the Prince William Taxpayers Alliance and the Virginia Club for Growth planned to march on Manassas Delegate Harry Parrish’s place of business in old town Manassas last evening to protest his being among the Seditious 17 that broke ranks with the GOP leadership to support a bill raising taxes, modest though it may be. So proponents of greater investment – and yes higher taxes to pay for it – planned a counter demonstration and won the numbers battle by about 35 – 20.

We were early. Or should I say they were early, and by the time I arrived, their impromptu press conference with local NewsChannel 8, the Potomac News and a Gainsville paper, I think, was over.

So we waited patiently until the minutemen came ‘round the bend with their green No Tax Hike signs. We started chanting “Put Virginia first, invest in our future,” or something like that. (Had the Rev. Jesse Jackson been there, I’m sure we could have done better.)

The anti-taxers then came marching up and stood about 40 feet away and kibitzed among themselves. Someone got the idea that we should then march closer to them. I had visions of getting knocked out by a No New Tax sign. But two Manassas police officers stood between us. I regretted that I didn’t bring a flower to put in the barrel of their guns had they drawn them. But after a few minutes, the anti-tax crowd just turned away and left the way they came, though we had been told they planned to marched past us for a block or so. We took it as a great moral victory and cheered. It may have been just three local media but maybe they feared the whole world was watching.

No sooner did most of our crowd disperse then Del. Parrish showed up, back from the veto session in Richmond, and thanked what was left of us for showing up.

Parrish said he was hopeful of a compromise by Friday in the range of $1 billion. He held little hope for a local sales tax option because delegates were afraid most counties would impose it to balance their own budgets. I suppose the Richmond lawmakers were fearful they’d take the heat for it.

He also said he expected the car tax to be frozen at $1 billion, which would be reached in 2006-07, if held at its current 70% level. He declined to name what he said were two among the Seditious 17 who signed the no-tax pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform organization. There are actually at least three listed on the ATR site: Preston Bryant, Harvey Morgan and Vince Callahan. But I’ve found before that some of those anti-tax pledges may have been years ago. Once he’s got his teeth into you, Grover doesn’t let go.

Parrish said he expected most of the 17 would have primary opponents next year and couldn’t speculate whether some of the anti-taxers might have GOP challengers from the center. “All of us feel we’re doing the right thing,” he said. “If we’re replaced, it will be the Commonwealth’s loss.”

Parrish said a decision about his running again may depend on his health.

Here’s the Potomac News coverage of the protest.

Comments

[Jim]

Until I see your name on Virginia's "Tax-Me-More" fund, I can't take seriously your pretensions to wanting higher taxes. The simple fact is that you want the rest of us to pay higher taxes, but can't bite the bullet and pay them yourself. You're a leech.
As for fairness, I'm not interested in your notions of what's "fair." I'm already paying my "share" of taxes, and shares for two or three or four other people, as well.

[Denise]

Should or Must? MMMmmm let's see... We could be a little Machiavellian and say "must" but Machiavelli only gave certain scenarios, certain circumstances and allowed no room for life's anomalies. Must could of worked but life is too abstract and nothing is set in stone. So let's just say should.

[John K.]

You stated, "That everyone should contribute to the common good according to their ability to pay." This sounds suspiciously like, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Don't you think so? The only substantive difference in these two statements is your use the modal verb, should. Do you believe that citizens should or must contribute "according to their ability to pay?"

[Denise]

Alright I'll go for that flat tax...if you tax wealth as well as work and that there is no cap on collecting tax from income. If tax breaks are cut out on investment income and the estate tax is not repealed so that large amounts of inherited wealth like capital gains can continue to be taxed. And if corporations don't get tax breaks and pay that same flat tax on profits.

I don't want to punish people for being hard working and successful but why should the rest of us who are also hard working pay for not being that successful? To think that any one corporation or person just created his own wealth without any help from the government paid for by taxpayers in the United States is wrong.

There are many components in our social framework that enable wealth to be built in the U.S. Things like a patent system, open courts, property ownership records, protection against crime and external threats, government research and public education etc. etc. etc.. Not to mention corporate subsidies and government bailouts. Without investments by a taxpayers government in these things and things like computers and the internet an individual's abilty to create wealth would be seriously compromised especially these days. Paying taxes is how those who have, repay society for its contributions.

The progressive tax system is based upon your ability to pay. May not mean much to you but someone making $9,300 a year who pays 10% of their income in taxes is balancing whether they eat or not. Versus someone making $1,930,000 a year would not exactly effect them much at all. The progressive tax is part of democratic values that most seem to have forgotten. That everyone should contribute to the common good according to their ability to pay. Good old Benjamin Franklin thought that "No man ought to own more property than need for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state." We will agree to disagree. I' sorry I can't believe in the tax plan that you propose because only the wealthiest of our citizenry would benefit and the rest of us would pay the bills.

[John K.]

I have a few comments concerning the last post, which apparently is directed to me.

What the system shows is that not everyone was paying their fair share of taxes. Some people will be paying less taxes under these plans and those that haven't been paying their fair share will see an increase.

This is pure opinion, but I agree with you to a certain extent. In my opinion, the current system of raising revenue by means of income taxes is unfair. We ought to consider eliminating the graduated income tax system altogether, which penalizes achievement and the creation of wealth, and replace it with a combination of flat taxes, consumption taxes and/or user fees. That way, everyone pays a fair share.

I know you've stated what is wrong with the other side but not what remedy you have for this inadequate, unfair and outdated system. I'd like to hear that. So far it sounds as if those that are against taxes absolutely do not want to pay for anything. That in my opinion is going a step backwards and not helping the situation at all.

Regarding the "fairness" argument and the "remedy" question, see my comment above. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that some seem to to mischaracterizing opposition to tax increases in the current budget stalemate. We all utilize certain public services, which must be funded by tax revenue. The debate is over how the existing tax revenue is being raised, spent (or wasted) and who should bear the financial burden of the public funding associated with certain government expenditures. This isn’t a debate about of tax cuts or about people who "absolutely do not want to pay for anything"; therefore, it is incorrect to label those opposed to tax increases in this debate as anti-tax.

Now I personally do not have the time or resources to fund a dump truck and a steam roller to asphalt my road and I don't want to go back to that system. I don't know about others but it's worth my while to have someone else paid to do that.... So I'll gladly pay my fair share to keep the road work up and have the state oversee the process.

You could easily fund the road construction and maintenance cited in your example with revenues generated by gasoline taxes and/or tolls. Could there be anything more fair?

And respectfully it's not what "voters" are in the picture, but what tax payers are in the picture. Formula, diapers, clothing, toys, McDonald's we pay state taxes on all that. So all in the picture are tax payers and do have a stake in this. Especially the children.

Those who actually pay consumption taxes are taxpayers. Yet, every resident of this Commonwealth is a constituent and should be considered an interested party in any debate regarding the decisions made by our government. But, only those over 18 are permitted to vote. The kids in the photo are quite young and I wonder if they attended the event of their own free will or because they were brought there by their parents and handed a sign. But, that’s really beside the point. My question was simply about how the counter-demonstrators made a head count of those supporting or opposing tax increases. Was the split 35-20 voters; or did either side count non-voters? It’s likely that only those that were there can answer.

[Denise]

$6 billion dollars has already been cut from state services last budget session and my community is feeling the pinch. More is slated to be cut if something drastic is not called upon. Most all the tax reform plans submitted advocated reorganizing how taxes are collected. What the system shows is that not everyone was paying their fair share of taxes. Some people will be paying less taxes under these plans and those that haven't been paying their fair share will see an increase.
It's a start. The fact that more funds will be raised by changing the structure is a plus considering what is happening in our local communities.
I know you've stated what is wrong with the other side but not what remedy you have for this inadequate, unfair and outdated system. I'd like to hear that. So far it sounds as if those that are against taxes absolutely do not want to pay for anything. That in my opinion is going a step backwards and not helping the situation at all.

For example, when Virginia was new they used to appoint a surveyor of roads in a county. It was his job to direct every neighbor along a road to contribute at least 6 days labor, tools and materials to keep the road open. The county records from that era show that many did not do their part. Many complained that it took too much time from their everyday business and cost materials they could not afford. The result was a terrible road system, with no set standard. This was remedied by charging taxes to pay someone else to keep the roads up to a standard. Now I personally do not have the time or resources to fund a dump truck and a steam roller to asphalt my road and I don't want to go back to that system. I don't know about others but it's worth my while to have someone else paid to do that. And I don't want local government which we all know can be mired in petty local politics and pretty quirky to set the standard for the roads. So I'll gladly pay my fair share to keep the road work up and have the state oversee the process.

And respectfully it's not what "voters" are in the picture, but what tax payers are in the picture. Formula, diapers, clothing, toys, McDonald's we pay state taxes on all that. So all in the picture are tax payers and do have a stake in this. Especially the children.

[John K.]

Regarding the head count at the protest and counter-protest, I've spotted at least two kids in the photo accompanying the original posting. Are children counted as demonstators (on either side)?

[John K.]

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the idea that tax reform in Virginia should proceed in the fashion suggested by Denise: (1) raise more revenue by raising tax rates; (2) figure out what to do with all the money after it's been collected (i.e., a two-step process instituting a "tax system in Virginia that is updated, (the income tax brackets haven't changed since 1926), adequate for services and fairly collected. And then it's what taxes are spent on and where...."). Perhaps a compromise position could be fashioned where users of certain public services are taxed (or pay "user fees") as these services are drawn upon. Gasoline taxes and toll roads are clear examples of this type of revenue collection.

[Denise]

Whoa John K. You opened up a can of worms there. You know that due to population, median income etc. some jurisdictions do pay less in taxes, (creating that gap) than others. Some areas are limited by their population growth to adequately suppy needs of good roads, sewer and water systems, schools, etc. etc. etc. without raising taxes apportionately and running everyone out of the area. Larger metropolitan areas do have more population to draw from but greater needs to service that population. What revenue is raised and where it is spent is another part of the equation. You haven't heard about it because it's one of those taboo areas but I don't think the answer is to pit one jurisdiction against another jurisdiction for funding in one state.

Yes you may raise higher revenue taxes in one populated locality than another but rural citizens may pay higher gasoline taxes getting to and from work, higher property and local taxes than you would in the city. And all of it has to balance out to be good for the "Commonwealth" and EACH of our citizens regardless of where they live. All should benefit from the taxes paid. We all contribute to the fund. How are you going to divide this out? Yes you may pay more state income tax because in Northern Virginia median income is higher. But they may smoke more in the Southwest and Southside Va and create a lot of revenue from the cigarette tax. To me this is a two stage process. One is to create a tax system in Virginia that is updated, (the income tax brackets haven't changed since 1926), adequate for services and fairly collected. And then it's what taxes are spent on and where. Adding we need to press our jurisdictions about spending money wisely too. Long battle but we've got to start somewhere. Idealistic yes, Impossible NO.

[John K.]

Apparently, some are troubled by the fact that local taxes are increasing because there reportedly is less state tax revenue returned to local jurisdictions through the convoluted car tax system. While "the first law of economics is 'there is no free lunch,'" it is equally true that, for the most part, those who receive government services should be expected to pay for them. Therefore, it may be perfectly appropriate that some Virginia citizens are paying more in local taxes than if we had kept the car tax. Somebody has to pay for such services. To be "fair," raising the statewide tax burden shouldn't be seen as a cure-all for gaps in local revenue streams.

If tax reform truly is necessary, shouldn't a major component of such reform be to insure that there is some overall balance between the amount of tax revenue raised in a particular jurisdiction and what is returned to that jurisdiction? Why haven't we heard more in this budget debate about the connection between tax revenue raised and tax revenue spent in any particular area of this Commonwealth?

[Denise]

Why more revenue is necessary? Because the first law of economics is "there is no free lunch." When the car tax was put up for elimination I was a anti-tax advocate. Then came the realization that to make up for that tax our local officials had to raise taxes in our county. And now I'm paying more than I would have if we had kept the car tax. Gov. Warner cut $6 Billion dollars from state service agencies. Result now our roads from snow etc. are cleared from a snow storm by contractors and I am lucky mine is cleared 2 days after a storm. Makes it kind of hard for me to get to my job to pay those taxes. Our local school system is juggling funds by not hiring teachers or allowing them tenure. We have lost some very good educators because there is no budget to pay them. Why resist a referendum on this issue? Because the legislature has initiated so many studies on Virginia's tax structure going back many legislatures that it is time for them to do the job they were elected for. IT's a very political issue. In the past to avoid any election conflict and to ensure they were elected again they voted for another tax study rather than take action. The tax studies are in and it's time for them to take action. If you look at what the legislature is really arguing about, it's not really the amount but where those taxes will be generated from. We have an outdated, unfair, inadequate tax system that the legislature needs to repair. A referendum won't do that but is just another way to postpone what our elected officials should have performed years ago. Is there waste in government? Of course there is. I have waste in my household budget too. I didn't need that box of donuts bought yesterday. These things can be remedied by forcing our state agencies to account for what they spend. We are not going to get out of paying taxes if we want services like safe roads, good teachers etc. My biggest problem with anti tax folks now is that they do not see what they use that taxes paid for. What most pay in taxes would not asphalt a small driveway much less the road you drive on. It's not what is paid but making the burden fair to all of us.

[John K.]

It's fine to run a counter protest, but it seems apparent that tax increase advocates cannot (or will not) explain why Virginians should be saddled with a higher tax burden.

There apparently are a handful of very dedicated individuals on either side of this debate willing to take spend (err...invest) the time necessary to attend these types of public demonstations. But, for the most part, the general electorate is simply too busy to bother with these protests. Is there any particular reason why the tax increase advocates are resisting a referndum on the issue? That likely would assure a more representative opinion sampling of the issue from those asked to bear the burden of higher taxes.