The nation’s eyes turn to Virginia this November as the nation’s only gubernatorial race plays out. Since I am a blogger from VA, I have been receiving all Kilgore’s (R) press releases. Kilgore was formerly the VA Attorney General. Kaine is his opponent. For excellent commentary on the race, check out Commonwealth Conservative. (even better go directly to his category on the issue) Here is letter I sent to Kilgore’s press secretary in response to a misleading press release:
Tim Murtaugh,
I am definitely rooting for Kilgore. I blog at The (not so) Daily Me.
Don’t you think that there are enough legit issues (tax and otherwise) to bash Kaine about? When you say the following, it raises my eyebrows:
- Tax Bills Went Up in Richmond Under Tim Kaine
In 2000, Richmond City Council reduced the tax rate. And how did that “tax cut” work out for city residents? For an answer, let’s look at Kaine’s own
residence, which makes an appearance in the ad. Let’s assume that his house in Richmond was assessed at $190,600 in 2000.
That means he would have paid a real estate tax of $2725.58 in 2000.
- By 2001, the assessment was $219,200, and the property tax bill would have been $3090.72
- By 2002, the assessment was $245, 500, and the property tax bill would have rocketed to $3412.45
- By 2003, the assessment was $265,100, and the property tax bill would have zoomed to $3658.38
Why blame Kaine for rising property valuations? That is a good thing not a bad thing. And yes, the property tax rate (%) under him did go down, however miniscule an amount that was. In 2001 the effective property tax rate on Kaine’s house was 1.41%. In 2002 it was 1.39%. In 2003 it was 1.38%. Very, incredibly small decreases they were, but decreases nonetheless. To imply that the tax rate went up is opposite of true. His tax bill went up, but the percentage went down slightly. Rising property values are a good thing. While that can put a crimp on the budget, Bill at the INDC Journal gives an excellent overview of what to do in those situations here and here.
If property values would have remained flat over the years, he would have paid $3090.72, $3046.88, $3024.96 in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively. That’s paying a mere $43.84 less and $21.92 less. That’s a coffee a day at Sheetz for 20-45 days. His “tax cut” was an absurdly microscopic amount, but don’t blame him for rising property values as if that was a bad thing. If you would have focused on the ridiculously small size of the cut instead of trying to portray it as an increase, it would have been a lot more believeable and would have made a much better point.
As the old adage goes, you can’t “have your cake and eat it too.” In other words, conservatives can’t focus on the percentage when talking about equal percentage tax cuts for rich and poor alike and then, when it suits them, focus on dollar amounts that are influenced by events outside the realm of tax policy. That just doesn’t hold water.
In conclusion: There are so many legit issues with Kaine. There is no need whatsoever to manufacture additional unconvincing ones.
Sincerely,
Hans Mast
Update: Tim Murtaugh has responded:
“Tim Kaine is cynically telling people he cut taxes as mayor of Richmond. While it is true the rate got reduced by a few pennies, the assessments drove up the actual bills people were paying. So while the rate dropped, the little number that people write onto their checks to send into the government got bigger. When that happens, no one can tell you he cut your taxes. It’s a back-door tax increase that our plan would stop.
Capping the assessments at 5-percent will force localities to be honest. If they need more revenue than a 5-percent assessment increase will bring, they must go to the people and make their case for raising the rates. If they do that, then they take their chances at the ballot box the next time around.
Families live within their means all the time. Why should government be any different?
Our criticism of the ads is simple: Tim Kaine has a record of raising the tax burden on the people of Virginia. In Richmond, homeowners paid higher tax bills. As Lieutenant Governor, he was on the front lines of the battle to raise taxes by $1.4 billion — the biggest tax increase in the history of the Commonwealth.
For him to claim to have a record of tax cutting — and promising to cut taxes in the future — is disingenuous.
He is engaging in a drastic, extreme political make-over from top to bottom.
You can tell a lot about what someone will do in the future by looking at what he has done in the past. And Tim Kaine has a history of tax increases behind him. No amount of TV ads can change that.”
A senior campaign official (Professional journalists, am I doing this right?) told me off the record that Kaine is not credible on the issue of taxes and that a very small tax rate decrease doesn’t erase that. The official said that Kaine who said he was “angry” about a tax cut and presided over a huge tax increase ($1.4 billion) is hypocritical in claiming to be a tax cutter. The official said that Kaine is engaged in an extreme political makeover designed to make him palatable to centrist voters.
A commenter, jdi, said this:
I think property taxes are usually determined by determining budgets, and then allocating those costs across the appraised value of taxable property to get a rate.
A campaign official responded to me with this:
“The assessments are required to be at fair market value (from the Constitution).
In reality, localities write their budgets and then figure out the rate that gets them there. Then, based on political realities, they will may[be] try to lower the tax rate a little (as Kaine did) to be able to say they lowered taxes. Overall, the tax revenue increases, just as the amount of money coming out of people’s pockets escalates.”
Originally posted April 26, 2005 1:41 PM EST
