As I have mentioned in earlier posts, there are two main thrusts against HB6055: the tax argument and the lack of accountability argument. Jim Bowden has been fantastic about the latter, but there hasn’t been much discussion on the former – and for that, I owe the blogosphere an apology. While I was the first blogger to hit HB3202 and HB6055 from the right (albeit in both cases by the dumb luck of having stumbled on them hours before Jim did), I have been lax in explaining why raising taxes on Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads is such a terrible idea this year.
For the folks in the jurisdictions who have to pay the higher taxes, it’s something of an easier sell. Still, I think it’s best to go through them.
The damage done by the taxes in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads: Both regions will face a commercial real estate tax (like last year). While commercial real estate has not grabbed the headlines as residential real estate has, imposing a tax like this cripples the entire business sector in both regions. While part of the tax will be passed on to consumers (as it increases cost), part of it will be absorbed by the business, including some who will not be able to handle it. With the economy on the knife’s edge, imposing an extra cost on business is, well, unwise.
NoVa localities are “allowed” to impose a .4% grantor’s tax (I put that in quotes because localities that don’t impose the taxes lose out on road projects under the bill, so basically, local officials have a gun pointed at their heads on this one). A grantor’s tax is basically a sales tax for a home. That’s right, Northern Virginia, still reeling from the housing bubble burst, no has to suffer under a tax increase that is felt with every house sold. It was so knuckle-headed that only Tim Kaine thought it a good idea until last Thursday - you read that right, Albo and Hamilton (and Bill Howell) borrowed one of Timmay‘s worst ideas and made it their own.
The other taxes (rental cars and, for NoVa, hotel stays) may look like tourist taxes in other places, but in these two regions, this is effectively a business-trip tax – yet another cost to be born by the business community that is heroically trying to stave off recession.
All of these taxes do damage to the local economies that would override any supposed benefits of the transportation funding (and as Jim B. has noted time and time again, such “benefits” are mythical at best). Still, folks outside the two regions might wonder why they should be so concerned about tax increases that do not directly affect them. I’ll have the answer to that in Part II.
Posted by D.J. McGuire 

