Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
12.5% Tax on Hot Food
()
Date: February 06, 2016 07:08PM
Went to a hot food bar at a grocery store in Fairfax City today. Purchased food (quality blah but I was hungry) plus a bottle of Pepsi. Looked at the receipt and saw this:
Tax 1 6.0%
Tax 2 2.5%
Tax 3 4.0%
Does anyone know what these three taxes might be?
Tax 1 6.0%
Tax 2 2.5%
Tax 3 4.0%
Does anyone know what these three taxes might be?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
19 for me and 1 for you
()
Date: February 06, 2016 07:16PM
The first one is the state sales tax. Not sure about the other two.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
FpYWU
()
Date: February 06, 2016 07:45PM
4% is FFX City Meal Tax for "prepared food".
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/commissioner-of-the-revenue/sales-excise-tax/meals-tax
2.5% tax have been the tax on Food
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/commissioner-of-the-revenue/sales-excise-tax/va-sales-tax
6% tax may have been for the soda, standard "non food" VA sales tax?
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/commissioner-of-the-revenue/sales-excise-tax/meals-tax
2.5% tax have been the tax on Food
http://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/commissioner-of-the-revenue/sales-excise-tax/va-sales-tax
6% tax may have been for the soda, standard "non food" VA sales tax?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Tax Man
()
Date: February 06, 2016 07:47PM
See what the different taxes are applied to. 1+3 10% tax was probably applied to the hot to go food, and the 2.5% to grocery items (probably the Pepsi).
http://www.tax.virginia.gov/content/food-tax
http://www.tax.virginia.gov/content/food-tax
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
No news here
()
Date: February 07, 2016 05:27PM
Pretty much every area jurisdiction but Clifton and Fairfax COUNTY have a meals tax.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
....
()
Date: February 07, 2016 06:44PM
One is the Kosher Tax.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Taxman
()
Date: February 08, 2016 05:13PM
No news here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty much every area jurisdiction but Clifton
> and Fairfax COUNTY have a meals tax.
Thankfully.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty much every area jurisdiction but Clifton
> and Fairfax COUNTY have a meals tax.
Thankfully.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Not rocket science
()
Date: February 08, 2016 05:28PM
Yeah, they all collect meals tax money from us when we dine there, and we collect NO meals tax money from them when they dine here. Cool. Just not for us.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Actually...
()
Date: February 08, 2016 08:03PM
So you're suggesting that since they think it's okay to pay ever more in taxes that it should be fine for us too?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Slop Them Down
()
Date: February 08, 2016 08:38PM
12.5% Tax on Hot Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Went to a hot food bar at a grocery store in
> Fairfax City today. Purchased food (quality blah
> but I was hungry) plus a bottle of Pepsi. Looked
> at the receipt and saw this:
>
> Tax 1 6.0%
> Tax 2 2.5%
> Tax 3 4.0%
>
> Does anyone know what these three taxes might be?
One of the taxes is for being dumb enough to eat out of a public trough.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Went to a hot food bar at a grocery store in
> Fairfax City today. Purchased food (quality blah
> but I was hungry) plus a bottle of Pepsi. Looked
> at the receipt and saw this:
>
> Tax 1 6.0%
> Tax 2 2.5%
> Tax 3 4.0%
>
> Does anyone know what these three taxes might be?
One of the taxes is for being dumb enough to eat out of a public trough.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
fracturedfairfax
()
Date: February 08, 2016 10:18PM
Taxman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No news here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pretty much every area jurisdiction but Clifton
> > and Fairfax COUNTY have a meals tax.
>
That's because due to a quirk in the law, cities and towns can enact a meals tax without having to get public approval in the form of a referendum.
The enabling legislation for towns is Virginia Code § 58.1-3840. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3840/, while for counties it's § 58.1-3833 http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3833/.
Here's a short list of meals taxes in local jurisdictions:
Arlington - 4.0%, passed in 1991. There was a special carve-out in the law that allowed them to pass a meals tax without seeking a voter referendum.
Alexandria - 4.0% Originally passed at 1% in 1975.
Fairfax City - 4.0%
Falls Church - 4.0%
Herndon - 2.5%, originally passed in 2003 at 1.5%. Increased to 2.5% in 2011.
Manassas - 4.0%, passed in 1988.
Mansassas Park 4.0%, passed in 1991.
Vienna - 3.0% Enacted in 1990. Hiked to 4.0% in 2001, but later reduced.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No news here Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pretty much every area jurisdiction but Clifton
> > and Fairfax COUNTY have a meals tax.
>
That's because due to a quirk in the law, cities and towns can enact a meals tax without having to get public approval in the form of a referendum.
The enabling legislation for towns is Virginia Code § 58.1-3840. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3840/, while for counties it's § 58.1-3833 http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-3833/.
Here's a short list of meals taxes in local jurisdictions:
Arlington - 4.0%, passed in 1991. There was a special carve-out in the law that allowed them to pass a meals tax without seeking a voter referendum.
Alexandria - 4.0% Originally passed at 1% in 1975.
Fairfax City - 4.0%
Falls Church - 4.0%
Herndon - 2.5%, originally passed in 2003 at 1.5%. Increased to 2.5% in 2011.
Manassas - 4.0%, passed in 1988.
Mansassas Park 4.0%, passed in 1991.
Vienna - 3.0% Enacted in 1990. Hiked to 4.0% in 2001, but later reduced.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
4Xbdj
()
Date: February 09, 2016 03:41AM
Not rocket science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, they all collect meals tax money from us
> when we dine there, and we collect NO meals tax
> money from them when they dine here. Cool. Just
> not for us.
Are you suggesting that a Fairfax county meals tax would be paid back to the Fairfax county tax payers in some way like lowering some other tax?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, they all collect meals tax money from us
> when we dine there, and we collect NO meals tax
> money from them when they dine here. Cool. Just
> not for us.
Are you suggesting that a Fairfax county meals tax would be paid back to the Fairfax county tax payers in some way like lowering some other tax?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 09, 2016 10:52AM
fracturedfairfax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's because due to a quirk in the law, cities
> and towns can enact a meals tax without having to
> get public approval in the form of a referendum.
Nevertheless, 49 of Virginia's 95 counties do impose a meals tax, along with every independent city and more than 100 towns.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's because due to a quirk in the law, cities
> and towns can enact a meals tax without having to
> get public approval in the form of a referendum.
Nevertheless, 49 of Virginia's 95 counties do impose a meals tax, along with every independent city and more than 100 towns.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 09, 2016 11:10AM
4Xbdj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you suggesting that a Fairfax county meals tax
> would be paid back to the Fairfax county tax
> payers in some way like lowering some other tax?
Every jurisdiction will benefit from having diversified sources of funding. A 4% meals tax would net about $90 million per year to the County. 35-40% of that would come from those who are not County residents (tourists, business travelers, commuters, etc.), and another large chunk would come from County residents who are wealthy enough to dine out both well and often. The reliable flow of such funds would make it easier for the Board of Supervisors to minimize annual increases in the basic RE rate that all and only county residents pay.
As noted above, there are currently meals tax outflows from Fairfax County, but nothing in the way of offsetting inflows. How is that a good thing for us? Show your work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you suggesting that a Fairfax county meals tax
> would be paid back to the Fairfax county tax
> payers in some way like lowering some other tax?
Every jurisdiction will benefit from having diversified sources of funding. A 4% meals tax would net about $90 million per year to the County. 35-40% of that would come from those who are not County residents (tourists, business travelers, commuters, etc.), and another large chunk would come from County residents who are wealthy enough to dine out both well and often. The reliable flow of such funds would make it easier for the Board of Supervisors to minimize annual increases in the basic RE rate that all and only county residents pay.
As noted above, there are currently meals tax outflows from Fairfax County, but nothing in the way of offsetting inflows. How is that a good thing for us? Show your work.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: February 09, 2016 12:31PM
Let me flip that on you Add It Up.
I don't mind cooking so I only eat out maybe once a week for lunch, when I have dates or when I am on the road. Because Virginia chose to tax groceries at a lower rate than other items, I not only get to avoid paying taxes on the labor cost added element of most of my meals, but also pay taxes on the ingredient element at a low 2.5% rate. My neighbor prefers delivery, which means that he is already paying sales taxes at a higher rate, plus he is paying them on the labor cost of preparing his meal. Say my meal costs $10 in ingredients and his costs $25. I pay sales tax on my meal of twenty-five cents. He pays sales tax of $1.50. The state and local government has already profitted by an additional $1.25 from my neighbor's decision to get delivery. So why is it that my neighbor, having already paid the state and local government an additional $1.25 in sales tax for the privilege of having someone else prepare his food, should have to pay an additional $1 for meal taxes?
The reason of course is the perception that the guy who is already willing to spend an additional $16.25 for his meal will not balk at spending an extra $1, and can afford to do so. The first may be a valid assumption. The second is not necessarily valid. Many of those who "eat out", do so because working their low income jobs does not leave them with sufficient time to prepare a meal for the family, so they hit the fast food restaurants or premade food bars at grocery stores to get the evening's meal. If their meal comes to $5/person, they would under a meals tax be paying .50 in combined sales and meals taxes while I would be paying .25 in taxes on my $10 in groceries.
I don't mind cooking so I only eat out maybe once a week for lunch, when I have dates or when I am on the road. Because Virginia chose to tax groceries at a lower rate than other items, I not only get to avoid paying taxes on the labor cost added element of most of my meals, but also pay taxes on the ingredient element at a low 2.5% rate. My neighbor prefers delivery, which means that he is already paying sales taxes at a higher rate, plus he is paying them on the labor cost of preparing his meal. Say my meal costs $10 in ingredients and his costs $25. I pay sales tax on my meal of twenty-five cents. He pays sales tax of $1.50. The state and local government has already profitted by an additional $1.25 from my neighbor's decision to get delivery. So why is it that my neighbor, having already paid the state and local government an additional $1.25 in sales tax for the privilege of having someone else prepare his food, should have to pay an additional $1 for meal taxes?
The reason of course is the perception that the guy who is already willing to spend an additional $16.25 for his meal will not balk at spending an extra $1, and can afford to do so. The first may be a valid assumption. The second is not necessarily valid. Many of those who "eat out", do so because working their low income jobs does not leave them with sufficient time to prepare a meal for the family, so they hit the fast food restaurants or premade food bars at grocery stores to get the evening's meal. If their meal comes to $5/person, they would under a meals tax be paying .50 in combined sales and meals taxes while I would be paying .25 in taxes on my $10 in groceries.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Crazy Math
()
Date: February 09, 2016 02:32PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As noted above, there are currently meals tax
> outflows from Fairfax County, but nothing in the
> way of offsetting inflows. How is that a good
> thing for us? Show your work.
Choosing to pay more to eat in Fairfax City (or other places with meal taxes) does not create an "outflow" from Fairfax County.
Meals taxes are regressive and fall mostly on those who live here. Raise the hotel tax 0.25% instead.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As noted above, there are currently meals tax
> outflows from Fairfax County, but nothing in the
> way of offsetting inflows. How is that a good
> thing for us? Show your work.
Choosing to pay more to eat in Fairfax City (or other places with meal taxes) does not create an "outflow" from Fairfax County.
Meals taxes are regressive and fall mostly on those who live here. Raise the hotel tax 0.25% instead.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 09, 2016 07:42PM
Crazy Math Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Choosing to pay more to eat in Fairfax City (or
> other places with meal taxes) does not create an
> "outflow" from Fairfax County.
Follow the bouncing ball. The revenue from Fairfax City meals taxes ends up being spent on Fairfax City programs. As a County resident, I am funding City expenditures. That is money that City residents benefit from, but do not have to pay in themselves. County residents are subsidizing the City. Since the County HAS no meals tax, there is NO corresponding flow going the other way. There is a net outflow by definition.
> Meals taxes are regressive and fall mostly on
> those who live here. Raise the hotel tax 0.25%
> instead.
Sales taxes on FOOD are regressive, which is why they are so low. FOOD of course is associated with meals at home. MEALS TAXES are associated with meals AWAY from home, and are NOT regressive. The poor dine out infrequently and eat at cheaper places. The wealthy eat out often and at high-end places where they run up the tab. As for hotel taxes, they have a much higher price-elasticity than meals taxes do. I doubt that you know what that means, but it limits the ability of adjoining regions to move their rates away from a norm.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Choosing to pay more to eat in Fairfax City (or
> other places with meal taxes) does not create an
> "outflow" from Fairfax County.
Follow the bouncing ball. The revenue from Fairfax City meals taxes ends up being spent on Fairfax City programs. As a County resident, I am funding City expenditures. That is money that City residents benefit from, but do not have to pay in themselves. County residents are subsidizing the City. Since the County HAS no meals tax, there is NO corresponding flow going the other way. There is a net outflow by definition.
> Meals taxes are regressive and fall mostly on
> those who live here. Raise the hotel tax 0.25%
> instead.
Sales taxes on FOOD are regressive, which is why they are so low. FOOD of course is associated with meals at home. MEALS TAXES are associated with meals AWAY from home, and are NOT regressive. The poor dine out infrequently and eat at cheaper places. The wealthy eat out often and at high-end places where they run up the tab. As for hotel taxes, they have a much higher price-elasticity than meals taxes do. I doubt that you know what that means, but it limits the ability of adjoining regions to move their rates away from a norm.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Your Choice
()
Date: February 09, 2016 10:31PM
If you choose to drive to Fairfax City, eat there, and pay the extra tax, that's your business.
I choose to eat in Fairfax County and not donate to Fairfax City.
There are enough quality restaurants in Fairfax County that I never need to eat in Fairfax City.
I choose to eat in Fairfax County and not donate to Fairfax City.
There are enough quality restaurants in Fairfax County that I never need to eat in Fairfax City.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
HpcnD
()
Date: February 09, 2016 10:37PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
MEALS TAXES are associated
> with meals AWAY from home, and are NOT regressive.
> The poor dine out infrequently and eat at cheaper
> places. The wealthy eat out often and at high-end
> places where they run up the tab. As for hotel
> taxes, they have a much higher price-elasticity
> than meals taxes do. I doubt that you know what
> that means, but it limits the ability of adjoining
> regions to move their rates away from a norm.
That's false. All income groups eat a significant percentage of prepared meals away from home. They just eat at less expensive places. And in larger numbers.
-------------------------------------------------------
MEALS TAXES are associated
> with meals AWAY from home, and are NOT regressive.
> The poor dine out infrequently and eat at cheaper
> places. The wealthy eat out often and at high-end
> places where they run up the tab. As for hotel
> taxes, they have a much higher price-elasticity
> than meals taxes do. I doubt that you know what
> that means, but it limits the ability of adjoining
> regions to move their rates away from a norm.
That's false. All income groups eat a significant percentage of prepared meals away from home. They just eat at less expensive places. And in larger numbers.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
It's not that easy
()
Date: February 10, 2016 10:01AM
Your Choice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are enough quality restaurants in Fairfax
> County that I never need to eat in Fairfax City.
Make sure to avoid Vienna, Herndon, Falls Church City, Alexandria, Arlington, Manassas, Manassas Park, and of course downtown as well.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are enough quality restaurants in Fairfax
> County that I never need to eat in Fairfax City.
Make sure to avoid Vienna, Herndon, Falls Church City, Alexandria, Arlington, Manassas, Manassas Park, and of course downtown as well.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 10, 2016 10:32AM
HpcnD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's false. All income groups eat a significant
> percentage of prepared meals away from home. They
> just eat at less expensive places. And in larger
> numbers.
It's not healthy to be that stupid. Sign up to go back and get your GED. Meals away from home have a high income-elasticity of demand. That is to say that as your income increases, your propensity to dine out increases faster. People on food stamps don't regularly dine out. People with six-figure incomes do.
Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's false. All income groups eat a significant
> percentage of prepared meals away from home. They
> just eat at less expensive places. And in larger
> numbers.
It's not healthy to be that stupid. Sign up to go back and get your GED. Meals away from home have a high income-elasticity of demand. That is to say that as your income increases, your propensity to dine out increases faster. People on food stamps don't regularly dine out. People with six-figure incomes do.
Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
j3pJn
()
Date: February 10, 2016 04:19PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HpcnD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's false. All income groups eat a
> significant
> > percentage of prepared meals away from home.
> They
> > just eat at less expensive places. And in
> larger
> > numbers.
>
> It's not healthy to be that stupid. Sign up to go
> back and get your GED. Meals away from home have
> a high income-elasticity of demand. That is to
> say that as your income increases, your propensity
> to dine out increases faster. People on food
> stamps don't regularly dine out. People with
> six-figure incomes do.
>
> Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries.
It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out (other than maybe at the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the same range across all income groups. In fact, as a percentage of their income it's greater at lower income levels. Meals out and subject to tax are not limited only to those wealthy and 'dining out' at restaurants. The difference in the individual dollar value of any given meal between upper and lower groups is offset by larger numbers of individuals and meals out at the lower end such that the overall dollar value ends up roughly equal.
-------------------------------------------------------
> HpcnD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's false. All income groups eat a
> significant
> > percentage of prepared meals away from home.
> They
> > just eat at less expensive places. And in
> larger
> > numbers.
>
> It's not healthy to be that stupid. Sign up to go
> back and get your GED. Meals away from home have
> a high income-elasticity of demand. That is to
> say that as your income increases, your propensity
> to dine out increases faster. People on food
> stamps don't regularly dine out. People with
> six-figure incomes do.
>
> Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries.
It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out (other than maybe at the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the same range across all income groups. In fact, as a percentage of their income it's greater at lower income levels. Meals out and subject to tax are not limited only to those wealthy and 'dining out' at restaurants. The difference in the individual dollar value of any given meal between upper and lower groups is offset by larger numbers of individuals and meals out at the lower end such that the overall dollar value ends up roughly equal.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
At least
()
Date: February 10, 2016 10:27PM
According to the statements above, at least 60% of Fairfax County residents eat out regularly. And most of them don't want to pay more to do so, either as a tax or to subsidize an increased minimum wage.
Fairfax County tried to implement a meals tax years ago. It failed miserably. It will again. Waste of time to even discuss this.
It's good that the state is able to prevent local government from hurting its citizens in this case.
Fairfax County tried to implement a meals tax years ago. It failed miserably. It will again. Waste of time to even discuss this.
It's good that the state is able to prevent local government from hurting its citizens in this case.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
fracturedfairfax
()
Date: February 11, 2016 04:29AM
The thing that offends me most and hardens my opposition to the idea of a meals tax is that Fairfax County back in 2010 tried to get a change in § 58.1-3833 to add themselves to the list of counties (Arlington, Frederick, Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge) that can impose a meals tax without a public referendum.*
This little bit of legislative scumbaggery was a deliberate attempt to sidestep the small-D democratic process currently enshrined in the law, which requires those who would impose taxes obtain the approval of those who would actually pay them.
If Fairfax County thinks it's such an astoundingly wonderful idea to have a meals tax, they should put it to a fucking referendum like they're supposed to. They shouldn't try to get the rules of the game changed so they can do an end run around their citizens.
*See HB830, Food and beverage tax; adds Fairfax County to those that may impose. https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb830/
This little bit of legislative scumbaggery was a deliberate attempt to sidestep the small-D democratic process currently enshrined in the law, which requires those who would impose taxes obtain the approval of those who would actually pay them.
If Fairfax County thinks it's such an astoundingly wonderful idea to have a meals tax, they should put it to a fucking referendum like they're supposed to. They shouldn't try to get the rules of the game changed so they can do an end run around their citizens.
*See HB830, Food and beverage tax; adds Fairfax County to those that may impose. https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb830/
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
MFEvD
()
Date: February 11, 2016 06:41AM
A flat tax is regressive since it punishes those with lower incomes who have less excess income to spend. Generally speaking, this is why all perfectly flat taxes are bad.
Secondly, giving the County another source of income will just addict them to the money. If having diverse sources of funding is so wonderful, why not tax everything? How about tolls in and out of the County? Keep those freeloaders out of the County.
Nonresidents eating in the County do other things like shop here, buy gas here, pay tips here to local citizens, why do want to drive them out?
Secondly, giving the County another source of income will just addict them to the money. If having diverse sources of funding is so wonderful, why not tax everything? How about tolls in and out of the County? Keep those freeloaders out of the County.
Nonresidents eating in the County do other things like shop here, buy gas here, pay tips here to local citizens, why do want to drive them out?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Synonym for LOSERS
()
Date: February 11, 2016 01:56PM
*See HB830, Food and beverage tax; adds Fairfax County to those that may impose. https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb830/
Status: FAILED IN COMMITTEE.
What's the word for those losers who tried for a meals tax?
Status: FAILED IN COMMITTEE.
What's the word for those losers who tried for a meals tax?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
fracturedfairfax
()
Date: February 11, 2016 02:40PM
Synonym for LOSERS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *See HB830, Food and beverage tax; adds Fairfax
> County to those that may impose.
> https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb830/
>
> Status: FAILED IN COMMITTEE.
>
> What's the word for those losers who tried for a
> meals tax?
Scott Surovell introduced the bill, and it was co-sponsored by Dave Englin and Kaye Kory. Without knowing anything about the particulars, I'd say the BoS put Surovell up to it.
The word you're looking for, by the way, is "scumbags". Regardless of whether or not a meals tax is a good (or at least necessary) thing, it's an act of high-order scumbaggery to try to get the law changed so you can impose one without seeking the approval of your constituents.
-------------------------------------------------------
> *See HB830, Food and beverage tax; adds Fairfax
> County to those that may impose.
> https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2010/hb830/
>
> Status: FAILED IN COMMITTEE.
>
> What's the word for those losers who tried for a
> meals tax?
Scott Surovell introduced the bill, and it was co-sponsored by Dave Englin and Kaye Kory. Without knowing anything about the particulars, I'd say the BoS put Surovell up to it.
The word you're looking for, by the way, is "scumbags". Regardless of whether or not a meals tax is a good (or at least necessary) thing, it's an act of high-order scumbaggery to try to get the law changed so you can impose one without seeking the approval of your constituents.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
makes sense
()
Date: February 11, 2016 02:55PM
fracturedfairfax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vienna - 3.0% Enacted in 1990. Hiked to 4.0% in
> 2001, but later reduced.
Vienna had to reduce it. There is no place in Vienna worth paying a 4% surcharge.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vienna - 3.0% Enacted in 1990. Hiked to 4.0% in
> 2001, but later reduced.
Vienna had to reduce it. There is no place in Vienna worth paying a 4% surcharge.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 11, 2016 04:35PM
j3pJn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out (other than maybe at
> the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the same range across all
> income groups.
No, you are shoveling major loads of backwards bullshit. According to BLS data, the bottom 20% of households by income spent just under 30% of their food budget on food away from home. This came to an average annual outlay of just over $1,000. The middle 20% meanwhile spent 39% of their food budget eating out, which worked out to an average annual outlay $2,100. In the top 20%, 48% of all spending on food was for meals away from home, and the average annual outlay for it was more than $5,100.
Simple facts: As household income rises, more is spent on food. And a higher and higher percentage of it is spent on food away from home.
Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are
wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way around the actual data.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out (other than maybe at
> the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the same range across all
> income groups.
No, you are shoveling major loads of backwards bullshit. According to BLS data, the bottom 20% of households by income spent just under 30% of their food budget on food away from home. This came to an average annual outlay of just over $1,000. The middle 20% meanwhile spent 39% of their food budget eating out, which worked out to an average annual outlay $2,100. In the top 20%, 48% of all spending on food was for meals away from home, and the average annual outlay for it was more than $5,100.
Simple facts: As household income rises, more is spent on food. And a higher and higher percentage of it is spent on food away from home.
Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are
wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way around the actual data.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Get a grip...
()
Date: February 11, 2016 04:56PM
fracturedfairfax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The word you're looking for, by the way, is "scumbags".
> Regardless of whether or not a meals tax is a good (or at
> least necessary) thing, it's an act of high-order scumbaggery
> to try to get the law changed so you can impose one without
> seeking the approval of your constituents.
While you were not paying any attention at all, an impudent and mean-spirited state legislature full of envious and resentful hicks and hayseeds has been busy trying to hamstring NoVa counties out of their ability to fund themselves while siphoning off carloads of funding for all manner of downstate programs. Representing well over 1.1 million people, the Fairfax County Board should CLEARLY have its own taxing authority, but it does not because of the peccadilloes of a band of Old Guard buffoons in Richmond. Citizen involvement should meanwhile end at the ballot box. Direct democracy after all is quite nearly the worst of all possible forms of government. We do NOT want to go there.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The word you're looking for, by the way, is "scumbags".
> Regardless of whether or not a meals tax is a good (or at
> least necessary) thing, it's an act of high-order scumbaggery
> to try to get the law changed so you can impose one without
> seeking the approval of your constituents.
While you were not paying any attention at all, an impudent and mean-spirited state legislature full of envious and resentful hicks and hayseeds has been busy trying to hamstring NoVa counties out of their ability to fund themselves while siphoning off carloads of funding for all manner of downstate programs. Representing well over 1.1 million people, the Fairfax County Board should CLEARLY have its own taxing authority, but it does not because of the peccadilloes of a band of Old Guard buffoons in Richmond. Citizen involvement should meanwhile end at the ballot box. Direct democracy after all is quite nearly the worst of all possible forms of government. We do NOT want to go there.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Fukcem
()
Date: February 11, 2016 08:00PM
Who cares? Why would anyone want to eat out in Fairfax County? There is a severe lack of upscale restaurants, most being corporate owned and terrible. I can't believe how many of you ignorant slugs think that the food at the Olive Garden, Hooters, Blue Iguana, Road House, Uncle Julio's, PF Chang's, Coastal Flats, Ozzie's, or the various counters at Whole Foods is outstanding. Obviously you don't know good food. If you had any sense and world experiences, you would avoid these place at all costs; total crap food and crappier service. The only exception might be L'Auberge Chez Francois in Great Falls, Capital Grill, and Ruth's Chris (sort-of). Head to DC for anything edible, upscale, and appetizing.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Chef Boyardee
()
Date: February 11, 2016 08:23PM
Thank you, Voice of Ignorance.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Thank you Richmond
()
Date: February 11, 2016 08:56PM
Get a grip... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> million people, the Fairfax County Board should
> CLEARLY have its own taxing authority,
So thankful that Richmond is looking out for the taxpayers of Fairfax County, as we have a BoS and School Board who would tax the shit out of us if that could.
-------------------------------------------------------
> million people, the Fairfax County Board should
> CLEARLY have its own taxing authority,
So thankful that Richmond is looking out for the taxpayers of Fairfax County, as we have a BoS and School Board who would tax the shit out of us if that could.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
F44DP
()
Date: February 11, 2016 10:59PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j3pJn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out
> (other than maybe at
> > the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the
> same range across all
> > income groups.
>
> No, you are shoveling major loads of backwards
> bullshit. According to BLS data, the bottom 20%
> of households by income spent just under 30% of
> their food budget on food away from home. This
> came to an average annual outlay of just over
> $1,000. The middle 20% meanwhile spent 39% of
> their food budget eating out, which worked out to
> an average annual outlay $2,100. In the top 20%,
> 48% of all spending on food was for meals away
> from home, and the average annual outlay for it
> was more than $5,100.
>
> Simple facts: As household income rises, more is
> spent on food. And a higher and higher percentage
> of it is spent on food away from home.
>
> Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way
> around the actual data.
I said the percentage of income not of food budget. Food represents a larger portion of income spent at lower levels.
On an income basis, per BLS, those making $15K-19K/year spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from home. Those at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about 5.4%. Basically the same across all. In fact those at the very lowest levels with incomes of $5K/year spend more on meals away from home as a percentage of income than the next several income ranges simply because each dollar spent represents a larger percentage of a very low income basis.
Overall, USDA puts the dollar value of spending for food away from home eaten at restaurants at about $300 billion. Add another $25 billion at hotels and motels. For limited-service eating places it's about $250 billion, plus another $70 billion at stores, bars, concessions, etc. Spending at schools is about another $50 billion which could be added. So as I said roughly the same dollar value between restaurants and non-restaurants. For every $500 meal at an "upscale eatery" there are hundreds to thousands of poor bastards grabbing a chili dog near the job site to which meal (not restaurant) taxes apply.
You're also padding your numbers for residents vs non-residents. The county only estimated about 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72% paid by residents.
-------------------------------------------------------
> j3pJn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's false. The percentage of meals eaten out
> (other than maybe at
> > the very bottom 5-10 percentile) is within the
> same range across all
> > income groups.
>
> No, you are shoveling major loads of backwards
> bullshit. According to BLS data, the bottom 20%
> of households by income spent just under 30% of
> their food budget on food away from home. This
> came to an average annual outlay of just over
> $1,000. The middle 20% meanwhile spent 39% of
> their food budget eating out, which worked out to
> an average annual outlay $2,100. In the top 20%,
> 48% of all spending on food was for meals away
> from home, and the average annual outlay for it
> was more than $5,100.
>
> Simple facts: As household income rises, more is
> spent on food. And a higher and higher percentage
> of it is spent on food away from home.
>
> Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way
> around the actual data.
I said the percentage of income not of food budget. Food represents a larger portion of income spent at lower levels.
On an income basis, per BLS, those making $15K-19K/year spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from home. Those at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about 5.4%. Basically the same across all. In fact those at the very lowest levels with incomes of $5K/year spend more on meals away from home as a percentage of income than the next several income ranges simply because each dollar spent represents a larger percentage of a very low income basis.
Overall, USDA puts the dollar value of spending for food away from home eaten at restaurants at about $300 billion. Add another $25 billion at hotels and motels. For limited-service eating places it's about $250 billion, plus another $70 billion at stores, bars, concessions, etc. Spending at schools is about another $50 billion which could be added. So as I said roughly the same dollar value between restaurants and non-restaurants. For every $500 meal at an "upscale eatery" there are hundreds to thousands of poor bastards grabbing a chili dog near the job site to which meal (not restaurant) taxes apply.
You're also padding your numbers for residents vs non-residents. The county only estimated about 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72% paid by residents.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
9wVpx
()
Date: February 12, 2016 04:48AM
I am certain there are people who eat out in ffx because we don't have a meals tax.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
y3UUE
()
Date: February 12, 2016 05:45AM
Get a grip... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While you were not paying any attention at all, an
> impudent and mean-spirited state legislature full
> of envious and resentful hicks and hayseeds has
> been busy trying to hamstring NoVa counties out of
> their ability to fund themselves while siphoning
> off carloads of funding for all manner of
> downstate programs. Representing well over 1.1
> million people, the Fairfax County Board should
> CLEARLY have its own taxing authority, but it does
> not because of the peccadilloes of a band of Old
> Guard buffoons in Richmond. Citizen involvement
> should meanwhile end at the ballot box. Direct
> democracy after all is quite nearly the worst of
> all possible forms of government. We do NOT want
> to go there.
This is some hot logic. So we should pay extra local taxes and the taxes from down state so that we can fund ourselves and the other state projects? Richmond isn't going to lower state taxes to compensate for increased local taxes. Perhaps the local representatives in the state legislature should do their jobs and fight for more state funding for our area instead of trying to find a way to create local taxes to fund their pet projects.
-------------------------------------------------------
> While you were not paying any attention at all, an
> impudent and mean-spirited state legislature full
> of envious and resentful hicks and hayseeds has
> been busy trying to hamstring NoVa counties out of
> their ability to fund themselves while siphoning
> off carloads of funding for all manner of
> downstate programs. Representing well over 1.1
> million people, the Fairfax County Board should
> CLEARLY have its own taxing authority, but it does
> not because of the peccadilloes of a band of Old
> Guard buffoons in Richmond. Citizen involvement
> should meanwhile end at the ballot box. Direct
> democracy after all is quite nearly the worst of
> all possible forms of government. We do NOT want
> to go there.
This is some hot logic. So we should pay extra local taxes and the taxes from down state so that we can fund ourselves and the other state projects? Richmond isn't going to lower state taxes to compensate for increased local taxes. Perhaps the local representatives in the state legislature should do their jobs and fight for more state funding for our area instead of trying to find a way to create local taxes to fund their pet projects.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Wake up call....
()
Date: February 12, 2016 09:30AM
Thank you Richmond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So thankful that Richmond is looking out for the taxpayers
> of Fairfax County, as we have a BoS and School Board who
> would tax the shit out of us if that could.
Stupid douche. Richmond takes NoVa money away and keeps it. Those down-state fatties see you as a cash-cow and you love them for it. Hard to be any dumber than that!
-------------------------------------------------------
> So thankful that Richmond is looking out for the taxpayers
> of Fairfax County, as we have a BoS and School Board who
> would tax the shit out of us if that could.
Stupid douche. Richmond takes NoVa money away and keeps it. Those down-state fatties see you as a cash-cow and you love them for it. Hard to be any dumber than that!
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 12, 2016 10:26AM
F44DP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said the percentage of income not of food budget.
Because those were the only data you could find, not because they are the ones actually relevant to the issue at hand. When you can't understand the question properly, it's not surprising that you can't come up with the right answer.
> Food represents a larger portion of income spent at lower levels.
Only when transfer payments such as SNAP and FARM are irrationally added in. Like it or not, income constraints limit the amount that the poor can spend on food. That's why food-related transfer payments exist. The rich of course face no such constraints.
> On an income basis, per BLS, those making $15K-19K/year
> spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from home. Those
> at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about 5.4%.
> Basically the same across all.
Basically NOT the same across all, and the data are corrupted by the striking non-linearity of the income distribution curve and the fact that there is an upper limit on the volume of food that any person can physically consume. Actual data for dollars spent by quintile were summarized above, with the total spent for food increasing markedly as income rises and the share of that amount spent on food away from home increasing even more markedly than that. Deal with it.
> You're also padding your numbers for residents vs
> non-residents. The county only estimated about
> 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72% paid
> by residents.
More of your statistical jitters at work. 28% of the INDIVIDUALS paying the tax would be non-residents, but 35-40% of the REVENUE COLLECTED would come from them. These people are tourists, business travelers, and commuters. They can and do spend more on a meal out than the average local yokel stopping off at Mickey D's. Apparently you hadn't thought of that.
And as has been repeatedly noted now, another big chunk of meals tax revenues would come from county residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often and at our more upscale eateries. These are just facts. You can't get around them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I said the percentage of income not of food budget.
Because those were the only data you could find, not because they are the ones actually relevant to the issue at hand. When you can't understand the question properly, it's not surprising that you can't come up with the right answer.
> Food represents a larger portion of income spent at lower levels.
Only when transfer payments such as SNAP and FARM are irrationally added in. Like it or not, income constraints limit the amount that the poor can spend on food. That's why food-related transfer payments exist. The rich of course face no such constraints.
> On an income basis, per BLS, those making $15K-19K/year
> spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from home. Those
> at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about 5.4%.
> Basically the same across all.
Basically NOT the same across all, and the data are corrupted by the striking non-linearity of the income distribution curve and the fact that there is an upper limit on the volume of food that any person can physically consume. Actual data for dollars spent by quintile were summarized above, with the total spent for food increasing markedly as income rises and the share of that amount spent on food away from home increasing even more markedly than that. Deal with it.
> You're also padding your numbers for residents vs
> non-residents. The county only estimated about
> 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72% paid
> by residents.
More of your statistical jitters at work. 28% of the INDIVIDUALS paying the tax would be non-residents, but 35-40% of the REVENUE COLLECTED would come from them. These people are tourists, business travelers, and commuters. They can and do spend more on a meal out than the average local yokel stopping off at Mickey D's. Apparently you hadn't thought of that.
And as has been repeatedly noted now, another big chunk of meals tax revenues would come from county residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often and at our more upscale eateries. These are just facts. You can't get around them.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 12, 2016 10:46AM
9wVpx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am certain there are people who eat out in ffx
> because we don't have a meals tax.
If there are, they are too few in number to be reflected in the data. Most people after all couldn't tell you what a meals tax is, much less where one is or isn't collected. Convenience, atmosphere, menu-choices, and overall price level are the sorts of things likely to influence selection of a restaurant, in part because once inside, penny-pinchers can easily control the bottom line by making lower-priced selections from the menu. This is something that everyone understands.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am certain there are people who eat out in ffx
> because we don't have a meals tax.
If there are, they are too few in number to be reflected in the data. Most people after all couldn't tell you what a meals tax is, much less where one is or isn't collected. Convenience, atmosphere, menu-choices, and overall price level are the sorts of things likely to influence selection of a restaurant, in part because once inside, penny-pinchers can easily control the bottom line by making lower-priced selections from the menu. This is something that everyone understands.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Wake-up call
()
Date: February 12, 2016 11:03AM
y3UUE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is some hot logic. So we should pay extra
> local taxes and the taxes from down state so that
> we can fund ourselves and the other state
> projects? Richmond isn't going to lower state
> taxes to compensate for increased local taxes.
> Perhaps the local representatives in the state
> legislature should do their jobs and fight for
> more state funding for our area instead of trying
> to find a way to create local taxes to fund their
> pet projects.
How many decades of abysmal failure are you willing to go through with that approach? The down-state factions realize only too well that their areas don't survive without transfusions of NoVa cash. They aren't going to be changing their views on this ever. Meanwhile, we here in NoVa have a railroad to run. Where are we supposed to turn for funding?
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is some hot logic. So we should pay extra
> local taxes and the taxes from down state so that
> we can fund ourselves and the other state
> projects? Richmond isn't going to lower state
> taxes to compensate for increased local taxes.
> Perhaps the local representatives in the state
> legislature should do their jobs and fight for
> more state funding for our area instead of trying
> to find a way to create local taxes to fund their
> pet projects.
How many decades of abysmal failure are you willing to go through with that approach? The down-state factions realize only too well that their areas don't survive without transfusions of NoVa cash. They aren't going to be changing their views on this ever. Meanwhile, we here in NoVa have a railroad to run. Where are we supposed to turn for funding?
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
K6PCj
()
Date: February 12, 2016 04:00PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F44DP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I said the percentage of income not of food
> budget.
>
> Because those were the only data you could find,
> not because they are the ones actually relevant to
> the issue at hand. When you can't understand the
> question properly, it's not surprising that you
> can't come up with the right answer.
No, because that's the more significant basis. It's actually harder to find since you have to go directly to the CES. The question wasn't what percentage of the money that they spend on food is eating out. It was what percentage of their income is spent on meals away from home and thereby would be subject to such a tax.
>
> > Food represents a larger portion of income spent
> at lower levels.
>
> Only when transfer payments such as SNAP and FARM
> are irrationally added in. Like it or not, income
> constraints limit the amount that the poor can
> spend on food. That's why food-related transfer
> payments exist. The rich of course face no such
> constraints.
Which would mean that even more of their discretionary income is spent on meals away from home since (generally at least) support can't be spent used for prepared foods as counted in that number.
The data also face no such constraints at the top end since it's unbounded, further minimizing the impact at the upper vs the lower ends which are bounded.
>
> > On an income basis, per BLS, those making
> $15K-19K/year
> > spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from
> home. Those
> > at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about
> 5.4%.
> > Basically the same across all.
>
> Basically NOT the same across all, and the data
> are corrupted by the striking non-linearity of the
> income distribution curve and the fact that there
> is an upper limit on the volume of food that any
> person can physically consume. Actual data for
> dollars spent by quintile were summarized above,
> with the total spent for food increasing markedly
> as income rises and the share of that amount spent
> on food away from home increasing even more
> markedly than that. Deal with it.
You're babbling. They eat roughly the same amount as anyone else. The "non-linearity" is in incomes. By definition less at the lower end. So every dollar that they spend on food at home or away represents a larger percentage of their income. Total dollars spent away from home obviously are larger at the higher end but they represent a lower percentage of income. As a percentage of income, the dollars spent on meals away from home are roughly equal across all groups. The effect of a meal (not restaurant) tax is not limited only to the higher income group. It is at least equal if not greater based on less discretionary income to begin with at the lower end.
>
> > You're also padding your numbers for residents
> vs
> > non-residents. The county only estimated about
> > 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72%
> paid
> > by residents.
>
> More of your statistical jitters at work. 28% of
> the INDIVIDUALS paying the tax would be
> non-residents, but 35-40% of the REVENUE COLLECTED
> would come from them. These people are tourists,
> business travelers, and commuters. They can and
> do spend more on a meal out than the average local
> yokel stopping off at Mickey D's. Apparently you
> hadn't thought of that.
Wrong, they wording in the Board summary and several places elsewhere is incorrect. If you look at the source for the estimate you'll find, in the County's own words:
"Based on visitor spending data from the Virginia Tourism Corporation, it is estimated that approximately 28 percent of meals expenditures in Fairfax County are generated by non-County residents."
Which isn't exactly right either but a little closer.
The 28% number is based on an estimated $2,745 million in total tourist spending in Fairfax, of which $631.4 million is estimated spending eating out. At a 4% tax rate that would be $25.3 million of an estimated total meal tax revenue of about $90 million = about 28% of the estimated revenue.
>
> And as has been repeatedly noted now, another big
> chunk of meals tax revenues would come from county
> residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often
> and at our more upscale eateries. These are just
> facts. You can't get around them.
The facts are that about 3/4 of the revenue would come from county residents across all income ranges.
-------------------------------------------------------
> F44DP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I said the percentage of income not of food
> budget.
>
> Because those were the only data you could find,
> not because they are the ones actually relevant to
> the issue at hand. When you can't understand the
> question properly, it's not surprising that you
> can't come up with the right answer.
No, because that's the more significant basis. It's actually harder to find since you have to go directly to the CES. The question wasn't what percentage of the money that they spend on food is eating out. It was what percentage of their income is spent on meals away from home and thereby would be subject to such a tax.
>
> > Food represents a larger portion of income spent
> at lower levels.
>
> Only when transfer payments such as SNAP and FARM
> are irrationally added in. Like it or not, income
> constraints limit the amount that the poor can
> spend on food. That's why food-related transfer
> payments exist. The rich of course face no such
> constraints.
Which would mean that even more of their discretionary income is spent on meals away from home since (generally at least) support can't be spent used for prepared foods as counted in that number.
The data also face no such constraints at the top end since it's unbounded, further minimizing the impact at the upper vs the lower ends which are bounded.
>
> > On an income basis, per BLS, those making
> $15K-19K/year
> > spend about 4.7% of income on meals away from
> home. Those
> > at $50K-$69K about 5.4%. Those above $150K about
> 5.4%.
> > Basically the same across all.
>
> Basically NOT the same across all, and the data
> are corrupted by the striking non-linearity of the
> income distribution curve and the fact that there
> is an upper limit on the volume of food that any
> person can physically consume. Actual data for
> dollars spent by quintile were summarized above,
> with the total spent for food increasing markedly
> as income rises and the share of that amount spent
> on food away from home increasing even more
> markedly than that. Deal with it.
You're babbling. They eat roughly the same amount as anyone else. The "non-linearity" is in incomes. By definition less at the lower end. So every dollar that they spend on food at home or away represents a larger percentage of their income. Total dollars spent away from home obviously are larger at the higher end but they represent a lower percentage of income. As a percentage of income, the dollars spent on meals away from home are roughly equal across all groups. The effect of a meal (not restaurant) tax is not limited only to the higher income group. It is at least equal if not greater based on less discretionary income to begin with at the lower end.
>
> > You're also padding your numbers for residents
> vs
> > non-residents. The county only estimated about
> > 28% non-resident spending. Which means 72%
> paid
> > by residents.
>
> More of your statistical jitters at work. 28% of
> the INDIVIDUALS paying the tax would be
> non-residents, but 35-40% of the REVENUE COLLECTED
> would come from them. These people are tourists,
> business travelers, and commuters. They can and
> do spend more on a meal out than the average local
> yokel stopping off at Mickey D's. Apparently you
> hadn't thought of that.
Wrong, they wording in the Board summary and several places elsewhere is incorrect. If you look at the source for the estimate you'll find, in the County's own words:
"Based on visitor spending data from the Virginia Tourism Corporation, it is estimated that approximately 28 percent of meals expenditures in Fairfax County are generated by non-County residents."
Which isn't exactly right either but a little closer.
The 28% number is based on an estimated $2,745 million in total tourist spending in Fairfax, of which $631.4 million is estimated spending eating out. At a 4% tax rate that would be $25.3 million of an estimated total meal tax revenue of about $90 million = about 28% of the estimated revenue.
>
> And as has been repeatedly noted now, another big
> chunk of meals tax revenues would come from county
> residents who are wealthy enough to dine out often
> and at our more upscale eateries. These are just
> facts. You can't get around them.
The facts are that about 3/4 of the revenue would come from county residents across all income ranges.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
Add It Up
()
Date: February 12, 2016 05:21PM
Here are the facts without all your unsourced hyped-up bullshit.
-- The reason you would have to go to the CES is that standard sources DO NOT USE your methodology. For good reason.
-- Like all food served at schools, FARM meals are defined as food away from home.
-- There is a limit to how much food from anywhere one person can eat. Since there is no such cap on income, the "unbounded" upper bracket will necessarily corrupt the trend. This is a common problem in statistics. I'm hardly surprised that it catches you completely by surprise.
-- Arguing that multiple sources not supporting your claims have simply worded things improperly is beyond childish.
-- Total tourist spending is the wrong number, as it fails to include the taxes that would be paid by those who commute into the county.
-- In other words, you're a hack.
-- Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are
wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way around the actual data.
-- The reason you would have to go to the CES is that standard sources DO NOT USE your methodology. For good reason.
-- Like all food served at schools, FARM meals are defined as food away from home.
-- There is a limit to how much food from anywhere one person can eat. Since there is no such cap on income, the "unbounded" upper bracket will necessarily corrupt the trend. This is a common problem in statistics. I'm hardly surprised that it catches you completely by surprise.
-- Arguing that multiple sources not supporting your claims have simply worded things improperly is beyond childish.
-- Total tourist spending is the wrong number, as it fails to include the taxes that would be paid by those who commute into the county.
-- In other words, you're a hack.
-- Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in annual revenue that the County would realize from a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents. That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the rest would be paid by county residents who are
wealthy enough to dine out often and at our plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way around the actual data.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
xeCKY
()
Date: February 12, 2016 10:11PM
Add It Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are the facts without all your unsourced
> hyped-up bullshit.
>
> -- The reason you would have to go to the CES is
> that standard sources DO NOT USE your methodology.
> For good reason.
They do use the same numbers to answer the same question -- what percentage of income is spent on food at home and food away from home at various income levels. The split between the two as percentages within their food budget as you posed it is a different matter and doesn't address the central issue. That being, how much will a meal tax cost them. The answer being 4% tax (as proposed) on roughly 5% of income which is spent on meals away from home across all income groups.
>
> -- Like all food served at schools, FARM meals are
> defined as food away from home.
And isn't counted other than to the extent that they pay for it with some form of income. As I said, if you want to start subtracting out all of the assistance that gets counted as income at low-income levels then we can probably do that but it's just going to make the percentage of actual earned income spent on prepared foods even greater. Also, I broke schools out separately so that's not included in the overall comparable total revenue numbers.
>
> -- There is a limit to how much food from anywhere
> one person can eat. Since there is no such cap on
> income, the "unbounded" upper bracket will
> necessarily corrupt the trend. This is a common
> problem in statistics. I'm hardly surprised that
> it catches you completely by surprise.
I was the one who pointed out that the upper group was unbounded in responding to your "non-linearity" babble. There is no "corruption of the trend." It's a simple matter of income basis and relative cost. we're not measuring pounds of food eaten, we're counting dollars spent for food. Because the rich can eat no more doesn't affect the relative cost in terms of percentage of income for roughly the same amount of food eaten at lower levels. i.e., Each dollar spent for a unit of food costs those with less income a higher percentage of their income. Simple. Furthermore, the more wealthy can and do spend much more for food in all forms so their cost is not simply limited by some N normalized units of food.
>
> -- Arguing that multiple sources not supporting
> your claims have simply worded things improperly
> is beyond childish.
There are not multiple sources. There are multiple documents produced by the Board which reference the same number and source. Because they fucked up in how they represented their own number isn't on me. The 28% is derived exactly as I gave it above. That is the only number presented as an estimate, there is only one source for it, and the math is the math.
>
> -- Total tourist spending is the wrong number, as
> it fails to include the taxes that would be paid
> by those who commute into the county.
>
> -- In other words, you're a hack.
I used the term "tourist" because that's what they used it in referring to the data, some of which was provided by the Virginia Tourism Corporation. It's actually "visitors" which are comprised of "Commuters, travelers and tourists who pass through Fairfax County."
Stated more clearly from the report:
"Based on visitor spending data from the Virginia Tourism Corporation, it is estimated that approximately 28 percent of meals expenditures in Fairfax County are generated by non-County residents."
>
> -- Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way
> around the actual data.
Again that's bullshit that you're just pulling out of your ass. I gave you the exact source and derivation for the 28% number that the county itself used. It was not, as you claimed, based on a percentage of people. It is 28% of anticipated revenues. That leaves 72% anticipated to be paid by county residents which will be roughly equally shared as a percentage of income across all income groups.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are the facts without all your unsourced
> hyped-up bullshit.
>
> -- The reason you would have to go to the CES is
> that standard sources DO NOT USE your methodology.
> For good reason.
They do use the same numbers to answer the same question -- what percentage of income is spent on food at home and food away from home at various income levels. The split between the two as percentages within their food budget as you posed it is a different matter and doesn't address the central issue. That being, how much will a meal tax cost them. The answer being 4% tax (as proposed) on roughly 5% of income which is spent on meals away from home across all income groups.
>
> -- Like all food served at schools, FARM meals are
> defined as food away from home.
And isn't counted other than to the extent that they pay for it with some form of income. As I said, if you want to start subtracting out all of the assistance that gets counted as income at low-income levels then we can probably do that but it's just going to make the percentage of actual earned income spent on prepared foods even greater. Also, I broke schools out separately so that's not included in the overall comparable total revenue numbers.
>
> -- There is a limit to how much food from anywhere
> one person can eat. Since there is no such cap on
> income, the "unbounded" upper bracket will
> necessarily corrupt the trend. This is a common
> problem in statistics. I'm hardly surprised that
> it catches you completely by surprise.
I was the one who pointed out that the upper group was unbounded in responding to your "non-linearity" babble. There is no "corruption of the trend." It's a simple matter of income basis and relative cost. we're not measuring pounds of food eaten, we're counting dollars spent for food. Because the rich can eat no more doesn't affect the relative cost in terms of percentage of income for roughly the same amount of food eaten at lower levels. i.e., Each dollar spent for a unit of food costs those with less income a higher percentage of their income. Simple. Furthermore, the more wealthy can and do spend much more for food in all forms so their cost is not simply limited by some N normalized units of food.
>
> -- Arguing that multiple sources not supporting
> your claims have simply worded things improperly
> is beyond childish.
There are not multiple sources. There are multiple documents produced by the Board which reference the same number and source. Because they fucked up in how they represented their own number isn't on me. The 28% is derived exactly as I gave it above. That is the only number presented as an estimate, there is only one source for it, and the math is the math.
>
> -- Total tourist spending is the wrong number, as
> it fails to include the taxes that would be paid
> by those who commute into the county.
>
> -- In other words, you're a hack.
I used the term "tourist" because that's what they used it in referring to the data, some of which was provided by the Virginia Tourism Corporation. It's actually "visitors" which are comprised of "Commuters, travelers and tourists who pass through Fairfax County."
Stated more clearly from the report:
"Based on visitor spending data from the Virginia Tourism Corporation, it is estimated that approximately 28 percent of meals expenditures in Fairfax County are generated by non-County residents."
>
> -- Again, 35-40% of the estimated $90 million in
> annual revenue that the County would realize from
> a 4% meals tax would be paid by NON-residents.
> That's OTHER PEOPLE. A significant chunk of the
> rest would be paid by county residents who are
> wealthy enough to dine out often and at our
> plethora of upscale eateries. There is no way
> around the actual data.
Again that's bullshit that you're just pulling out of your ass. I gave you the exact source and derivation for the 28% number that the county itself used. It was not, as you claimed, based on a percentage of people. It is 28% of anticipated revenues. That leaves 72% anticipated to be paid by county residents which will be roughly equally shared as a percentage of income across all income groups.
Re: Does Fairfax City Already Have A Meals Tax?
Posted by:
TLDR123
()
Date: February 13, 2016 07:57AM
The posts have gotten too long at the end and no one cares anymore. However, just as a quick note, the one of you two that keeps trying to disprove the spending (percentage of income?) isn't about the same .. You sound like a butt hurt basement dweller. Like the kind of person who starts breathing heavy when you see a new reply, face turns red, and then frantically googles to try and find a supporting statistic. Give it up sport.