The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has circulated a letter to all County residents announcing the 2016 Meals Tax Referendum on the November 8 Ballot. The 4 percent tax is not that severe and exceptions to the tax are clear, but the problem is how the new money will be used. The County says 70 percent of net revenues from the new tax will be dedicated to Fairfax Public Schools. That’s fine if those monies will go to the schools in addition to any monies already allocated, but the notice only talks about use of current tax dollars (primarily real estate) to maintain quality schools. So the question must be whether the new revenue will simply OFFSET other General Revenue funds that will simply be spent elsewhere. The answer to that question is unknown. If the money will simply be an offset then the net gain to the Fairfax school system will be zero. The offset ploy is common with revenues from National and State lotteries, will it be the same with this tax?

Good point. There's no control to assure that an offset does not occur. That's primarily because there's no control to keep future spending on a certain trajectory.

That's primarily because of there's no prioritization to speak of. There's a fallacy that any new need must be met with a new tax. We need leaders who are unafraid of killing programs that have minimal benefit, and using the money for higher priorities.

This is the game the play every time. No one is sympathetic to foreign junkets, Supervisor raises, new county government palaces. Nope, its always "for the kids" and voters get suckered into it every time. Supervisors have been too clever this time-voters see through the "kids" ploy and the "well of course your property taxes will go down" nonsense.
If you want to make the argument that its for "the kids", then prepare to answer where all these kids came from, and how its fair to have property owners and restaurant visitors pay for the kids of people who are neither homeowners nor frequent diners.

Rasmus170 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the game the play every time. No one is
> sympathetic to foreign junkets, Supervisor raises,
> new county government palaces. Nope, its always
> "for the kids" and voters get suckered into it
> every time. Supervisors have been too clever this
> time-voters see through the "kids" ploy and the
> "well of course your property taxes will go down"
> nonsense.
> If you want to make the argument that its for "the
> kids", then prepare to answer where all these kids
> came from, and how its fair to have property
> owners and restaurant visitors pay for the kids of
> people who are neither homeowners nor frequent
> diners.

We do not have a problem with illegal immigration in Fairfax County.

Pay up suckers.

The general thought is that the tax will automatically increase funds to the schools of $63 million, however, it will undoubtedly slow or curtail any new funds for the schools this year and decrease future funds transfers to the School Board in future years. This is because the purpose of the meals tax is to REDUCE the dependence of the County on the real estate tax, not make the School system flush with funds.

Personally, I don't see how anyone would vote for a tax on themselves.

You do bring up a good point. Anywhere else, targeted taxes never end up in the long run being allocated to what it was meant for. It's usually a bait and switch just to get it to pass, and it just offsets general funds to be spent elsewhere.

You are correct as well. What is lost in the entire debate is the tax revenue is fungible and even though $65 million will be dedicated funds from the meals tax (if passed) the School System will probably get very little more than that amount for 2018 and they would have gotten an additional funds transfer of $65 million if the referendum fails. The need for funds does not end with the school system and will not eliminate the need for new funds throughout the Fairfax County budget and the necessity to manage them better. Better management and spending restraint is also a very good argument for requiring both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors to exhibit some spending restraint prior to making a new source of revenue available to them for their so-called investment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2016 05:53PM by Inquisitive One.

Meanwhile , our tax funds are being used to defend FCPS on their new transgender policy..........it is going to court. Pay up. Legal expenses are usually pretty high.

But, I'm sure McElveen and crew will take it all the way to SCOTUS if they lose--at taxpayer expense.

­



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2016 01:37PM by chuckhoffmann.

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bulova's mantra of wanting to "diversify the
> county's sources of revenue" just winds up
> sounding like she wants to find new and creative
> ways to pick our collective pockets while ducking
> the massive shitstorm that would follow if the BoS
> raised property taxes more than a couple pennies a
> year.


That might be because that's exactly what it is and the only reason for the proposal.

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tax me, please! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Personally, I don't see how anyone would vote
> for
> > a tax on themselves.
> >
> > You do bring up a good point. Anywhere else,
> > targeted taxes never end up in the long run
> being
> > allocated to what it was meant for. It's usually
> a
> > bait and switch just to get it to pass, and it
> > just offsets general funds to be spent
> elsewhere.
>
> People will vote on taxes like this if they
> genuinely believe the tax is needed for a good
> cause, there's no viable alternative to the new
> tax, and/or it will give them real, measurable
> relief in some other area of taxation.
>
> The problem is that the meals tax seems to fail
> the smell test in all three of these areas.
>
> Bulova's mantra of wanting to "diversify the
> county's sources of revenue" just winds up
> sounding like she wants to find new and creative
> ways to pick our collective pockets while ducking
> the massive shitstorm that would follow if the BoS
> raised property taxes more than a couple pennies a
> year.


Well said, Chuck!

I read the flyer.

I am still against it.

The Dems don't know fiscal responsibility.

They create a problem then demand more tax money to "fix" said problem.

It is the same old story.

They are trying to scare homeowners to vote for this by saying if it doesn't happen their property taxes will be raised to offset it.

All the other liberal counties already have this tax. It was just a matter of time before Fairfax felt like it had the votes to go for it.

Gerry ConMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rasmus170 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is the game the play every time. No one is
> > sympathetic to foreign junkets, Supervisor
> raises,
> > new county government palaces. Nope, its always
> > "for the kids" and voters get suckered into it
> > every time. Supervisors have been too clever
> this
> > time-voters see through the "kids" ploy and the
> > "well of course your property taxes will go
> down"
> > nonsense.
> > If you want to make the argument that its for
> "the
> > kids", then prepare to answer where all these
> kids
> > came from, and how its fair to have property
> > owners and restaurant visitors pay for the kids
> of
> > people who are neither homeowners nor frequent
> > diners.
>
> We do not have a problem with illegal immigration
> in Fairfax County.
>
> Pay up suckers.


"We do not have a problem with illegal immigration
> in Fairfax County"


Yeah, right. You must not leave your house. LOLLLL

Priorities not New Taxes! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's primarily because of there's no prioritization to speak of.
> There's a fallacy that any new need must be met with a new tax.

What a TOTAL DUMBASS. Passing the meals tax will not change levels of County spending. It will merely change the sources of funding for that spending by expanding the universe of contributors to include thousands of tourists, commuters, and business travelers who today pay in token amounts, if anything at all. It's FREE MONEY for County residents. How dumb do you have to be to turn down FREE MONEY.

> We need leaders who are unafraid of killing programs that have minimal
> benefit, and using the money for higher priorities.

Kiss off, asshole. All you want is to cut programs that you think in your sunken state of anti-social vapid stupidity don't benefit LITTLE OLD YOU quite enough. Meanwhile, the Board and staff -- people who are much much much much much much smarter than you -- engage in all sorts of cost-benefit trade-offs that you could never fathom even with the help of a service animal. Go play toy soldiers, troll-boy, and let the real people run things here in the real world.

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bulova's mantra of wanting to "diversify the county's sources
> of revenue" just winds up sounding like she wants to find new
> and creative ways to pick our collective pockets...

Wake up, stupid shit! Any tax policy professional will tell you that it is important to DIVERSIFY sources of revenue. The County today is significantly over-dependent upon property taxes, but thanks to the ancient ways of the outmoded Commonwealth, we have very limited means of spreading things out. A meals tax is one thing we can do, and it ABSOLUTELY is something that we should do.

> ...while ducking the massive shitstorm that would follow if the
> BoS raised property taxes more than a couple pennies a year.

LOL! Make no mistake, douchebag, The Board absolutely WILL raise rates by 10, 12, 15 cents per hundred. Whatever is needed to fund essential County programs and services is what will be forced into affect. This is not a direct democracy. You people do not count. You will not be asked your opinion on the matter. Passage of the meals tax in November will signal that you want some form of property tax relief starting next year. Failure to pass the meals tax will signal your desire that County residents continue to take it in the shorts all by themselves for years and years to come. The ball is in your court. Don't drop it.

phelpsmarc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All the other liberal counties already have this tax. It was
> just a matter of time before Fairfax felt like it had the
> votes to go for it.

Half the counties, ALL of the cities, and more than a hundred towns in Virginia have a meals tax. Why do you suppose that is? Any clue at all???

Can you tell us meanwhile if the restaurant industry in all these other places has collapsed or not?

^^^ Angry libtard day?

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Half the counties, ALL of the cities, and more
> than a hundred towns in Virginia have a meals tax.
> Why do you suppose that is? Any clue at all???

In recent years most jurisdictions where a public vote was required to authorize the meals tax rejected it. Fairfax County rejected it the last time it was proposed. Why is that? No doubt you will fall back on the "voters are stupid" argument, but an objective observer would come to a different conclusion.

The question before Fairfax County voters is not whether "in theory" a meals tax is a good idea for Virginia jurisdictions. The question is under the current circumstances is a meals tax a good idea for Fairfax County. They are not even close to being the same thing.

There's ample fat to cut from the budget if they can give administrators a 7% raise and $24,000 per year in housing allowance.

http://wapo.st/299hZxU?tid=ss_mail

CUT SPENDING! VOTE NO ON THE TAX!

watch the language Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Angry libtard day?

Fuck off, asswipe. It takes some serious language to penetrate the "mind" of an imbecile.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In recent years most jurisdictions where a public vote was
> required to authorize the meals tax rejected it. Fairfax
> County rejected it the last time it was proposed. Why is that?
> No doubt you will fall back on the "voters are stupid" argument..

No, I will fall back on the "You are a worthless fucking liar" argument, one that has been applied to you on various occasions before. Fairfax County last voted on a meals tax in 1992. That is NOT recent by anyone's standards. If you had not been such a partisan horse's ass, you would have noted that meals tax results have been mixed in actually recent years. Since 2007 for instance, voters in nine counties have approved meals tax referenda (Pittsylvania, King William, Rockingham, Southampton, Bath, Halifax, Louisa, Middlesex, and Henrico), while over the same period, ten counties rejected meals tax proposals (Fauquier, Loudoun, Culpeper, Sussex, Accomack, Campbell, Buckingham, Brunswick, Patrick, and Chesterfield). Now, get down on your knees and beg forgiveness for having been such a contemptible douche.

> The question before Fairfax County voters is not
> whether "in theory" a meals tax is a good idea for
> Virginia jurisdictions. The question is under the
> current circumstances is a meals tax a good idea
> for Fairfax County. They are not even close to
> being the same thing.

Wake up, you ignorant stooge! The meals tax is CRITICAL to the stability of our financial future in Fairfax County, The fact that you are too fucking stupid to understand what's at stake here is of no relevance to the question at all. The County and its needs are growing. It makes very little financial or economic sense to continue to pile such a high proportion of tax burden onto the backs of local property owners. A meals tax will transfer some of that burden onto others, and it is the only practical means of accomplishing that objective. It's that simple.

As raised in an earlier post, my biggest concern now is that Fairfax County employees have paid my money generate a letter, and have it mass-printed, and then sent out (paying more money in postage), imploring us to pay more in taxes.

No new taxes. We pay too much as it is. You government guys (including teachers, who, in case you don't know, work for the government) can figure out how to split up the money we already send you.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priorities not New Taxes! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's primarily because of there's no
> prioritization to speak of.
> > There's a fallacy that any new need must be met
> with a new tax.
>
> What a TOTAL DUMBASS. Passing the meals tax will
> not change levels of County spending. It will
> merely change the sources of funding for that
> spending by expanding the universe of contributors
> to include thousands of tourists, commuters, and
> business travelers who today pay in token amounts,
> if anything at all. It's FREE MONEY for County
> residents. How dumb do you have to be to turn
> down FREE MONEY.


Dumb time share suckers pitch.

Yeah, every 'FREE' dollar will only cost county residents $3 or $4 at minimum.

>
> > We need leaders who are unafraid of killing
> programs that have minimal
> > benefit, and using the money for higher
> priorities.
>
> Kiss off, asshole. All you want is to cut
> programs that you think in your sunken state of
> anti-social vapid stupidity don't benefit LITTLE
> OLD YOU quite enough. Meanwhile, the Board and
> staff -- people who are much much much much much
> much smarter than you -- engage in all sorts of
> cost-benefit trade-offs that you could never
> fathom even with the help of a service animal. Go
> play toy soldiers, troll-boy, and let the real
> people run things here in the real world.


Funny coming from the side arguing for a tax increase which will virtually entirely go to pay their LITTLE OLD OWN salary and benefits. Nobody has done any cost-benefit analysis for this. The only thing that they have is a trivial and obviously flawed back-of-napkin revenue estimate. There's no interest in doing any hard analysis since the only relevant answer is more.

The True Fairfax Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As raised in an earlier post, my biggest concern
> now is that Fairfax County employees have paid my
> money generate a letter, and have it mass-printed,
> and then sent out (paying more money in postage),
> imploring us to pay more in taxes.

LOL! You're not a conservative, you're state-hating ANARCHIST. If the County had not publicized the ballot provision, you and your sickening ilk would have been all over complaining that the County was trying to ram this through in the dead of night. Go waste somebody else's time, you pathetic churl.

> No new taxes. We pay too much as it is.

You live in a LOW-TAX AREA, numbnuts! If you cannot afford to live here, MOVE!

> You government guys (including teachers, who, in case
> you don't know, work for the government) can figure out
> how to split up the money we already send you.

Teachers and other public sector workers ALSO pay taxes, you fucking frog. Likely they are smart enough to earn more than you and hence pay more taxes than you as well. They are the ones carrying YOU, you dirtbag loser.

I can't begin to describe how much of a typical condescending lib, and for that matter, douche bag you appear to be.

It would not be critical to initiate this tax, as well as increase property

taxes significantly year after year if your beloved Dems in control knew fiscal

responsibility.

They are getting us to pay for their tax and spend philosophy.

Of course the "needs" are growing:

The County creates the need by welcoming massive ammounts of immigrants and

other poor people from jurisdictions like DC (Section 8 Housing) - so that the Dems can get more votes.

Thus, the public schools are glutted with recent immigrants (many illegal) who need County services. ($$).

The Social Service budgets are mushrooming.

They don't want to change the way they do business, just tax more and more.

The liberal govt wants it's cake and eat it too

Spend, spend, spend.

All the backs of the middle class which is being squeezed.

Wake up.

BTW: the county admits to a projection that less than 30 percent would be paid by out of jurisdiction people.

Over 70 percent would be paid by County residents.

So, County residents who (gosh) want to eat out now and then will primarily be the ones paying.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2016 06:38PM by phelpsmarc.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The True Fairfax Conservative Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As raised in an earlier post, my biggest
> concern
> > now is that Fairfax County employees have paid
> my
> > money generate a letter, and have it
> mass-printed,
> > and then sent out (paying more money in
> postage),
> > imploring us to pay more in taxes.
>
> LOL! You're not a conservative, you're
> state-hating ANARCHIST. If the County had not
> publicized the ballot provision, you and your
> sickening ilk would have been all over complaining
> that the County was trying to ram this through in
> the dead of night. Go waste somebody else's time,
> you pathetic churl.
>
> > No new taxes. We pay too much as it is.
>
> You live in a LOW-TAX AREA, numbnuts! If you
> cannot afford to live here, MOVE!


Then we can just raise the property tax rate instead of playing games with inefficient meals taxes to in order to avoid the political implications.

If you need moderate- and lower-income residents to subsidize your property taxes, MOVE.

phelpsmarc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't begin to describe how much of a typical condescending lib,
> and for that matter, douche bag you appear to be.

LOL! You are a typical preening right-wing dumbass who doesn't know shit from shinola about this or likely any other issue. Get over yourself. Everyone else already has.

> It would not be critical to initiate this tax, as well as increase
> property taxes significantly year after year if your beloved Dems
> in control knew fiscal responsibility.

You manage budgets that are how large again? The depth of your notions of what you foolishly call "fiscal responsibility" are a joke. Meanwhile, the County and its needs continue to grow. Revenues will need to grow to match those needs. Nearly all of that growth will come in your property tax bill if you want it to, or you can shift part of the coming burden off onto others via the meals tax. So how stupid are you, exactly?

> They are getting us to pay for their tax and spend philosophy.

Gee, where have I heard that "tax and spend" bullshit before" Why not just admit that you are a mindless shill for the lowest sorts of manufactured right-wing drivel and propaganda.

> The public schools are glutted with recent immigrants
> (many illegal) who they welcolm with open arms.

The schools have no choice but to admit and educate the students who arrive on their doorstep. Were you somehow NOT AWARE of that???

> The Social Service budgets are mushrooming.

"Mushrooming" is a weasel-word used by people like you who have no rational point to make. Social service budgets everywhere expanded in recent years to meet new and continuing needs created by the Great Recession.

> They don't want to change the way they do
> business, just tax more and more.

There is nothing at all wrong with the way they do business now. The actual problem here is that you don't understand the first thing about any of it. All you do is mewl and whine like some sorry-ass spoiled brat four-year old. Go ask Mommy for some milk and cookies.

> BTW: the county admits to a projection that less than
> 30 percent would be paid by out of jurisdiction people.

LOL! Those are Board of Tourism numbers. Get some that explicitly cover commuters and business travelers as well. And be sure they refer to the percent of expected revenues, not just the percent of expected payers of the tax.

> So, County residents who (gosh) want to eat out
> now and then will primarily be the ones paying.

No, just plain local folks would be well down in the pecking order. When it comes to actual County residents who would be hit by the tax, it would be the wealthy elites who can afford to eat out often and at our most upscale venues who would be first in line to pick up the tab. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this group would not include you.

UeT9W Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then we can just raise the property tax rate instead of playing games
> with inefficient meals taxes to in order to avoid the political
> implications.

Because of state limits on means of local funding, an already higher than desirable share of the burden has been put on property taxes. And let's be clear here -- if you live in the County, you ARE paying property taxes regardless of whether you own or rent. It's all on you. The meals tax would put part of it on other people. But maybe you don't want to give it up?

As for efficiency, all restaurants are already geared up to collect applicable sales taxes. The marginal costs of collecting meals taxes as well are not significant.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UeT9W Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then we can just raise the property tax rate
> instead of playing games
> > with inefficient meals taxes to in order to
> avoid the political
> > implications.
>
> Because of state limits on means of local funding,
> an already higher than desirable share of the
> burden has been put on property taxes. And let's
> be clear here -- if you live in the County, you
> ARE paying property taxes regardless of whether
> you own or rent. It's all on you. The meals tax
> would put part of it on other people. But maybe
> you don't want to give it up?

None of which addresses that your (generally correct) statement that we live in a relatively low tax area. Certainly property taxes are much lower than many other areas. Property taxes are not "higher than desirable" other than from the standpoint of political implications for rasing them. Which is the only reason for the avoidance approach via the meals tax proposal.


>
> As for efficiency, all restaurants are already
> geared up to collect applicable sales taxes. The
> marginal costs of collecting meals taxes as well
> are not significant.


BS. There's a direct rebate back to merchants right off the top. Their POS systems are not set up for meals taxes. There is additional cost in having to do monthly/quarterly sales and use tax reporting and processing for yet another entity. The county has additional costs to set up and manage the process on its side. Then there's audit and enforcement on the back end. The relative costs are much higher vs the very simple and direct process of increasing the rate of the existing property tax.

kJuYt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of which addresses that your (generally correct) statement
> that we live in a relatively low tax area. Certainly property
> taxes are much lower than many other areas. Property taxes are
> not "higher than desirable" other than from the standpoint of
> political implications for rasing them. Which is the only reason
> for the avoidance approach via the meals tax proposal.

Pay attention. The County's reliance on property taxes as a source of revenue is what is too high. Did you manage to copy that this time? The meals tax offers an important and needed means to move some of that burden off onto other sources of revenue.

> BS. There's a direct rebate back to merchants right off the top.

It's a sweetener, dumbo. The marginal costs are not remotely significant, although they do exist.

> Their POS systems are not set up for meals taxes.

LOL! If they are set up for sales taxes (and everyone is), they are set up for meals taxes. Go to Vienna or Herndon and see what kinds of problems they have collecting both. HINT: There ARE no such problems. The same systems handle both taxes at the same time. Duh!

> Then there's audit and enforcement on the back end.

LOL! How many pennies on the dollar would you guess those costs would amount to? Would it round to as high as one? Given that audit and enforcement of sales tax info is ALREADY being done?

> The relative costs are much higher vs the very simple and direct
> process of increasing the rate of the existing property tax.

How difficult is it for you wiener-brained assholes to understand that part of the process here is to SHIFT BURDEN AWAY FROM PROPERTY TAXES. What a bunch of useless fucking douchebags you yahoos are!

By the way, property tax increases engender a whole slew of unbelievably expensive appeals of assessments. Then there are all those changes in escrow accounting and reporting that mortgage service companies have to absorb. Oh, the hUmanity.

PS. You're an ASSHOLE!

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since 2007 for instance,

OK let's use your parameters and not mine. If you count 2007 there have been 22 jurisdictions, not 19. If you start in 2008 there were 21, but one fewer yes votes. You are correct that 9 of those 2007 forward jurisdictions adopted the meals tax, but you undercounted the number that voted no. I said "most" and 13 out of 22 constitutes most. Even by your own count 10 out of 19 were no's, so again "most" is correct. Source is Fairfax County Memo of April 2016. I think you are the one who needs to be begging for forgiveness.

Your list doesn't tell the whole story. You also omitted that the last three jurisdictions to vote were all no. Of the last ten jurisdictions voting, eight have been no. While in suburban Richmond Henrico voted yes in 2013, Chesterfield voted no. The last two Northern Virginia votes were Loudoun and Fauquier in 2008, and both of them were no. Source is again Fairfax County Memo of April 2016. While Faifax and Prince William's votes occurred outside your 2007 forward window, they still mean the last four NoVa votes on the meals tax were all no.

> Wake up, you ignorant stooge!

Oh good the "I don't have a logical comeback so I am going to result to personal attacks" approach. I would have hoped you outgrew that in high school.

> It makes very little financial or economic sense to
> continue to pile such a high proportion of tax burden
> onto the backs of local property owners.

On this point we agree. However the meals tax isn't like the hotel tax. A significant portion of the meals tax will fall on the backs of local property owners. It isn't just the tax rates that matters. It is the TOTAL TAX BURDEN. Whether it is paid as base real estate tax, as an add-on real estate tax, personal property tax, meals tax, or various business taxes on Fairfax County entrepreneurs they are still dollars coming out of the property owners' wallets.

The revenue streams that supported programs in the past aren't there today, and aren't likely to be there any time soon. In addition there is nothing magical about Fairfax County. People can just as easily live in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax City, Loudoun or Prince William, or even further out. If we keep trying to maintain 2003's County government we are going to increasingly price ourselves out of the market.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK let's use your parameters and not mine. If you
> count 2007 there have been 22 jurisdictions, not 19.

Do you know what the word "since" means, or are you once again being deliberately duplicitous in hopes of salavaging some tattered shreds of integrity? Either way, it ain't worjking for you. No matter how you slice it, your earlier claims were examples of trash-grade dishonesty and distortion. Fie on thee for those.

> I think you are the one who needs to be begging
> for forgiveness.

Blow me, asshole. You tried to run the Big Lie and got the boot put up your flabby ass for your trouble. No one admires a Worthless lying dumbfuck.

> Your list doesn't tell the whole story.

Yes, it does. That's everything since 2007, exactly as was indicated. No hemming, hawing, or mealy-mouthed waffling on this end. All of that shit belongs to YOU.

> Oh good the "I don't have a logical comeback so I
> am going to result to personal attacks" approach.

I can't help the fact that you are worthless lying asshole. That's on YOU as well. Take my advice, Bill -- you've lost all your cookies here. Pick up pieces and go home.

> However the meals tax isn't like the hotel tax.

Yes it is, except that we actually compete with neighboring jurisdictions on hotels taxes where that simply doesn't come into play with meals taxes.

> A significant portion of the meals tax will fall on the
> backs of local property owners.

Just much less than what it would be without the meals tax. Once again, you are playing the role of the miserable shape-shifting asshole.

> It isn't just the tax rates that matters. It is the
> TOTAL TAX BURDEN. Whether it is paid as base real
> estate tax, as an add-on real estate tax, personal
> property tax, meals tax, or various business taxes on
> Fairfax County entrepreneurs they are still dollars
> coming out of the property owners' wallets.

One more time for the really slow folks -- YOU LIVE IN A LOW-TAX AREA. All your tax-bitching is simple NIMBY bullshit. You can go fuck yourself with all that rot, you worthless dreg.

> In addition there is nothing magical about Fairfax
> County. People can just as easily live in Arlington,
> Alexandria, Fairfax City, Loudoun or Prince William,
> or even further out.

Fucking moron! Do you not understand that part of the point here is to be able to run this County so as to keep it as the top rung on the local ladder? The fucking magnet jurisdiction that pulls in the best companies with the best jobs and the best workers with the highest incomes? Those are the people who can bolster our tax rolls going forward, thereby making it possible to keep taxes on ignorant dumbshits like you at the lowest levels possible. Your own dumbass approach will of course have entirely the opposite effect, and stands therefore as nothing but a steaming pile of economic horseshit.

> If we keep trying to maintain 2003's County government we
> are going to increasingly price ourselves out of the market.

LOL! You're as nutty as s fruitcake. It's the County government of the next 25 years that we need to be worried about. The people of 2003 will just have to suck it up and go it alone at this point. Mindless dumbfuck.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Fucking moron! Do you not understand that part of
> the point here is to be able to run this County so
> as to keep it as the top rung on the local ladder?
> The fucking magnet jurisdiction that pulls in the
> best companies with the best jobs and the best
> workers with the highest incomes? Those are the
> people who can bolster our tax rolls going
> forward, thereby making it possible to keep taxes
> on ignorant dumbshits like you at the lowest
> levels possible. Your own dumbass approach will
> of course have entirely the opposite effect, and
> stands therefore as nothing but a steaming pile of
> economic horseshit.

You are bereft of common sense and reveal yourself as a filthy and obscene government teat-sucker. You are correct - this is a *relatively* low tax area. Did you ever stop to consider that part of the reason for the economic success of this area is that it IS relatively low tax? You are no doubt another one of those brain-dead NY/PA/NJ liberals that killed the goose that was laying golden eggs in your home state - now you moved to Fairfax and want to kill the golden goose down here. Go back to your liberal paradise you carpet-bagger.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kJuYt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of which addresses that your (generally
> correct) statement
> > that we live in a relatively low tax area.
> Certainly property
> > taxes are much lower than many other areas.
> Property taxes are
> > not "higher than desirable" other than from the
> standpoint of
> > political implications for rasing them. Which
> is the only reason
> > for the avoidance approach via the meals tax
> proposal.
>
> Pay attention. The County's reliance on property
> taxes as a source of revenue is what is too high.
> Did you manage to copy that this time? The meals
> tax offers an important and needed means to move
> some of that burden off onto other sources of
> revenue.


"Too high" by what measure? You already conceded that we are in a low tax area.

>
> > BS. There's a direct rebate back to merchants
> right off the top.
>
> It's a sweetener, dumbo. The marginal costs are
> not remotely significant, although they do exist.
>

No, it's not a "sweetener." It's to partially offset merchant's costs for collecting the tax. Which it doesn't really and comes nowhere near being worth the trouble.

>
> > Their POS systems are not set up for meals
> taxes.
>
> LOL! If they are set up for sales taxes (and
> everyone is), they are set up for meals taxes. Go
> to Vienna or Herndon and see what kinds of
> problems they have collecting both. HINT: There
> ARE no such problems. The same systems handle
> both taxes at the same time. Duh!
>

Wrong. I deal with this on a daily basis. Sales taxes are easier since it's a single setting for total sales tax which included the local tax component for each sale. All of which then goes to the state which collects and distributes local tax. Most have no provision for a separate local meals tax. Nor do they have the ability to determine, for example, when to apply it variably in cases where an item like a drink is purchased with a meal vs alone. You'd have to update to include those capabilities or kludge it by padding one of the other tax settings and multiple skus, added logic, etc. All of which means more time and trouble on the on the front end and having to parse all of it back out correctly on the back end, separate returns and payment submissions and payments, separate record keeping, etc.

> > Then there's audit and enforcement on the back
> end.
>
> LOL! How many pennies on the dollar would you
> guess those costs would amount to? Would it round
> to as high as one? Given that audit and
> enforcement of sales tax info is ALREADY being
> done?

This is a purely LOCAL tax. It is not administered by the state as sales taxes are. How many people need to be staffed to do it? It's not real hard to burn through several million $/year in labor and systems costs with even a relatively small group.


> > The relative costs are much higher vs the very
> simple and direct
> > process of increasing the rate of the existing
> property tax.
>
> How difficult is it for you wiener-brained
> assholes to understand that part of the process
> here is to SHIFT BURDEN AWAY FROM PROPERTY TAXES.
> What a bunch of useless fucking douchebags you
> yahoos are!


How difficult is it for you to understand that there's no real reason to do so other than political.


> By the way, property tax increases engender a
> whole slew of unbelievably expensive appeals of
> assessments. Then there are all those changes in
> escrow accounting and reporting that mortgage
> service companies have to absorb. Oh, the
> hUmanity.
>
> PS. You're an ASSHOLE!


All of which is done routinely now and would not need to be increased in any significant way simply to handle an INCREASE in the rate. As it is done routinely every time they raise it. See your reasoning re sales taxes above.

DAJAX To The Rescue against the Hatefilled Spittle foaming "Vienna Guy" Still as mad as hell that Nixon Shit canned him..

Leave Bill N alone you "Loose Shoes Warm Place to Shit" ..Foul Mouth Asshole and Dumbfuck . I don't agree with him on many things as he has a mostly liberal point of view as he's a retired teacher , but he is a voice of reason here on FXU..and does not attack people .. You are the voice of a Liberal Lunatic!

DAJAX

That raving mad libtard sure loves paying taxes. What a fucking idiot.
Attachments:

Turning People away from Liberals and Hillary!!!! With His Foul Mouth!

I LOVE YOU VIENNA GUY!!! YOU VOTE TRUMP! Like ME !


DAJAX.. LOL..GOOD NIGHT! I'm repentant.. Washing my mouth out with soap for the dirty words I posted tonight!

God Bless THE USA! And The New York City Folk Tonight! ..

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priorities not New Taxes! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That's primarily because of there's no
> prioritization to speak of.
> > There's a fallacy that any new need must be met
> with a new tax.
>
> What a TOTAL DUMBASS. Passing the meals tax will
> not change levels of County spending. It will
> merely change the sources of funding for that
> spending by expanding the universe of contributors
> to include thousands of tourists, commuters, and
> business travelers who today pay in token amounts,
> if anything at all. It's FREE MONEY for County
> residents. How dumb do you have to be to turn
> down FREE MONEY.
>
> > We need leaders who are unafraid of killing
> programs that have minimal
> > benefit, and using the money for higher
> priorities.
>
> Kiss off, asshole. All you want is to cut
> programs that you think in your sunken state of
> anti-social vapid stupidity don't benefit LITTLE
> OLD YOU quite enough. Meanwhile, the Board and
> staff -- people who are much much much much much
> much smarter than you -- engage in all sorts of
> cost-benefit trade-offs that you could never
> fathom even with the help of a service animal. Go
> play toy soldiers, troll-boy, and let the real
> people run things here in the real world.

You really are a moron! If you would have paid any attention to the school board over the past 5-7 years you would not have written a single word included in your post. The School Board does not conduct analysis unless it is to support a decision that they have already made. Case in point. They established a budget task force to propose budget cuts and promptly ignored it. They developed an app for citizens to propose budget cuts and promptly ignored every single suggestion. And then there are their idiotic social engineering initiatives in which no amount of analysis could provide a meaningful case for implementation.

The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chuckhoffmann Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bulova's mantra of wanting to "diversify the
> county's sources
> > of revenue" just winds up sounding like she
> wants to find new
> > and creative ways to pick our collective
> pockets...
>
> Wake up, stupid shit! Any tax policy professional
> will tell you that it is important to DIVERSIFY
> sources of revenue. The County today is
> significantly over-dependent upon property taxes,
> but thanks to the ancient ways of the outmoded
> Commonwealth, we have very limited means of
> spreading things out. A meals tax is one thing we
> can do, and it ABSOLUTELY is something that we
> should do.
>
> > ...while ducking the massive shitstorm that
> would follow if the
> > BoS raised property taxes more than a couple
> pennies a year.
>
> LOL! Make no mistake, douchebag, The Board
> absolutely WILL raise rates by 10, 12, 15 cents
> per hundred. Whatever is needed to fund essential
> County programs and services is what will be
> forced into affect. This is not a direct
> democracy. You people do not count. You will not
> be asked your opinion on the matter. Passage of
> the meals tax in November will signal that you
> want some form of property tax relief starting
> next year. Failure to pass the meals tax will
> signal your desire that County residents continue
> to take it in the shorts all by themselves for
> years and years to come. The ball is in your
> court. Don't drop it.


By ALL accounts, real estate tax relief is not in the cards if the meals tax is passed in November. The proceeds from the tax is already accounted for and included in the 2018 budget and not a fucking cent will be dedicated to tax relief. The language was only included in the referendum for morons such as you that will believe anything that you are told in order that they can lead you to the voter booth to vote for the tax increase. Once passed, there MAY be a moratorium on RE tax increases for 2018 but in 2019 we will back into the same rut that we have been in for the past decade with real estate increases in the double digits.

hN6kG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The DUMB just keeps on coming Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Priorities not New Taxes! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That's primarily because of there's no
> > prioritization to speak of.
> > > There's a fallacy that any new need must be
> met
> > with a new tax.
> >
> > What a TOTAL DUMBASS. Passing the meals tax
> will
> > not change levels of County spending. It will
> > merely change the sources of funding for that
> > spending by expanding the universe of
> contributors
> > to include thousands of tourists, commuters,
> and
> > business travelers who today pay in token
> amounts,
> > if anything at all. It's FREE MONEY for County
> > residents. How dumb do you have to be to turn
> > down FREE MONEY.
>
>
> Dumb time share suckers pitch.
>
> Yeah, every 'FREE' dollar will only cost county
> residents $3 or $4 at minimum.
>
> >
> > > We need leaders who are unafraid of killing
> > programs that have minimal
> > > benefit, and using the money for higher
> > priorities.
> >
> > Kiss off, asshole. All you want is to cut
> > programs that you think in your sunken state of
> > anti-social vapid stupidity don't benefit
> LITTLE
> > OLD YOU quite enough. Meanwhile, the Board and
> > staff -- people who are much much much much
> much
> > much smarter than you -- engage in all sorts of
> > cost-benefit trade-offs that you could never
> > fathom even with the help of a service animal.
> Go
> > play toy soldiers, troll-boy, and let the real
> > people run things here in the real world.
>
>
> Funny coming from the side arguing for a tax
> increase which will virtually entirely go to pay
> their LITTLE OLD OWN salary and benefits. Nobody
> has done any cost-benefit analysis for this. The
> only thing that they have is a trivial and
> obviously flawed back-of-napkin revenue estimate.
> There's no interest in doing any hard analysis
> since the only relevant answer is more.

Strange thing. When you peel back the venom and hatred in your posts there really is nothing remaining!

While I don't find DUMB's use of fowl language excessive & ultimately ineffective (albeit humorous), he's right. The intent of the Meals Tax is to diversify taxes so that budget sourcing takes into account the fact that we have both an ever increasing number of renters (illegally or not), as well as those who increasingly work, transit, play/drink, or have their kids in school here (which is prob why 70% will be allocated to day care,, uh,,, I mean schools). Now, by "illegal", I do not necessarily mean immigration status (however I wouldn't totally omit that), but that there is an ever increasing amount of cohabitation, undisclosed renters, 'rabbit farms', etc that are definitely not accounted for. I know for a fact on my street alone, 1/3rd of the homes are rented out, and about half of them illegally (multiple families, uninhabitable conditions, etc). 1/4th of the car plates on the streets are from Maryland or DC (which is another side issue). All the absentee landlords who scooped up properties in 2008 aren't worried about a real estate tax increase, but single home owners who actually live in their home are.

Sorry, but I think some people aren't thinking this through past that 2nd word "tax", and rather engage with their "John Wayne" style of shoot-first-question-later mentality (Iraq? Libya?). They people dismiss any item with 'tax' in the title as "EVIL LEFTIST AGENDA" or something.

Assuming they implement the max 4%, paying an extra $1.20 for a $30 steak dinner is no skin off anyone's nose to anyone who's willing to pay for that, nor is $0.40 for a $10 McDinner for the so-called 'poor'. How about cook / prepare a meal at the house we apparently own if one is so fiscally conservative. I eat out once in a blue moon, but I am not pinching pennies when I do. How about addressing that so-called 1%'s who have the green to eat out everyday, right? lol

Am I mad at how some tax money is spent in the system? (never mind how citizens waste their money on restaurants) Of course,, but I am MORE mad that, as a home owner, I am paying part of the bulk of the budget (65%) to pay for the services and infrastructure that people are increasingly using without paying by either cheating or not part of the system. Saying 'No' to the Meals Tax referendum is essentially rejecting rightfully deserved money into our county's budget. Just because I don't like how some money is spent, doesn't stop me from embracing new (and fair) ways to pay for essential services used by us and a considerable number of others.

Ultimately, we know (or should) that people WILL vote these next 3 referendums into the budget whether they are needed or not, just as people have done for many of the referendums previously (likely a 2-to-1 ratio of 'yes'). You can bet on that, no matter how many times you right 'NO' on the ballet. However, despite having only one 'no' vote, people (as seen here) will likely shoot down a sound method (without reading into it) in which to help cover our budget,, leaving it up to the Good Idea fairy to address the issue down the road, where we don't have a vote.

To clarify, which I acknowledge there is an intended diversification, I don't consider this synonymous or associated with real estate tax 'relief'. While I don't see Meals Tax doing much at all to 'lower' RE taxes, I do see it however offsetting necessary raises needed to cover to increasing costs, at least from all these bonds we are undoubtedly going to improve again and again.

While* I acknowledge..

approve* again and again...

Damn

Some good opinions presented here - just wish there was a way to read opinions without having to be assaulted with the inappropriate language and without the cut and paste jobs.

1.I never considered the renters vs the homeowners side of the issue and this was very well articulated by Barker.
2.Everyone needs to realize it is a food tax and not a "meals" tax.
3.Meals, in a sit down restaurant are one thing. A hot chicken from Costco or salads from the deli at Giant are another. The proponents should have clearly called this a "Food not prepared at home tax" at the onset of the campaign.
4.As a supporter of FCPS, I too was appalled that not one of the recommendations of the Budget Task Force, with the exception of lowering substitute pay for retired teachers was acted on.
5.Think it wrong for school board members to call for boycotts of restaurants that oppose the tax. Boycotts are base bullying.
6.Let's keep the conversation going, but keep the language PG-13. Not necessarily PG, but not R!

BBarker11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To clarify, which I acknowledge there is an
> intended diversification, I don't consider this
> synonymous or associated with real estate tax
> 'relief'. While I don't see Meals Tax doing much
> at all to 'lower' RE taxes, I do see it however
> offsetting necessary raises needed to cover to
> increasing costs, at least from all these bonds we
> are undoubtedly going to improve again and again.


If the funds were spent prudently there would be no debate and the meals tax referendum would pass with 70 percent of the vote. However, not only will they continue to waste funds the School Board even refuses to make a commitment to devote the tax proceeds to increasing teacher's pay! When the School Board has complained in unison for years about their inability to increase teacher's pay this lack of commitment is unforgivable. Since they have already been reelected and have increased their pay by an ungodly amount they really do not care what the paupers think. They are simply going to do as they please!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2016 08:06AM by Inquisitive One.

@ BBarker- It isn't the word "tax" that is causing the problems. It is the unspoken word "INCREASE". Fairfax County already taxes sales that will be subject to the meals tax. If you purchase food from a restaurant you are paying a 6% sales tax on that. If you purchase food from a grocery or convenience store you are paying 2.5% sales tax. A portion of those taxes goes to Fairfax. The proposed tax if fully implemented will increase those percentages to 10% and 6.5% respectively. In addition Fairfax County assesses BPOL gross receipts taxes on those same sales from the business so the actual tax on those sales is even higher. If the true purpose of the tax was to "diversify" the revenue base, or more accurately re-allocate it since prepared food sales are already subject to two local taxes, then there ought to be a lowering of some other broad based tax. The County has not indicated it intends to do this. To the contrary they have indicated their plan is to increase real estate taxes in the near future.

While it is played as a luxury tax, the meals tax isn't that. It does not just hit restaurant sales. It hits prepared food sales. Further it hits many items purchased as ingredients. These undermine the basis for going from a single sales tax rate to having separate tax rates for food sold in grocery or convenience stores. Ironically the meals tax won't hit the biggest luxury sales-sales of alcohol for consumption on site at restaurants, where the consumer does not purchase food to go with that alcohol. There is a Virginia attorney general opinion which states the state law authorizing meals taxes does not reach sales of beverages if not served as part of a food purchase.

Which brings us to the ultimate idiocy of the law-complexity of enforcement. If I walk into a convenience store and purchase a 20 oz. soda, whether I am taxed on that sale at 6.5% or at 2.5% will depend on whether I purchase it in a cup or in a bottle. If I throw in a hot dog then that soda is subject to the 6.5% tax rate even if it is in a bottle. If I walk down the street to the local deli and buy that hot dog and bottle of soda I am now at 10%. This type of system creates complexity in enforcement which can work against honest purchasers and honest merchants, and work to the benefit of dishonest merchants and aggressive revenue officials.

The administration complexity is another aspect that deserves scrutiny. The Board in several places implied that the tax will produce approximately 90 million which implies that there will be 6 percent paid to the vendors for the administration of tax. One thing that is not clear is whether a 6 percent commission will be paid to the vendors or if a lower amount will be paid in commission and the remainder paid in internal audits, compliance and other administration of the tax. In any event the amount of bureaucracy involved implies an incredibly inefficient and expensive way to raise tax revenues.

BBarker11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> so that budget sourcing
> takes into account the fact that we have both an
> ever increasing number of renters (illegally or
> not), as well as those who increasingly work,
> transit, play/drink, or have their kids in school
> here (which is prob why 70% will be allocated to
> day care,, uh,,, I mean schools). Now, by
> "illegal", I do not necessarily mean immigration
> status (however I wouldn't totally omit that), but
> that there is an ever increasing amount of
> cohabitation, undisclosed renters, 'rabbit farms',
> etc that are definitely not accounted for. I know
> for a fact on my street alone, 1/3rd of the homes
> are rented out, and about half of them illegally
> (multiple families, uninhabitable conditions,
> etc). 1/4th of the car plates on the streets are
> from Maryland or DC (which is another side issue).
> All the absentee landlords who scooped up
> properties in 2008 aren't worried about a real
> estate tax increase, but single home owners who
> actually live in their home are.

No. That is not the intent of the meals tax either stated or implied. You are mistaken if you think landlords that rent out their buildings are unconcerned about real estate tax increases.

4nGJL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No. That is not the intent of the meals tax
> either stated or implied. You are mistaken if you
> think landlords that rent out their buildings are
> unconcerned about real estate tax increases.


Correct. And beyond being just the typical word salad talking point mumbo jumbo that's parroted for such things, that is the substantive underlying meaning within the "diversify our tax base" wording. The primary source of revenue for the county is property tax. The primary patrons of the board and other local politicians are developers, wealthy property owners, law firms tied to developers who specialize in real estate, and businesses in the county, all of which pay substantial property taxes or are otherwise dependent on real estate as a large component of their business. They make up probably the largest single direct contributors as well as having significant indirect influences in other ways.

A meals tax acts as an effective subsidy to these groups by local residents through avoidance of increases to their property taxes by "diversifying our tax base."

The county also loves to be able to cite "low taxes" in promoting the county to businesses and more generally. Property taxes are a large part of that pitch and the associated analysis done. Things like meals taxes typically aren't included or are weighted insignificantly. So they still get to claim that and don't get bumped out of the "best places" rankings and similar.

Personally, I'll just reduce my tips from 20% to 15% if this passes. No skin off my ass, though it might be off the waiters'.

@Bill; I see what you are saying, thanks. However, I understand that there would remain a double-dipping 6% sales on restaurant meals, becoming then 10% (if assumed max @ 4%), but you said that this would also apply to groceries respectively.. The pamphlet specifically states that groceries are not affected, aside from a deli meal or ready-to-go meal akin to a restaurant, unless you are referring to 'prepared food' sales somehow, which I don't believe it does apply to, nor mentions in the wording. There is considerable ambiguity here.

@4nGJL; Regarding point 1; True, this is my down-the-road interpretation of what I believe it ultimately means, outside of the official narrative, either read or implied. Duly noted that I should have put an "I think" in front of it.
In regards to landlords, this is a separate argument that I think boils down to the same conclusion we can agree on; NO one wants to see their real estate taxes going up,, but I think it will hit harder the Fairfax single home owning, residing, & county tax paying citizens, than it will to the increasing absentee landlords, apartment/condo owners, and out of state (or country) agencies, trusts, and 'banks'. Especially when cost-of-living and basic-allowance-housing (for all our local gov't jobs) will just simply increase as it does so reflexively.

@ Patronage;
>The primary source of revenue for the county is property tax...

Yes, which is disturbing when I see the increasing amount of doubled-up and/or undisclosed renters in my & surrounding neighborhoods, parking their cars with Maryland and DC plates on the street (as that is another tax loophole). Perhaps the undisclosed function of the Meals Tax is to address these and other increasing 'non-resident' residents & their kids in school??

>The primary patrons of the board and other local politicians are developers, wealthy property owners, law firms tied to developers who specialize in real estate...

Yes, as it has been since George Washington was president.

@Postman; I don't blame you.

FCPS is thoroughly messed up. They spend money like it is nothing. FCPS needs an enema.

Question 1: If the meals tax doesn't pass, what do people think will happen -- in terms of trying to make up this "needed" revenue?

Question 2: Do you really think your answer to #1 won't happen either way?

Question 3: Do people really feel that because small towns/cities within Fairfax have a meals tax that it's a valid argument for having one county wide? Isn't this the reverse of the logic we try and teach children?

I will take a shot at those questions based upon observing the BOS for a while.


Questions19 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question 1: If the meals tax doesn't pass, what do
> people think will happen -- in terms of trying to
> make up this "needed" revenue?

The BOS will indeed raise the RE tax rate, however, with the Republican dissent keeping pressure on them to show restraint they will keep those increases to a minimum. The absence of the meals tax revenue only increases those internal pressures to minimize the increase. The BOS does view the projected $27 million meals tax revenue as important to maintaining public safety services that may realistically disappear should they forego a RE tax increase or assessments do not increase during the year (early diversion program and firefighting currently funded with grants).
>
> Question 2: Do you really think your answer to #1
> won't happen either way?

Sure RE tax rate increases will happen but there will be more political pressure for restraint which is what the public really wants from the BOS and School Board.
>
> Question 3: Do people really feel that because
> small towns/cities within Fairfax have a meals tax
> that it's a valid argument for having one county
> wide? Isn't this the reverse of the logic we try
> and teach children?

It is a laughable statement to make that I would presume would be designed for the people that are too lazy to research subjects or actually think for themselves. Every situation is unique. For the meals tax, the Hampton Roads area would certainly realize a large amount from this tax due to being a destination vacation resort area. Other areas of the state have RE assessments that are very close to the assessments of 2008 era which were extremely depressed and these areas are in need of the additional revenue. While NoVa commercial RE market is in a recession it is still possible to manage our way out of a tight revenue situation without additional drastic tax increases. The only thing that is needed is the political will to make some cuts that may not be pleasing to the more liberal voters that believe that government should provide all services to all citizens regardless of need.

@ BBarker11-If you read the instructions that some Virginia localities provide to their merchants you get a different view than what you wrote. For example if you are a grocery or convenience store, even if you did not have a deli you would have to collect meals tax on: Salad bar sales; Choose your own donuts and cookies (the pre-packaged Krispy Kremes would not be subject to the tax); Single serving ready to heat foods if the business had a microwave available to the public (even if the purchaser didn't use the microwave).

The good news is one jurisdiction's instructions indicated a grocery store selling seafood could steam lobsters for their customers without them being considered "meals". However the shrimp party platter seems to qualify. Also several instructions indicate sales of coffee is subject to the meals tax even though the statute only authorizes taxing beverages "served as part of a meal".

@Bill.N ; Interesting. If they wanted this thing to have a chance to pass, they had plenty of room & time to be more specific as to where it does & doesn't apply. Additionally, they really should have attached some sort of 'quid pro quo' conditions to it, such as "if this is voted in, then X will be cut by XX%" or something.

BBarker11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Bill.N ; Interesting. If they wanted this thing
> to have a chance to pass, they had plenty of room
> & time to be more specific as to where it does &
> doesn't apply. Additionally, they really should
> have attached some sort of 'quid pro quo'
> conditions to it, such as "if this is voted in,
> then X will be cut by XX%" or something.


They've put virtually no thought or effort into this. The level of analysis and presentation of information for voters is embarrassing for one of the most wealthy and well-resourced counties in the country. The board deals with stuff like this as if it's still small-time 1970s Fairfax. $100 million/year tax referendum and they can't even bother to do more than a 15 minute rough guess at any of the details. lol Fucking ridiculous. I've seen more rigoruous financial analysis by high school clubs.

The primary reason for that is that they really don't give a shit about any of the details. The only operative objective is more. They don't care what the revenues or costs are, who pays, regressive effects, trade-offs, etc. All that they know is that they want more money and politically they can't raise real estate taxes any more than they already have this round. So let's just throw it out there and see what happens.

BBarker11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Bill.N ; Interesting. If they wanted this thing
> to have a chance to pass, they had plenty of room
> & time to be more specific as to where it does &
> doesn't apply. Additionally, they really should
> have attached some sort of 'quid pro quo'
> conditions to it, such as "if this is voted in,
> then X will be cut by XX%" or something.


The Board of Supervisors REJECTED a motion to forego real estate tax increases for a period of three years in the event the meals tax passed. That gives you an idea of the short/intermediate term thinking of the BOS. While the BOS did include their restrictions on the referendum for the use of their portion of the funds (meaningless), the School Board has refused to even pass a resolution to commit to use the funds for teacher's pay increases. That says a lot about this selfish Board to refuse to commit funds to the teachers after voting to raise their own salaries by 85 percent during a year in which they had difficulty finding money for employee cost of living raises.

If the board can't find a way to give cost of living raises to the heart and soul of the school system, the teachers, with  2.7 billion dollars at their disposal, then what makes you think that this a revenue problem? The fact is that the board is in cahoots with the school board to pass a tax increase while trying to avoid the scrutiny that doing so through normal procedures would entail. Let's examine the ploy a little closer. 1.Well, it's only a measly 4%. 2. It's for the teachers. 3. It's for the schools. 5. Those living outside Fairfax will pay most of it. 6. The greedy food establishment won't pay their share for our children. 7. The parents not voting for this are hurting the teachers. 8. The poor underfunded schools. Our poor children will suffer if our teachers aren't paid the most of any teachers in the area. My my my. How utterly pathetic. These are all answered very simply. More tax is more tax. Manage what you have more responsibly. $2,700,000,000. And if you mess that up, no problem. You get that again next year. It feels like a Ponzi scheme that we are forced to participate in. So, no. No more. Stop pitting the various interest of the community against each other to acquire more money. Be satisfied to mismanage what we already give you.