Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Young homeowners outraged by high property tax bills (Florida's two tiered tax system)
South Florida Sun-Sentinel ^ | May 13 2007 | By Jamie Malernee

Posted on 05/14/2007 6:13:57 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s

When Melissa Nolen first saw the sky-high property tax bill for her new home, she got nervous.

The next year, when her homeowner's insurance doubled, she got mad.

These days, 29-year-old Nolen is trying another tactic: Getting active. She recently became vice president of the Broward County Young Republicans and is keeping a close eye on tax reforms being debated at the state Capitol.

(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: florida; genx; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: ChildOfThe60s
The $800 was what I paid the last year I paid property taxes in Florida. My tax escalation was relatively slow because the assessed value was frozen the year the amendment went into force, and was limited to 3% per year. Now, there is/was no limit as to how much the various taxing authorities that collect property taxes can increase the millage rate.

Obviously, anyone living in Florida who feels that they are paying too little in property taxes is free to contribute "their fair share" over and above their assessment...

The local government will be pleased to accept their" conscience money"!

41 posted on 05/14/2007 7:43:24 PM PDT by ExSES (the "bottom-line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

Let me back track on one comment. I don’t really think property taxes are the best way to get the revenue the government “needs”. But, there they are.

The real problem with the “fixed income” people is that taxes are simply too high period. It would be better if the taxes were on assessed value, or on a percentage of assessed value. That wouldn’t be a burden if, big if, the government’s need for revenue was based on what it should be. Fantasy, I know.

One thing that should be done, is not just limiting the increases in assessed value, but limiting the *tax rate* increases. In other words, limit the actual dollar amount increases collected to a maximum fixed rate. There is no good reason, with this type of tax, that the government’s take (in raw dollars) should not be limited every year. IOW, if the county collected $800 from me last year, it can only collect up to 3% more from me this year. If my value goes up to a point which works out to a greater amount, then the rates have to be adjusted downward to balance it.

As it is now, the city says hmm, Child’s house value can only be raised 3%, so we’ll just raise the millage rate 10% to make up for that.

Consumption taxes are probably a more rational way to raise the funds. IF they result in the elimination of property taxes. A person on a fixed income is naturally going to spend less, having less disposable income to work with. Thus that person pays lower taxes. It also means that if I want to be frugal and save my money, the government can’t penalize me for doing that.

Again, all of our “solutions” only address how to rein in a particular tax. Which is like a water filled balloon. Squeeze it on one end and the other end expands. They will simply just get the same amount of money somewhere else. None of this goes to the root of the real problem. Restricting the government’s appetite for power over us and access to our money.


42 posted on 05/14/2007 7:48:41 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kddid
I propose the third method should be the elimination of the "government rent".

How would you then propose we pay for basic services that are currently paid (in many states) through property tax?

I would assume that you would have an alternative.

I for one do not mind paying a fair and reasonable tax on purchases, including property. What I do mind is a graduated income tax that punishes my success, while allowing those of low income to receive money, from me, due to their position in life (it is OK that they pay zero on income, but no 'tax credits').

I do mind that I do not get a fair return on my tax invested. Thus when bridge tolls double in five years, while gas tax goes into the general fund, I feel I have a right to complain.

43 posted on 05/14/2007 7:57:02 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ExSES

I didn’t feel guilty about anything. And I never felt I was paying too little. On the contrary, I was paying more than enough. I was just not getting screwed as thoroughly as my neighbor.

One of my points on this subject is that this is simply the state creating more class warfare and pitting citizens of different socioeconomic statuses against each other.

If they are screwing someone else, that’s OK as long as they don’t include me. Problem with that reasoning is, sooner or later I (or you) will be in the other group.

I don’t smoke, so I think it’s great to screw smokers. A smoker that doesn’t drink thinks it’s great to screw me because I drink. And so on, ad nauseum. It is not an accident that these taxaholics play us against each other while they merrily go on pissing away obscene amounts of all our money.


44 posted on 05/14/2007 7:57:43 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
I've always hated the property tax, but every proposal they make here (PA) to change it is half-assed and/or results in an increase in my taxes.

There's a ballot question tomorrow, asking if we want to institute a 1% income tax in exchange for lowering property taxes. I'm voting no. If it passes, we'll still have a property tax PLUS another income tax. And I'll end up paying more in total.

If they want me to support any change, it has to result in me either paying the same thing I'm paying now or less. They already spend PLENTY on schools (which I don't even use - my kids go to Catholic school). Until they change the SPENDING also, there will continue to be a TAX problem.

Another factor with moving from a local property tax to a state sales tax is distribution of dollars. The big cities are salivating over getting suburban money to pour into their rat-hole schools.

45 posted on 05/14/2007 8:00:48 PM PDT by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
One thing that should be done, is not just limiting the increases in assessed value, but limiting the *tax rate* increases

All good points.

I have mulled around, in my mind, another possible alternative, that being this:

You buy a house and pay, through the life of the mortgage, a fixed tax based on the value of the house. After a mortgage is paid off, the owner's tax is then locked in at the amount he paid in the last year (or average of last five). This then locks in the tax at, what should be, an affordable rate for the balance of his life.

if the owner chooses to sell, well, the game starts over, by his choice.

46 posted on 05/14/2007 8:04:19 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
How would you then propose we pay for basic services that are currently paid (in many states) through property tax?

That is a fair and reasonable question. It has to be addressed, obviously. But (again my fantasy) in my opinion that should be decided after we determine what really are basic services. Right now, basic services are any damn thing they decide they want to spend money on. And nothing is ever a one time expenditure. "What were once luxuries are now necessities". The unwritten motto of government.

47 posted on 05/14/2007 8:04:30 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LFOD777

OK, gotta ask .... what’s the sq footage that 25K in property taxes pays for in NY state????


48 posted on 05/14/2007 8:11:38 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Killing all of your enemies without mercy is the only sure way of sleeping soundly at night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

That idea has some merit. I think we agree that no matter how they are being determined, property taxes are way too much of the revenue pie the government is feasting upon.

One of the pluses of consumption taxes is that, in theory, money is being collected from those that can most afford it. And, again in theory, I have the option of consuming less in order to pay fewer taxes. The libs think that is a great idea for gasoline, right? Raise the price so I consume less? Well, why shouldn’t I be able to lower my taxes by consuming less?


49 posted on 05/14/2007 8:13:26 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

First off, the idea that property tax pays for basic services is a joke. I just paid $8k in “impact fees” to hook up water and sewer. Now, what could be more basic than that ?

The proposal to eliminate property tax and replace the revenue with a small sales tax increase makes so much sense it will never succeed.

These bastards will pass “reforms” that change nothing and say they fought for “the little guy”.

Time to return to tar and feathers.


50 posted on 05/14/2007 8:21:54 PM PDT by prov1813man (While the one you despise and ridicule works to protect you, those you embrace work to destroy you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

Two generations is indeed a long time, So what? I still pay sales taxes and State income taxes. The state makes far more tax money from me than they spend for me. It would be intolerable to pay sales tax, income tax, and sky high property taxes. It would force me out of my home.

As far as a “landed class”, I would much prefer to pass this benefit on to my children. With current real estate prices, it will be very difficult for them to get homes of their own. I want to give them every advantage. I have never been one of those who worries that another class has advantages that I dont. I recognize that there are people who inherited money and I didn’t. I don’t envy the rich and I don’t want them taxed into poverty. I want to learn how they became rich and follow their example.


51 posted on 05/14/2007 8:22:08 PM PDT by passionfruit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

“The home owner is in effect “realizing” the (supposedly) increased value of their property. Once the property is put back into the economic realm, to be “fair”, it should be taxed at the recognized value.”

Theres nothing fair about property taxes. Our govt wastes much of the money we give it.


52 posted on 05/14/2007 8:25:52 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: prov1813man
Time to return to tar and feathers.

Half right. It's WAY past time for the tar and feathers.

Impact fees are another shell game. In theory, all taxes are impact fees in the sense that we all impact society and the cost thereof, and our taxes pay for our impact.

Targeted taxes are crappola. If the government only provided the basic services it is constitutionally authorized to provide there would be no need of impact fees. More liberal weasel terminology promoting class envy. Yeah, yeah, let's soak the other guy. Payback for him having more than I do.

53 posted on 05/14/2007 8:32:00 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
The county quadrupled “impact” fees on new homes and in doing so have planted a solid blow to the groin of struggling builders.

I can only laugh heartily at the fate of "struggling builders" in Floridum. Florida has had the worst version of illegal builder-appraiser-lender collusion outside of anywhere but a few places in southern CA and Las Vegas.

54 posted on 05/14/2007 8:39:28 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr
It would be a real eye-opener for the newspaper to print a line item budget for a county the size of the bigger counties in Florida.

Fat chance. No newspaper is going to do that. The Leftist fishwraps in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter) don't want the people to know how badly the government is wasting their money.

Anyway, they are too busy writing stories sob stories that the government isn't spending enough taxpayer money on government programs.

55 posted on 05/14/2007 8:43:11 PM PDT by Libertarian444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve86

When I bought my home in Kentucky last year, I asked the lender about the “appraisal”. He said the appraisal would essentially be the agreed upon price between me and the seller.

Basically, it fell to me to make sure that I was paying a fair market price for the home. Or at least that I was only borrowing an amount that equated properly to the market value of the house.

Of course, the lender was not too concerned about that because of the size of my down payment. It made their loan to me pretty safe as there was no way my home could not be worth more that I owe on it.


56 posted on 05/14/2007 8:47:31 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

Nobody would be too concerned about the form of taxation (sales, income, property) if it were not for the amount. Changing the tax structure just moves around the liability of confiscatory tax levels.


57 posted on 05/14/2007 8:55:14 PM PDT by TexasKamaAina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.; ChildOfThe60s
Yes, what are basic services? A vague description to say the least. I'm sure these "basic services" include a myriad of welfare programs that could be better addressed in the private sector or through charities. And let's not forget the many bureaucracies that have been created to administer those funds.
58 posted on 05/14/2007 8:56:09 PM PDT by kddid (Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
I am a little bitter because I once lost $13,000, back when that was a big deal, when the appraisal came in less than the Realtor and both parties thought it should be.
59 posted on 05/14/2007 8:58:20 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Irregardless of the ethics of lenders/builders/appraisers, the home purchaser is the one getting the ultimate shaft.

The end user or final purchaser in reality pays the taxes (fees).

And the ethics, or lack of in the case of these groups, is not justification for the government confiscating money for redistribution to its chosen recipients.


60 posted on 05/14/2007 9:16:31 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson