Young homeowners outraged by high property tax bills (Florida's two tiered tax system)

South Florida Sun-Sentinel ^ | May 13 2007 | By Jamie Malernee

[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.

[HostileTerritory]

What is that $25,000 as a percentage of the value of the house? I’ll bet it’s not a $250,000 house like the ones this article is talking about.

[sitetest]

Dear sgtbono2002,

Actually, the limitation of 10% is a statewide limitation per year, not per three-year cycle. However, each county has a limitation, as well. My county, Anne Arundel, appears to be 2% per year. St. Mary’s County appears to be 5%.

sitetest

[LetsRok]

Probably. In Loudoun County, VA the tax man discovered that he could flood the tax coffers with cash by re-assessing everyone’s house to the “paper profit” assessments from 3 years ago. They assessed my townhouse for $625K. I sold it 6 months later for $480. I feel like demanding a tax refund.

[MayflowerMadam]

You must live in New York. We lived in the Corning area for a year in an average house. $12K/year taxes. Oh... and let me tell you about the $500 gas (heating/cooking) bill one month.

[Vision]

CA has the same thing.

Am I wrong or is this basically the blind greed of a baby boomer generation?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The kicker here is that although the SOH (Save Our Homes) amendment was easy to pass, it would be nearly impossible to remove by the same process. Why? Because the homeowners that are paying 1/4 the property taxes that newer home owners are paying would never vote to raise their own taxes by a factor of at least 2.

Why can't they just lower all the property taxes to the lowest tier? Oooh, that would make too much sense.

[T.Smith]

I agree with the article in principle, but I'm calling BS on this part:

"My father's property taxes are $2,300 a year, where if I buy the house next door, mine would be $16,000," he marvels. "I hate to say it's not fair, but it's not fair."

That's more than my entire mortgage, taxes and insurance on my $190,000 home.

[THEUPMAN]

Wow ... your argument for confiscating my money to provide services I don’t want or that a private company could offer at a better price and quality level has turned me around.

Yes, your concise logic is indisputable.

But ..... couldn’t we have more government services?
Hey ... I bet that someone elce could spend the rest of my money just as efficiently as they are spending what they get now.

Is there anything the government dosen’t need to do for me?

I get it now ... if I’ll just get with the program. I won’t have to make all those stressful decisions ...
thanks

[Michael.SF.]

Wow ... your argument

Who is arguing with you? I learned long ago to never argue with a fool.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Just curious, what happens when you build an addition to your house? Does that allow the County to re-access your house at current market prices?

Yes. If you pull a building permit they can come out and re-assess the property. I'm not clear on whether they simply add the value of the addition to the assessed value of your home, or whether this entitles them to re value the entire property to current levels.

I put a major addition on in 1988, but that was before the rapid, insane jump in values. So, I don't really remember how much it affected our taxes.

The assessors can be a little haphazard on doing this. Sometimes they don't bother. I suspect the effort the local government expends on these cases is related to the current desire for revenues.

[THEUPMAN]

a fool.

Do you have a government job?

You seem to be very touchy about making sure the taxes are collected.

[sgtbono2002]

It appears to me as damned near theft. LOL

[VeniVidiVici]

Um, many of them were born and raised in Florida (see the comment about people's parents in the article) and are trying to move from renting to owning.

No, the problem is they are trying to move from renting to owning the same size/style house their parents already have.

If they set their sites lower they can still buy a house but they may have to do without the spa.

And there is no "I got mine" mentality. There is an "I did my time" mentality.

And believe me, most of the whiners, especially highlighted by the SPTimes over the past year has been from people moving here from out of state. They find their neighbor pays property taxes about 70% less then theirs and they start crying.

Our version of Prop13 is doing just fine, thank you, and we STILL do not have an income tax! A fact these carpetbaggers forget.

[conservative cat]

It would make much more sense, IMO, to base taxes on something more closely related to the actual burden the property places on the city's resources. Taxing by land area, number of residents, or some combination of the two would make more sense, IMO. Apartments and trailer parks and their residents, for example, place a disproportionately high burden on the police force of a city when compared to single-family, permanent homes and their residents.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[GOP_1900AD]

And yet, like idiots, many of them, time and time again, get suckered into voting for bond measures, thereby increasing the taxes.

[Fishrrman]

You bring up an excellent example. My mother wants to “trade down” now herself. She can’t. She considered moving here to Kentucky for that reason.

When we wanted out of the neighborhood in Florida our friends asked why we didn’t just move farther out from the city. I said we are not paying $75k more for the same size house and 3 times the property taxs to boot. Time to get out of the state.

At least we don’t live in one of the European socialist paradises where we have to get permission and on a waiting list in order to relocate.

You don't have to "get permission" YET. Wait till the seventh year of the [second] Clinton administration. (just kidding).

OK, here's a question for everyone. I've been reading the postings in the thread, and I'd like to throw out a question for all:
Where ARE property taxes still affordable, and likely to remain so?

I'm retiring within 3 years. Currently in Connecticut, want to get OUT of here, and AWAY FROM any and all urban environments. Somewhere cheap and (have to word this carefully) ... um.... NON-diversified (I'm of European ancestry). I just want to go where it's cheap, quiet, and likely to remain so for the next 30 years. Can be a "depressed area" for the po' white folks, I don't mind. Small towns or VERY smallish cities are OK.

We've all seen the nightmares former "paradises" like Florida and California have become (how long before Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado follow suit?). Where's a good state to really "get away from it all", back to something that approximates the "look of the 50's"? (Can't do Alaska, sorry)

Thanks,
- John

[MedNole]

Under SOH, first time home owners are forced to subsidizeeveryone else. There are already enough financial barriers to purchasing a first home, I don't see why we need to add insanely high property taxes to the mix.

No, the problem is they are trying to move from renting to owning the same size/style house their parents already have.

If I can afford the mortgage on the house I want, why am I less entitled to live there than someone else? The fact is that the people who receive the greatest benefit from the SOH subsidy (long time homeowners) are in general the wealthiest people in society, as they tend to accumulate wealth in their homes. Why should young, first time home buyers be forced to pay more than their fair share? My folks bought the house I grew up in 23 years ago, and it is now appraised at over $1 million. They pay less than $4K/ year in taxes. I'm looking at houses in the $200-250K range and will likely pay more than double what they are paying. I support Rubio's sales tax proposal, but that's dead. From what I can tell, existing SOH homeowners will get a bigger break under the new proposal. The first time homeowners are supposed to get some break, but that hasn't been fully presented yet. Business owners and non homesteaders will likely continue to get the shaft.

[VeniVidiVici]

So what would be your “fair share”? You would have your parents property taxes at say, $20K a year? Would that be fair enough for you?

What if my parents were living off $20K a year in income and their house of 23 years was now taxed at $20K a year? Would it be right to force them out of their house as they couldn’t pay the onerous property tax? A property tax that goes up at the whim of a local official?

I suppose that’s OK. After all, it’s not fair that they get to live in a million dollar house while you don’t.

[MedNole]

Definitely not. I think property taxes as a concept are wholly unfair. Like I said, I'd advocate for elimination of property taxes in exchange for a 2.5% sales tax. Since that isn't going to happen this year, the most important reform would be to roll back millage rates so that county income equalled 2000-01 levels + a reasonable increase for inflation and population growth (2-3%/ year). If we are going to keep the property tax, the key is to keep county INCOME controlled, not necessarially the millage rate. That would essentially keep anyone's income tax burden from skyrocketing, regardless of what the appraisal is.

I suppose that’s OK. After all, it’s not fair that they get to live in a million dollar house while you don’t.

Why the cheap shot? Let's say for argument's sake that I could afford a $1 million dollar house. Is it good public policy to prevent me from buying this house because of disproportionately high property taxes? In no way do I advocate for kicking anyone out of their house. Like I've said before, if you can afford the mortgage (at the purchase price, not the current appraised value), you should should have the right of full 100% ownership (regardless of how old you are). In general, is it good public policy for first time home buyers to subsidize long time homeowners? SOH has been awesome for most people, and I would never want to repeal it. The problem is that it had the unintended consequence of disproportionately overtaxing new homeowners and business owners. My solution of rolling back county incomes to 2000-01 (prior to the real estate boom) would effectively give EVERYONE the SOH advantage, regardless of when the house or business was purchased. New home construction would be factored in to the 2-3% per year increase allowed in collections. Counties who felt that they needed more money than this could ask the citizens to approve an increased sales tax in their particular county. When the acessments on houses began to skyrocket, these counties had a winfall and went on a spending spree. Now it's time to reign them back in.

[VeniVidiVici]

Ok. So let’s see if I get this straight.

So you’re saying that if I purchased my house in 1990 at, say, $50K and I pay $1K a year in tax, and another person bought the house next to me in 2000 (your baseline year) for $100K and pays $2K in tax, this is OK with you, right?

So then a new house gets built down the street and the prices there reflect current appreciation levels and so go for around $400K. What would they pay in property tax?