Florida's constitution is far too easy to amend, some amendments getting on the ballot because of large amounts of money and time spent by outside the state interests. 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.
Even though I benefited from it when I lived there, having owned my home for more than 25 years, it is a crime for two identical homes, side by side, to have one paying $800 and the other $2800 in yearly property taxes. Uh, yeah, the $800 was me.
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.
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.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There's nothing wrong with her old house other than it's a bit too large for two people, and she's not as young as she once was. My sister and I have encouraged her to stay put at least until this tax issue is resolved.
Interestingly, the "Save Our Homes" constitutional amendment was BARELY passed by a few percentage points!
When it passed, a 50+% standard applied for constitutional amendments. The requirement is now 60+% for passage of constitutional amendments....
Ours was just over $12,000 in NJ. And that's on top of Federal and State Income taxes.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
It would be equally unfair to keep induce foreclosures by raising the taxes on existing homes in step with bubble-driven increases in assessed valuation after purchase. For his reason Florida implemented the same system that California enacted some years ago: taxes are are marked up the current market value only when a home is sold; thereafter, yearly increased are held to a small fixed percentage.
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.
Unfortunately, we in America have become accustomed to the idea that only "progressive" taxation is "fair"--the "rich" are supposed pay more than the "poor"--so there's always infuriated screeching when other approaches are raised.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
CA has the same thing.
Am I wrong or is this basically the blind greed of a baby boomer generation?
Why can't they just lower all the property taxes to the lowest tier? Oooh, that would make too much sense.
"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.
Locals can control local taxes to a degree. At the same time, locals demand gov’t services, so while those who want lower taxes might not be the same ones who want more services there is the chance for interesting elections.
All this squabbling over how to shift the burden around is exactly what the government wants. It ignores the problem that the burden is way too high.