House to ask voters to trade property tax for more sales tax

[TheSheep]

Believe it or not, there are actually working class people in Florida. Since Floridians spend on average 40% of their income on taxable items. Equal to about 2500 dollars per household, an increase on the sales tax impacts these people. Perhaps a low-income sales tax credit could level the field a bit.

What would level the tax field is a kinder assessment of who can pay what and assess accordingly.

 

[Smiling JOe]

The Bay County Property Assessor is suggesting an easy solution of assessing all property at 40% of market value rather than the required 85%, which would bring immediate relief to all property owners in Florida. Mark my words, if something isn't done to correct the tax issue this year, there will be a tax revolt. If the market value of properties drops 35% from the 2005 values, the increase in millage rates will go up tremendously to keep the total revenue at the same levels for the County.

 

[6thGen]

What would level the tax field is a kinder assessment of who can pay what and assess accordingly.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

What is hard to understand about economic incentives?

 

[pmd8]

Even though replacing my property tax with a sales tax would greatly benefit me, I oppose it. Someone with a home appraised at a million or so who now pays about $25,000 in property taxes would have to spend a $500,000 dollars a year with the additional 2% sales tax to offset the loss of property taxes.

Business owners would pay a disproportionate amount of taxes.

Wouldn't it be fairer to reduce the millage rates across the board?

 

[seacrestkristi]

This will not help the RE market - Second homeowners and investers will not like being the ones to pay the bill.

We already are paying the bill. I think it would help. I don't want to charge renters (the very few I have being across the street from the beach w/ no pool) any more than I already am.11.5%! Our property tax went from $750-$2300/year in 6 or 7 years! Where are they charging 14%? :shock: And insurance woohoowee! They charged so much we just got a refund check from the insurance co. being reviewed by the state! :clap_1:

 

[Joe Complete]

Wouldn't it be fairer to reduce the millage rates across the board?

I disagree that reducing the millage rate will solve the problem. The real problem lies in the assessments and not the millage rate. The "Slaves of our homes" constitutional amendment has created enormous disparities in the assessments. The millage rate has gone down in Walton County and mostly benefited those who have been homesteaded for a long time.

Rolling back assessments to year 2000 levels would create a more equitable system.

 

[John R]

Rolling back assessments to year 2000 levels would create a more equitable system.

now that i could live with.

 

[Bob]

I suspect the one thing that needs to be done is the most fair. The elimination of SOH would end the debate of inequality, and local governments would be held to more scrutiny regarding the collection of taxes and spending.

 

[Joe Complete]

Eliminating SOH is difficult because it must be done by the voters and not the legislature. On top of that it would require more than a 60% vote. The only way I can see voters eliminating SOH is if they are voting to completely eliminate their property taxes.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I disagree that reducing the millage rate will solve the problem. The real problem lies in the assessments and not the millage rate. The "Slaves of our homes" constitutional amendment has created enormous disparities in the assessments. The millage rate has gone down in WaltonCounty and mostly benefited those who have been homesteaded for a long time.

Rolling back assessments to year 2000 levels would create a more equitable system.

Joe, I am not sure that I follow you point of the problem lying in the assessments rather than the millage rate. Will you please share some examples of how you think this to be true? If the millage rate is decrease substantially, and assessments remained at 85% wouldn't the effect be the same, or am I missing something?

Also, how did the decrease of somewhere around 1 mill benefit those people who have been homesteaded for a long time. I understand that the Save Our Homes Act has benefited these people greatly, but since their assessed values were capped long ago as for increases, 1 mill doesn't really add up to much. My thought was that it gave more benefit to the people who do not have homesteaded property.

Example - Property #1
homesteaded property from 1990 - Assessed at $100,000
1 mill reduction = $100
total taxes around 9 mills = $900


property #2 which is not homesteaded but adjacent to property #1
purchased in 2005 and assessed at $850,000 (just making up some realistic examples)
1 mill reduction = $850
total taxes around 9 mills = $7650

In the above examples, you can see the inequity caused by the Save Our Homes Act, which Joe and others mention. However, a millage reduction appears to benefit the non-homesteaded property owner more than the homesteader who purchased long ago.