My New Blog

Maybe I’m missing something but there is no way I see property owners lose if we go to an increase in the sales tax.
 
As a property owner protected by the “ Save Our Homes” Act, I am a staunch supporter for the increase in the sales tax and the elimination of the property tax throughout Florida and for all property owners, including part-time residents and investors. Without this magnitude of property tax relief Florida’s economy will be in great peril – now and in the future…you can forget the growth that was predicted!

Some thoughts:

• The increase in sales tax is fair to all; everyone pays and everyone wins!

• An increase in sales tax helps lower income households afford homes and reduces their total annual tax expenditure by eliminating property taxes.

• An increase in the sales tax makes housing affordable for new Florida residents, increases demand and therefore increases or at least stabilizes property values and the overall Florida economy. (Certain parts of Tennessee pay 9 percent and they are growing.)

• For every $1,000 in property tax savings a household would have to spend $40,000 in taxable goods and service every year to wipe out the savings (food & medicine are excluded). Most households will never come close to this spending level every year.

• Rents WILL go up eventually if we don’t fix property taxes, driving even more people out of the state and hurting the economy.

• Property values for all will fall if we don’t fix it now, and the cure needs to be quick and dramatic, not a repeat of the solution for property insurance.

• Most people will want to sell their property sometime to trade up, down, move out of state, assisted living, etc. We have a responsibility to protect their property values.

Letting counties decide whether to participate makes no sense. Citizens would choose to buy property in counties with a higher sales tax and buy consumables in counties with a lower sales tax. Property values would be highest in counties with a high sales tax and no property taxes.

• Portability is only great for long-term property owners but it doesn’t help the rest. This just prolongs the inequity of the current system.

• Doubling the exemption doesn’t help many.

• As an organization, FAR need to help people understand they will NOT be hurt by an increased sales tax. Even renters and low-income households will benefit.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) – April 20, 2007 – The Florida Senate unanimously passed its bipartisan property tax overhaul package without debate Thursday, setting up negotiations with a House split mainly along party lines on a key part of its very different plan.

That element is a proposed state constitutional amendment (HJR 7089) that would trade property tax relief on primary homes, known as homesteads, for sales tax increases. The Senate plan has no such tax swap.

“This is not about politics, it’s about results,” said the chairman of the Senate Finance and Tax Committee, Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Indialantic. “People want results. We don’t want political spin.”

Senators say their legislation would spread tax relief more broadly. The House plan would give the greatest relief to homeowners, who already benefit from a $25,000 homestead exemption and the Save Our Homes Amendment that limits their annual tax increases to 3 percent.

House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, has led the charge for the House amendment, arguing it’s wrong to tax “the American Dream” – home ownership.

The swap would raise the 6 percent statewide sales tax to at least 7 percent or up to 8.5 percent in exchange for reducing or doing away with property taxes on homesteads.

House Republicans also argue sales tax is fairer because food and medicine are exempt, and people who spend more pay more tax. Opponents say the swap would shift the tax burden from some of Florida’s wealthiest residents to everyone else.

Legislation in both chambers would roll back property taxes to previous years. The House would go back to 2000-01, or 2003-04 if the amendment passes, and the Senate to 2005-06. Each then would cap taxes with some allowance for growth.

The Senate package would also take a smaller bite out of city and county coffers – $12.36 billion in the first five years while the House version would save taxpayers $25 billion to $35 billion over the same span.

The Senate spent about 10 minutes passing its package, compared to 10 hours of debate over two days in the House. Republicans control both chambers.

“What was there to argue about when we’d worked closely together to come up with a comprehensive package?” asked Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller of Cooper City.

The House discussion focused on the Republican tax swap amendment. It passed 78-40 on Wednesday with only two Democrats and two Republicans voting against their parties’ positions. Democrats, though, joined their GOP colleagues to unanimously pass the House’s rollback bill (HB 7001).

The Senate removed House language from that chamber’s measures and substituted its own before passing each on votes of 38-0 or 39-0. There were neither questions nor debate.

“When members are satisfied, and when they trust the leadership, and when they’re confident that what’s being done is the right thing, they don’t have to say anything, and they didn’t,” said Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster, R-Winter Garden.

The House appointed its delegation, headed by Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, to a joint conference committee that will try to resolve their differences. The Senate is expected to name its members Friday.

Webster said he believed the Senate unanimously opposes any tax swap because the existing system has worked well, with local governments relying on property tax and the state on sales tax.

The Senate’s rollback bill (SB 1020) would fix an unexpected spike in property taxes from 2004 through 2006 – due mainly to soaring real estate values – and prevent it from happening again, Webster said.

Other parts of the Senate package focus on fairness issues and requiring local governments to give citizens more information about their tax-and-spend practices.

The Save Our Homes Amendment, passed in 1992, has caused inequities by shifting the property tax burden to new homeowners and owners of second homes, businesses and rental units. Many people also feel trapped because they would lose that benefit if they moved to another home.

One element of the Senate’s constitutional amendment (SJR 3034) would allow homeowners who move to apply at least part of their Save Our Homes benefits to their new home.

House Republicans say they don’t need such a provision because their amendment would do away with all or most property taxes on homesteads.

The Senate amendment also would give first-time home buyers an extra but temporary $25,000 homestead exemption and businesses a $25,000 exemption on tangible personal property tax they pay on such items as computers and machinery. The latter provision is in the House amendment, too.

Other Senate bills would require assessments of affordable rental housing according to income rather than market value (SB 1022) and limit assessments based on the potential – rather than actual – use of property while requiring cities and counties to disclose budget data and contracts on their Web sites (SB 560).