florida votes yes on 1: portability

[73ss454]

Sorry you think I'm rude but grandstanding about how you think this is right is, well is just wrong.

Your entitled to get what you can get like everyone else in this world just don't try to justify a wrong.

Good luck with the sale of both of your properties, your going to need it. At least maybe now you'll get a Floridian with a good homestead advantage to buy them.

 

[73ss454]

From his prior post:

by the way, you're talking to a guy who is paying $17k on my inherited house which used to cost us only $5k.


so as you can see, a big difference in the tax liability of the same residents... if you had lived there for a long time, only $5K, but move in there now and it is $17K... that is a LOT of tax relief for the 'old folks'....


But nobody has addressed the fact that it is the bloated budgets that is creating the problem, not the value of the property... you reduce the spending and the tax rate comes down....

And if EVERYBODY's house goes up at the same rate, there should be no difference in tax liability from year to year UNLESS they are spending the windfall taxes they are getting from the higher value... the tax system is not what needs fixing, but the BUDGET that it is paying for....

Even if everyone's house goes up at the same rate everyone is still paying diff. taxes based on when they bought the house.

I'm all for tax relief for old folks, after all I'm old.

I'm sure LG4NB doesn't mind paying the 17K on a one million dollar profit. If he does I'll take over half of the taxes and we can split the profit once he sells.

Just looking for an even playing field so I pay the same taxes as my neighbor for the same value house and services.

 

[Texas Proud]

Even if everyone's house goes up at the same rate everyone is still paying diff. taxes based on when they bought the house.

.....

Just looking for an even playing field so I pay the same taxes as my neighbor for the same value house and services.

I was talking about the other states that don't have the freeze... everybody pays the same 'rate', but the rate would go down by the same percentage houses go up (in theory) if the budget does not change...

I agree... pull your weight... pay your fair share...



The only semi-good argument that someone has said is because of 'poor old folks' being taxed out of thier houses... well, I bet money that number is VERY VERY small... probably less than 1/2% and I think that is being very kind on the high side...

 

[Moemg]

Could one of you guys give an estimate or guess at what the tax differential would be for a new buyer vs a 20 year resident in some example? Say a home with a market value of $250k. That would help us flatlanders understand the level of inequity we're talking about.

My house is 3600 sq.ft . I paid $350,000 in 2001. My taxes are $4,900 . My house is valued at $743,000 .My neighbor has a 1800 sq. ft. house bought in 2006 for $315,00 .Their taxes are $7,000.Their house is valued at $350,000.My neighor across the street who's lot alone is worth $500,000 bought his small house 11 years ago and his taxes are $2,200.So you see it's crazy . Plus if you remodel you've unleashed the tax devil and your taxes will go sky high . So not only do people not want to move any remodeling is done on the inside only .

 

[Notmuchlonger]

In California on our vacation property we pay 1725 a year. This is a 1534sq house in prime mountain vacation area built in 1981. The land is probably worth more than the house. Im one of those people who is glad that we have a freeze on property taxes

 

[tiredofwork]

Even the folks that live in Fla. know it's wrong, everyone except you.

Just admit it's wrong and that your taking advantage of a situation that benefits you.

"I'll bite." It's unfair, but I voted for it and I'll certainly take advantage of this situation that benefits me. I live in FL and have been in the same house for 14 years, so I will have a large benefit when I downsize for ER.

I had originally hoped that the amendment would be drafted to be more fair to nonresidents and businesses, but it ended up being mostly one-sided towards people like me. I didn't expect it to pass, so I guess there were many other homeowners that also wanted some tax relief and felt a "bird in hand is worth two in the bush".

I also voted for McCain in the primary, instead of Huckabee. Call me shallow, but my main reason was because Huckabee was pushing the "Fair" Tax proposal, which I view as unfair to those in ER who have already paid taxes on their savings and shouldn't be asked to pay again when they spend those savings.

The way I figure it, you need every edge you can get going into ER to make up for the haircuts that are surely coming in Medicare and Social Security when the majority vote to soak the people who were high earners during their working lives.

If you want fair, move to France, Sweden, or one of the other socialist countries and maybe you'll get it Otherwise, move to Florida, where the weather's pretty nice this time of year and the cost of living is still low in many parts of the state (and getting lower thanks to the housing crash).

 

[AltaRed]

i look foward to watching news of civil war breaking out there as our early warning.

That is a rather gross exaggeration of "civil unrest", but whether you like it or not, anger will surface in state/county/city meetings and elections at some point. Those disproportionately paying the freight will not remain silent as the gap continues to widen. Floridians had better start working on what will replace this system longer term.

 

[The Kid]

Yes you would need to pay the Fair Tax but you would otherwise have to pay the embedded taxes anyways. The beauty of the Fair Tax is that it eliminates the "non value added" cost of the IRS and all of the compliance lawyers. If you are not in that group, I do not see who it is a negative for.

 

[73ss454]

Tiredofwork, what made you think it wouldn't pass. There was no alternative, not like you had a real choice. You either wanted a discount or didn't, so besides new comers and 1st time buyers why wouldn't you vote for it? I would say that 90% of the people have been here long enough to benefit from the amendment. As I said I see no reason not to vote for it if your in the 90% majority.

I don't blame anyone for voting for it if it was to your advantage. In June the original amendement had a 175K super exemption option that would have allowed anyone to choose SOH or the super exemption. In my case I would have taken the super exemption to take advantge of some tax relief. Some how it was taken off the ballot which essentially hurt new comers and 1st time buyers. Since new comers and 1st time buyers are a small minority there was no chance of this failing.

 

[pedorrero]

Interesting debate. I too am a Floridiot (TM) who voted in favor of Ammendment 1. I'm surprised that it only passed with a 65% majority (or whatever that figure was...) If nothing else, I hope that it will make my property a bit easier to sell -- to other Floridiots. As far as more Yankees moving here, I personally think we have too many already and the only people who seem to want more citizens are those connected with the now-ailing home building industry, real estate speculators, and the greedy local governmnets just drooling for the taxes of economic development. We are already "God's Waiting Room" down here; I say let NC or AZ take up some of the slack. GA is nice if you are a sober Baptist

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

That is a rather gross exaggeration of "civil unrest", but whether you like it or not, anger will surface in state/county/city meetings and elections at some point. Those disproportionately paying the freight will not remain silent as the gap continues to widen. Floridians had better start working on what will replace this system longer term.

sorry if you don't like my exaggeration. it might be more of a problem than i see it, but this has been in play for 14 years already. while the increased values throw it more in the face, this is nothing new. and the fear of increased values was precisely what caused florida to enact soh in the first place.

while we haven't seen any chairs flying at meetings, we saw just a little dissent likely mostly from people who financed their new purchase poorly and who didn't do their own due diligence before buying, and now again when we voted for portability. the only change this week is that we finally have portability, everyone gets a small tax break and nonhomesteaded properties go from having no protection to having a 10% cap.

i would have voted for superhomestead when that looked possible even though i'm helped better by this. i don't know why that was taken off the table though i'm not sure that would have passed as my feeling is that most floridians would like to have seen superhomestead and (not or) portability.

as i mentioned before, while i doubt that this system will be replaced because of the 60% vote now required, floridians are already discussing how to tweek it to make it more fair even for the sore losers.

it's a tough balance. no one wants to give up their benefit. yet we know there needs to be more done for recent residents. tex has it right, we need to control spending. i'm watching the roadwork around here. they tear out an old medium just so they can install a new pretty one. spending is way out of hand. but it takes voters to get out and do something about it and not just throw chairs at meetings.

 

[73ss454]

LG4NB, I agree with everything you said except one thing.

Where are these Floridians meeting to help us sore losers? Ya gotta be kidding.

 

[Moemg]

LG4NB, I agree with everything you said except one thing.

Where are these Floridians meeting to help us sore losers? Ya gotta be kidding.

I think they are at the local bars !

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

LG4NB, I agree with everything you said except one thing.

Where are these Floridians meeting to help us sore losers? Ya gotta be kidding.

i hear there was recent meeting held at your local polling place. rumor has it they held an issue dear to you up for a vote. they even had a chair for you to throw but i guess it was not important enough for you to attend.

so either you are right and i have got to be kidding. or i am right and your expression of dissent is a joke.

because when it comes down to it, without having bothered even to vote, your chair has hardly a leg to stand on.

 

[jazz4cash]

But nobody has addressed the fact that it is the bloated budgets that is creating the problem, not the value of the property... you reduce the spending and the tax rate comes down....

And if EVERYBODY's house goes up at the same rate, there should be no difference in tax liability from year to year UNLESS they are spending the windfall taxes they are getting from the higher value... the tax system is not what needs fixing, but the BUDGET that it is paying for....

Maryland uses something called Constant Yield Tax Rates:
"The contant yield concept is that, as assessments rise, the tax rate should drop to the point that the revenue derived from property taxes stays at a constant level from one year to the next."

Additionally, there is a 3% annual cap in increases. Assessments are every 3 yrs and phased in 1/3 per yr. If nothing else, the taxes paid are very consistent wrt assessed value. Homestead, Disability, Veteran, and low income credits are also available.

 

[73ss454]

i hear there was recent meeting held at your local polling place. rumor has it they held an issue dear to you up for a vote. they even had a chair for you to throw but i guess it was not important enough for you to attend.

so either you are right and i have got to be kidding. or i am right and your expression of dissent is a joke.

because when it comes down to it, without having bothered even to vote, your chair has hardly a leg to stand on.

What's the point of voting for something that should have been given to begin with. Your only choice was either you wanted the discount or you didn't so what were you voting for. Either way it had nothing to do with me. If it passed good for you and if it didn't good for you. Either way I still get to pay.

Now explain what I'd be voting for. I don't see any reason to vote for a fraud.

You can have my seat at the polling place.

 

[eridanus]

You still refuse to answer the question. What makes you think you should pay less than your neighbor for the same services because you bought earlier?

Because infrastructure costs increase when more people move into an area. It's not a linear formula -- the costs don't increase by 1 unit when 1 additional user shows up.

 

[73ss454]

Because infrastructure costs increase when more people move into an area. It's not a linear formula -- the costs don't increase by 1 unit when 1 additional user shows up.

And what does this have to do with the price of Tuna in China?

 

[eridanus]

And what does this have to do with the price of Tuna in China?

Calm down. You're foaming at the mouth.

What part of "infrastructure costs increase when more people move into an area" don't you understand?

Of course, it only applies to new neighborhoods that require extensive infrastructure that's paid for by everyone in the town/county. California charges developers a fee for each new house built to cover the additional tax burden inflicted on existing residents.

 

[73ss454]

Calm down. You're foaming at the mouth.

What part of "infrastructure costs increase when more people move into an area" don't you understand?

Of course, it only applies to new neighborhoods that require extensive infrastructure that's paid for by everyone in the town/county. California charges developers a fee for each new house built to cover the additional tax burden inflicted on existing residents.

I don't know what your post has to do with what we are discussing.

Also I understand that things cost money I just want to pay my fair share the same as my neighbors. This is not the way it works in this state.

 

[tiredofwork]

Yes you would need to pay the Fair Tax but you would otherwise have to pay the embedded taxes anyways. The beauty of the Fair Tax is that it eliminates the "non value added" cost of the IRS and all of the compliance lawyers. If you are not in that group, I do not see who it is a negative for.

There will still be an IRS or something like it to keep the black market under control, collect the taxes, send out prebates, etc.

You can go to the Fair Tax website where there is a calculator to model your own situation. Early retirees who rely on drawing down their portfolio are heavily penalized. Those at lower income levels and wage earners tend to do well with the Fair Tax.

 

[Htown Harry]

But is it constitutional?

Bravo Bum! Bravo 73! This thread is an example of why I keep coming back for more at this forum – passionate beliefs, verbal swordplay and, usually, posters who are wise enough to be aware of both the obvious and subtle distinctions between self-interest and the greater good. All are in evidence here.

I particularly like wandering into conversations like this one because it leads me to an evening of thinking a little more deeply about subjects that I only skimmed before. In this case, 73’s unanswered “why would anyone vote against this?” sent me on a path to better understanding the arguments that were offered against the proposal. News coverage occasionally mentioned government employee groups as opponents. However, they almost always cited a cautionary legal analysis prepared in 2007 for the Florida legislature. A sample:

"Save Our Homes portability proposals clearly raise the most serious constitutional questions," wrote Walter Hellerstein a University of Georgia law professor in a report commissioned by the Florida Legislature. The biggest pitfall, he wrote, is that under portability, long-term residents would be treated differently than new residents to the state. "In our view, the right to travel and, in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court precedents invalidating state efforts to deprive newly arrived residents of the same governmental benefits that are available to long-time residents provide the most powerful constitutional basis for challenging the Save Our Homes portability provisions."

I’m neither a lawyer nor a Floridian, but I have slept at a Holiday Inn.
I have therefore concluded that the tremendous tax advantages afforded Florida homebuyers as compared to non-resident homebuyers will be found to be a violation of either the Commerce or Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. (We’ll eventually see whether I am correct - a lawsuit was filed by three recent in-migrants almost as soon as the election results were tabulated.)

For those inclined to read a bit more, there is a link to Hellerman’s report at the bottom of the blog page from which the above quote is taken. Florida Today Blogs The legal stuff begins at page 115.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

true, harry, that this is not a done deal. a lawsuit has already been filed. likely the legislature will hold off on acting upon the electorate's will until after that has been decided.

the thing with the argument

"Save Our Homes portability proposals clearly raise the most serious constitutional questions," wrote Walter Hellerstein a University of Georgia law professor in a report commissioned by the Florida Legislature. The biggest pitfall, he wrote, is that under portability, long-term residents would be treated differently than new residents to the state.

is that portability does not change how new residents are treated relative to how they were treated before portability. existing residents are at advantage currently just like they are in california. fundamentally, nothing effecting newer residents has changed. if they bought in the last five years, they can carry five years of benefits with them. if they just moved here, then their lot is no worse than it was before portability.

the only difference is that now existing residents are no longer locked into their houses. now they will not lose accrued benefits just because they move to another home within the same state. a not so absurd analogy might be moving your funds out of your vanguard account & into fidelity, but only being allowed to take your principal with none your accrued interest. because your fund did not have portability.

and not to harry, but to everyone else who argues fairness particularly with this individual, please keep in mind that i pay for the schooling of children not my own, no matter how many children anyone cares for me to fund, even though i have put none into this world and that their schooling consumes the majority of my taxes. that i also help pay for their playgrounds and parks that i do not use. and i pay this into the general funds of a state which would deny me, just because of my sexual orientation, the right even to adopt as my own children my niece & nephews were that need to ever sadly arise.

so you might think twice before berating me about the fairness of the sticking a hand into someone else's pocket when your hand has forever been in mine.

 

[youbet]

If implemented, will this new Florida legislation be a boon to the real estate markets in other states that compete with Florida for retirees? That is, will painfully high real estate taxes for new residents force more new retirees to reconsider plans to move to Florida and substitute other locations?

Edited to add - what message will the new legislation send to Canadian snow birds planning on buying condos in Florida with their now highly valued Canadian dollars?

 

[Notmuchlonger]

If implemented, will this new Florida legislation be a boon to the real estate markets in other states that compete with Florida for retirees? That is, will painfully high real estate taxes for new residents force more new retirees to reconsider plans to move to Florida and substitute other locations?

Edited to add - what message will the new legislation send to Canadian snow birds planning on buying condos in Florida with their now highly valued Canadian dollars?

If someone from Canada had the money to buy a place in Florida I doubt they will be turned off by having to pay a few more thousand.