florida votes yes on 1: portability

[lazygood4nothinbum]

save our home (soh) was instituted about 10 years before the bubble started because we were already watching our property values rise faster than we'd before seen due not to the hot air of investors but to the reality of strong population growth into an area of limited resource. it almost didn't pass and then we only needed 51%, not the 60plus% we needed & got this time.

at that time, how quickly prices could rise here likely wasn't even apparent in places outside of south florida which is a highly desirable area for growth but limited in land by both the atlantic ocean and the everglades. but florida in general will likely always attract speculation of both domestic and international investors and its desirability for residence likely won't subside at least until global warming sinks us.

i don't hear anyone complain how this type of taxing structure has hurt california real estate, we are still a huge bargain compared to them as well florida shields income from taxation so i would imagine it will still attract newcomers who can stomach our apparent inequities even though they still come out ahead.

Well, before I left NY should they have given me a rebate on the taxes I paid for 58years

and you returned the enjoyment of your property that you received during those 58 years before you checked out?

As far as the vote, there was no alternative. You either said OK I'll take the homestead exemption and the portability or I'll take nothing. So, the only people who would have voted no, were either necomers and young people who amounted to no where near the 40% needed to veto this fraud.

the alternative was getting out of your overtaxed house and voting against an amendment you thought would amount to taxation without representation thereby putting pressure on the legislature to fined better remedy.

even presidential elections are hard pressed to find 51% in their favor. i don't buy for a second that 60plus% for this was a given. but i do find it interesting that amend 1 received so much support.

I had a young guy at my house the other day fixing my cable box. He was born in Florida and boought his first house last August. His mortgage payment was $1400 a month, in Nov he got his new payment of over $1800. Now he put the house on the market because he can't make the payment.

i had done my due diligence on mom's house at the time of inheritance so i knew i was going to get screwed on taxes. i have no idea why your friend did not act similarly. at least in his case, he would have had the chance to make a more informed decision whereas my situation was rather made for me without even having bought or sold anything.

 

[Texas Proud]

yes, this is like california and though it is only in these two states that i know of, i think this will become more the norm in growth & crowded states like ours. this might not be needed in nongrowth, vacant areas. the option is forcing people to sell their houses because they can no longer afford rising taxes. you might see that as more fair but it is certainly not more kind, thus the liberal in me.

just goes to show how a bleeding heart on my sleeve social liberal can be the more fiscally conservative.

it happens that with this i would be able live property tax free (until those 3% increases kick in) but that is all due to portability of the many years of accumulating benefits of that 3% cap which you seem to sort of agree with.

i don't have more benefit from this, i simply will not be penalized out of my existing benefit just because i relocate within the same state out of which such benefit derives.

Actually, I did say that I thought 3% was to low... ours is 10%...

And it was designed so you would not be 'forced' to sell to pay the taxes... if you CHOSE to move, then you should have to pay the piper.. it was your choice...

I still say that if you want to have the services, PAY for them.... a tax free property is truly 'liberal' as you want others to pay YOUR tax burden and then enjoy the benefits... if your tax burden is to high... then CUT programs and lower it...

This is the conservative in me... pay your fair share, don't freeload off others...

 

[73ss454]

Lazy ,

I'm with you on this one . I intend to downsize and the portability will help. I also thought Save our homes was unfair when I bought six years ago but without it I would have been taxed out of my home . 73ss454 whatever taxes you are paying in Florida should pale by comparison to what you paid in New York .In a few years you will also benefit from the save our homes . Without that amendment and given the low wages in Florida there would be a massive exodus of workers .What I'd like to see is reasonable wages and a fairer property tax system .

I'm sure you would agree that this is great for you. Why wouldn't you, it lowers your taxes and let's it take it with you.

As to your question about my taxes in NY, I was paying 9600 and now I'm paying 8100. Not that big of a diff. Yet my neighbor who bought a few years before me and has the same house and a pool which I don't have is paying $3800. Same services, and same house.

The only people in the world who think this is fair are the ones that bennefit from it and you are one of them so good for you.

But no way can you justify this is fair.

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the problems I see with the whole argument is that you 'must' pay higher taxes because your property value is going up... that is BS...

Your gvmt is SPENDING MORE.... stop the spending and your rate would go down...

As an example... if the budget is $1,000,000 and the housing stock is $100,000,000.. the the tax rate is 1%... Now, lets say all the houses are worth a lot more and the housing stock is now valued at $200,000,000... well, if they did not spend any more money then your tax rate is .5%... SO NO INCREASE IN TAXES....

But, your gvmt says... hey, we now will have $2 mill coming in... what can we spend the money on


And no, you do not get credit for paying taxes for years.... the new neighborhoods are putting in the streets and sewere systems and other items that are then 'owned' by the gvmt.... they did not spend the money to put them in. The price of the new house will pay off the developer for these costs, which will increase their taxes more than buying an 'old' home....

 

[73ss454]

LG4NB, your statement about me enjoying my property is NY is so idiotic I won't even answer.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

May I ask what your marginal NY state income tax rate is?

I find that to be a great equalizer here. Pretty much offsets the high property taxes, weather insurance, etc. Of course, I'm still working and in a high bracket, but even on a $50k per year AGI, $3K in state taxes every year pays a lot of premiums.

Just good to look at the whole package, not just one or two items which may be out of line.

 

[73ss454]

May I ask what your marginal NY state income tax rate is?

I find that to be a great equalizer here. Pretty much offsets the high property taxes, weather insurance, etc. Of course, I'm still working and in a high bracket, but even on a $50k per year AGI, $3K in state taxes every year pays a lot of premiums.

Just good to look at the whole package, not just one or two items which may be out of line.

Rich, your another one who bennefits from this fraud.

As far as income tax in NY, well it was high and now in Florida there is none. That would be great if I had an income.

Looking at the whole package, I agree. It's great for you.

 

[Moemg]

73ss754,
I know how you feel when I bought my house in 2001 I ended up paying $5,000 in taxes .All the others were paying one to two thousand (this is on waterfront property). Two of the neighbors did additions . Bingo ,their taxes went crazy .One neighbors taxes went from $2,000 to $10,000. I don't think it's a good system but it does protect the older people from losing their homes .

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

7,

I acknowledge that there are winners and losers in this amendment, and that it creates inequities, as did the prior system. Nothing new there. Hopefully some of those will be remedied over time, and sorry it wasn't to your advantage. No wonder that you'd vote against it.

But some of the true victims of the prior system will get relief. My elderly neighbors bought 30 years ago. They want and need to sell and downsize, with one of them partially disabled. Under the old system, they would have paid more on a house worth half the market value of their current house just because of the tax increase, etc.

In which states would someone in your predicament fare the best, all things considered (strictly financially speaking)?

 

[73ss454]

From what I know the only states that have this crazy system is Fla. and Calif. so I guess any other state would be normal taxes.

I have no problem paying my fair share but that can't be done here.

On this whole thread the only people who think it makes any sense are the people who bennefit from it. I understand that, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

On this whole thread the only people who think it makes any sense are the people who bennefit from it. I understand that, but that doesn't make it right.

Well, nor does benefitting from it make it globally wrong. Some winners and some losers either way.

It's an imperfect solution to an even more imperfect situation IMO.

 

[73ss454]

Rich,

As long as the people who bennefit from this don't use it as an entitlement and think that it's OK. Because it's not.

I'm a big boy and pay what I have to pay but that doesn't make it right.
No way does anyone on the outside looking in say this is fair.

 

[Martha]

I favor property tax systems based on market value. Then when values go up the taxes shouldn't have to decrease dramatically because odds are everyone's value is increasing. I also support a homestead credit, so that your primary residence bears less of a tax burden. I also like states that have a mechanism for the poor elderly to defer taxes.

As everyone seems to acknowledge, Florida have a problem with its tax system. Do you think they will ever buy having an income tax?

 

[Nanita8140]

I'm in Florida and I voted yes on Amendment 1. I'm not looking to move anytime soon so portability was not my motive. But Florida is known for a large aging population(my mother being one) and they haven't been able to move(downsize homes) because of how high the prices of taxes have gone up(thanks to the subprime mess). Some of you think it is not fair for first time buyers and I agree, it is not. But hey, since when is life fair for everyone at the same time?...the way I see it is that alot of these elderly people are on fixed incomes and those looking to buy are young and still have time and health on their side to navigate their life.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Well, before I left NY should they have given me a rebate on the taxes I paid for 58years.

and you returned the enjoyment of your property that you received during those 58 years before you checked out?

LG4NB, your statement about me enjoying my property is NY is so idiotic I won't even answer.

my statement wasn't meant as anything more serious than a measured response to your little hissy fit. however, realizing your understandable frustration in all this, i should have more compassion and patience in me than what i mustered there.

when i bought in my area, at the birth of soh, i pioneered with others of my ilk into a depressed area writhe with drugs, crime and white flight because we saw the potential, because we took the chance, because we were willing to put forth our own efforts to improve this area which has become highly desirable since. my property value has increased about fivefold** even after the great bubblepop. but that took a lot of volunteer work and a lot of personal risk.

now that we've made our area safe and profitable, lots of businesses are in town. our main street is filled with bars and restaurants which are so busy almost every night that we've had to convert park space to parking. lots of people making lots of money on their businesses and on their houses and on efforts which were not theirs.

will i be getting a cut of their profits for all the years of volunteer hours and efforts of mine which made their present profits possible? isn't that a two way street as well? or is it only a two way street when both ways go your way?

**edit: clarification. property hasn't doubled five times but it is now valued at about 5 times my purchase price.

 

[GatorBuzz]

As everyone seems to acknowledge, Florida have a problem with its tax system. Do you think they will ever buy having an income tax?

I guess anything is possible, but I think it would be a death sentence for any politician proposing it. Florida salaries are not good when you look at other areas of the country with similarly priced homes and COL. It may end up happening eventually, but I doubt it will happen in the foreseeable future.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

As everyone seems to acknowledge, Florida have a problem with its tax system. Do you think they will ever buy having an income tax?

It would take extreme circumstances. Can't see it happening otherwise.

As many of us who have moved a few times know, it's close to a zero sum game when it comes to state revenues. Low property tax? Pay income tax and private school tuitions. Low income tax? Pay sales tax. They even used to tax investment assets here (not any longer). Skip the workarounds? End up with failed school systems, deficient services, mounting poverty and watch the brain drain and solid-worker drain.

So, like 73ss454 says, just buck up and pay out. Or choose a state whose idiosynchracies play to your strong suit, if your life circumstances permit.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

the other issue is that changing from property tax to income tax would likely involve a constitutional amendment and for that we now need a 60% majority to pass. so between the homeowners enjoying soh and nonhomeowners not enjoying low wages, 60% is very far away.

of course, by the time all that was worked out, enough years will have passed that even 73ss454 would be enjoying his soh value and wouldn't vote for it either. (just playing with you--didn't mean to start anything.)

 

[AltaRed]

at that time, how quickly prices could rise here likely wasn't even apparent in places outside of south florida which is a highly desirable area for growth but limited in land by both the atlantic ocean and the everglades. but florida in general will likely always attract speculation of both domestic and international investors and its desirability for residence likely won't subside at least until global warming sinks us.

i don't hear anyone complain how this type of taxing structure has hurt california real estate, we are still a huge bargain compared to them as well florida shields income from taxation so i would imagine it will still attract newcomers who can stomach our apparent inequities even though they still come out ahead.

That is wishful thinking. Potential migrants to Florida are waking up to what is going on and I personally know people who have written off FL as a place to own property. As long as you recognize this system is not sustainable long term. The disparities will continue to grow and the system will have to stall and potentially collapse, either by civil unrest between the haves and have nots, an exodus of those who will no longer support such inequities and/or a cessation of in-migration. It will happen, it is just a matter of when. Floridians need to start thinking about what the solution will ultimately be.

 

[The Kid]

I lived in Florida for 20 years and moved out in 2004. While I benefited from lower taxes (about a third of one neighbors but more than double another) I never saw the law as fair. Adding portability means that first time buyers are going to be hit even harder in the future. (By no means do I plan to go back) I am sorry that it may be tough on older fixed income residents but they should be paying their fair share.

I am surprised that no CA residents have weighed in on this. When I visited friends in San Jose 10 years ago, they already had a very similar situation where nobody could afford to move or remodel. CA is a beautiful state and I plan to VISIT it frequently once FIREd.

 

[73ss454]

my statement wasn't meant as anything more serious than a measured response to your little hissy fit. however, realizing your understandable frustration in all this, i should have more compassion and patience in me than what i mustered there.

when i bought in my area, at the birth of soh, i pioneered with others of my ilk into a depressed area writhe with drugs, crime and white flight because we saw the potential, because we took the chance, because we were willing to put forth our own efforts to improve this area which has become highly desirable since. my property value has increased about fivefold** even after the great bubblepop. but that took a lot of volunteer work and a lot of personal risk.

now that we've made our area safe and profitable, lots of businesses are in town. our main street is filled with bars and restaurants which are so busy almost every night that we've had to convert park space to parking. lots of people making lots of money on their businesses and on their houses and on efforts which were not theirs.

will i be getting a cut of their profits for all the years of volunteer hours and efforts of mine which made their present profits possible? isn't that a two way street as well? or is it only a two way street when both ways go your way?

**edit: clarification. property hasn't doubled five times but it is now valued at about 5 times my purchase price.

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?

You are the one who brought up the fact that you paid for the infrastructure so you should pay less than your neighbors. You really think this is right. No sense going back and forth with someone who doesn't get it.

Is everyone on the thread wrong except you and the people it helps.

So if I wait long enough I'll get the advantage also. Let's see I'll get a job to beat the state taxes and wait till I'm 72 to get tax relief. Right!

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.

 

[youbet]

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.

 

[73ss454]

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.

Huge diff, but the only example I can give is mine.

I bought my house in Fla. April 2003, I couldn't homestead because I was still living NY. I paid 300K at the time and my taxes were $2800. They continued to go up every year as if I were a new resident because I was not eligible for the 3% cap. Last year they went up to $8600 and when I homesteaded, also last year they dropped to $8100.

As LG4NB stated when he took over his mom's house his went up to 17K. It would be interesting to see what his mom was payiing but a guess would be around 6K.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

The disparities will continue to grow and the system will have to stall and potentially collapse, either by civil unrest between the haves and have nots, an exodus of those who will no longer support such inequities and/or a cessation of in-migration. It will happen, it is just a matter of when. Floridians need to start thinking about what the solution will ultimately be.

to that, time will tell. as california is years ahead of us on this, i look foward to watching news of civil war breaking out there as our early warning. whether or not inequities exist at this point is almost moot because of the unlikely 60% vote required to change that. we're a bit stuck with this. hopefully florida will find a way to tweek the current system and make more people happier.

I am surprised that no CA residents have weighed in on this. When I visited friends in San Jose 10 years ago, they already had a very similar situation where nobody could afford to move or remodel. CA is a beautiful state and I plan to VISIT it frequently once FIREd.

you won't be visiting us? it's pretty here too ya know. Florida Hotels| Orlando Hotels |Miami Beach Hotels | Vacation Guide for Orlando, Miami Beach, Daytona, Fort Lauderdale| Disney guide

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?

You are the one who brought up the fact that you paid for the infrastructure so you should pay less than your neighbors. You really think this is right. No sense going back and forth with someone who doesn't get it.

Is everyone on the thread wrong except you and the people it helps.

So if I wait long enough I'll get the advantage also. Let's see I'll get a job to beat the state taxes and wait till I'm 72 to get tax relief. Right!

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 was more than satisfied with the level of civil service i received for my taxes when i first bought here. my property has since revalued annually at the inflation rate and has been taxed on that which should buy me the same level of service today. just like yours will now be increasing at the inflation rate from when you bought.

so here is your answer, like it or not: as more service is required due to population growth, i have no problem with the newer people paying for that. so there!

do i think it should be more fair than it is, yes, i do. do i think homesteaded properties should go up only 3% while nonhomesteaded go up 10%? i think that is a bit of a spread. are there other areas to tweek. of course there are.

do i think it is fair of you to say i am taking advantage of a situation? actually, i think that is kind of rude of you. just because i happen to benefit more than most does not mean that i was out to take advantage or to screw anyone. luck fell my way on this one. just as soon as you give up all the lucky things in life that came your way, i'll consider giving up my homestead exemption for you.

 

[Texas Proud]

As LG4NB stated when he took over his mom's house his went up to 17K. It would be interesting to see what his mom was payiing but a guess would be around 6K.

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....