florida votes yes on 1: portability

[Moemg]

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 .

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I think it's not a complete solution but I voted for it. We needed something to break the gridlock, and some constituencies were really imprisoned by the current well-intended but screwed up laws.

I'd like to see it followed up by fine-tuning the inevitable unintended consequences, and an increase in sales tax or even a small state income tax toward services, infrastructure, and education among other things.

Relying too heavily on property tax for those things is too unpredictable, too vulnerable to the gyrations of the housing market, and essentially uncontrollable.

Newcomers to the state benefit little, other than a 10% prop tax cap. And at least they know what they are getting into, versus finding yourself unexpectedly trapped by a system intended to help you.

[GatorBuzz]

Oh, gotcha. Same thing happened to me. Our first year in our house we paid 1600 in taxes b/c it was based on what the previous owner paid (he'd lived in the house for 15 years). Next year (reappraised) it went to 2400. That's still not bad compared to what many faced. 400 more a month, though, seems almost unbelievable.

The biggest problem is in local government spending and tax increases (obviously). I live in Alachua County and during the tax discussions last year, one of our County Commissioners stated that if the bill passed "I guess we will no longer be able to be all things to all people." Yeah? Well no kidding. You never should've tried that in the first place. County governments have been robbing citizens in Florida for the last five years with increased home prices, so the state government decided to step in. After a lot of talk of everything (including total elimination of property taxes) it looks like this is what we got.

What do you think they should've done to fix the indiscriminate raising of taxes that county governments have been able to do for the last five years (or more in some areas)? Seems to me that before this bill was passed, there was no relief for new buyers and that remains the same.

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

A question for me is what happened to all that increased tax revenue due to years of housing appreciation?

There'll be shortages and problems from this. I hope that they can be fixed with alternative sources of revenue of which I am willing to pay my share. Heck, it's a beautiful state to live in, no state income tax, large population. There'll be ways.

[AltaRed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum how badly has it hurt california?

Have you seen how the state's economy is grinding down due to slower population and GDP growth? Newcomers are not going to pay a disproportionate amount of the tax load over the long term. At some point sunshine and beaches becomes unaffordable and in-migration stops (or reverses). That is a death spiral as one can see in the industrial midwest. Want your cities to become another Cleveland? Buffalo?

These tax systems did help to slow/stop rampant growth and thus rampant increases in house prices and property taxes. Something did need to be done to put the brakes on in both FL and CA, but I don't think anyone thought through how they are going to get off that train when it inevitably has to stop. Zero growth results in stagnation, deteriorating infrastructure and services - and loss of jobs.

[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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moemg 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 Well, before I left NY should they have given me a rebate on the taxes I paid for 58years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum and you returned the enjoyment of your property that you received during those 58 years before you checked out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 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.