florida votes yes on 1: portability

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AltaRed 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I think they are at the local bars !

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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

Quote:

"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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[MichaelB]

This thread prompted me to register and post. An earlier post asked who would vote against and why.

I live in florida and voted against.

Florida residents have voted to limit their individual property taxes but have left uncontrolled both public spending and other people’s property taxes. This is amazing. It is financially unsustainable. Very unbalanced, and quite anti-social to just throw one's obligations on one's neighbor.

This new referendum makes the problem worse. It lets those that benefit now cash out but continue to receive the benefits while others pay the cost. In other words, this was the "unfair benefits portability act of 2008".

Now the politicians will spend the next couple of years saying they have done something for property taxes, instead of working to fix this once and for all.

This is financially, morally and socially wrong. Even though I benefit from this system, I campaigned and voted against it, and would do so again. I want something that works for me and my children, not just me.

Finally, it will hurt, not help, real estate prices. It limits demand to downsizers that already live in more expensive Florida housing and pushes higher tax costs onto new state residents and first time buyers. They will look elsewhere, overall Florida state demand will suffer and real estate prices will follow.

Just my view of this interesting debate.

Regards, Michael

[jazz4cash]

LG4NB
Please don't take any of my comments personally.....I have no ill will to any individual benefitting from this cooky scheme. It's just that this scheme appears too stupid to remain intact...portability is one thing...zero property tax is extreme. All of the arguments seem weak as hell to me (schools/parks/etc) designed to justify something that just does not make sense. Maybe I would feel different if I had more details, but not likely given the extreme variations in taxes for equal properties based on duration. Every dollar saved by one homeowner is extracted from thier neighbor......yes our system works that way to a point anyway but we're not talking about chipping in x% for others less fortunate or more deserving due to special circumstances. Appreciate your comments and descriptions of the process. Keep us posted on the progress. I guess our system in MD is looking more reasonable except our homes are just too pricey.

[Texas Proud]

Hey Lazy...

Interesting argument at the end of your last post....

I remember a long time ago someone with two kids said that he did not think I should be paying school taxes (which also is the biggest number here) since I do not have any kids... I disagreed with him even though none was used any offspring as I do not have any...

BUT, that is one of the things with a society... there are expenses that are paid that I disagree and some that I agree.... it is up to me to try and get the 'correct' politicians in office to vote for the spending I like...

I know I do not like all the welfare payments that are being made... and I can tell you for sure that the spending on housing Katrina 'victims' still is a bit much... and the amount that is being spent on the war is WAY to much... but we have a 'social contract'... a kind of 'take it or leave it' version... if you do not like the taxes you pay where you are, you can 'leave' where they are to your likeing... if you can find such a place...

SO, I think I have an 'obligation' to help educate all kids so they can grow up and not be a burden on the government... and also PAY MY SS when it comes time...

But as I said... good argument....

[73ss454]

LG4NB, states that new comers are treated the same before and after the vote and he is correct. Yet he asks me why I didn't vote. I ask again, what would I be voting for? No change to me if it didn't or did go through. I would just love to know what I'd be voting for.

I also have no children in the school and never did. Yet I have no problem doing my part to pay for the ever important ecucation of our youth. The problem once again is I'm not paying a fair share but a larger share.

Michael, welcome to the forum and I'm glad you realize the stupidity of this amendment. I still think that the politicians have something up their sleeves and that this vote will enable them to get rid of this taxing system that's going to kill the Florida economy at some point.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

yes tex, well, just because i make an argument doesn't mean i buy it. sometimes i just argue for sport. i also have no problem paying for the children of others so that i don't wind up living in an even dumber society. as to the extent i have to pay, that would be a question, i suppose, of fairness.

i realize that not everything is fair or has to be. what is not a tug of war? michaelb makes some good points on that. as did eridanus. we have a long standing problem in florida in that we have been such an incredibly successful growth state. but we did not grow like the rest of the country because our growth only kicked in since flagler's railroad and of course air conditioning.

we have huge problems with concurrency. that is our infrastructures were not built for this growth. we have a problem with impact fees, our developers do not want to pay them. so the impact fees have been kept artificially low and that burden has fallen on the existing population. not just for the roads but for their parks & water and sewage plants.

i'm not a financial guy. i'm not a polititian. i don't know how this stuff works. do you level the tax field and increase impact fees. will increased fees increase the price of everyone's houses and thereby increase all our taxes. it is a tug of war and some of it will seem to some unfair.

as to jazz's indignation that i might one day manage to live in a house without paying any property tax, don't lose any sleep over it. i imagine that is a rare instance. you would have to have had a lot of soh value and to be willing to downsize into a house which can be purchased on that value. that likely means moving away from familiar surroundings and into a cheaper area. so it is the rare bird who will chirp that coup.