[kevinbonds]

Originally Posted by Jareb

We will be voting NO on this. I've been in my home for 17 years. I built it for 192K- its 300ft from the ocean in a gated community and has gone up in value to 600K. My taxes have ranged from $2900 to $3150 over this time period. Why would I vote for this. House has tripled-taxes have remained essentially unchanged. If you lose the SOH, the local governments will simply raise the millage rate at which they tax you. {Hypothetical}If your house is tax assessor valued at 100k with exemptions under SOH and they tax you at $1.00 per $1000 of value- you pay $100 in taxes. If you lose SOH and they value it with the new super exemption, the assessor will simply raise the millage to $2.00 per $1000 or $3.00 per thousand until they get back to $100 in taxes. The county governments are not going to accept tax revenue at 50,60,70 etc percent of what is is now. The government will raise your millage to get a neutral net revenue from the citizens.
I would vote for a sales tax{consumption} that would replace all property tax- this is the only way I see to make it fair for all. This was part of the discussion in the state legislature when super exemption became the proposal. It was voted down by our illustrious leaders. Make them go back to the table and present us with an abolishment of property tax replaced with sales tax-It would pass overwhelmingly IMHO

You my friend are a the definition of "selfish". Just because you purchased your home 17 years ago does not mean that you should pay less taxes then someone who bought last week. You should not have one person on a street pay $2,000 in taxes while the guy across the street pays two to three times that. When you bought your house should not have a bearing on your taxes. More importantly all these people whom have been living in their houses 15-20years should pretty much have their houses paid off. Prices were so much less expensive and taxes have been so low over the past decades for these people they should be the ones who can afford to pay the higher taxes since there mortgage payment should be $0 or close to it. Yet a young couple wants to buy a house and on top of their mortgage have to pay an extra $500 plus per month. Just a bunch of ill informed people. You dont loss the your soh unless you move. So why not vote for it so that your neighbors can have some relieve. You say your house is worth 600K well not anymore and certianly not when people stop moving to florida because the high taxes and insurance. Wise up!

[macguy]

Originally Posted by kevinbonds

You my friend are a the definition of "selfish". Just because you purchased your home 17 years ago does not mean that you should pay less taxes then someone who bought last week. You should not have one person on a street pay $2,000 in taxes while the guy across the street pays two to three times that. When you bought your house should not have a bearing on your taxes. More importantly all these people whom have been living in their houses 15-20years should pretty much have their houses paid off. Prices were so much less expensive and taxes have been so low over the past decades for these people they should be the ones who can afford to pay the higher taxes since there mortgage payment should be $0 or close to it. Yet a young couple wants to buy a house and on top of their mortgage have to pay an extra $500 plus per month. Just a bunch of ill informed people. You dont loss the your soh unless you move. So why not vote for it so that your neighbors can have some relieve. You say your house is worth 600K well not anymore and certianly not when people stop moving to florida because the high taxes and insurance. Wise up!

It makes "NO" sense for one person to pay less tax then another who is fully capable of paying. It even sounds illegal. They use all the same tax funded services, Fire, police, schools, heck I don't even have kids but have to pay for others who do, maybe I should pay less. One person paying less then another for no reason makes "NO" sense. We are not talking about handicapped people or the elderly but working people not paying their fair share. I would challenge anyone to in any way justify this. That is why SOH will be dumped in the future anyway if this doesn't pass for something else. I don't know what but it will go for sure.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by macguy

Have you really thought about it? Let,s say you buy a home at $200,000 with the super exemption and because of the mean politicians raising the millage to a staggering .035 mills (will never happen) your tax is $1750.00. With things staying the same that same house with a $25,000 deduction and your SOH will be around $3675.00. in tax a year. Considering property values going up over time the house will have to go up in value over 100% to even come close to you paying what you will pay with the SOH right out of the box. Now take into account the money you have already saved due to the lower taxes as the value of the house went up, if it dose, probably over many many years.

Really I have thought about it . I don't have all the answers, but I have played around with the numbers. I see what you're saying above, but I'm speaking of a different price bracket, so it does change a bit when you change the purchase price of the house.

It's not the millage rate I'm so worried about, I think that can be kept in reasonable check, it's the market itself - the supply and demand factor and the desirability factor - these are harder to pin down. A $500k house today can be worth $1mil over a decade or so. It happens. And when it does, you may not WANT to move, you might want to stay there until your dying day. A 3% cap increase is predictable, a limitless cap is volatile .

[riveree]

Originally Posted by macguy

It makes "NO" sense for one person to pay less tax then another who is fully capable of paying. It even sounds illegal. They use all the same tax funded services, Fire, police, schools, heck I don't even have kids but have to pay for others who do, maybe I should pay less. One person paying less then another for no reason makes "NO" sense. We are not talking about handicapped people or the elderly but working people not paying their fair share. I would challenge anyone to in any way justify this. That is why SOH will be dumped in the future anyway if this doesn't pass for something else. I don't know what but it will go for sure.

You're right about everyone paying their share. In a brand new neighborhood, everyone essentially does pay their share. After a couple of years as resales happen, the balance begins to shift, many more years down the road and it's completely unbalanced.

Maybe there's a way - actually, there IS a way - for the Property Appraisers to base the taxes for a recently purchased resale on the average taxes paid in that neighborhood (or zip code, or whatever parameter) instead of basing it on the purchase price of the home.

That way, if someone buys into an older neighborhood (and we want to encourage THAT anyway, don't we? Encourage city-centric living?), the new homeowner is paying the average that all the other homeowners on the block are paying. Relatively fair, right?

[Floridabound09]

Whatever happens I wish goodluck to all of you. I know it is a tense issue and I do not want to butt in on your conversations, but I am reading with hope that something is done to relieve the burden on you guys.
Maybe someone is listening and realizing that voters do have a vote and they better get there act together to make the necessary changes in a screwed up system.

[PJBower]

I don't hear too many people who understand or are really sure which way to vote...I own an older home which is a legal duplex and rent to low income tenents who are probably paying more than they can afford...although my taxes came down very mimimally, with the insurance costs and maintainance and improvements its hard to see how this income property can be called an income property...there doesn't seem to be any relief for those trying to keep a well maintained rental property and offering housing to low income tenents...eliminating property tax and an increase in sales tax would work for me...why can't such a great place to live like Florida come up with more creative ideas that will allow the state to flourish and attract people and business, rather than drive them away...

[Dee2e]

Originally Posted by riveree

I think SOH can also benefit those of us who plan to move again in the future but remain in Florida.

If I move again to a different house in Jacksonville (likely), my new taxes would be based on that new purchase price (high), but then they would be capped (at 3%). Who can say for sure that the Super Exemption would be a better option for me? I'd like to have the choice after I've done the math myself.

I'm in Central Florida. If you go the Orlando Sentinel's website and search for tax bill, you'll find calculators for local counties. You can use them to play around with your situation. If you are not in Central Florida, your own paper might have similiar calculators. If you can't find the calculators I am writing about, pm me.

[macguy]

Originally Posted by PJBower

I don't hear too many people who understand or are really sure which way to vote...I own an older home which is a legal duplex and rent to low income tenents who are probably paying more than they can afford...although my taxes came down very mimimally, with the insurance costs and maintainance and improvements its hard to see how this income property can be called an income property...there doesn't seem to be any relief for those trying to keep a well maintained rental property and offering housing to low income tenents...eliminating property tax and an increase in sales tax would work for me...why can't such a great place to live like Florida come up with more creative ideas that will allow the state to flourish and attract people and business, rather than drive them away...

I can't for the life of me understand why they want to bleed the life out of property owners. Investing in property has always been a way of securing the future of a family, even the main homestead has always been considered the future nest egg. Now if you want to invest in property it is like you are hated. A landlord, contrary to popular belief, does provide a necessary service providing housing for in most cases like 40 to 50 % of a local population.

No one gets rich with rentals, you only hope at some point to turn over the property and then you will see your profits as well as pay tax on them. How is one to do this any more? You don't get rich saving your money in a tin can you make it by investing. Real estate has always been the way for the average middle class everyday man to do this. Not anymore, not here. I would hate to be poor now and wondering how I was going to build my fortune. What, hoping for the boss to give you a raise. You don't secure your future through a job.

I have a friend who owns like 30 properties down here, mostly duplexes and triplexes he got by systematically investing as he worked for FP&L. He is dumping them off now but is worth millions of dollars. He told me he is building a new house in Kentucky. What would he be worth today if he just worked 20 years for FP&L? Probably next to nothing like most working people down here.

[tallrick]

Originally Posted by PJBower

I don't hear too many people who understand or are really sure which way to vote...I own an older home which is a legal duplex and rent to low income tenents who are probably paying more than they can afford...although my taxes came down very mimimally, with the insurance costs and maintainance and improvements its hard to see how this income property can be called an income property...there doesn't seem to be any relief for those trying to keep a well maintained rental property and offering housing to low income tenents...eliminating property tax and an increase in sales tax would work for me...why can't such a great place to live like Florida come up with more creative ideas that will allow the state to flourish and attract people and business, rather than drive them away...

By overtaxing landlords the State and counties are responsible for the lack of affordable housing in Florida. This just means that they will have to spend MORE money in assistance for low income housing. The alternative is that landlords neglect their properties to save money. Right now, the amount of money reqired for taxes can be up to 50% of rent. If that isn't extortion I do not know what is.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by PJBower

I don't hear too many people who understand or are really sure which way to vote...I own an older home which is a legal duplex and rent to low income tenents who are probably paying more than they can afford...although my taxes came down very mimimally, with the insurance costs and maintainance and improvements its hard to see how this income property can be called an income property...there doesn't seem to be any relief for those trying to keep a well maintained rental property and offering housing to low income tenents...eliminating property tax and an increase in sales tax would work for me...why can't such a great place to live like Florida come up with more creative ideas that will allow the state to flourish and attract people and business, rather than drive them away...

I totally agree, this amendment is weighing heavily on my mind as to whether I want to be a landlord at all going forward - the taxes are going to make it impossible to rent to anyone if they keep raising the taxable value on me.