[riveree]

Originally Posted by Dee2e

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.

Thanks Dee . I think all the counties have the Super Exemption calculators on their sites now. Duval does and I've already checked it out and played with the numbers, it's the very reason I starting thinking this new amendment would not work for me .

[riveree]

Originally Posted by tallrick

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.

Exactly. If they continue at the current rate, it won't be long before the taxes will exceed the principal and interest payments for the loan on the investment home I mentioned earlier. I can't ask more for rent, so what choice is there but to sell the property?

If the idea is to discourage investors from owning property in Florida so that the state is an ownership-only state, then indeed we will have some serious South-Florida-like problems throughout the state. Investors play an important role in ensuring a mix of affordable housing.

[bfa]

Another thing occurred to me: In Tampa, where I am, the city has already began cutting back in anticipation of the amendment passing. That seems strange to me! I can understand preparing for the amendment, in case it passes, but not by already announcing lay-offs, etc?

Why would they do this, unless they figure the amendment will pass? Just thinking out loud. Maybe I am looking at this from the wrong angle.

Any thoughts on this? I have heard of other areas ( city, county workers)laying off people already as well, and not to do with the other roll-back of approx 8% that was passed.

[kevinbonds]

Originally Posted by bfa

Another thing occurred to me: In Tampa, where I am, the city has already began cutting back in anticipation of the amendment passing. That seems strange to me! I can understand preparing for the amendment, in case it passes, but not by already announcing lay-offs, etc?

Why would they do this, unless they figure the amendment will pass? Just thinking out loud. Maybe I am looking at this from the wrong angle.

Any thoughts on this? I have heard of other areas ( city, county workers)laying off people already as well, and not to do with the other roll-back of approx 8% that was passed.

Listen between 2001 and one and 2005 the tax local base increased by millions of dollars all over the state of florida. Where is that money? I dont see roads being finished any faster, I dont see less crime or more services to aid the people whom live in the cities. What you have was run away spending, stealing, wasted money and bloating payroll and city service jobs.

Tampa is probably starting to see the light and realizing that they dont need two people to do everything and just because you have alot of money doesnt mean you need to spend it. Therefore I dont believe their will be any cut backs in services just people whom have cushy Govt jobs who dont do jack just wasting taxpayer money will finally get their walking papers.

Schools are the same way. I cant find the study but it was concluded that 60percent of the resources for the eduction across south florida goes to non education realted services. Administrators, advisors, consultants, and other BS that bloats the budget. I dont have too much sympathy for the "we will lose important services" camp. I cant think of one local govt service that could not use a sharpening of the pencil despite the tax changes.

On another note about a previous post I made responding to the fact that people whom bought their houses 10-20 years ago should be entitled to pay less taxes due to SOH simply because they were lucky enough to buy a home when they were very inexpensive. This means new owners should pay an unfair amount to make up for short falls of people whom live in homes valued at the same dollar amount in the same neighborhood and using the same services.
Well to validate that argument I looked at my tax bill and realized their were services provided to me that I did not use. The school system being the largest single expense.
Should I have to pay into the school system as person who bought recently and doesnt have children? What about the person with a tax bill half of mine in the same community, the same value of house but they have three kids and are using all the services. So therefore essentially I am contributing more revenue to theschool system then a person whom is actually using the resources. Does that make and Darn sense at all or am I crazy? . I know alot of noise is being made to repeal the SOH and I hope they do. I should not have to pay more into the school system then my neighbor whom actually has children attending the school. If anything I should pay less or nothing considering the state of flroida education system.

[Dee74]

Here is an interesting article about the super exemption and how it would work a few years out. I did not realize that there is a maximum exemption of $195k. A lot to think about.... are you going to live in your home for a long time or move. That is a tough one as we all know plans change. We never thought for a minute we would live in this home for 26 years we were going to sell it just after we married. Enjoy the read

State: Exemption might not be so super

[riveree]

Originally Posted by Dee74

Here is an interesting article about the super exemption and how it would work a few years out. I did not realize that there is a maximum exemption of $195k. A lot to think about.... are you going to live in your home for a long time or move. That is a tough one as we all know plans change. We never thought for a minute we would live in this home for 26 years we were going to sell it just after we married. Enjoy the read

State: Exemption might not be so super

Good article, thanks Dee .

This one part at the end of the article though:
______________________________________________
(quote from the article
But one woman told him she still planned to vote in favor of the measure. Given that it's optional, she wouldn't mind the choice in case she does move one day.

She was referring to a benefit the amendment would offer people who now feel locked into their current homes by Save Our Homes. They know that if they move, they might well pay higher taxes on a less expensive house. This absence of "portability" is considered a major flaw of Save Our Homes.

Under the amendment, she could have the best of both worlds: Save Our Homes protection in her current home and the super exemption if she moves.

"Basically she's voting to have an option," Weathers said. "That way she can have the super exemption in her hip pocket if she moves."
____________________________________________

I'm afraid many people will vote FOR the amendment mistakenly thinking, as this woman does, that voting FOR the amendment will give her an option in the future should she move, but it won't - she'll only be allowed to have the Super Exemption. It's so misleading .

[Dee74]

She was referring to a benefit the amendment would offer people who now feel locked into their current homes by Save Our Homes. They know that if they move, they might well pay higher taxes on a less expensive house. This absence of "portability" is considered a major flaw of Save Our Homes.

Under the amendment, she could have the best of both worlds: Save Our Homes protection in her current home and the super exemption if she moves.

"Basically she's voting to have an option," Weathers said. "That way she can have the super exemption in her hip pocket if she moves."
____________________________________________

Riveree, you misunderstood that she would have SOH now and the super exemption if she LATER decided to move. Gets crazy doesn't it!

[wacahootaman]

For those who are using the county Tax Appraisers SuperExemption calculater to judge the merits of the super vers the save our homes in future tax liabilities, you are being sold a bill of goods.

The counties are using baseline appreciation stats that are bunk.

Because real estate prices are crashing, and this will be the worst crash in modern history, prices will appreciate at best way below the historical baseline appreciation for the next 10 to 15 years.

If you punched 7 percent in the calculater as baseline property appreciation for the next 15 years you are way overestimating future appreciation and your future property tax liabilities.

Try 1 percent for a more accurate property value prediction. This is way lower than the 3 percent tax appreciation that you are guarenteed under SOH.

Historically there have been booms and busts in Florida real estate. The last bust was in 1990. And guess what? Real estate appreciation after this bust in 1990 took an average of 10 years state wide to climb back to the baseline!

Now we are in a historic bust in the Florida Real estate market. It is the worst one in modern history. In some counties the median price of homes has fallen 25 percent in one year! They will fall 50 percent in value before it bottoms. And once it bottoms, it will stay down for a long long time before property prices recover. At least 10 years like in 1990 before property appreciation recovers to its historic baseline.

So the super exemption is a much better deal than SOH under this probablity.

The fears fanned by the county tax authorities that future appreciation in property values will result in soaring property taxes for those who chose the Super Exemption are bogus at least in the next 10 to 15 years.

The Super will save most homeowners a ton of money right away and those savings will continue for many years, probably 10 to 20 years, until property appreciation rises above the baseline. Not only those who chose the super will get immediate tax relief their taxes will go up less in this future downturn than the SOH people who are locked in at 3 percent.

[wacahootaman]

Hmmmm. Vellly interesting!

“Enrollment in Volusia public schools is down about 1,100 students from a year ago, meaning some teachers could lose their jobs and others will have to switch schools.”

“This is the first time Volusia school enrollment has declined in 25 years. Volusia officials don’t know why enrollment declined, but Superintendent Margaret Smith said they’ve heard some parents are moving away because of the slumping economy.”

“‘We’ve had some parents report to us they’re involved in mortgage foreclosures,’ she said, also pointing to some state reports indicating more people are moving out of Florida these days than coming in, especially if they work construction jobs.

[firemed]

To cut taxes you have to cut spending. N J came up with workfair. Its time to come back to earth and look at the big picture. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck... I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? If people can't pay for things like food & a place to live help them. But if the money is spent on drug use and not on things like food why should the state pay the drug dealers. This would save your taxes.