[bfa]

I am curious as to how many fellow Floridians plan on voting on the Superexemption Jan 29? How do you plan on voting? Why do you plan on voting that way?

For me, I plan on voting for the Superexemption. It's not the best plan, probably, but it's better than the current system, and I think it would help the Florida real estate situation, and economy.

How about you?

[riveree]

As I find out more and more, I am fully convinced that this is a bad, bad idea.

I am absolutely voting AGAINST the Super Exemption. Here's why:

If the exemption goes through, it will be retroactive to January 1 2008.

ANY HOME BOUGHT ON/AFTER JANUARY 1 2008 WILL NOT BE ALLOWED A CHOICE OF EXEMPTIONS!

So what does that say? It says that the master plan is to completely do away with the 3% cap.

If you think there is even a remote chance you might buy property after January 1, 2008, you need to really think about this one. You might think you'll stay in your existing home, but you may have to move sometime in the future and you will LOSE your SOH exemption. This means there will be NO CAP on the taxable value of your home.

If we were to ever see back-to-back years of home value increases like we just had - 17%, 18% increases - it COULD happen again - the Super Exemption benefit would be eclipsed by the old SOH exemption.......only now, most Floridians would no longer have the SOH exemption.

You can believe the politicians who want this amendment to go through are seeing dollar signs .

[macguy]

Originally Posted by bfa

I am curious as to how many fellow Floridians plan on voting on the Superexemption Jan 29? How do you plan on voting? Why do you plan on voting that way?

For me, I plan on voting for the Superexemption. It's not the best plan, probably, but it's better than the current system, and I think it would help the Florida real estate situation, and economy.

How about you?

I vote for it. The fallacy is looking at pre-boom taxes that are now protected and thinking that is what taxes will be. The fact is over a short period of time those people will dwindle as they die off, or change jobs or just sell and leave. At the current tax rates in no time even the most modest properties will be paying $5000 a year or more in taxes. Who cares that they are protected by SOH at 3% in the future, they can't afford the house anyway. By the way, how many other states have SOH? They all seem to get along pretty good without silly gimmick taxes. Lets just have everyone pay their fair share and all will be fine. It is not even a close call for most voters unless you are in an old house for years and plan on dying in the house in front of the TV. Me, I will probably own or build a few a few more houses before I die. Most people now move in just a few years anyway, SOH was devised to appeal to retires who will live and die in this one house. It makes no sense anymore, not that it ever did. Besides, the way it is written you can keep you SOH anyway so what is the problem? It is a no lose deal.

[bfa]

Originally Posted by macguy

I vote for it. The fallacy is looking at pre-boom taxes that are now protected and thinking that is what taxes will be. The fact is over a short period of time those people will dwindle as they die off, or change jobs or just sell and leave. At the current tax rates in no time even the most modest properties will be paying $5000 a year or more in taxes. Who cares that they are protected by SOH at 3% in the future, they can't afford the house anyway. By the way, how many other states have SOH? They all seem to get along pretty good without silly gimmick taxes. Lets just have everyone pay their fair share and all will be fine. It is not even a close call for most voters unless you are in an old house for years and plan on dying in the house in front of the TV. Me, I will probably own or build a few a few more houses before I die. Most people now move in just a few years anyway, SOH was devised to appeal to retires who will live and die in this one house. It makes no sense anymore, not that it ever did. Besides, the way it is written you can keep you SOH anyway so waht is the problem? It is a no lose deal.

I agree, I am pretty young, late 20s, and plan on buying and selling a home several times throughout life, as family needs change. I think the SOH is unfair to newcomers. And to people that have owned for awhile, too. Think about it, they are captive to their own home, almost.

While I agree it might not be the best plan, it's a good start. I just wonder if it will pass, any thoughts on that? 60% is pretty high...

[macguy]

Originally Posted by bfa

I agree, I am pretty young, late 20s, and plan on buying and selling a home several times throughout life, as family needs change. I think the SOH is unfair to newcomers. And to people that have owned for awhile, too. Think about it, they are captive to their own home, almost.

While I agree it might not be the best plan, it's a good start. I just wonder if it will pass, any thoughts on that? 60% is pretty high...

I think it will pass easily. If you just figure the future home owners who will vote for it the numbers will be there. I haven't looked it up but only like 50 some odd percent of the residents are even property owners and benefit from SOH now and many of them may be new home owners, or have done things like improvements to their houses that have reset their tax rates and they are paying high taxes regardless of SOH. People want to see their money in their pockets now and will not be frighten by the "What if' scenarios that the opponents want to paint. You notice they can't give you any real reasons to keep SOH other then scare tactics about an imagined future. When someone need to use scare tactics rather then making a logical point, they have no case.

[Lilybeans]

I like things the way they are.

The solution is not playing with the taxes. The solution is controlling spending at the county level, and voting for county officials that can manage a budget.

[bfa]

Originally Posted by macguy

I think it will pass easily. If you just figure the future home owners who will vote for it the numbers will be there. I haven't looked it up but only like 50 some odd percent of the residents are even property owners and benefit from SOH now and many of them may be new home owners, or have done things like improvements to their houses that have reset their tax rates and they are paying high taxes regardless of SOH. People want to see their money in their pockets now and will not be frighten by the "What if' scenarios that the opponents want to paint. You notice they can't give you any real reasons to keep SOH other then scare tactics about an imagined future. When someone need to use scare tactics rather then making a logical point, they have no case.

I think you are right, I sure hope so anyway. I think there are a lot of people that would love to own a home here, and can qualify for a mortgage, they just can't afford the home with an extra $300 per month in taxes, not to mention insurance.

I have a small vested interest in the outcome of this, I work in real estate, part time anyway. I think it would revive the market, especially if interest rates are a bit lower like the economists are predicting by early next year.

[bfa]

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

I like things the way they are.

The solution is not playing with the taxes. The solution is controlling spending at the county level, and voting for county officials that can manage a budget.

I agree with you on the solution, but I have no faith in politicians at this point. If they aren't crooked when they get there, they are crooked soon after.

[macguy]

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

I like things the way they are.

The solution is not playing with the taxes. The solution is controlling spending at the county level, and voting for county officials that can manage a budget.

You think a mill here or a mill there is going to lower your taxes? What you are talking about would be nice but is a dream, politicians have been $crewing us as long as there has been governments. This vote is real and in a few months. Forget pie-in-the-sky, "We need more honest politicians". You are being given a real choice, one I never thought we would see. If we throw it away shame on us, we will have no reason to ever complain again. We will have had a chance and threw it away.

[MrTudo]

Doesn't matter. If voting could actually return this country to a more free society, then voting would be declared illegal.