U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-15-2008, 09:40 AM
 
Location: 05 to present Venice, Fla 91-05 Manchester, NH
351 posts, read 823,359 times
Reputation: 98

Advertisements

I have always had a problem with the SOH amendment especially when I researched my neighborhood. The assessed amount that each property pays are all over the place. It seems many are not paying their fair share.

As I understand it the SOH was supposed to protect the "little old lady" that was property rich but on a fixed income. She couldn't keep up and would lose her home. Just on my street we all have similar sized homes but values range from $61k to $275K. These examples are all homesteaded.

Now what happens when the "little old lady - Agnes " passes away and the $61K house sells for..... $195k? A windfall for the heirs.

How about we recapture the taxes that should have been paid if it was undervalued but sold for more value? Why should the heirs reap the benefit and we have to pay?

My proposal would recover taxes upon sale of the home if the homeowner passes away. We would only recover taxes upon houses that had increased in value. We could come up with a formula that would collect taxes and help reduce what the rest of us pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2008, 09:48 AM
 
2,143 posts, read 5,286,899 times
Reputation: 1075
We don't have estate taxes here. The heirs aren't reaping anymore benefit than the lady would have if she decided to sell the home, are they.

Property taxes are not the issue and never have been. The issue is municipal budgets. Until municipalities and counties are required to control spending, then taxes will be a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2008, 09:53 AM
 
3,758 posts, read 7,102,939 times
Reputation: 4824
If they would collect property taxes in advance instead of arrears, it would create an immediate boost to the Florida economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2008, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Heartland Florida
8,513 posts, read 16,514,457 times
Reputation: 3991
Just tax based on actual sale price or do away with property taxes altogether. As mentioned above, no progress will be made till municipal budgets are under control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2008, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Jax
8,204 posts, read 24,001,928 times
Reputation: 3189
We have a new city Stormwater fee and they broke the homes down into 3 categories:


Small Home: up to 1,549 sqft = $30.00

Average Home: 1,550 - 4,650 sqft. = $60.00

Large Home: more than 4,650 sq.ft. = $90.00


Small, Medium, Large. In Starbucks terms, Tall, Grande, Venti .

Can't we just have a flat property tax amount based on a simple concept like the size of your home?

Sure, there are some very expensive small homes, so they'll "get away with" a lower property tax, but at least everyone who lives in a small home will be covered - they'll pay the lower amount. Big houses almost always cost more, and those people will pay the most property tax. People in the middle will pay the average amount. Seems pretty fair to me .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 09:01 AM
 
Location: 05 to present Venice, Fla 91-05 Manchester, NH
351 posts, read 823,359 times
Reputation: 98
To control spending I would propose a Proposition 2-1/2.
Property Tax would be limited to 2-1/2 % increase per year.

Celebrating Prop 2 after 25 Years

My main issue was the difference homesteaded people pay in property tax even in similar homes. Basically we are giving a discount to people who have been here longer. Being here longer should not be the reason for a discount. Now it is somewhat connected to fixed income retirees. So what I am proposing is a system to recaputure the discount so that we all pay the same.

Now how about the newer retirees buying homes for 2x-3x price of the original SOH people? They are on the same fixed income as the original SOH people? The whole SOH system is doomed to failure and needs total overhaul and not patchwork amendmants to satisfy certain voter blocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 09:07 AM
 
2,143 posts, read 5,286,899 times
Reputation: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradiddle View Post
To control spending I would propose a Proposition 2-1/2.
Property Tax would be limited to 2-1/2 % increase per year.

Celebrating Prop 2 after 25 Years

My main issue was the difference homesteaded people pay in property tax even in similar homes. Basically we are giving a discount to people who have been here longer. Being here longer should not be the reason for a discount. Now it is somewhat connected to fixed income retirees. So what I am proposing is a system to recaputure the discount so that we all pay the same.

Now how about the newer retirees buying homes for 2x-3x price of the original SOH people? They are on the same fixed income as the original SOH people? The whole SOH system is doomed to failure and needs total overhaul and not patchwork amendmants to satisfy certain voter blocks.
But how is your proposal fair to people that have stayed in their homes because of the tax benefits. They chose not to move, not to buy a new house, not to spend more, because they relied on the law to keep taxes low. Isn't there an obligation to them? Shouldn't people be able to count on the laws if they follow them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 09:19 AM
 
Location: 05 to present Venice, Fla 91-05 Manchester, NH
351 posts, read 823,359 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilybeans View Post
But how is your proposal fair to people that have stayed in their homes because of the tax benefits. They chose not to move, not to buy a new house, not to spend more, because they relied on the law to keep taxes low. Isn't there an obligation to them? Shouldn't people be able to count on the laws if they follow them?
That's not how I read it. The SOH Tax doesn't have any provisions to keep all taxes low. Just caps SOH people at 3%. They voted that tax system which kept them captive in their house. They basically said at that time "Who cares what happens from this point on because I am protected "
The only obligation was to themselves.

Now it's been changed to allow "portability" and added an additional $25K homestead and those people still complain that the bill went up $78.

Anyway, what about dumping the whole thing and going with a tax cap for all. I know it's now capped at 10% for non-homesteaded but that will still allow for excessive tax growth rates. If we cap all at 3% then that would be real tax reform
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Heartland Florida
8,513 posts, read 16,514,457 times
Reputation: 3991
If a person can afford to buy a property they can afford to pay the same percentage as anyone else in taxes. If not, buy a cheaper property. The issue I have is with assessments. If you are going to charge taxes on a property value either keep it the same or limit it to a sane rate of appreciation. No more 300% raises of taxes please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 03:18 PM
 
2,143 posts, read 5,286,899 times
Reputation: 1075
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallrick View Post
If a person can afford to buy a property they can afford to pay the same percentage as anyone else in taxes. If not, buy a cheaper property. The issue I have is with assessments. If you are going to charge taxes on a property value either keep it the same or limit it to a sane rate of appreciation. No more 300% raises of taxes please.
What if they could afford it 15 years ago, but couldn't afford it now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:49 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top