[annerk]

Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992

Ending "Save Our Homes" won't fix everything, but consider this.

The cost of running local and state government does not go down just because full time residents stay put in their homes. What you have paid for the last 10 or 20 years is irrelevant as far as the cost of running the government THIS year. The more you push the burden to new residents, the fewer and fewer new residents you will get, so you have no choice but to raise rates or raise sales tax. Then owning property in Florida gets less and less attractive, and it becomes a viscous cycle.

Which is why I say abolish Save Our Homes, reassess all properties and levy taxes based on fair market value. Will some be forced out? Yes, but others ready and willing to shoulder their share will gladly replace them. Those being forced out have been riding the gravy train far too long anyhow.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by annerk

You don't think that parity would be a good start? Why should one person be paying $5K a year when the guy down the street who has been there for 30 years in an identical house be paying $600.

Other than cars, you're nuts if you think I'd buy big ticket items here! I'll buy my next Rolex in a 3.5% enterprise zone store in NJ, thanks. Somehow I doubt I'd be the only one. And other places would start to look mighty appealing for tourists and convention planners.

Someone that has paid $600 for 30 years has paid $18,000 in addition to what they have spent in sales tax. The homestead exemption is an incentive for people to stay long term and with the ability to transfer the SOH exemption if you move to another home was a good addition.

As far as big ticket items, that has been covered in the thread already as to why the majority would not travel for them.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

I'm going to have to argue with you about that one, Mike.. several years ago, I bought a $20,000 truck and the taxes were roughly $1,900.

so, I'd assume that a $40,000 truck would be roughly $4,000 based off of my own personal experiences.

She was saying $4000 extra, "the price of your car went up another $4000 to pay the increased sales tax". A $20,000 truck would run $600 extra in taxes and a $40,000 car would run an extra $1200.
Assuming someone gets a new car every 5 years and spends $40,000 plus gets trade in of $10,000 for their 5 year old car, the sales price is then $30,000 which would be $900 extra figured at 3%. Break that out over 5 years and it is $180 a year.

If someone spends $30,000 a year overall on items that are taxable they would be looking at $900 extra in sales tax, generally someone who spends $30000 a year on disposable items, if living in a house, is going to be paying quite a bit more than $900 in property tax.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

The only problem with eliminating property taxes and relying on an increased sales tax is when the economy slumps (live it's doing) there will be a huge drop in sales and the state will suffer. Property taxes will never slump because the state will either get their money, or get a property that's worth much more.

When the state doesn't make the money that it needs to run, they start cutting programs like welfare, police, firefighters, schools, ect, ect.. that'll lead to people that can't eat stealing for what they need, crime goes up and there are less police to deal with the situation.

Dropping property taxes and increasing sales taxes sounds like something Florida would do though.

The bill only eliminates a portion of the property tax and people will always need to eat and put clothes on their back so while at times sales may slump, there will still be money coming in.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992

Ending "Save Our Homes" won't fix everything, but consider this.

The cost of running local and state government does not go down just because full time residents stay put in their homes. What you have paid for the last 10 or 20 years is irrelevant as far as the cost of running the government THIS year. The more you push the burden to new residents, the fewer and fewer new residents you will get, so you have no choice but to raise rates or raise sales tax. Then owning property in Florida gets less and less attractive, and it becomes a viscous cycle.

The bill would eliminate probably 1/2 of the current property tax on a home which would entice many that are on the fence about buying. This would give a short term boost to the economy and long term would spread the tax burden more evenly.

[hurricaneMan1992]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Someone that has paid $600 for 30 years has paid $18,000 in addition to what they have spent in sales tax.

I don't care what you've paid over the past 30 years, the actual cost of providing city services to you THIS YEAR is the same as your neighbour who just moved in. Think of it this way: you wouldn't tell FPL that your rate should be lower than your neighbour just because you consistently paid your bill for 30 years. What you have paid in the last 30 years is irrelevant for this year's bill!

[annerk]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Someone that has paid $600 for 30 years has paid $18,000 in addition to what they have spent in sales tax. The homestead exemption is an incentive for people to stay long term and with the ability to transfer the SOH exemption if you move to another home was a good addition.

As far as big ticket items, that has been covered in the thread already as to why the majority would not travel for them.

What does what they paid last year have anything to do with the cost of running government this year?

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992

I don't care what you've paid over the past 30 years, the actual cost of providing city services to you THIS YEAR is the same as your neighbour who just moved in. Think of it this way: you wouldn't tell FPL that your rate should be lower than your neighbour just because you consistently paid your bill for 30 years. What you have paid in the last 30 years is irrelevant for this year's bill!

Originally Posted by annerk

What does what they paid last year have anything to do with the cost of running government this year?

Someone who bought a home 30 years earlier paid taxes based on the assessed value of the home at that time. They purchased in most cases based on budgeting a certain amount for PITI.
When someone purchases 30 years later they should be budgeting a certain amount for PITI. They know what the taxes are, if they think the taxes are too high they can look for a less expensive house.

SOH was created to keep people from being taxed out of their homes. If you don't like the system, no one is forcing you to buy a home.

The bill would help solve the problem of government funding. When you have bad economic times and home prices drop 30%, there goes 30% loss in one of the funding sources. In the same time frame you may see a drop in consumer expenditures but it would be in the 2-3% range so the loss of government funding would be much more stable.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

Someone who bought a home 30 years earlier paid taxes based on the assessed value of the home at that time. They purchased in most cases based on budgeting a certain amount for PITI.
When someone purchases 30 years later they should be budgeting a certain amount for PITI. They know what the taxes are, if they think the taxes are too high they can look for a less expensive house.

SOH was created to keep people from being taxed out of their homes. If you don't like the system, no one is forcing you to buy a home.

Wanted to rep that, but need to spread it around, nice post

[The Raven]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

No, it sounds like an excuse to be a deadbeat. If you can't afford to pay property taxes, you shouldn't buy a house or land. Period.

Does it sound fair that other home and land owners have to pick up the slack for the free emergency services, schools, and government institutions like libraries that you enjoy, while, at the same time, not paying your taxes ?

If you can't afford to pay your taxes, you have atleast a year to sell your property before it's taken from you.

That's an interesting statement. I assume you would be against the government taxing your bread, your air, and your sunlight, because you, like most people, would say that food, air, and sunlight are basic needs. So, can people live without a home? Is a home any less of a basic essential of life than food or water?

What the government is going by instituting a property tax is forcing everyone...EVERYONE (except welfare recipients)...to pay taxes simply to survive. Everyone who lives in a home that is paid for by their own funds pays property taxes. It doesn't matter if you own your home, or you rent a home or apartment from someone else. All private property is taxed. And the other pays taxes on that property. If you're a renter, your landlord includes the cost of his property taxes on the home you live in in the cost of your monthly rent.

If a man is a "deadbeat" for believing that it's inappropriate for government to tax our ability to live by leveraging a tax on our homes, then everyone who argues that government shouldn't tax your food, your water, and your air, is no less a "deadbeat."