[MrTudo]

There will be no major cut in taxes and in fact I foresee an INCREASE in taxes. Now what these liars say will be completely different from what they do. Politicians run campaigns like Libertarians ( smaller less intrusive government, lower taxes etc ) then when elected run like socialists.

You can't have it both ways. If you want freedom, smaller government and less taxes you need to get behinid the Libertarians. Period.

If you like what we have now, keep doing what you're doing.

[floridasandy]

i like it and i will vote for it. when the government has less revenue, they will have less to spend. there is no other way to stop spending. if they have it, they will spend it! (of course property tax elimination would be better because it would stimulate the job market , make houses affordable, and reduce government spending).

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

i like it and i will vote for it. when the government has less revenue, they will have less to spend. there is no other way to stop spending. if they have it, they will spend it! (of course property tax elimination would be better because it would stimulate the job market , make houses affordable, and reduce government spending).

It's only going to encourage more development, because governments will not cut spending until they are required to by law. If the only way to get more revenue is to build more houses, then that's what they will do, until every square inch of land is covered.

The solution is not limiting taxes, it is limiting government spending.

[TampaKaren]

I would prefer elimination of the property tax in favor of an increase in sales tax, but it's not an option, yet.

I'm undecided whether to support this one or not. Looking at it selfishly, it does nothing for me presently. If appears it would help non-homesteaded and commercial property in knowing how much their property taxes would increase on a yearly basis. That might entice me to buy a small business or a second home further south.

[randian]

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

Limiting the increase in all property will only encourage more development, because that is the only way governments will increase their revenue.

What's wrong with development? Do you want Florida to be as expensive to live in as California?

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

The solution is not to limit taxes, but to limit spending. The total take for all governmental services-schools, municipalities, fire, police, everything should be limited to increases of not more than 1.5% over the previous year.

That's not enough. The formula has to take both inflation and population growth into account.

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

The answer is to limit spending. If governments cannot spend, they cannot tax.

So not true. Ever hear of slush funds? Governments will happily maintain giant slush funds until such time as they can convince the voters to change their minds, which can be amazingly soon (see Colorado TABOR).

[randian]

Originally Posted by tallrick

I believe that all homesteaded properties should be tax exempt, and business or investment properties taxed on income earned.

They already are. Sales tax is collected on the gross rents paid on commercial leases. Residential leases of more than 6 months are exempt.

Originally Posted by tallrick

As an alternative tax residential properties on the original price paid plus yearly inflation.

That would be an improvement, since now properties are taxed based on whatever the assessor thinks the property is worth on Jan 1, or your purchases price, whichever is higher.

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by randian

What's wrong with development? Do you want Florida to be as expensive to live in as California?

Well considering there is a glut or retail and residential space in Florida, we probably shouldn't have to build another thing for 25 years. Let's make sure every bit of available space is used before we create more. Doesn't that make sense?

Development is bad if we damage the environment so some mega corporate entity can sell McMansions. We simply no longer can afford the environmental shock.

We already have year round water restrictions. How will we handle more water usage. Do we need more strip centers and gas stations? Will that help anyone?

Do I want Florida as expensive as California? I don't want anything that California has. California is expensive because it is a socialist entity.

[MrTudo]

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

Do I want Florida as expensive as California? I don't want anything that California has. California is expensive because it is a socialist entity.

Ah-hem, so is the entire country. That's not what makes it expensive although it's an indirect contributing factor.

[TUNGSTEN]

Originally Posted by Liberty911

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for snowbirds, investors or corporations.

Unfortunately business, apartment complex are necessary for an economy to work. Not caring about people that invested in a shopping center or an apartment building is a very narrow outlook since they are getting hammered by taxation and they are transferring the cost to the tenants (commercial or residential)

The commercial tenant just raises prices so you end up paying more for the product, on the residential side you loose the work force since they can not afford the rent.

Most Florida has seen at worst a double in income form property taxes since 2002 to now. We still get the same basic services in fact some cases worst since we pay more for garbage collection etc. The agreements keep crying they are broke go figure.

I believe them real estate property should be protected form taxes at all levels to maintain a healthy and happy owners so they are willing to invest in our state.

The taxation system should be broaden so most of the people contribute to it more evenly

[Magnulus]

Originally Posted by randian

What's wrong with development? Do you want Florida to be as expensive to live in as California?.

This kind of developement is not sustainable. Suburban sprawl. If you make it so the only way the government can generate more revenue is by building more subdivisions, you'll get more sprawl. California's "problem" is that it has grown so much in terms of population and land usage, further growth is not sustainable and that's why land costs are high. Southern California already takes more than its share of water out of the Colorado river, as does Arizona.

Florida is no longer a cheap place to live for working people that increasingly need services from the governments, it is heading towards being just like California or Georgia- in fact in as little as five or six years Florida may run out of water if growth continues. So the taxes have to reflect that. Yes, there are definitely cases of governments wasting money, but the solution isn't to drasticly cut the ability of governments to spend, it should be for citizens to get involved more in deciding in their communities what is important and holding the governments accountable. And of course, keeping the developers and their lobbyists out of the equation.