Lawmakers cannot explain why someone buying a first home - or moving here from out of state - should be forced to pay radically higher taxes than someone who trades up into a much more expensive residence. Instead of addressing the inequities, they followed Gov. Charlie Crist's simplistic advice to make matters worse. Eventually, a judge is likely to rule that the inequities are so great that they are unconstitutional, and kill the Save Our Homes amendment altogether.
Under existing law, at least everyone who buys a new home is treated the same. Under the proposed version of portability, homesteaders can transfer up to $500,000 of sheltered value to a new property.
This change promises a longtime homesteader who downsizes a virtually tax-free retirement, while grandchildren buying their first home could be taxed to death.
What the Trib doesn't mention is we can expect legal challenges to the constitutionality of the amendment. The taxation does not treat all as equal. A transplaned resident can by the same model home as a retiree downgrading to a smaller house. They have the same homes in the same neighborhood. The resident whom recently moved to Florida will pay much more taxes.
The stupidity of this is it is discouraging people from moving into Florida. Growth is the engine that feeds tax revenue. I would love to see Florida get off the growth monster. Crist and the legislature do not have to spine to revamp the tax system. The amendment was designed for short-term political considerations. Crist and the Republican legislature have no regard for fiscal responsibility.
I look at it differently. I don't like anyone treated unfairly but it's like with two-tier wage systems. The new guy is paid less with less benefits. Maybe they could pay less each year or something ... ? I dunno. I DO KNOW that it's not fair that a long-term resident gets displaced while a new guy can afford it. That's bullshit and an obvious ploy to make florida some kind of playground for the special.
ReplyDeleteI don't get that growth befits us as a revenue tool, either. We didn't need all this infrastructure change with who we had. I think it's a silly ploy. Like most things today.
For years my taxes paid for what the new resident will have when he gets here.
The real point is: Put the burden on the developers NOT the home-owners. They should have to pay part of their profits every year. Let's see how many woodlands and waterfronts they could afford to destroy then.
The burden should not be on the homeowner to provide all the revenue when fatcat developers are laughing their way to the bank.
you are right. The wrong issues/participants are being addressed.
I still view this as a way that the rich came and sucked up ALL the waterfront in FL and then started crying about the taxes .... because this is what I see ...
They have it, long-term floridians got pushed out and now they don't want to pay the bill.
When you build the nicest home or the largest or have the most amenities you should PAY FOR IT. If the little old lady across the street is NOT paying as you are: well you should be PROUD to be doing your part to be sure she lives well. I'd have to give this some serious thought to come up with an answer other than let the developers PAY PAY PAY. Instead of TAKE TAKE TAKE.
few words: forty MILLION DOLLAR baywalk