Shiny Happy Crist

File this under I told you so. I wrote on Oct. 16, 2007 about the Save Our Homes portability being proposed:

People can live next door and have homes valid at the same price. One owner could pay more taxes because the other got a deductability from moving from his previous resident. The inequities question is interesting. Lawyers could argue it's not a fair tax. I have refered to it as the Rush Limbaugh taxcut.

Tallahassee lawyer William Owen is challenging the legality of Amendment 1. Owen argues, "It sharpens the blade and ratchets up the discrimination." He is representing three Florida homeowners.

How does Charlie Crist feel about the lawsuit?

"Part of my confidence is based on the fact that Save Our Homes has been in existence since 1992. I think it's an extension of that, and I'm very confident that it will withstand judicial test. And I think that one of the things that gives me most comfort, as I assume they're testing the constitutionality, is the fact that it will now be in the constitution, so I'm pleased with that."

Crist would make a great Pharoh.

"I'm optimistic that the boils on the faces of my fellow Egyptians are unrelated to Moses's request for the Jews to leave and settle elsewhere," Pharaoh Crist told the scribes, "Locusts migrating to are lands are normal this time of year."

Pharaoh Crist told the scribes that the families that lost their first-born child will be rewarded with pet frogs.

"The people support our frog compensation plan. 20 frogs is greater than a child," Pharaoh Crist boasted. "I'm more than happy to give them more!"

Save Our Homes Showdown

The House Government Efficiency & Accountability Council approved the Save Our Home amendment.

The new amendment would, among other things, double the $25,000 homestead exemption for most primary home owners; let current homestead owners bring some of their Save Our Homes benefit to a new dwelling; give new homestead owners an initial break on their tax bill; and wipe out property taxes for low-income seniors.

The House Government Efficiency & Accountability Council unanimously approved the package. The Senate's first formal vote is expected tomorrow.

The amendment then hit a snag.

Naked Politics reports that Florida Hose Democrats won't vote on the Property tax amendment until they find out what the economic impact of the amendment will be. House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber sent an email to Marco Rubio.

"Many of the members seem to be voting one way or the other in Policy and Budget under protest. Further, if approved, it is far apart from the Senate and the Governor. I would not plan on taking this to the floor before Friday. This will give members from both parties some time to digest the information presented and discussed at today's Policy and Budget Council meeting.

"I think we should get back on track and focus on delivering tax relief for those that need it the most. There is plenty we can put on the January ballot (portability, new/recent homeowner relief, TPP, affordable housing) that will be meaningful and, most importantly, that will garner 60% at the polls. The remaining issues can be saved for regular session. I really believe that the bill we are about to vote on would likely fail if put on the ballot even if it could pass the legislature."

Florida House Speaker Rubio took the email as Democrats as not supporting the amendment. Gelber emailed Rubio and told him he would talk to his caucas. Turns out Rubio was correct. No deal.

The wonkish details about how the Save Our Homes amendment would effect local budgets is valid. Rubio rammed the last property tax amendment it was deemed unconstitutional by Judge Charles Francis. Rubio is more concerned about his own agenda then being fiscally responsible. The Democrats have finally put him in check.

Side note: state legislatures vote for bills and other measures without any concept of what they're voting for. Many state representatives don't even read the bills. It's all too common. It's good that the Democrats want to know what they are actually voting for.

Update: one of the snags is portability. Businesses are not happy about paying a bigger share of the property tax burden.

Portability would let a homestead property owner transfer savings under Save Our Homes to a new primary residence.

The savings is the difference between the just value -- the property appraiser's estimate of market value -- and the assessed value.

But the idea has been dogged by questions about whether it would exacerbate existing inequities that force non-homestead properties like businesses to shoulder disproportionate tax burdens and whether it would withstand court challenge.

People can live next door and have homes valid at the same price. One owner could pay more taxes because the other got a deductability from moving from his previous resident. The inequities question is interesting. Lawyers could argue it's not a fair tax. I have refered to it as the Rush Limbaugh taxcut.

Save Our Millionaires Homes

The new portability in Save Our Homes is what I call the Rush Limbaugh tax cut.

Last year, 1,000 Florida homeowners saved more than $25,000 each in countywide property taxes because of the amendment. The values of their homes ranged from $1.5 million to $42.5 million.

The list includes gilded heirs and industry moguls. Others are among the state's most recognizable citizens, including golfer Greg Norman on Hobe Sound, singer Gloria Estefan in Miami Beach and Palm Beach residents Rush Limbaugh, Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer and Jimmy Buffett.

A new portability proposal in Save Our Home would benefit the wealthiest. That means if they want to upgrade to a new mansion they keep their tax break.

Under the new plan, the largest benefit goes to owners of homes with the $1 million in accrued Save Our Homes benefit who trade up to even more expensive homes. One million dollars in accrued benefit is the maximum that would be transferable to a new home under the proposal. The tax savings for someone making that move: $9,500.

And because the new plan leaves the Save Our Homes protection in place, it does nothing to prevent existing inequities where neighboring homeowners in identical houses pay vastly different tax bills, based solely on when they purchased their home.

People can have homes of the same value, but pay different taxes because of how whacky Save Our Homes is. There is also the question of the wisdom of giving this tax break for the wealthy during a budget deficit.

This will not increase new residents into Florida. Save Our Homes should be targeted to the middle class. Florida's economy and tax system is spurred by growth. The middle class is leaving Florida. Bringing more super rich people and taxing them little is not going to get Florida out of it's current economic hole.