No shortage of property tax plans

Another property tax plan is in the works -- this time from a member of the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Commissioner Carlos Lacasa has filed a proposal that would create an exemption of 50 percent of the just value of residential property (for the first two years, it is 25 percent) and a 5 percent cap for nonhomesteads. It also calls for a three-year, 1-cent sales tax increase to offset lost tax revenue for schools. 

Lacasa, a former state House member from Miami, plans to discuss the plan at the TBRC meeting tomorrow. Here is the bill language. For some reason, Lacasa's law firm used a PR firm to trumpet the news.

Comments

Coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches, trying to get special treatment for their corporate sponsors. When will it end??

The cities and counties fought the first amendment. They should have supported it. It will only get worse for them. They need to get rid of their overemployment. No more free rides.

Me thinks some people are worried about the 1.35% cap folks....

There are so many bills flying around they should just remove all property tax from all property and find another way to fund governments.

2:37 It's a fact that the City of St. Petersburg for one has a couple of hundred fewer employees now than it did several years ago and has continually lowered millage rates. Can you spin that into your GOP toadie "drunken spending" nonsense?

3:02... ummmmm... Buahahahahahaaaaaa... whoooooo, that's rich. hahahahahaaaaaa... get back to work, Rick... Hahahahahahahaaaaaa... you political hacks just kill me... Hahahahahahaaaaaa... lower millage rates... Buahahahahaaaaa... whoooooo...

[Ron]

3:02. Your facts are incorrect. According to page 25 of the City of St. Petersburg's 2008 recommended operating & capital improvements budget, the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE) has gone from 3,047 in 2002 to 2,910 for 2008. That is a decrease of only 137 FTE's. That is not exactly "a couple of hundred fewer employees"

While the number of FTE's has descreased, spending on salaries and benefits has increased almost $78 million dollars:

FY Full-Time FTEs Salaries/Benefits
2002 3,047 162,185
2003 3,017 176,229
2004 3,008 203,207
2005 2,993 212,551
2006 2,985 222,245
2007 2,987 230,736
2008 2,910 240,992

This took all of five minutes to find on the internet. If you want to quote facts, you should have something to back them up with.

BANG-O-RANG, 4:15!

Love,

One of Rick’s unnecessary and highly-paid Vice Mayors.

[Chris]

What exactly is "just value"? If everybody gets taxed at a similar rate instead of protecting some or soaking people like me at the expense of others, then I'm all for it.

I pay $5000 and my neighbor in an identical house pays $1500. Is that fair?

Giving big exemptions for all residential property just further shifts the tax burden to businesses. The plan is great for renters and snowbirds and even some homesteaders, but its lousy for business. The millage rate can be adjusted to compensate for the lowered residential assessments to meet the revenue cap. So, the higher rate will means less tax payments for residential and higher tax payments for businesses.

5:28 you do not know what you are talking about. Government employees putting the spin and scare tactics on everything

With so many plans flying about, they all could fail - mass confusion.

As Ed Ball used to say:

"Confusion to the enemy."

Ron - admittedly, it was off the top of my head. 137 versus a couple of hundred; it still means "less employees." The initial post referred to "overemployment" and didn't mention compensation.

Given your facility with research, can you please show me where those fewer employees are making more money than their counterparts in the private sector, or are we just going to assume that they are somehow innately inferior and that paying them the same or less salary + benefits and giving them yearly increase amounts to "drunken spending"?

6:47
Um, the fact speak for themselves. I don't own commercial property, so I wouldn't see the property tax increase directly. I do own residential property, so I would see a direct reduction in my property taxes. The tax shift is undeniable; unless you know crap about basic economics.
So long as local governments can raise the millage rate to partially offset the reduced assessments on residential property, then commercial property owners will pay more in taxes. DO THE MATH!

carlos was a jerk in Tallahasse and still is one in Miami

This is definitely a tax shift onto businesses. Here is a simplified example.
A small city has three pieces of property: a homestead, a rental home, and a commercial property. Each is assessed at $100,000, for a total of $300,000 tax base. The city millage for 2007 is 5 mills. So the total revenue is $1,500. Each property owner pays $500.
If the proposal passes, the homestead and rental property assessments drop to $50,000 each, and the commercial assessment stays the same, for a total tax base of $200,000. BUT, the city is allowed to raise up to $1,500 in revenue, so it adopts a millage rate for 2008 of 7.5 mills. $200,000 tax base x 7.5 mills = $1,500. The residential owners pay $375 each (25% cut), and the commercial guy pays $750 (50% increase)!
The result is bad for businesses in Florida, and bad for their customers when the costs are passed along to them in higher prices.
The irony: the higher millage rate is actually the “rollback rate”.

As Ed Ball used to say:

"Confusion to the enemy."

support the 1.35% property tax cap plan,

that is the big one going around the state of FL