'Tax swap' headed toward ballot
House Speaker Marco Rubio shares a celebratory moment with TBRC member Patricia Levesque.
UPDATE: The proposal passed 21-4. Dissenting votes were cast by Barney Barnett, Mark Bostick, Randy Miller and Greg Turbeville.
----
A tax swap appears headed to the November ballot.
After hours of debate, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission is close to voting on a proposal to eliminate school property taxes -- which make up 25 or more percent of an overall tax bill -- in favor of a 1 cent sales tax increase and other revenue sources.
"The people grabbed relief on Jan 29. but they are still clamoring for reform, true reform," said commission member Darryl Rouson.
Passage would represent a victory for former Sen. John McKay, who first broached the idea, and House Speaker Marco Rubio, who attempted something similar last year only to get rebuffed by the Senate. "You're our last hope," Rubio urged the 25-member panel. "If you’re waiting on the Florida Legislature to cut taxes, it isn't going to happen."
But Randy Miller of the Florida Retail Federation blasted the idea as light on details and full of problems. "A sales tax is a regressive tax, there's no way around it. ... It's not good for the economy."
While the "required local effort" for schools is currently about $8-billion, it will be more than $9-billion in 2011, Miller and others said, while the sales tax increase will not generate as much. That leaves a major hole for the Legislature to fill.
"It offers a lot of risk, particularly at this time when we're trying to come out of a scary economic situation," said Kurt Wenner of Florida TaxWatch.
While McKay's plan once seemed doomed, it was amended several times and no longer requires a mandatory look at a tax on services.


Fantastic! We appear to at least be making progress!!! Keep it up!
Posted by: ds | March 17, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Two questions:
1. Does the sales tax swap include all school taxes or just the local requirement?
2. Does the additional $25000 homestead exemption passed with Amendment 1 still stand?
Thanks.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 01:45 PM
"The people grabbed relief on Jan 29. but they are still clamoring for reform, true reform," said commission member Darryl Rouson.”
This is all I needed to see, to confirm that I will NOT be voting for Rouson. He’s just another political hack who will fall right in line with the rest of the useless pandering puppets in Tallytown.
$240 is NOT relief, it’s a freaking joke!
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Lovely: Florida can now go from 49th in per capita education spending to 50th! Yee haw!!!
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 01:49 PM
thank goodness these committee members who voted in favor have a lot more intestinal fortitude than our jellyfish Governor and pathetic Senate sidekicks who gave us the lame-*ss amendment one.
Now that's what I call real tax reform!
GO MARCO.
And to Randy Miller:
regressive, schmegressive.
it's pretty simple. the more you buy the more you pay, nothing regressive about that.
Posted by: terminator | March 17, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Question, I keep seeing that this is a 25% tax swap cut, but the % of school property taxes vary by county, so am I right in thinking that if I live in an area where say school property taxes are in the 30-40% range then thats the cut I will receive and still keep the cuts already provided. If so, I am all for this plan,
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 01:58 PM
here here to the terminator! I agree - I am so sick of hearing the regressive bullcrap. Regressive for who? Considering that the people that they whine and cry about not having the money for it are using my tax dollars via their public assistance anyway, I'm paying their increase for them! Tell me Randy, what's fair about the current property tax system and how it unfairly burdens first time homebuyers and others that haven't owned their home for 10 plus years???
Posted by: ds | March 17, 2008 at 02:07 PM
I guess that termie has recently fallen in love with all of the Jebbie staffers.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:07 PM
This is THE PLAN the governor and the legislature should have and could have pursued last June. REAL TAX RELIEF for ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.
The question that needs to be asked next is:
Why didn't they (the Legislature) do this instead of the pandering statutory and constitutional plans they instead enacted that clearly gave only a little tax relief to some and gave NO tax relief AT ALL to non-homesteaded residential, business, and commercial property owners?
Posted by: Bob | March 17, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Levesque looks like she is going to eat Marco. Thanks to the Gang of Four who tried to stop my taxes from going up. Yes, my taxes will go up if this passes, it is an increase for my family.
A sales tax increase hurts my familiy and many others. It is regressive, sherminator. Only a pinhead could disagree, but that was proven long long ago.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:12 PM
How would the tax swap work for the tiny counties? Do Levy and Gilchrist do enough business a year to net the revenues needed to fund their schools?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:12 PM
It's regressive for Randy because of the retail industry that he represents. The more something costs, the less likely people are to buy it. However, most adults have children that use our school system but if you don't own a home, you have no skin the game.
This spreads school taxes out to everyone -- including tourists visiting our state.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Do you all know what regressive actually means?
By definition, the sales tax is regressive. Whether or not one thinks this is good or bad is a matter of opinion.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:15 PM
2:07
well I am a Republican conservative.
they just can't touch my education policy because I know about 1000x more than anything they know as it pertains to public education K-12, that's where we beg to differ.
still a great victory for Marco and will definately jump start the Florida economy if passed by the voters.
can't wait to hear the gloom and doom tales from the school districts, FSBA, school superintendents, county and local governments.
whine, whine, whine is all we'll hear for the next eight months!
2:07
yeah, it's funny how the so-called "disadvantaged" that can't afford the sales tax increase can wear the most expensive BB shoes, designer clothes, jewelry, drive tricked out cars, patronize fancy restaurants/nightclubs and seem to possess plenty of discretionary money (oh I forgot most are on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, social security disability and receive section eight housing vouchers).
wonder when Jesse and Sharpton will be down to protest?
Posted by: terminator | March 17, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Honestly, even for Randy, are people really going to notice the extra penny on the dollar?
A candy bar just went from $1.06 to $1.07...no one will notice.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:16 PM
Levesque looks terrible
although she is a nutcase who went to Bob Jones university, she used to be a decent looking woman.
WTH happened to her?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:22 PM
As always terminator, we're on the same page!
And 2:16 - you are so correct. We were also told a few months back that tourism was down but yet over the weekend there was a rather large news spread about the parks in Florida all reporting increases. Maybe they weren't record increases but they were increases just the same. Which disproves ANOTHER one of the 'sky is falling' claims...
Posted by: ds | March 17, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Any bets on how long it will take Charlie to come out and claim victory as if himself did this?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:27 PM
QUESTION, can anyone answer???? will assume that the people that love this plan will know??? I keep seeing that this is a 25% tax swap cut, but the % of school property taxes vary by county, so am I right in thinking that if I live in an area where say school property taxes are in the 30-40% range then thats the cut I will receive and still keep the cuts already provided.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:30 PM
To clarify 02:24's sky is falling remark... To those that think if a penny increase is made to the sales tax or if a few exemptions are eliminated that the state of florida and our economy will collapse - wrong! Think about it from a realistic standpoint. If hair salon services end up taxed, are we really going to drive out of state to have that done? Doubt it. Luxury skyboxes? Hello!!!
Posted by: ds | March 17, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Isn't that girl in the picture the one who stared in Hairspray?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:34 PM
People who do NOT own a home and have children do NOT contribute the same amount to the school system like home owners do, some of whom have 0 children. I have 2 children and I fail to see how a 1% increase is a regressive tax. Now our tourists and rentors can help pay the bill as well.
Posted by: Will.I.Am | March 17, 2008 at 02:35 PM
McKay must have phtotos of someone.
Will the propos need to pass by 2/3 versus 60-percent since it is a tax increase?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:37 PM
This is a victory? A panel stacked to the gills with conservatives comes up with a plan to further strangle our government. Good job ramming your fascist ideology down the peoples' throats. Only in FL have they not seen the writing on the wall. Conservative policy is destroying the USA.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:37 PM
What about Reilly and Les Miller admitting to violating the sunshine law - on the record! Did anyone see all of the reporters going crazy?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:39 PM
Yea, like you will ever feel one extra cent! If everyone, "Tax Watch" included actually understood the effects of inflation and all of this rate-cutting by the Federal Reserve which weakens the dollar and drives up prices like balloons, they might be able to actually put their feigned 'outrage' to a good use and rail against those measures and the weak dollar, not against a modest one-cent sales tax increase to alleviate "property-taxes gone wild"! Keep it up Rubio and let's still push the best idea yet: "1.35%" Baby!
Posted by: Harry | March 17, 2008 at 02:45 PM
VOTE NO!! We have been there and done that. Remember??? "Penny for Pasco, Penny for Pinellas oh and wasn't a certain portion of the lottery suppose to go to schools?? Zip up the zipper on the purse strings and VOTE NO!!!
Posted by: gathomas49fla | March 17, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Just thought that i would mention that lower income non-property owners do pay property taxes as it is included in their monthly rent check to the landlord. In addition, since it is not homesteaded property they actually pay much higher taxes than a homeowner. So now they will have to pay more taxes on sales. Just another example of don't tax me, tax someone else that is a florida tradition.
Posted by: Mike | March 17, 2008 at 02:53 PM
A simplified illustration of a regressive tax on income (proportional on consumption) is as follows: If Jane has $10 and John has $5, a tax of $1 on a purchase would result in a different percentage of total income applied to taxation, 20% for John and 10% for Jane. Thus, a tax that is fixed to the value of the good/service (without exemptions or rebates) would likely, in effect, result in a higher burden of taxation to people with less money (depending on consumption level and timeline examined - year or lifetime). A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to low income earners.
So yes, it is a regressive tax as the lower-income populace will have to pay a higher percentage of their income on the same items (food, clothes, etc).
That's all it means.
Now, whether or not switching from a homeowner tax to a sales tax is better or worse for the majority of Floridians will still need some analysis.
I think one of the things people are forgetting here is checking to see where the current homeowner tax is deriving its income from. For instance, someone with a home worth $100,000 might save $250 from this ammendment, but a person with a $1,000,000 home would save $2500. That means that the person who can afford to pay the higher tax is getting a huger tax break that will be spread out across Floridians and tourists alike.
I am not advocating one way or another, but I think people are caught up in thinking that new homeowners are carrying the tax burden (yes, I bought in 2006, so I am one of them), but they fail to look at the difference between a tax break (Ammendment 1) and what true tax reform actually means.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Mike,
Who cares they are poor. Its not like they are real people.
Posted by: Will.I.Am | March 17, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Cry me a river, Mike. We're all in it together...
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 02:56 PM
I think the term is recessive, not regressive.
Posted by: Mike | March 17, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Eliminate all taxes except that write off on my "Hummer" for business use LOL LOL
Let them eat cake!
Posted by: Ruth | March 17, 2008 at 03:00 PM
BTW, the national average for sales tax is $0.05 (Florida is currently at $0.06).
The national average for state/local tax burden is 11% (Florida is currently at 10%, and ranked 38th in the nation).
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:01 PM
RE: A simplified illustration of a regressive tax on income (proportional on consumption)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wow that was DEEP! :) Very interseting tho. But do the rich people who can afford it, and will get the better break, give a rats rear about if poor people have to pay more? I think not.........
Posted by: gathomas49fla | March 17, 2008 at 03:02 PM
How does this differ from the sales tax swap ?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:03 PM
OK You idiots. Patricia Levesque is pregnant. Lay off. She's a great lady who stands on her principles. Thank goodness she has the strength to stand up and be bold, because, my goodness...not many people in tallahassee will these days
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:04 PM
You wannabe policy wonks are really sad. As several folks hasve tried to correctly point out, the fact that a sales tax is regressive in indidputable. It is "regressive" because it consumes a higher percentage of low incomer earners disposable income, period. Whether that is acceptable or not, ggod policy or not, is debatable, but the label regresive is completely accurate. Second, do you reallythink that renters and tourists don't pay property tax? You think the landlord doesn't cover his property taxes in the rent? You think the hotel/motel owner doesn't cover his property taxes in his rate? C'mon, renters and tourists have been contributing to education revenues all along. Isn' this the argument you consdervative wannabe's make al the time: Do you really think businesses pay taxes? Consumers pay their taxes because its all just passed along. So, the argument goes, you can't raise taxes on business, becausethey will have to pass it on and then the consumer will stop buying and the world will go to hell in a hand basket. That's what you clowns always come up with. Now, the y want to raise the sales tax by a penny and it is fine with you because no consumer will be affected by just a penny increase. But God forbid they take away your exemption for dry cleaning, health clubs, and all the other accoutrements to you psuedometro lifestyles (yes, your mani's and your pedi's in Tallahassee of all places) because that would cause the world to collapse. You morons are really pathetic.
P.S. 1:47: Over 60% of the electorate voted for Amendment 1. Rouson had nothing to do with that, he's just stating a fact. The people grabbed a little relief. I'm sure he'll miss your 1 vote.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Well done TBRC and Speaker Rubio! Now let's see what Florida's liberal Governor has to say on the matter. Conservatives (and any potential primary opponents) will be watching.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:07 PM
1:47, Rouson just gave Floridians the best chance at true tax reform that they've ever had. Better than amendment 1 by far. You're just another clueless hack.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Beats the heck out of enacting a state income tax. Workers in Florida are already grossly underpaid and overcharged. Further sticking it to the workforce would have led to a mass exodus out of the state.
Posted by: kitty | March 17, 2008 at 03:45 PM
3:04 Pregnancy is no excuse for the choice of that blouse. Dude, that is just awful. She had to have another piece of clothing with green in it besides that LSD throwback. Bad judgment.
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Question. Is it eliinating the state portion of school tax only, or both the state and county portions?
Posted by: | March 17, 2008 at 03:48 PM
1:47 - what was Rouson's best chance of true tax reform? I am serious - not sarcastic....Did he previously introduce tax reform(perhaps before I moved here?) Thanks
Posted by: jessica | March 17, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Maybe the low income (so called) will think twice before buy that 66 inch plasma tv , cigs or beer. I have a 20 inch old tv and working 2 jobs to pay for my property taxes and insurance. You have a choice with sales tax. Give me a break, nothing can be 100% fair, but Florida's property tax system, the inequity of this system is criminal.
Posted by: jackie | March 17, 2008 at 03:51 PM
I am so happy I could do a "St. Patty's Day" jig !!!!
This reduction now - when people desperately NEED it....then on the 2010 ballot, the 1.35% maximum tax on ALL properties....
Thank all of you on the TBRC for a job well done...
Posted by: Felecia | March 17, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Excellent! Governor Crist and the legislature are jokes. To think Gov.Crist spent $4million dollars pushing amendment 1. What a waste. Talk about better use of $4million. What about the poor and low income???? The lower middle class are getting killed and Florida does not give a hoot. This is a fair and good tax reform. Crist should bury his head in sand, he is useless.
Posted by: jackie | March 17, 2008 at 04:01 PM
I strongly believe that Florida needs to tax Internet Sales to make up over 2 Billion of our shortfall. Otherwise we will continue to lose Sales Tax at a faster rate to these companies that do not pay Rent, Property Tax, Occupational Licenses, Utility Fees, etc.
Internet Companies have an unfair advantage over Florida Business that pay rent and all of our State taxes and fees. Let’s require them to at least pay sales tax in order to ship product into Florida.
Posted by: Tom | March 17, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Jackie, you are 100% correct ...I am drowning in taxes and insurance....and have NO choice in those ...."So called" poor people can CHOOSE to buy a car or a big TV or go on an expensive vacation....I do NONE of those things because I have taxes to pay....
This tax reform is a desperately needed break off the backs of homeowners....I mean, just how much can we CONTINUALLY shoulder? !!
Let parents who rent contribute to their childrens' education...Maybe if they also have to pay for education, the parents will be more involved.....
Posted by: Neil | March 17, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Neil and Jackie - I am right there with you! It's about time someone took this seriously. Charlie and the Legislature - haha. They helped us? Yeah, right! Excellent work so far TBRC!
Posted by: Debbie | March 17, 2008 at 04:10 PM