House v. Senate (so, what else is new?)

For the new few days we'll hear a lot of posturing between the House and Senate over their different ideas for changing Florida's property taxes.

The Senate's plan is closer to the original deal. It includes a doubled homestead exemption, a "portable" tax break for moving to a new house, a tax break for first-time buyers, and a bunch of other stuff.

The House's plan is still in flux. As written, however, it includes one huuuge difference from the Senate -- it creates a 3 percent a year cap on the value of non-homestead property in Florida. That's kind of like the "Save Our Homes" cap for homesteads, with a couple of important differences.

Just for starters, I hope nobody cares in the slightest about the Senate's complaint that the House "broke the deal" that was made before the session. I don't care. The taxpayers don't care. Nobody cares except the Legislature. So if Senate President Ken Pruitt and Sen. Daniel Webster think they are getting any sympathy on that, boo freakin' hoo.

What matters is the merit of the House ideas -- and there the Senate might have a better case. As appealing as a 3 pct non-homestead cap might be, if it's that low it will cost a lot of money -- and the local govt's will just make it up by raising their millage rates. In that case, this "reform" could actually end up hurting homestead owners -- wait'll THAT gets understood after the session!

On the other hand, the proposal from House Democrats not to "double" the homestead exemption, but peg it to 40 percent of the median home value in each county, is interesting to the House Republican leaders and is not something the Senate will automatically rule out. So the main sticking point is probably the cap on non-homestead property....

Hey, sounds like a Sunday column topic! Happy weekend and good luck.

Comments

[J Dalney]

Seems to me that these morons up in Tally are making thngs far more complicated than they need to be.
If they got the state out of the insurance business and invited the commercial insurers back in to apply 2000% premium increases to the high risks on the beaches, we wouldnt have a deficit and we could actually lower the taxes

[Larry]

They are a piece of work, aren't they? Instead of just "fixing" the language in the original proposal that everyone hoop'd hooed about, they launch into an entirely new scenario of schemes and numbers. I like the portability factor of SOH. They say they'll reappraise to full value upon sale, but how could they if someone bought my house with a portable SOH value and cap from their previous residence? It doesn't seem to add up, which is about par for the course with these clowns. What they should do is sit down and devise a fair and equitable solution to how property is taxed in Florida. Throw out the "highest and best use" crapola and value all property the same. Then set fair and equitable rates of taxation based on those values. Oh my, I must have drifted off to LaLa land their for a minute. Sorry. Howard, are you back up there in Tallahassee this week?

well i have to agree with howard on the portability. you are going to run into the same thing you have under the current plan to people with identacle houses paying vastly different tax amounts. and i can foresee the wealthy taking advantage of it like they do the bankruptcy laws. they will come in, buy a cheap house, live in it for a while and then buy a 1,000,000 dollar house and end up paying taxes equivelant to the cheaper house

someone suggested a while back that taxes be imposed by the square foot. that way if a person has an 8,000 suare foot house he is paying the same as everyone else who has a house the same size. if he wants a larger house he knows his taxes will go up a certain amount and vice versa for those who want to downsize. it makes sense to me , but apparently there is aproblem since no one else has run with the idea. what do you think?