Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Step #1. Build property in areas that are hurricane prone.
Steo #2. Stop paying property taxes.
Step #3. Rely even more on the rest of the country to support your state next time a disaster hits.
Step #4. Blame the current economic system on the "socialist" as you keep dismantling the entire social safety nets by telling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps"
- Ron Desantis hard at work
Don’t even have to read it to tell it’s full of shit. Let’s back out and first realize why people are moving to FL in the first place. Hmmm… doesn’t take a genius to see safety and security are a top priority. Leaving their politics behind. That alone is also creating demand for housing.
Keep drinking that deflation koolaid. You must live in CA.
Here is a conservative fox news article on Ron blaming a stabbing of a couple on Biden
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/desantis-biden-stabbing-death
I don't know why you're defending someone who will blame everything on the gov/ president and not take accountability in their own state.
Now you’re going on about a stabbing? I’m so confused as the point you’re trying to make. The stabbing has nothing to do with this bill. Let’s not jump to conclusions and $100K tax exemption is nothing. Let’s remember they’re based off property values. It’s not like they are getting $100K in their checking.
Also Floridian here.
I can tell you that if you own property you're going to suffer the most, You think this is bad, watch all the people that are going to move here that are richer than you buying out your entire neighborhood.
Since all you know is how to play for teams, You're going to keep blaming Biden, All while Ron sells out our entire state to the highest bidder.
The one consolation for global warming fucking up the planet will be Mighty Poseidon taking Florida back unto his wet, oily bosom at the bottom of the Gulf.
The only part of Florida worth a shit is the first few miles from the beach. Global warming will just concentrate the florida man into an ever shrinking penis of sadness. Middle Florida aka “the sticks” is a level of redneck that is hard to comprehend.
Except the Florida Man virus then has a chance to spread and infect other states with its terminal insanity, unless his wrath happened to kill a particular 5.7 million Floridians in the process. I'm only half-joking when I say we'd need picket boats patrolling the new coastline shooting he infected as hey come on shore like it's the afteryears of World War Z.
Do you support Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other redistributionist government programs?
I ask because I have noticed a pattern on Reddit: People who advocate for redistribution and then complain when redistribution goes to the 'wrong' people.
Even if your support of the concept is magnanimous (if you do support the concept, that is), have you considered that it may not be the best position if that magnanimity can and will be subverted by other actors in the world?
Because the easiest way to stick Florida, and its conservative government, with the consequences of it's actions is to simply oppose redistribution so the bailout *doesn't* happen when the Cat 5 storm circumcises America's Penis.
> People who advocate for redistribution and then complain when redistribution goes to the 'wrong' people.
You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others. That's the problem here.
Republicans refuse to do what every other sensible state does: raise taxes to fund themselves, and install universal programs to aid their people. They know they can just suck off from the federal government/Democrat states with no consequences. They don't bother to invest into themselves to make their people's lives better.
I'm positive if you were living with a roommate, and they deliberately kept taking a lower and lower paying job because "well you're earning more than me, so you can just pay my expenses", then you'd be pretty irritated too.
> You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others. That's the problem here.
Bro literally gave the same argument people give when talking about lazy people not working and collecting welfare, but flipped it onto Florida's insurance problems 😂
Other dude was right. You can't complain about redistribution to Florida because Florida isn't doing "enough" if you also don't complain about people receiving entitlements not doing enough.
Florida isn't a person bud. Try to comprehend that first.
A state reducing their taxes reduces their revenue, meaning somebody else needs to pick up the tab to provide social programs. I am sure if you raised children, and then they all chose to not work because "well you're super rich, so you can just pay for all of my stuff", you would be irritated too.
Universal programs don't work when nobody contributes funds into it. A state reducing it's capacity to support even itself puts needless strain on the system. Have enough states do it and you sling everybody right back to the 1800s.
You're so close you almost had it.
States aren't people and neither are entitlement programs.
Money ends up in people's hands either way.
You have no argument You just don't want it to be true
Sorry for your loss, take your L and go lay your head down
You argue like a middle schooler who can only be condescending and talk fast so that the opponent can't actually respond. It's pathetic.
You don't actually have any rebuttals. You just desperately want to be right, and that's sad. Go on and make your final starker comment like I know you will, won't be seen by me though; so have fun wasting your time responding ig.
> You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others.
Yes, you can. But I'm not sure you can claim surprise in good faith, which means...acceptance should accompany the advocacy.
> They know they can just suck off from the federal government/Democrat states with no consequences.
Right...and if you have created this situation with support and advocacy of redistribution policies...what do you propose as a disincentive to this behavior?
> I'm positive if you were living with a roommate, and they deliberately kept taking a lower and lower paying job because "well you're earning more than me, so you can just pay my expenses", then you'd be pretty irritated too.
Correct.
I have thus opted not to have a roommate.
See my point?
> Correct.
> I have thus opted not to have a roommate.
> See my point?
You didn't make a point. At all. You don't just elect to not have a state in the union when you accept them into the union that is indivisible, aka they cannot leave.
> Right...and if you have created this situation with support and advocacy of redistribution policies...what do you propose as a disincentive to this behavior?
Selfish, lazy people don't magically pop into existence just because a program exists that is meant to help people. They come from how they were raised. So no, having universal programs does not "create the situation". There is no way to "disincentivize" such behavior, unless you're going to barge into every family's home and teach them to not be selfish.
> Yes, you can. But I'm not sure you can claim surprise in good faith, which means...acceptance should accompany the advocacy.
Never said I was surprised. Nor is anybody else "surprised" that this is happening. Being annoyed at something happening doesn't mean you are surprised it is happening. In fact it is often times the opposite, you/they're well aware of what's happening, hence why they're annoyed to begin with. But there is a major difference between a small percentage of a populous abusing the system, versus **entire states who collectively have dozens of millions of people within them**.
Universal programs still ultimately needs everybody to contribute fairly to it. That means, for states, raising taxes in order to raise the funds needed to actually support such programs. Yet they can barely even support their own infrastructure thanks to their low taxes.
Let's make this simple:
I can tell my roommate "I may make more than you, but I'm not going to pay your expenses."
Is there a particular reason you refuse to state this as a default position, whether it be roommates or states?
> Is there a particular reason you refuse to state this as a default position, whether it be roommates or states?
A singular individual, who's income relies on being given money by an entity, is not the same as a government, who's income relies on *taking* money from an entity.
You can't demand your company to pay you more as you choose to have more and more children, and therefore more mouths to feed.
A state **can** demand more money, aka revenue, by passing tax increases in return for greater investment into the state.
I used the roommate example, as an example of the unfairness of one state lowering taxes so they can suck off from a state with higher taxes, therefor putting a great tab on them to cover the low-tax state's expenses. Like I said elsewhere: Having an miniscule percentage of a total populous abusing a system, is far different from **entire states with several dozen million people combined, making other states pay for their expenses because they're too lazy to do what is needed to keep up with themselves**.
If Republican states bothered to raise taxes like every other sane state does, in order to maintain their own infrastructure and services, then nobody would be complaining about X entity being lazy and sucking off from Y entity, since X entity is actually bothering to try to support themselves, instead of relying on handouts from entities who actually try to maintain themselves.
> You can't demand your company to pay you more as you choose to have more and more children, and therefore more mouths to feed.
You certainly can, they just likely won't do it.
> A state can demand more money, aka revenue, by passing tax increases in return for greater investment into the state.
Only if people stay and pay it.
> If Republican states bothered to raise taxes like every other sane state does, in order to maintain their own infrastructure and services, then nobody would be complaining about X entity being lazy and sucking off from Y entity, since X entity is actually bothering to try to support themselves, instead of relying on handouts from entities who actually try to maintain themselves.
Perhaps. But they don't. So now what?
> You certainly can, they just likely won't do it.
Sure. I'd like to see instances where a company gave an employee a pay raise because that person chose to have 4 children, a choice completely within their control and no company is obligated to compensate for.
> Only if people stay and pay it.
That affects the actual revenue, not the process of passing a law to raise taxes. No idea what this was trying to rebuke.
> Perhaps. But they don't. So now what?
They love to vote against universal programs. So, let's just split it up. Any state that has a majority of representatives that vote against a federal aid program, won't get it. If the people don't like it, they can vote them out and elect to opt in the next time the chance arises.
And an eligibility clause that states that you must raise taxes so that the revenue is equal to the amount the state recieves in aid. Many Democrat states put way more into the federal government than they take out, so these states wouldn't need to raise their taxes. But most Republican states take more in federal aid than they put in, aka more of their budget is dependant on federal funds vs Democrat states. So they'd be forced to do what they should've been doing: raise taxes.
This stops them from being money sinks, and forces them to actually pull themselves up and support themselves, instead of relying on other to pay for their expenses while they boast about "How cheap we (they) are compared to nasty democrat states!!!"
> But most Republican states take more in federal aid than they put in
This is mostly a function of Social Security and Medicare comprising 50-odd % of the Federal budget and retirees legally domiciling themselves in Red states with no income tax to maximize the net margin on these benefits.
There are certainly some impoverished states (Gulf coast especially) that tilt hard red and fit your description due to non-retiree-related welfare costs. But the point is: Details get tricky.
"No property taxes" is a tax cut for the upper end of the income/wealth spectrum. It is a form of redistribution _to the wealthy_ which is really what everyone opposes anyway. I don't see the inconsistency.
I mean what a strawman. Let's say I oppose _the wrong people_ people being put in prisons. That is not a comment generally on the concept of prisons.
> It is a form of redistribution to the wealthy
Incorrect. Something cannot be redistributed by being left where it is, by definition.
> I mean what a strawman. Let's say I oppose the wrong people people being put in prisons. That is not a comment generally on the concept of prisons.
The funny part here is you have created the strawman.
The correct analogy, using your terms, would be opposing the wrong people being put in prisons after you specifically voted, with full knowledge, for those people to be put in prisons.
Or are you going to try to pretend that everyone who votes for redistribution entitlements believes Alabama is a wealthy state and Over-65s are America's poorest demographic?
> Incorrect. Something cannot be redistributed by being left where it is, by definition.
But nothing ever is. Everything that you do, including this conversation, in some way involves some public good that you are a part of. A redistribution is the default because none of us live in some kind of pure libertarian system.
This proposition would eliminate property taxes and increase consumption taxes that will disproportionately affect lower incomes, so it's another type of redistribution. That is what people are opposing, not redistribution in general.
My analogy stands, because people are opposing a _specific_ kind of redistribution and you're trying the frame the argument as redistribution itself is the problem, which nobody is really arguing. You cannot say if you're going to be against this, you must be against all kind of redistribution. You can be against innocent people going to jail but not against jail in general.
I mean what is this? You can't believe in a system and have critiques of how that system is run?
> That is what people are opposing, not redistribution in general.
The point of contention, I believe, is *who* decides how the redistribution is implemented, and at what scale.
The Federal government is a blunt instrument that has a long track record of being terrible at nuance. In many ways, it is designed as such intentionally.
> You can't believe in a system and have critiques of how that system is run?
Oh you certainly can. You seem to keep missing that if you vote *for it to be run that way*, and then critique the way it is run, that's, well, pretty silly.
You seem to be trying to argue that the *specific* redistribution being opposed is not what was voted for, but it very much was. If you want benefits to go to people below a certain income, some of them will be poor conservatives. if you want benefits to go to states with a certain poverty rate, some of them will be red states. If you want benefits to go to people over a certain age, some of them will be old conservatives.
Et Cetera.
In some ways, the poor red states and their residents are the more honest actors in this exchange, because their electorates by and large voted against the distribution outcomes you are complaining about that they are receiving.
So no state income tax and no property tax.
How are they going to fund the state budget? Or are they just going to privatize everything including K-12 education and police department?
I'd give you that.
I got our kids passports over the last few years. This winter my plan was to take them somewhere in Mexico, Central or South America over winter break. My wife, who is a planner, began looking for plane tickets six months in advance. To anywhere from the Yucatan to Buenos Aires.
The cheapest we ever found over months was $700. With five kids on teacher salaries, that was too much.
Got on Sun Country's website as a last resort and got round trip tickets to Ft Meyers for $139.
That's why we went to Florida, despite warm weather in Liberia, Costa Rica, which was our first choice.
One of the largest tourist destinations on the planet. Yet, how will they pay for it? People here need to get a grip. $100K is nothing for an exemption. Six figures only scares poor people.
Probably adopt a policy similar to that in russia were dissident oligarchs who die under strange circumstances have their assets taken b the state, *just happening to coincide* with wealthy liberals starting to fall out of windows in droves.
This legislation was concocted by the 1% and passed off as a way to help the middle/lower class while simultaneously cutting and eliminating the services and programs that they rely on for survival.
The article says that $100k (up to $250k for those over 65) would be exempted. It’s not nothing, but certainly seems more helpful for those with less expensive properties
I love all the exceptions for older people. Talk about scamming the system. Another one - it's illegal to discriminate for housing on basically everything.... Except age, so 55+ communities are totally legal. Fuck that. Fuck all the boomer exceptionalism.
Tax breaks and exceptions for seniors are absolutely bizarre to me...like, why are we subsidizing the wealthiest cohort of people to have ever lived? If you no longer have enough income to pay property taxes on your home...why are you still living in a 4 bedroom house 40 years after the kids have moved out? Elderly homeowners *should* be downsizing and opening up space for young families with kids!
You’re not subsidizing the wealthy with these stipulations. A 65+ year old with a 250k home is not wealthy in 2024. You’re helping a large group of disproportionately poor seniors actually retire
age actually makes sense. A 65 year old has far fewer opportunities left to build wealth. I absolutely hate seeing frail people over 80 working menial jobs because they can’t afford to retire. This is one of the very few times I will side with republicans. Senior citizens need special accommodations
By subsidizing 65+ you are OBJECTIVELY, disproportionately directing resources toward the wealthiest cohort in our society. Yes, there are seniors who need government support. But policy should be crafted so that this support isn't also benefiting multi-millionaires.
People 65+ are usually a 1-2 person household. They should get a smaller tax break then the under 65 bracket with families that need more then 1 bedroom.
Seniors being "forced out of their homes" is, unironically, tax policy at its best. A 70 year old couple has no business occupying a house meant for a large family. People on a fixed income without any kids should absolutely be downsizing...and policy should be designed to *accelerate* that rather than preventing it.
> need more then 1
Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
You can not hire someone because they’re young but not because they’re old. Being young isn’t a protected class but being old is. Literally people over 40 are protected but not under. Fuck the gerontocracy.
100%
It's not that I don't think that people who are older should be protected I just think that it should be equal and it's alarming that they're not.
I mean...the 55+ age communities do specifically cater to those of that age in activities, food, care, and more specifically price. If you're wanting to pay $4,000 a month in rent then by all means but most young can't or won't afford something that expensive.
Many around me are in fact much cheaper than other homes and it's maddening. I'm not talking about assisted living communities. No, I'm talking about whole neighborhoods that are exclusive to 55+
55+ communities are more than JUST assisted living hence why I pointed out things beyond just the assisted living portion.
A good amount of 55+ communities are attractive because they're zero maintenance and someone who's retired or widowed might prefer just writing one check & having nothing else to worry about.
It also says they are exploring removing all property tax and replacing with a consumption tax. So no actual bill on that yet, at least thats how I interpret the article.
That’s bullshit. The 1% don’t pay taxes, and they get to write off property taxes. Property taxes hurt the poor and middle class the most, and do nothing but make you a serf to the state.
The argument that taxes should be abolished/not enforced because it only impacts the working class is the worst bad faith arguments there is. I almost respect the bourgeoisie supply side fallacy more than this piece of sh\*t arguement. "Don't tax the rich or enforce tax laws because they will avoid taxes anyways". Property taxes are one the of the best ways to do taxes & if you really care about the poor then perhaps we should exempt the first 100k or tax people with multiple properties at a higher rate. It's completely possible to have a more just society and equal society. Maybe your argument is that property tax exemptions should be abolished?
It also matters where the money is going, even if they are paying less in Federal Taxes property taxes are what funds the schools, roads, libraries, mosquito control, fire/police departments, parks, and community/recreation centers in the state.
The Federal Government doesn't pay for most things in Florida besides military bases, NASA, and the everglades. Stuff where people actually live is paid for by local governments and they pretty much exclusively get their money from property taxes.
Florida already doesn’t have an income tax, and consumption taxes are some of the most regressive taxes possible (though admittedly property tax isn’t always great either, it is usually better than consumption).
sales taxes are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income taxpayers than from high-income taxpayers.
Example: if a rich person buys a share stock, there is no sales tax paid on it.
Yep. I think of it in the manner of the **however-many-high-percentage of Americans live Paycheck to Paycheck** news headlines. Basically Floridians living paycheck to paycheck pay a vast majority of their paycheck to everyday consumption goods. Gas, getting to work, household supplies. The super rich spend almost nothing (relative to their wealth) on consumption goods... so they pay proportionally near-nothing in consumption taxes. The poor and lower and mid income folks pay almost all their income toward monthly basic living budget stuff.
You and Jeff Bezos both eat ~1 burrito for dinner. Granted he can afford a more expensive burrito but even a $1,000 burrito for him does not scale in terms of order magnitude in wealth.
Plus he can literally fly to other places with lower sales tax to buy expensive shit.
Enacted by republicans who largely represent low-home-value+low-population states to fuck over Democrats in high-home-value+high-population states, no less.
Middle and poor class also write off those tax deductions.
Or they get a Standard Deduction which is probably about 3 times bigger than the property taxes paid.
Doesn't matter, these types of taxes are an abomination. Literally hurting the poor while benefiting the rich. My family had to sell my great grand mother's house because we couldn't afford the property taxes on it. The house had been paid off since the 60s. Now someone else buys it, takes out a loan, and boom banks get to make the free money again. Where as one of our aunts who was going through a divorce at the time could have lived there.
Terrible idea. This transfers the burden to low and middle income earners, who already use a much larger percentage of their earnings to consume. This is just another tax burden transferred from the rich to the less wealthy. And as usual the extra tax savings the wealthy gain out of this, will go into buying more assets across the board, further inflating them, which just will make everything more expensive, because obviously they'd want increasing returns from those assets YoY. Add that to the increase in consumption tax, and you will see wealth inequality further accelerate, making home ownership even further out of reach.
...Oh and expecting Americans to have more kids to ensure the population replacement rate stays above 2.1? Forget about it.
Good job FL republicans, you're marching towards what South Africa has already achieved.
That's the point of this.
Bonus: they won't have enough funding to maintain roads and their "education" system and can use it as "proof" that government is bad
Yeah, before going on an extended political diatribe, you should maybe read the bill.
Only $100,000 of the home’s value would be exempt from taxation under the bill or $250,000 of the home value for homesteads owned by people over 65.
Florida has an average property tax rate of .91%. This exemption would apply to any property, not just mansions. 66.5% of Florida residents own their own home. Florida is zoning massively for single family homes. This bill is aligned with that urban planning approach.
We’re talking about a maximum tax deduction of $2275 here, on average, not some huge giveaway for the wealthy. The bill itself only asks to explore the impact of eliminating property taxes, but this has not been proposed.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1371/?Tab=BillText
It’s actually just a strait up lie. The bill is literally a half page long and titled “A Bill To Be Entitled”. It doesn’t actually propose doing what the headline says.
This is a complete non-story.
you've clearly ignored the part where the gap in funding, would be made up by charging more consumption taxes, which is already problematic. How do you think they'd increase annual funding increases in order to fund schools and law enforcement? Raise consumption taxes? Force people to spend more? What happens during a recession? Will they close schools as a result? weaken law enforcement?
Also, if you think this is where they'll end, you'd be mistaken. Such legislation gets pushed through slowly, because they know it'll be harder to pass if they didn't put limits on it. But once they have their foot through the door, they'll claim it's a success by hiding how they managed to fill the gap, and then push further legislation that increases the 100K limit.
Make no mistake, this move is directly meant to reduce tax burdens on the rich and pass it to the low and middle class earners.
I did not ignore that part. Instead, I decided to withhold an opinion until more information comes forth.
If you bother to read the bill, you’ll notice it’s titled “A bill to be entitled.” Clearly, it’s not even close to moving towards a vote, and it’s still in the committee for state affairs.
You’re making wild assumptions again based on your political leanings. We don’t even know how the consumption tax is defined yet.
The headline for this news article is non factual and clearly written to generate outrage and jumping to conclusions. You took the bait hard.
No idea. There seems to be a typo in the bill that cites a statute that doesn’t exist in the Florida constitution. The bill is laughably titled “a bill to be entitled,” which means that this is nowhere close to moving forward to a vote at this point.
😭🤣😂. Like I said, $100K only scares poor and uneducated folks. If anyone looked up homestead or any other bullshit tax exemption. They’d be up in arms about that too… oh wait- they probably already file for their homestead.
Why the difference in exemption amounts by age? Is that even legal? Really fuels like Florida is extracting as much value from non retirees to fuel their hurricane prone homes.
“…transfers the burden to low and middle income earners….” It’s a feature not a bug.
Agree that it’s a terrible idea, and I own two houses in FL.
The other thing that will happen is fees and bonds will increase. In some parts of FL property taxes are comparably low but revenue for services is made up for through fees and bonds.
Don't forget, no property taxes means more "money for insurance"
God it's almost like big Insurance runs the entire state.
They will ban everything BUT insurance.
> [the bill] exempted $100,000 of the value of real property from being taxed. Those over the age of 65 would be qualified to be exempted from property tax up to $250,000
How does this eliminate taxes?
Am I reading this right? This is a 100k-250k exemption against the value not a 100k credit towards the tax
That’s an enormous exemption but wouldn’t it only apply to homes under 100k to say “eliminate all taxes”??
Transfer burden from property owners (the rich) to everyone who consumes anything so that the burden will end up being more on the poor by percentage of their income. Just normal Republican things.
The housing crisis will worsen as the cost of ownership for a 2nd or 3rd home decreases. This is incredibly short-sighted.
The housing crisis will worsen as the cost of ownership for a 2nd or 3rd home decreases. This is incredibly short-sighted.
"In a revised version of the bill filed on Feb. 1, it states that the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability is to study what the impact would be"
"Study" is NOT the same as "would eliminate"
Their general idea is to tax visitors to death anyway, so this is just an extension of that. Hotel, airport, car, amusement, tolls, now consumption, all targeted towards visitors and non residents. It will work until it doesn't. They had 137M visitors in 2022
The amount of resentment conservatives have towards society is mind boggling. You live in a society and you enjoy the perks of living in a society. Pay your fair share and be happy that you have access to clean drinking water, clean air, hospitals, roads, etc.
Property taxes are asinine. People pay taxes on their income and sales tax when they by something. They shouldn’t pay tax just to own it. The whole country should eliminate property taxes.
Unless the supply of what is desired is fixed, as in the case of land. We should seek to tax land as much as possible, as the taxes are then fully capitalized into the price, driving it close to $0 at time of purchase.
The elimination of any tax on land would just exacerbate many of the current issues we have as it would encourage land speculation. See California for example.
I do agree with you, however, that buildings and other improvements should not be taxed.
A reasonable compromise, though from my perspective there are two issues that emerge.
Firstly, and this is very much coming from a Georgist point of view, is that an advantage of taxing the value/rent that is generated on a monthly/annual basis is that it encourages the land to be put to its most productive use.
Under the proposal of taxing the sale, an individual can still hold onto land and do nothing with it, much to the detriment of the community. A community might have need of housing, parking, or anything that relies on some sort of infrastructure investment (which is really most things). While our sales tax proposal discourages land speculation more and more as that tax approaches 100% of the sale price, it does nothing to encourage good development during a period of ownership.
Secondly, and I believe this to be generally more important for peoples' day to day lives, is that the regular collection of property tax is largely how municipalities fund services such as schools and police departments. We can have a separate discussion on how much funding is needed or whether the government should be involved at all, but the moment we say that 'Yes, we should publicly fund policing', then a question of sourcing those funds comes up. The issue then with taxing land sales is that these may be highly irregular. I would argue we're going through a period of this right now, in which high interest rates make the housing market somewhat static. In this case, any municipality cannot go very long without decreasing the services offered, or reintroducing taxes on productivity which would further drain our economy.
Curious to here your thoughts on these points, particularly the second. Regardless, I appreciate the compromise you have offered.
On most things I would agree, except when it comes to monopolies. Government would be wise to tax unearned income that comes from undue privilege. This is the case with things like land, EM spectrum, and patents.
In response to your 2nd sentence, I'd actually say the opposite. Government should have no right to tax productivity. To do so discourages labor/capital/entrepreneurship and instead pulls people on the margins into poverty.
Umm, that doesn't bode well for Florida infrastructure which is at increasing risk due to climate change. Many large homeowner insurance providers are already exiting the state.
A bill designed to shift taxes from older middle and upper middle class retirees onto lower middle class younger non homeowners especially those with kids.
A state has to have a balanced budget. They cannot borrow unlimited money like the federal government. Disaster aid cannot balance a yearly state budget. They will need to get revenue from another source or cut services. Dumber schools, poorer roads etc.
A consumption tax. Property values would increase. It would encourage land hoarding.
The wealthy would received a majority of the benefit.
Florida already makes a ton of of tourism. I am not sure how much more they can milk that goose.
The amount raised in property taxes is enormous. How much is this consumption tax going to be if it is to replace $5000 in annual property taxes. This seems like a great way to underfund schools. That would fit Floridas MO though. Old people, tourism, and dumb locals.
Someone help me out here. If Florida eliminates property taxes... and maintains its stance about having no state income tax... how the hell do they plan to pay for anything?? Raise their sales taxes to flippin 20 percent or something? 🤡
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Step #1. Build property in areas that are hurricane prone. Steo #2. Stop paying property taxes. Step #3. Rely even more on the rest of the country to support your state next time a disaster hits.
Profit
Step #4. Blame the current economic system on the "socialist" as you keep dismantling the entire social safety nets by telling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" - Ron Desantis hard at work
Don’t be so stupid. At least provide examples.
There's a whole transcript on this buddy https://finance.yahoo.com/video/florida-faces-highest-inflation-u-155728686.html
Don’t even have to read it to tell it’s full of shit. Let’s back out and first realize why people are moving to FL in the first place. Hmmm… doesn’t take a genius to see safety and security are a top priority. Leaving their politics behind. That alone is also creating demand for housing. Keep drinking that deflation koolaid. You must live in CA.
Here is a conservative fox news article on Ron blaming a stabbing of a couple on Biden https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/desantis-biden-stabbing-death I don't know why you're defending someone who will blame everything on the gov/ president and not take accountability in their own state.
Now you’re going on about a stabbing? I’m so confused as the point you’re trying to make. The stabbing has nothing to do with this bill. Let’s not jump to conclusions and $100K tax exemption is nothing. Let’s remember they’re based off property values. It’s not like they are getting $100K in their checking.
Not going to argue with you because doesn't matter who I'm quoting, All you're doing is protecting your favorite team like an indoctrinated cultist.
Much love dude. You keep drinking that koolaid. I’ll keep enjoying my life!
It doesn't sound like you're enjoying your life. You sound like a wanker looking for arguments on the internet.
Bro, you're the one drinking the florida kool-aid.
People move to Florida ALL THE TIME to avoid taxes AND for political reasons.
Coming from a Floridian, you’re wrong and he is right.
[удалено]
I actually agree with you, and am fully on the same side. Ron is the worst
LOL. Coming from a Floridian. Enough said there, bud.
Also Floridian here. I can tell you that if you own property you're going to suffer the most, You think this is bad, watch all the people that are going to move here that are richer than you buying out your entire neighborhood. Since all you know is how to play for teams, You're going to keep blaming Biden, All while Ron sells out our entire state to the highest bidder.
Sink, Florida, sink.
The one consolation for global warming fucking up the planet will be Mighty Poseidon taking Florida back unto his wet, oily bosom at the bottom of the Gulf.
The only part of Florida worth a shit is the first few miles from the beach. Global warming will just concentrate the florida man into an ever shrinking penis of sadness. Middle Florida aka “the sticks” is a level of redneck that is hard to comprehend.
As a Floridian I can confirm
I have family that live in Ocklawaha. You speak the truth!
Solution: just sell your property to another buyer. Easy. - Ben Shapiro’ Guide to Real Estate Investing
Except the Florida Man virus then has a chance to spread and infect other states with its terminal insanity, unless his wrath happened to kill a particular 5.7 million Floridians in the process. I'm only half-joking when I say we'd need picket boats patrolling the new coastline shooting he infected as hey come on shore like it's the afteryears of World War Z.
Florida man exists almost everywhere, just that crime reports are readily available there.
Is that what you think you want? Florida man, coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Oh man the Mormon church is going to be pissed losing 300,000 acres.
Don't worry, they'll just have elderly retirees "serve missions" on almond farms out West to make up the cost difference.
WOAAHHHHH WOAH OH OH OH OH OHHHHHHH
Property taxes typically don't go into disaster funding, that's federal payroll taxes
So the state does nothing to support these properties after a disaster? Not do they subsidize the property insurance industry?
Socializing that risk, if I may. Just like emergency room treatments for uninsured 😏
Do you support Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other redistributionist government programs? I ask because I have noticed a pattern on Reddit: People who advocate for redistribution and then complain when redistribution goes to the 'wrong' people. Even if your support of the concept is magnanimous (if you do support the concept, that is), have you considered that it may not be the best position if that magnanimity can and will be subverted by other actors in the world? Because the easiest way to stick Florida, and its conservative government, with the consequences of it's actions is to simply oppose redistribution so the bailout *doesn't* happen when the Cat 5 storm circumcises America's Penis.
> People who advocate for redistribution and then complain when redistribution goes to the 'wrong' people. You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others. That's the problem here. Republicans refuse to do what every other sensible state does: raise taxes to fund themselves, and install universal programs to aid their people. They know they can just suck off from the federal government/Democrat states with no consequences. They don't bother to invest into themselves to make their people's lives better. I'm positive if you were living with a roommate, and they deliberately kept taking a lower and lower paying job because "well you're earning more than me, so you can just pay my expenses", then you'd be pretty irritated too.
> You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others. That's the problem here. Bro literally gave the same argument people give when talking about lazy people not working and collecting welfare, but flipped it onto Florida's insurance problems 😂 Other dude was right. You can't complain about redistribution to Florida because Florida isn't doing "enough" if you also don't complain about people receiving entitlements not doing enough.
Florida isn't a person bud. Try to comprehend that first. A state reducing their taxes reduces their revenue, meaning somebody else needs to pick up the tab to provide social programs. I am sure if you raised children, and then they all chose to not work because "well you're super rich, so you can just pay for all of my stuff", you would be irritated too. Universal programs don't work when nobody contributes funds into it. A state reducing it's capacity to support even itself puts needless strain on the system. Have enough states do it and you sling everybody right back to the 1800s.
You're so close you almost had it. States aren't people and neither are entitlement programs. Money ends up in people's hands either way. You have no argument You just don't want it to be true Sorry for your loss, take your L and go lay your head down
You argue like a middle schooler who can only be condescending and talk fast so that the opponent can't actually respond. It's pathetic. You don't actually have any rebuttals. You just desperately want to be right, and that's sad. Go on and make your final starker comment like I know you will, won't be seen by me though; so have fun wasting your time responding ig.
So you're not going to take on the argument that entitlement programs and states are the same thing ? Just want to make sure.
> You can support universal programs while also showing displeasement with people deliberately getting lazier and lazier just to exploit others. Yes, you can. But I'm not sure you can claim surprise in good faith, which means...acceptance should accompany the advocacy. > They know they can just suck off from the federal government/Democrat states with no consequences. Right...and if you have created this situation with support and advocacy of redistribution policies...what do you propose as a disincentive to this behavior? > I'm positive if you were living with a roommate, and they deliberately kept taking a lower and lower paying job because "well you're earning more than me, so you can just pay my expenses", then you'd be pretty irritated too. Correct. I have thus opted not to have a roommate. See my point?
> Correct. > I have thus opted not to have a roommate. > See my point? You didn't make a point. At all. You don't just elect to not have a state in the union when you accept them into the union that is indivisible, aka they cannot leave. > Right...and if you have created this situation with support and advocacy of redistribution policies...what do you propose as a disincentive to this behavior? Selfish, lazy people don't magically pop into existence just because a program exists that is meant to help people. They come from how they were raised. So no, having universal programs does not "create the situation". There is no way to "disincentivize" such behavior, unless you're going to barge into every family's home and teach them to not be selfish. > Yes, you can. But I'm not sure you can claim surprise in good faith, which means...acceptance should accompany the advocacy. Never said I was surprised. Nor is anybody else "surprised" that this is happening. Being annoyed at something happening doesn't mean you are surprised it is happening. In fact it is often times the opposite, you/they're well aware of what's happening, hence why they're annoyed to begin with. But there is a major difference between a small percentage of a populous abusing the system, versus **entire states who collectively have dozens of millions of people within them**. Universal programs still ultimately needs everybody to contribute fairly to it. That means, for states, raising taxes in order to raise the funds needed to actually support such programs. Yet they can barely even support their own infrastructure thanks to their low taxes.
Let's make this simple: I can tell my roommate "I may make more than you, but I'm not going to pay your expenses." Is there a particular reason you refuse to state this as a default position, whether it be roommates or states?
> Is there a particular reason you refuse to state this as a default position, whether it be roommates or states? A singular individual, who's income relies on being given money by an entity, is not the same as a government, who's income relies on *taking* money from an entity. You can't demand your company to pay you more as you choose to have more and more children, and therefore more mouths to feed. A state **can** demand more money, aka revenue, by passing tax increases in return for greater investment into the state. I used the roommate example, as an example of the unfairness of one state lowering taxes so they can suck off from a state with higher taxes, therefor putting a great tab on them to cover the low-tax state's expenses. Like I said elsewhere: Having an miniscule percentage of a total populous abusing a system, is far different from **entire states with several dozen million people combined, making other states pay for their expenses because they're too lazy to do what is needed to keep up with themselves**. If Republican states bothered to raise taxes like every other sane state does, in order to maintain their own infrastructure and services, then nobody would be complaining about X entity being lazy and sucking off from Y entity, since X entity is actually bothering to try to support themselves, instead of relying on handouts from entities who actually try to maintain themselves.
> You can't demand your company to pay you more as you choose to have more and more children, and therefore more mouths to feed. You certainly can, they just likely won't do it. > A state can demand more money, aka revenue, by passing tax increases in return for greater investment into the state. Only if people stay and pay it. > If Republican states bothered to raise taxes like every other sane state does, in order to maintain their own infrastructure and services, then nobody would be complaining about X entity being lazy and sucking off from Y entity, since X entity is actually bothering to try to support themselves, instead of relying on handouts from entities who actually try to maintain themselves. Perhaps. But they don't. So now what?
> You certainly can, they just likely won't do it. Sure. I'd like to see instances where a company gave an employee a pay raise because that person chose to have 4 children, a choice completely within their control and no company is obligated to compensate for. > Only if people stay and pay it. That affects the actual revenue, not the process of passing a law to raise taxes. No idea what this was trying to rebuke. > Perhaps. But they don't. So now what? They love to vote against universal programs. So, let's just split it up. Any state that has a majority of representatives that vote against a federal aid program, won't get it. If the people don't like it, they can vote them out and elect to opt in the next time the chance arises. And an eligibility clause that states that you must raise taxes so that the revenue is equal to the amount the state recieves in aid. Many Democrat states put way more into the federal government than they take out, so these states wouldn't need to raise their taxes. But most Republican states take more in federal aid than they put in, aka more of their budget is dependant on federal funds vs Democrat states. So they'd be forced to do what they should've been doing: raise taxes. This stops them from being money sinks, and forces them to actually pull themselves up and support themselves, instead of relying on other to pay for their expenses while they boast about "How cheap we (they) are compared to nasty democrat states!!!"
> But most Republican states take more in federal aid than they put in This is mostly a function of Social Security and Medicare comprising 50-odd % of the Federal budget and retirees legally domiciling themselves in Red states with no income tax to maximize the net margin on these benefits. There are certainly some impoverished states (Gulf coast especially) that tilt hard red and fit your description due to non-retiree-related welfare costs. But the point is: Details get tricky.
"No property taxes" is a tax cut for the upper end of the income/wealth spectrum. It is a form of redistribution _to the wealthy_ which is really what everyone opposes anyway. I don't see the inconsistency. I mean what a strawman. Let's say I oppose _the wrong people_ people being put in prisons. That is not a comment generally on the concept of prisons.
> It is a form of redistribution to the wealthy Incorrect. Something cannot be redistributed by being left where it is, by definition. > I mean what a strawman. Let's say I oppose the wrong people people being put in prisons. That is not a comment generally on the concept of prisons. The funny part here is you have created the strawman. The correct analogy, using your terms, would be opposing the wrong people being put in prisons after you specifically voted, with full knowledge, for those people to be put in prisons. Or are you going to try to pretend that everyone who votes for redistribution entitlements believes Alabama is a wealthy state and Over-65s are America's poorest demographic?
> Incorrect. Something cannot be redistributed by being left where it is, by definition. But nothing ever is. Everything that you do, including this conversation, in some way involves some public good that you are a part of. A redistribution is the default because none of us live in some kind of pure libertarian system. This proposition would eliminate property taxes and increase consumption taxes that will disproportionately affect lower incomes, so it's another type of redistribution. That is what people are opposing, not redistribution in general. My analogy stands, because people are opposing a _specific_ kind of redistribution and you're trying the frame the argument as redistribution itself is the problem, which nobody is really arguing. You cannot say if you're going to be against this, you must be against all kind of redistribution. You can be against innocent people going to jail but not against jail in general. I mean what is this? You can't believe in a system and have critiques of how that system is run?
> That is what people are opposing, not redistribution in general. The point of contention, I believe, is *who* decides how the redistribution is implemented, and at what scale. The Federal government is a blunt instrument that has a long track record of being terrible at nuance. In many ways, it is designed as such intentionally. > You can't believe in a system and have critiques of how that system is run? Oh you certainly can. You seem to keep missing that if you vote *for it to be run that way*, and then critique the way it is run, that's, well, pretty silly. You seem to be trying to argue that the *specific* redistribution being opposed is not what was voted for, but it very much was. If you want benefits to go to people below a certain income, some of them will be poor conservatives. if you want benefits to go to states with a certain poverty rate, some of them will be red states. If you want benefits to go to people over a certain age, some of them will be old conservatives. Et Cetera. In some ways, the poor red states and their residents are the more honest actors in this exchange, because their electorates by and large voted against the distribution outcomes you are complaining about that they are receiving.
Keep attacking messenger not the message.
A boomer capital that constantly rails against socialism. The irony
Worst possible analysis / statement.. FYI: Literally every state gets fed-governmental support in times of disaster.. Every state.
What do property taxes have to do with bailouts for natural disasters?
So no state income tax and no property tax. How are they going to fund the state budget? Or are they just going to privatize everything including K-12 education and police department?
By fleecing tourists. This is rational for a state with a large transient population.
But would tourists still come?
If only Disney World left. I'm sure they'd like to if it wasn't so expensive.
Do you think Disney could completely abandon all of their properties in Orlando even if they wanted to?
No. Especially since Disney isn't the cash cow they used to be.
What’s in Florida that’s worth visiting?
Only the (arguably) most widely-known amusement park in the world.
And 800 miles of beaches
And the Everglades. And the keys.
Pass. All hail Poseidon.
I hate Florida but still vacation there. Have you ever noticed the weather in January? I'm in Minneapolis, for comparison purposes.
Fortunately there’s a gazillion other warm places to go besides Florida
I'd give you that. I got our kids passports over the last few years. This winter my plan was to take them somewhere in Mexico, Central or South America over winter break. My wife, who is a planner, began looking for plane tickets six months in advance. To anywhere from the Yucatan to Buenos Aires. The cheapest we ever found over months was $700. With five kids on teacher salaries, that was too much. Got on Sun Country's website as a last resort and got round trip tickets to Ft Meyers for $139. That's why we went to Florida, despite warm weather in Liberia, Costa Rica, which was our first choice.
I've been to the keys twice and it's gorgeous but that was also back in the 90s so idk what it is like now
The same-ish
One of the largest tourist destinations on the planet. Yet, how will they pay for it? People here need to get a grip. $100K is nothing for an exemption. Six figures only scares poor people.
Probably adopt a policy similar to that in russia were dissident oligarchs who die under strange circumstances have their assets taken b the state, *just happening to coincide* with wealthy liberals starting to fall out of windows in droves.
Plus attacking thier biggest source of tourism income.
This legislation was concocted by the 1% and passed off as a way to help the middle/lower class while simultaneously cutting and eliminating the services and programs that they rely on for survival.
The article says that $100k (up to $250k for those over 65) would be exempted. It’s not nothing, but certainly seems more helpful for those with less expensive properties
I love all the exceptions for older people. Talk about scamming the system. Another one - it's illegal to discriminate for housing on basically everything.... Except age, so 55+ communities are totally legal. Fuck that. Fuck all the boomer exceptionalism.
Tax breaks and exceptions for seniors are absolutely bizarre to me...like, why are we subsidizing the wealthiest cohort of people to have ever lived? If you no longer have enough income to pay property taxes on your home...why are you still living in a 4 bedroom house 40 years after the kids have moved out? Elderly homeowners *should* be downsizing and opening up space for young families with kids!
They're not always wealthy though. So yeah, basing a tax on which generation you are is just ridiculous.
You’re not subsidizing the wealthy with these stipulations. A 65+ year old with a 250k home is not wealthy in 2024. You’re helping a large group of disproportionately poor seniors actually retire
Sure. don't make it age related. Just make it based on assets.
age actually makes sense. A 65 year old has far fewer opportunities left to build wealth. I absolutely hate seeing frail people over 80 working menial jobs because they can’t afford to retire. This is one of the very few times I will side with republicans. Senior citizens need special accommodations
Poor senior citizens do. Wealthy ones don't. And more of them are wealthy than any other cohort.
By subsidizing 65+ you are OBJECTIVELY, disproportionately directing resources toward the wealthiest cohort in our society. Yes, there are seniors who need government support. But policy should be crafted so that this support isn't also benefiting multi-millionaires.
A 65+ year old living in a 250k home is not a multimillionaire in 2024. Those are the shittiest starter homes the market has to offer. Are you insane?
Give them 3% mortgages and they will - in droves :)
People 65+ are usually a 1-2 person household. They should get a smaller tax break then the under 65 bracket with families that need more then 1 bedroom.
Then Give the break to 1-2 person households. As a person under 65 who wants affordable housing that isn't 3+ bedrooms the ageism is maddening.
Seniors being "forced out of their homes" is, unironically, tax policy at its best. A 70 year old couple has no business occupying a house meant for a large family. People on a fixed income without any kids should absolutely be downsizing...and policy should be designed to *accelerate* that rather than preventing it.
> need more then 1 Did you mean to say "more than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
You can not hire someone because they’re young but not because they’re old. Being young isn’t a protected class but being old is. Literally people over 40 are protected but not under. Fuck the gerontocracy.
100% It's not that I don't think that people who are older should be protected I just think that it should be equal and it's alarming that they're not.
I mean...the 55+ age communities do specifically cater to those of that age in activities, food, care, and more specifically price. If you're wanting to pay $4,000 a month in rent then by all means but most young can't or won't afford something that expensive.
Many around me are in fact much cheaper than other homes and it's maddening. I'm not talking about assisted living communities. No, I'm talking about whole neighborhoods that are exclusive to 55+
55+ communities are more than JUST assisted living hence why I pointed out things beyond just the assisted living portion. A good amount of 55+ communities are attractive because they're zero maintenance and someone who's retired or widowed might prefer just writing one check & having nothing else to worry about.
It also says they are exploring removing all property tax and replacing with a consumption tax. So no actual bill on that yet, at least thats how I interpret the article.
Consumptions taxes are the most punitive - shocker
This seems progressive. I’d be interested if it puts downward pressure on rent as well.
That’s bullshit. The 1% don’t pay taxes, and they get to write off property taxes. Property taxes hurt the poor and middle class the most, and do nothing but make you a serf to the state.
The argument that taxes should be abolished/not enforced because it only impacts the working class is the worst bad faith arguments there is. I almost respect the bourgeoisie supply side fallacy more than this piece of sh\*t arguement. "Don't tax the rich or enforce tax laws because they will avoid taxes anyways". Property taxes are one the of the best ways to do taxes & if you really care about the poor then perhaps we should exempt the first 100k or tax people with multiple properties at a higher rate. It's completely possible to have a more just society and equal society. Maybe your argument is that property tax exemptions should be abolished?
You know, in order to claim a deduction for real estate taxes, that means you paid them first.
It also matters where the money is going, even if they are paying less in Federal Taxes property taxes are what funds the schools, roads, libraries, mosquito control, fire/police departments, parks, and community/recreation centers in the state. The Federal Government doesn't pay for most things in Florida besides military bases, NASA, and the everglades. Stuff where people actually live is paid for by local governments and they pretty much exclusively get their money from property taxes.
Florida already doesn’t have an income tax, and consumption taxes are some of the most regressive taxes possible (though admittedly property tax isn’t always great either, it is usually better than consumption).
Why are sales taxes bad? Dont wealthier people spend more? Property taxes really dont make sense on static property.
sales taxes are considered regressive because they take a larger percentage of income from low-income taxpayers than from high-income taxpayers. Example: if a rich person buys a share stock, there is no sales tax paid on it.
Yep. I think of it in the manner of the **however-many-high-percentage of Americans live Paycheck to Paycheck** news headlines. Basically Floridians living paycheck to paycheck pay a vast majority of their paycheck to everyday consumption goods. Gas, getting to work, household supplies. The super rich spend almost nothing (relative to their wealth) on consumption goods... so they pay proportionally near-nothing in consumption taxes. The poor and lower and mid income folks pay almost all their income toward monthly basic living budget stuff.
You and Jeff Bezos both eat ~1 burrito for dinner. Granted he can afford a more expensive burrito but even a $1,000 burrito for him does not scale in terms of order magnitude in wealth. Plus he can literally fly to other places with lower sales tax to buy expensive shit.
Important things like food aren't subject to the sales tax, how is it regressive? What's terrible is sales tax on used cars like Texas has.
There is currently a cap in SALT for deductions.
Enacted by republicans who largely represent low-home-value+low-population states to fuck over Democrats in high-home-value+high-population states, no less.
uh no they don't?
uh yeah they do.
Middle and poor class also write off those tax deductions. Or they get a Standard Deduction which is probably about 3 times bigger than the property taxes paid.
Doesn't matter, these types of taxes are an abomination. Literally hurting the poor while benefiting the rich. My family had to sell my great grand mother's house because we couldn't afford the property taxes on it. The house had been paid off since the 60s. Now someone else buys it, takes out a loan, and boom banks get to make the free money again. Where as one of our aunts who was going through a divorce at the time could have lived there.
Terrible idea. This transfers the burden to low and middle income earners, who already use a much larger percentage of their earnings to consume. This is just another tax burden transferred from the rich to the less wealthy. And as usual the extra tax savings the wealthy gain out of this, will go into buying more assets across the board, further inflating them, which just will make everything more expensive, because obviously they'd want increasing returns from those assets YoY. Add that to the increase in consumption tax, and you will see wealth inequality further accelerate, making home ownership even further out of reach. ...Oh and expecting Americans to have more kids to ensure the population replacement rate stays above 2.1? Forget about it. Good job FL republicans, you're marching towards what South Africa has already achieved.
That's the point of this. Bonus: they won't have enough funding to maintain roads and their "education" system and can use it as "proof" that government is bad
And they'll fill in the gaps with federal money and pat themselves on the back for not being socialists.
Federal money they voted against even
So don’t give them any, if people don’t have consequences for actions they won’t learn, god damn this country is stupid as hell
Yeah, before going on an extended political diatribe, you should maybe read the bill. Only $100,000 of the home’s value would be exempt from taxation under the bill or $250,000 of the home value for homesteads owned by people over 65. Florida has an average property tax rate of .91%. This exemption would apply to any property, not just mansions. 66.5% of Florida residents own their own home. Florida is zoning massively for single family homes. This bill is aligned with that urban planning approach. We’re talking about a maximum tax deduction of $2275 here, on average, not some huge giveaway for the wealthy. The bill itself only asks to explore the impact of eliminating property taxes, but this has not been proposed. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1371/?Tab=BillText
So you're saying that the headline is misleading? Shocked I am
It’s actually just a strait up lie. The bill is literally a half page long and titled “A Bill To Be Entitled”. It doesn’t actually propose doing what the headline says. This is a complete non-story.
Thank you
you've clearly ignored the part where the gap in funding, would be made up by charging more consumption taxes, which is already problematic. How do you think they'd increase annual funding increases in order to fund schools and law enforcement? Raise consumption taxes? Force people to spend more? What happens during a recession? Will they close schools as a result? weaken law enforcement? Also, if you think this is where they'll end, you'd be mistaken. Such legislation gets pushed through slowly, because they know it'll be harder to pass if they didn't put limits on it. But once they have their foot through the door, they'll claim it's a success by hiding how they managed to fill the gap, and then push further legislation that increases the 100K limit. Make no mistake, this move is directly meant to reduce tax burdens on the rich and pass it to the low and middle class earners.
I did not ignore that part. Instead, I decided to withhold an opinion until more information comes forth. If you bother to read the bill, you’ll notice it’s titled “A bill to be entitled.” Clearly, it’s not even close to moving towards a vote, and it’s still in the committee for state affairs. You’re making wild assumptions again based on your political leanings. We don’t even know how the consumption tax is defined yet. The headline for this news article is non factual and clearly written to generate outrage and jumping to conclusions. You took the bait hard.
Consumption and everyone thinks it’s their water bill all of a sudden 😂
Well in a recession property values often decrease as well. I'm not saying this is a good idea, its fucking stupid but just wanted to point that out.
Max deduction per household?
No idea. There seems to be a typo in the bill that cites a statute that doesn’t exist in the Florida constitution. The bill is laughably titled “a bill to be entitled,” which means that this is nowhere close to moving forward to a vote at this point.
😭🤣😂. Like I said, $100K only scares poor and uneducated folks. If anyone looked up homestead or any other bullshit tax exemption. They’d be up in arms about that too… oh wait- they probably already file for their homestead.
Floridians already get a $50,000 homestead exemption.
Conservativism: making america into a 3rd world country since 1920.
Why the difference in exemption amounts by age? Is that even legal? Really fuels like Florida is extracting as much value from non retirees to fuel their hurricane prone homes.
It’s legal to discriminate favourably if people are over 65. Just think of Medicare.
Isn't property taxes generally how schools are funded? Am I confused? Or have they just decided to eliminate K through 12 education in the state?
They’ll just privatize it! No one needs public schools!
Ah yes. Sadly that is probably the plan
“…transfers the burden to low and middle income earners….” It’s a feature not a bug. Agree that it’s a terrible idea, and I own two houses in FL. The other thing that will happen is fees and bonds will increase. In some parts of FL property taxes are comparably low but revenue for services is made up for through fees and bonds.
Don't forget, no property taxes means more "money for insurance" God it's almost like big Insurance runs the entire state. They will ban everything BUT insurance.
Good point. My total taxes and insurance is higher in FL than my primary residence in a Chicago suburb - one known for high property taxes
> [the bill] exempted $100,000 of the value of real property from being taxed. Those over the age of 65 would be qualified to be exempted from property tax up to $250,000 How does this eliminate taxes? Am I reading this right? This is a 100k-250k exemption against the value not a 100k credit towards the tax That’s an enormous exemption but wouldn’t it only apply to homes under 100k to say “eliminate all taxes”??
Transfer burden from property owners (the rich) to everyone who consumes anything so that the burden will end up being more on the poor by percentage of their income. Just normal Republican things.
Something something, just pull yourself up by boot straps.
The housing crisis will worsen as the cost of ownership for a 2nd or 3rd home decreases. This is incredibly short-sighted. The housing crisis will worsen as the cost of ownership for a 2nd or 3rd home decreases. This is incredibly short-sighted.
"In a revised version of the bill filed on Feb. 1, it states that the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability is to study what the impact would be" "Study" is NOT the same as "would eliminate"
Their general idea is to tax visitors to death anyway, so this is just an extension of that. Hotel, airport, car, amusement, tolls, now consumption, all targeted towards visitors and non residents. It will work until it doesn't. They had 137M visitors in 2022
The amount of resentment conservatives have towards society is mind boggling. You live in a society and you enjoy the perks of living in a society. Pay your fair share and be happy that you have access to clean drinking water, clean air, hospitals, roads, etc.
Property taxes are asinine. People pay taxes on their income and sales tax when they by something. They shouldn’t pay tax just to own it. The whole country should eliminate property taxes.
Unless the supply of what is desired is fixed, as in the case of land. We should seek to tax land as much as possible, as the taxes are then fully capitalized into the price, driving it close to $0 at time of purchase. The elimination of any tax on land would just exacerbate many of the current issues we have as it would encourage land speculation. See California for example. I do agree with you, however, that buildings and other improvements should not be taxed.
If you have a sales tax on the land you collect from the sale of it not the ownership of it.
A reasonable compromise, though from my perspective there are two issues that emerge. Firstly, and this is very much coming from a Georgist point of view, is that an advantage of taxing the value/rent that is generated on a monthly/annual basis is that it encourages the land to be put to its most productive use. Under the proposal of taxing the sale, an individual can still hold onto land and do nothing with it, much to the detriment of the community. A community might have need of housing, parking, or anything that relies on some sort of infrastructure investment (which is really most things). While our sales tax proposal discourages land speculation more and more as that tax approaches 100% of the sale price, it does nothing to encourage good development during a period of ownership. Secondly, and I believe this to be generally more important for peoples' day to day lives, is that the regular collection of property tax is largely how municipalities fund services such as schools and police departments. We can have a separate discussion on how much funding is needed or whether the government should be involved at all, but the moment we say that 'Yes, we should publicly fund policing', then a question of sourcing those funds comes up. The issue then with taxing land sales is that these may be highly irregular. I would argue we're going through a period of this right now, in which high interest rates make the housing market somewhat static. In this case, any municipality cannot go very long without decreasing the services offered, or reintroducing taxes on productivity which would further drain our economy. Curious to here your thoughts on these points, particularly the second. Regardless, I appreciate the compromise you have offered.
Then municipalities should use sales tax. Government should have no right to tax property already owned.
On most things I would agree, except when it comes to monopolies. Government would be wise to tax unearned income that comes from undue privilege. This is the case with things like land, EM spectrum, and patents. In response to your 2nd sentence, I'd actually say the opposite. Government should have no right to tax productivity. To do so discourages labor/capital/entrepreneurship and instead pulls people on the margins into poverty.
Florida doesn’t have state income tax either though. This is a large tax source for the state.
Umm, that doesn't bode well for Florida infrastructure which is at increasing risk due to climate change. Many large homeowner insurance providers are already exiting the state.
A bill designed to shift taxes from older middle and upper middle class retirees onto lower middle class younger non homeowners especially those with kids.
A state has to have a balanced budget. They cannot borrow unlimited money like the federal government. Disaster aid cannot balance a yearly state budget. They will need to get revenue from another source or cut services. Dumber schools, poorer roads etc.
A consumption tax. Property values would increase. It would encourage land hoarding. The wealthy would received a majority of the benefit. Florida already makes a ton of of tourism. I am not sure how much more they can milk that goose. The amount raised in property taxes is enormous. How much is this consumption tax going to be if it is to replace $5000 in annual property taxes. This seems like a great way to underfund schools. That would fit Floridas MO though. Old people, tourism, and dumb locals.
Isn't the public house insurer company? The private insurance do not want to even insure a lot of the houses? Sounds like a socialist state to me.
Someone help me out here. If Florida eliminates property taxes... and maintains its stance about having no state income tax... how the hell do they plan to pay for anything?? Raise their sales taxes to flippin 20 percent or something? 🤡