[JerryLove]

This will likely make the most sense to the older and FL-residing members. I was bored and decided to fix the system.

As of now the system assigns a millage rate (a percentage of the dollar-value of your house) to pay every year. People who are homsteaded have the value of their house locked and it can only go up 3% per year. This is intended to prevent people from being taxed out of their houses.

There are two basic problems with this method.
1) When housing prices shoot up sharply, taxes shoot up sharply as well. Millage rates are determined early, and values are determined late.
2) When you lower the milliage rate to adjust for higher values (after all, you only need to collect X dollars. If the values all double, it's still on X, which is now half th epercentage it was before) then the homsteaded people actually have a reduction in real taxes and the slack must be picked up by the non-homsteaded people.

My fix.
Rather than using a percentage-of-value tax, each year we determine the value of the "average property". when a house is baught, it's compared to that average and assigned a pecent which is then locked.

Each year, Florida determines how much they want to collect, divide tha tby the number of properties, and then each individual propery multiplies by its assigned percentage.

If the housing values double state-wide, it does nothing at all to the rate anyone pays... because values are all relative to each other. This protects both the existing home owners, and new home-owners and makes sure that your taxes are relative to where on the totem-pole you are and not when you baught.

If a local boom occurs (say my neighborhood shoots up when the rest of the state doesn't) the fact that my percentage is locked means that my taxes will remain on par with people at a similar place to where I was when I baught.

It solves all three problems currenlty created by the existing tax structure.

[cytorath]

That sounds like it would actually be fair and could work. I'm curious though. Do residents of Flordia pay their property taxes directly to the state? Here in Pennsylvania we pay our property taxes to the school district that we are living in. And our governor has just announced that the school districts are free to raise property taxes without taking them to the public for a vote. I wonder how well that is going to go over?

[normajean777]

Of course I'm against more taxes but I don't think that would completely work. Noone wants to "lower" taxes without getting the publicity and possible votes for it. But there aren't many politicians who want to lower taxes at all. The rates would fall, but then they would just end up raising taxes a month later.

Also, if people can't afford to live there, they shouldn't be there. I'm sick of what Florida does to insurance companys (although not restricted to Florida). There is a very substantial amount of risk that comes from insuring Florida homes, but is too regulated, so that insurance companies cannot charge for that risk. Because of this, many insurance companies leave and try to get away from insuring them. Then that state has taken it upon themselves to make a loss so that more people can afford to live in the state at the expense of everyone else in the state. It simply creates big problems, not a fix.

[JerryLove]

Of course I'm against more taxes but I don't think that would completely work. Noone wants to "lower" taxes without getting the publicity and possible votes for it. But there aren't many politicians who want to lower taxes at all. The rates would fall, but then they would just end up raising taxes a month later.

The purpose isn't to raise or lower taxes. The purpose is to make taxes fair. Preventing people from loosing their homes because their area went up in value while simultaniously preventing people buying homes later from getting unequally yoked from established homeowners.

What the dollar values are is and will be determined by the state itself. I've just described how to fix the distribution of those taxes.

Also, if people can't afford to live there, they shouldn't be there.

I think that's a rediculious statement on anything as large as a state. Where would you draw your line?

If people can't afford to live in North America, they shouldn't live there?
If people can't afford to live on Earth then they should die?

Also, what does that have to do with equalizing the tax burden?

I'm sick of what Florida does to insurance companys (although not restricted to Florida). There is a very substantial amount of risk that comes from insuring Florida homes, but is too regulated, so that insurance companies cannot charge for that risk.

YAWN!

The insurance industry has done an awdul job of controlling rates. Perhaps FL statute is involved. The insurance industry almost completely fails to take into account the risk level, and multi-million-dollar homes built on sandbars are driving up the rate on my inland house that can take a 150mph wind-load.

But that has nothing to do with property taxes.

Because of this, many insurance companies leave and try to get away from insuring them. Then that state has taken it upon themselves to make a loss so that more people can afford to live in the state at the expense of everyone else in the state. It simply creates big problems, not a fix.

My plan for property taxes (please remember that's the topic) creates a fair method of distributing them that protects both exsiting and new residents from an unequal yoke.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The purpose isn't to raise or lower taxes. The purpose is to make taxes fair. Preventing people from loosing their homes because their area went up in value while simultaniously preventing people buying homes later from getting unequally yoked from established homeowners.

What the dollar values are is and will be determined by the state itself. I've just described how to fix the distribution of those taxes.

I think that's a rediculious statement on anything as large as a state. Where would you draw your line?

If people can't afford to live in North America, they shouldn't live there?
If people can't afford to live on Earth then they should die?

Also, what does that have to do with equalizing the tax burden?

YAWN!

The insurance industry has done an awdul job of controlling rates. Perhaps FL statute is involved. The insurance industry almost completely fails to take into account the risk level, and multi-million-dollar homes built on sandbars are driving up the rate on my inland house that can take a 150mph wind-load.

But that has nothing to do with property taxes.

My plan for property taxes (please remember that's the topic) creates a fair method of distributing them that protects both exsiting and new residents from an unequal yoke.

What I'm saying is that if property values double and you decrease the millage rate by half, you have just "cut" property taxes even though the dollar amount of taxes stays the same. Politicians simply would never intruduce such an idea. They do not care.

Many of these people who are struggling to keep their homes do live in multimillion homes already. They should simply sell their homes and move to a cheaper state if they cannot afford the property taxes that comes with a valuable home. Also the bubble is popping in Florida as home sales slow down, and values should drop.

On the insurance, you are right, and thats exactly what I was saying. It has little to do with property taxes, but everything to do with the effect of causing people to not be able to afford living there. If the government would just let them account for the appropriate risk, the rest of everyone who chooses a safe place to build a home would not pay for the foolishness of others.

[JerryLove]

What I'm saying is that if property values double and you decrease the millage rate by half, you have just "cut" property taxes even though the dollar amount of taxes stays the same. Politicians simply would never intruduce such an idea. They do not care.

I think they do... because the voters have shown they do.

Many of these people who are struggling to keep their homes do live in multimillion homes already.

WHAT!!! Please tell that to someone who doesn't own a home in Florida or pull out some really good support.

They should simply sell their homes and move to a cheaper state if they cannot afford the property taxes that comes with a valuable home.

Home prices shot up nation-wdie. I guess they should leave North America?

I'm gonna take a wild guess. You haven't baught a house recently. It's really clear that you've missed much of the point of my post.

[Ax]

I'd say from his attitude and thought process (logic-wise) he's probably never bought a home EVER because he's probably under 20 and still lives with his parents...

[Peatrical]

They should simply sell their homes and move to a cheaper state if they cannot afford the property taxes that comes with a valuable home.

And it's easy to sell everything leave your life behind and move to an entirely new area spur of the moment? Property values are skyrocketing everywhere in North America right now, it's not always easy to find a well paying job and moving isn't cheap either.

I'm with Ax on this one.

[anathema]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

And it's easy to sell everything leave your life behind and move to an entirely new area spur of the moment? Property values are skyrocketing everywhere in North America right now, it's not always easy to find a well paying job and moving isn't cheap either.

I'm with Ax on this one.

There are certain areas of the US (dont know much about you canucks) where it is still rising, but for the most part we are back to a normal appreciation rate for the US as a whole.

[Andrew]

Move to Montana! Land is really cheap there! Also there are certain fringe benefits, such as the lack of (enforced) speed limits!

[H.M. Murdock]

... or Mississippi, where people just plain don't give a crap!

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by anathema

There are certain areas of the US (dont know much about you canucks) where it is still rising, but for the most part we are back to a normal appreciation rate for the US as a whole.

Please don't say canuck. That is very offensive to me.

Here in Edmonton the average home price if now over $400,000 ($427?) up from like $200,000 in 2005. Believe I know the massive rising prices, and know many real estate agents. Prices will continue to rise here for at least another few years (more if our infrastructure doesn't crash). Anyway if you can't stand the heat, get out of the oven. Packing up and leaving is much easier than you think it is. (because everyone here would rather complain for an hour each day than do something about it)

[JerryLove]

I'm not discussing home prices. I'm discussing property taxes and a fix both for their fluxuation, and for their inherent inequality under the current system of computation in Florida.

Do you have any comments that relate to that topic? If you'd like to discuss home prices, please start a thread.

[tlj009]

There are two basic problems with this method.
1) When housing prices shoot up sharply, taxes shoot up sharply as well. Millage rates are determined early, and values are determined late.
2) When you lower the milliage rate to adjust for higher values (after all, you only need to collect X dollars. If the values all double, it's still on X, which is now half th epercentage it was before) then the homsteaded people actually have a reduction in real taxes and the slack must be picked up by the non-homsteaded people.

Does X really remain the same? If housing prices shoot up, then they do for the government too. And if housing prices shoot up, I am sure that other things go with it. Maybe X wouldn't rise proportionally, but it does seem like it would rise. Also, governments like tax money as much as businesses like profits. They will spend any additional money brought in (because of rising housing prices, so I don't see anything changing in that respect.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Does X really remain the same? If housing prices shoot up, then they do for the government too. And if housing prices shoot up, I am sure that other things go with it. Maybe X wouldn't rise proportionally, but it does seem like it would rise. Also, governments like tax money as much as businesses like profits. They will spend any additional money brought in (because of rising housing prices, so I don't see anything changing in that respect.

Under my system, a rise/lowering in housing wouldn't create any change to revenue at all, eliminating the problem of government seeing an "accidental windfall" and spending it until there's unrest. If they need more money, they raise taxes. If they don't, they don't.

Equally important, it will prevent the entire added burden from appearing solely on new home owners.