Editorial | Another look at property taxes
Property owners who have seen their tax bills spike year-over-year may have some interest in a bill proposed by a member of the Lee County Legislative Delegation.
Sen. Jonathan Martin has introduced a bill that would require the state’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research to conduct a study on the elimination of property taxes and replacing that tax revenue through “budget reductions, sales-based consumption taxes, and locally determined consumption taxes authorized by the Legislature.”
SB 852 states that “The study must include, at a minimum, all of the following: (a) An analysis of the potential impact of eliminating property taxes on public services, including education, infrastructure, and emergency services. (b) An assessment of potential housing market fluctuations, including changes in homeownership rates and property values. (c) An evaluation of whether a shift to consumption-based taxes would make Florida more attractive to businesses compared to other states. (d) An analysis of the potential impact of eliminating property taxes on overall economic stability, consumer behavior, and long-term economic growth.”
Fair enough. The elimination/replacement of property taxes with other “revenue sources” is a proposal that is generating a lot of chatter. Gov. Ron DeSantis has already weighed in with support for the concept.
Count us among those who do not think that change is a bad thing, particularly change that begins with fact-finding and detailed analysis as to the impact on those directly affected.
Sen. Martin’s bill appears to take this into account.
But also count us among the cynical because, with all due respect to Sen. Martin, when any politician promises a “more fair” tax shuffle, the first thing we do is grab our respective wallets.
The second is look for the ace in the hole.
First, property owners currently have protections against increases:
Florida regulates the maximum millage rate which counties, school boards and local governments can impose on properties.
Annual increases are capped with owner-occupied homes having the greatest protection with a 3% cap.
Florida offers various “homestead” exemptions for owner-occupied properties with $25,000 deducted from assessed valuation for all owner-occupied residences, get another $25,000 exemption that does not apply to school levies and various other breaks for veterans, older adults and more.
Second, the state legislature has, over the years, though, allowed various new taxes on properties that aren’t, well “property taxes.” Bluntly put, they are effectively an end run around the state’s 10% cap on millage rates and allow local officials to “keep property taxes low” while raising them.
The “assessments” and “cost-recovery” levies for departments and services previously paid for through property taxes can, in fact, be MORE than property taxes on lower-priced properties -AKA “affordable housing” — and residential lots.
And, as Cape Coral property owners have learned with the city’s fire “assessment,” tax shuffling may provide no break long-term despite analysis and promises.
Sen. Martin’s study will no doubt run the numbers on how much residents, visitors, business owners and prospective businesses owners will pay in additional sales taxes and possibly other “consumption-based taxes” and how much they will save in property taxes.
But if the rest of the tax bill — the all-inclusive bill on property — is not part of any evaluation, property owners will not really know how much they will save — and how much they will pay.
Any study on the elimination of property taxes with an eye to replacing it with other tax revenue must include all levies on property -every one.
Lest Floridians find themselves paying higher sales tax and the same or greater property taxes under the guise of another name.
We urge Sen. Martin to make sure the “analysis of the potential impact of eliminating property taxes on overall economic stability, consumer behavior, and long-term economic growth” includes one more element” — property owners who now have some protection from being taxed out of their homes.
-Breeze editorial