yep, the repubs are spinning a tale of repealing primary residence property tax in exchange for a 2.2 percent hike in state sales tax.
sounds good......if your a stupid sheep.
if you read your propert tax bill, you will notice only about half of it is state property tax. the rest is for schools, police, some utilities, and other items.
what the sheep here:
woohooo, no more property tax bill at the end of the year.
what the repubs are selling:
thats right. no more STATE property tax for you, all you have to do is agree to give us billions of more revenue a year by upping the sales tax....
reality:
instead of 8000 bucks, i only have to pay 4000 and change, i loose 1500 from my tax return cause my deduction is lower. net result, i pay 2500 less a year, but have to pay 2 percent more on EVERYTHING i purchase as long as i live here.
its a wash.
but wait. there is more.
if the state is no longer collecting property tax, the limitations guarenteed you under the homestead exemption law, designed to keep your property taxes from skyrocketing every year......no longer applies.
no more protection.
so, if the county or other local agency wants to jack up your property taxes for police, fire, schools, or whatever else blows their skirt up......up up up and away it goes without any protections or recourse.
end result:
while it may be a wash with my current assessment vs sales tax.......it could end up costing me BIGTIME if the local county taxes begine to climb. not only would i loose whatever benifit i gained, i would be paying more for EVERYTHING i purchase,
baaaaa baaaaaa baaaaaa, as the herd is led to the slaughter.
some people may remember how i blasted the california wildfire bill, thateventually led to states being able to take your land under immenant domain to sell to for profit bussiness, mabe you dont.
but remember this one. people will vote for this because they are being led to believe they will no longer have ANY property tax bill at the end ofthe year. basically because they are ignorant as a whole.
and these people are going to be laid over a table and screwed real hard without any lubricant. because they are ignorant. and our leaders are greedy.
way past time for another tea party in this country,
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- no property tax for florida.
no property tax for florida.Follow
so move.
SR, can you supply a link for your conclusion? Property taxes in Florida are made up of all the items you listed. You don't pay a separate tax on each individual item. From the information I gathered, the bill does not differentiate between the different taxes. It only states "property tax" which, as stated earlier, contains school taxes and the like. The bill also proposes to split the revenue from the increased sales tax among the different counties and school districts. Why would they need to dole out money to schools if they were still collecting school taxes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see your proof.
Here's my link.
Here's my link.
It's not a wash. It's a way of shifting the tax burden off the rich.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
It's not a wash. It's a way of shifting the tax burden off the rich.
But but but, they are helping the poor and middle class. The rich have more disposable income and therefore purchase more....
[stroking the fire]
removed tense of the statement
Edited, Feb 22nd 2007 11:25am by Kronig
Er, one "stokes" a fire, unless one is in an unnatural relationship with same.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Perhaps he named "it", "The Fire" and he may indeed be stroking it right now.
Quote:
if you read your propert tax bill, you will notice only about half of it is state property tax. the rest is for schools, police, some utilities, and other items.
And a hell of a job the public education system, Florida Power and Light and the police are doing, eh?
Proof that throwing money at things doesn't fix them.
Quote:
way past time for another tea party in this country
What are you going to do? Dump oil into a harbour?
Edited, Feb 22nd 2007 10:40am by Natdatilgnome
and this is any different then the fool back in the late 80s cutting the education budget by 4BILLION annually, then reelecting the same gov. who passed that bill into law?
FL has proved again and again it is just stupid.
FL has proved again and again it is just stupid.
who cares...florida's a sh*thole as it is. Can't imagine it getting much worse.
Varus
Varus
SR, can you supply a link for your conclusion? Property taxes in Florida are made up of all the items you listed. You don't pay a separate tax on each individual item. From the information I gathered, the bill does not differentiate between the different taxes. It only states "property tax" which, as stated earlier, contains school taxes and the like.
-------------------------------------------------------
i dont know about yours, but the one im gona pay this year does list everything and how much each will cost based on the appraisial of the house. and out of the 8600 bucks im gona pay, only 4200 is state property tax.
and that distinction is important because the bill they are putting foward spacifically states "state" property tax. you want to read between the lines like the fools who will vote for this and "ASSUME" that INCLUDES county assessed taxes for fire, police, utilities, schools, and other things..........well, your not alone. half this country voted for the iraq war ASSUMING the repubs would do the right thing WITHOUT ever seeing any conclusive evidance it was necessary.
and all the advertising and sound bites dont clarify weather it is your entire property tax bill, or just the STATE tax part of it.
if you use your head a bit, and think about it, the state does not have the authority to dictate what county and local governments charge for their services. and like wise, they cant terminate those taxes unless the state agrees to pick up the bill, which would have to be negotiated with each and every locale government.
and currently, sales taxes do not pay for local and county police, fire, fire rescue, schools, and a hoste of other things.
its a no brainer, yet, most people WILL NOT use their brains. they will hear what they want to hear, and the repubs are telling them words that do not contradict what the repubs KNOW the people WANT to hear. they are giving them a spinn and saying nothing about the details and letting the people think what the people WANT to think...........kind of like the whole iraq war thing.
democracy only works for the people if the people are informed. otherwise, it only works for the rich who can afford to fix the rules as they see fit as long as they can get the people to "believe" its a good thing.
the moral majority working hard for you.......
-------------------------------------------------------
i dont know about yours, but the one im gona pay this year does list everything and how much each will cost based on the appraisial of the house. and out of the 8600 bucks im gona pay, only 4200 is state property tax.
and that distinction is important because the bill they are putting foward spacifically states "state" property tax. you want to read between the lines like the fools who will vote for this and "ASSUME" that INCLUDES county assessed taxes for fire, police, utilities, schools, and other things..........well, your not alone. half this country voted for the iraq war ASSUMING the repubs would do the right thing WITHOUT ever seeing any conclusive evidance it was necessary.
and all the advertising and sound bites dont clarify weather it is your entire property tax bill, or just the STATE tax part of it.
if you use your head a bit, and think about it, the state does not have the authority to dictate what county and local governments charge for their services. and like wise, they cant terminate those taxes unless the state agrees to pick up the bill, which would have to be negotiated with each and every locale government.
and currently, sales taxes do not pay for local and county police, fire, fire rescue, schools, and a hoste of other things.
its a no brainer, yet, most people WILL NOT use their brains. they will hear what they want to hear, and the repubs are telling them words that do not contradict what the repubs KNOW the people WANT to hear. they are giving them a spinn and saying nothing about the details and letting the people think what the people WANT to think...........kind of like the whole iraq war thing.
democracy only works for the people if the people are informed. otherwise, it only works for the rich who can afford to fix the rules as they see fit as long as they can get the people to "believe" its a good thing.
the moral majority working hard for you.......
Kronig wrote:
[stroking the fire]
That's hot.
Aparentely, shadow has finally realized that state and local taxes are "different". I'm not sure where you get the idea that limits on state property taxes ever applied to local property taxes (since apparently you pay both in your area), or that by removing the state property taxes, some protections designed to prevent them from going up in any way affects taxes at a different level of government.
If the law is written so as to prevent *any* property taxes from increasing beyond a set rate, then that applies to local taxes and is unconnected to any state taxes. If it isn't, then you weren't protected before this change. You're ******** about absolute irrelevancies.
The real issue here is whether you think it's better to tax property or consumption (sales tax). Some will say that it's about shifting taxes from the rich to the poor, but that's only half the issue (and a rhetorical one at that, since those same people labeled as "rich" here are labeled "victims" whenever their homes are destroyed by hurricanes, right?).
There's some decent argument for adopting a "flat tax" methodology that simply taxes sales and nothing else. The argument is that sales taxes effectively tax consumption. What do you buy for yourself? That's taxed. So if you save your money and don't spend it, you don't pay taxes on it. If you give your money to charity, you don't pay taxes on it. If you invest your money, you don't pay taxes on it. Only when you actually go to buy something do you pay taxes. It's a reasonable idea. I'm not sure how much I'm in favor of it, but it does have some decent points in its favor. It's inherently "fair" since everyone is taxed based not on how much they make, but how much they buy. So if that rich person buys 10x as much "stuff", he's going to pay 10 times the taxes. Presumably, if you tailor it in the same way sales taxes are already usually done, you don't tax "staple" items (non-prepared food primarily). Thus, it ends up in many cases reducing total taxes dramatically for those who are most "in need" today (families with a single working class level income who don't buy much in the way of luxuries, but still pay a decent chunk of taxes in other areas).
Again. I'm not married to the idea, but it does have merit. It is a workable system that could be used to replace most of the other forms of taxes we pay currently. If Florida wants to test it out and see how it works, that's certainly their right. Kinda part of the whole republic idea, right?
If the law is written so as to prevent *any* property taxes from increasing beyond a set rate, then that applies to local taxes and is unconnected to any state taxes. If it isn't, then you weren't protected before this change. You're ******** about absolute irrelevancies.
The real issue here is whether you think it's better to tax property or consumption (sales tax). Some will say that it's about shifting taxes from the rich to the poor, but that's only half the issue (and a rhetorical one at that, since those same people labeled as "rich" here are labeled "victims" whenever their homes are destroyed by hurricanes, right?).
There's some decent argument for adopting a "flat tax" methodology that simply taxes sales and nothing else. The argument is that sales taxes effectively tax consumption. What do you buy for yourself? That's taxed. So if you save your money and don't spend it, you don't pay taxes on it. If you give your money to charity, you don't pay taxes on it. If you invest your money, you don't pay taxes on it. Only when you actually go to buy something do you pay taxes. It's a reasonable idea. I'm not sure how much I'm in favor of it, but it does have some decent points in its favor. It's inherently "fair" since everyone is taxed based not on how much they make, but how much they buy. So if that rich person buys 10x as much "stuff", he's going to pay 10 times the taxes. Presumably, if you tailor it in the same way sales taxes are already usually done, you don't tax "staple" items (non-prepared food primarily). Thus, it ends up in many cases reducing total taxes dramatically for those who are most "in need" today (families with a single working class level income who don't buy much in the way of luxuries, but still pay a decent chunk of taxes in other areas).
Again. I'm not married to the idea, but it does have merit. It is a workable system that could be used to replace most of the other forms of taxes we pay currently. If Florida wants to test it out and see how it works, that's certainly their right. Kinda part of the whole republic idea, right?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
If the law is written so as to prevent *any* property taxes from increasing beyond a set rate, then that applies to local taxes and is unconnected to any state taxes. If it isn't, then you weren't protected before this change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
gbaji,
as usual, no clue.
the restriction is not what they can charge you, it is what local property appraisers can assess as a value for your home. state law dictates that your property can not be assesed more than 3 percent a year. in otherwords, your 100,000 dollar house can not be asessed more than 103,000 dollars the next year.
this restriction was part of the state income tax bill, out in as a safety to keep property taxes from causing people to loose their homes.
when the state property tax goes, so does this protection. when that happens, uncle tom, who has lived in his house for 50 years, and it is asesed for 200,000 dollars even though houses selling in his area are now selling for 700,000 dollars, could be reassed to 700,000 dollars for his local taxes overnight.
but we can trust local government not to do that, cant we?
i agree a flat tax would be best, but, state taxes do not pay for local services. either the state would have to take over local services, or your flat tax would be hitting you from several sources, local, state and federal.
this bill is selling itself as a trade off for sales tax and property tax.
what people do not understand is, state property tax is only about half of your total property tax bill every year. and the repubs selling it dont seem inclined to explain that either.
what they also dont seem real eager to explain is, that the working poor, the renters who cant afford to own property, will now be paying my property tax. they will have to pay 2 percent more for EVERYTHING, they reep nothing. it is just higher taxes for them.
the only people who will really benifit will be people with really expensive houses. say, 500,000 and up. for the average homeowner, it will be a wash, and for the working poor, it is just a tax increase. the poor will be paying the property taxes of the rich.
the republican mantra. feed the rich and bury the poor.
but all people will see is the sales pitch. NO PROPERTY TAXES. they wont think it through, and there is no incentive for politicians to explain it. there is no lobbiest dollars in protecting the poor.
and we want to spread this crap to other countries? no wonder they fight so hard.
-------------------------------------------------------------
gbaji,
as usual, no clue.
the restriction is not what they can charge you, it is what local property appraisers can assess as a value for your home. state law dictates that your property can not be assesed more than 3 percent a year. in otherwords, your 100,000 dollar house can not be asessed more than 103,000 dollars the next year.
this restriction was part of the state income tax bill, out in as a safety to keep property taxes from causing people to loose their homes.
when the state property tax goes, so does this protection. when that happens, uncle tom, who has lived in his house for 50 years, and it is asesed for 200,000 dollars even though houses selling in his area are now selling for 700,000 dollars, could be reassed to 700,000 dollars for his local taxes overnight.
but we can trust local government not to do that, cant we?
i agree a flat tax would be best, but, state taxes do not pay for local services. either the state would have to take over local services, or your flat tax would be hitting you from several sources, local, state and federal.
this bill is selling itself as a trade off for sales tax and property tax.
what people do not understand is, state property tax is only about half of your total property tax bill every year. and the repubs selling it dont seem inclined to explain that either.
what they also dont seem real eager to explain is, that the working poor, the renters who cant afford to own property, will now be paying my property tax. they will have to pay 2 percent more for EVERYTHING, they reep nothing. it is just higher taxes for them.
the only people who will really benifit will be people with really expensive houses. say, 500,000 and up. for the average homeowner, it will be a wash, and for the working poor, it is just a tax increase. the poor will be paying the property taxes of the rich.
the republican mantra. feed the rich and bury the poor.
but all people will see is the sales pitch. NO PROPERTY TAXES. they wont think it through, and there is no incentive for politicians to explain it. there is no lobbiest dollars in protecting the poor.
and we want to spread this crap to other countries? no wonder they fight so hard.
I like states with no sales tax, like Oregon. I go there, get computer hardware, then come back. yay!
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
shadowrelm wrote:
the restriction is not what they can charge you, it is what local property appraisers can assess as a value for your home. state law dictates that your property can not be assesed more than 3 percent a year. in otherwords, your 100,000 dollar house can not be asessed more than 103,000 dollars the next year.
this restriction was part of the state income tax bill, out in as a safety to keep property taxes from causing people to loose their homes.
when the state property tax goes, so does this protection. when that happens, uncle tom, who has lived in his house for 50 years, and it is asesed for 200,000 dollars even though houses selling in his area are now selling for 700,000 dollars, could be reassed to 700,000 dollars for his local taxes overnight.
this restriction was part of the state income tax bill, out in as a safety to keep property taxes from causing people to loose their homes.
when the state property tax goes, so does this protection. when that happens, uncle tom, who has lived in his house for 50 years, and it is asesed for 200,000 dollars even though houses selling in his area are now selling for 700,000 dollars, could be reassed to 700,000 dollars for his local taxes overnight.
Um... I don't know about Florida, but here in California (and every state I've ever discussed property issues with someone about), property value is only assessed when it is purchased/sold. That assessment locks in the value at which you pay any taxes that are based off the assessed value of the home. I know for a *fact* that that's how it works in California. I also know that's how it works in Connecticut as well, since that was a central component to the Kelo v New London issue (homes owned for a long time generate less tax revenue so using imminent domain to shift them to new owners would force a re-assessment and grant the local and state governments more revenue).
While it's certainly possible that the laws are different in Florida, the law that affects the assessment is separate from the state taxing the property. One does not affect the other. The fact that state property taxes are changed to 0 does not magically remove all the other legal issues surrouding property ownership and property values.
I guess my problem is that you are assuming that if the state property taxes are removed that this will automaticaly remove the re-assessment restriction laws. But you've provided no evidence that this will happen. Normally, laws don't work that way. They aren't removing the law, they're just changing the state tax rate to zero. The existing laws should remain in place and be unaffected by the change.
Quote:
i agree a flat tax would be best, but, state taxes do not pay for local services. either the state would have to take over local services, or your flat tax would be hitting you from several sources, local, state and federal.
Again with the assumption that one change affects another. The whole point of our system is that we do things separately and differently at the local, state, and federal levels. How the state collects taxes has zero bearing on how local taxes are collected. Why do you think that changing state taxes to a flat sales tax would affect anything else?
Quote:
this bill is selling itself as a trade off for sales tax and property tax.
what people do not understand is, state property tax is only about half of your total property tax bill every year. and the repubs selling it dont seem inclined to explain that either.
what people do not understand is, state property tax is only about half of your total property tax bill every year. and the repubs selling it dont seem inclined to explain that either.
Um... Then it's trading off half your property taxes then. Not sure what you're getting at here. The state can only affect the taxes that the state applies. Also, presumably local taxes will vary from city to city. So the property taxes your city applies may be totally different then the ones from the next county over. What exactly do you expect the state of Florida to do? Figure out what percentage of property taxes are state taxes for every municipality in the state and publish a chart?
They're not lying to anyone. They're not misleading anyone. The state can only legally address taxes collected by the state. Period. You seem to be insisting that they should take control of local taxes as well so as to make it easier for people who might be confused or something. That's silly.
Quote:
what they also dont seem real eager to explain is, that the working poor, the renters who cant afford to own property, will now be paying my property tax. they will have to pay 2 percent more for EVERYTHING, they reep nothing. it is just higher taxes for them.
Except that their rent may very well go down, since yearly property taxes are one of the things that they're paying for when they rent. Obviously, not a whole lot of folks are going to actually lower rent today, but the rate of rent increase will drop to account for that (supply and demand will cause it to happen). Over time, this will wash out for renters. They may even come out ahead.
Quote:
the only people who will really benifit will be people with really expensive houses. say, 500,000 and up. for the average homeowner, it will be a wash, and for the working poor, it is just a tax increase. the poor will be paying the property taxes of the rich.
No. It benefits people with more property who consume less. If I'm joe rich guy and I own a multi-miliion dollar home and I throw expensive parties and own expensive cars and go to the spa twice a month, and eat out a bunch, I'm paying 2% more on every single one of those things.
The people it really helps out is poor people who own property. You know. The people who've had a plot of land with a house on it for 3 generations, but they themselves do not have a lot of money. They have enough that if they live frugally, they can get buy. Property taxes are a killer for people in that situation. This tax change is designed to make it less likely for those people to lose their homes.
Quote:
the republican mantra. feed the rich and bury the poor.
Not all property owners are rich. I grew up living in a house that my family had owned since the 1930s. We were most definately not rich. And property taxes were difficult, especially after my grandfather died, since at that time the property changed to my mother and that required a re-assessment of the property value and significantly increased those taxes.
Certainly, there are a lot of people in NOLA who'd love to have this sort of system right now as well. And not rich people either...
You see what you want to see in this. Any change can be viewed negatively if you want to do so. Maybe you should look at all the possible situations first?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Um... I don't know about Florida, but here in California (and every state I've ever discussed property issues with someone about), property value is only assessed when it is purchased/sold. That assessment locks in the value at which you pay any taxes that are based off the assessed value of the home. I know for a *fact* that that's how it works in California. I also know that's how it works in Connecticut as well, since that was a central component to the Kelo v New London issue (homes owned for a long time generate less tax revenue so using imminent domain to shift them to new owners would force a re-assessment and grant the local and state governments more revenue).
In Florida (and most other states where I've lived except California apparently) properties are appraised by the government annually in order to tax the owner of the property on a value that resembles the fair market value of the home.
Recent Visitors: 320
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (320)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- no property tax for florida.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC