News
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Politics
Exemption might not be so super
Many would be better off with Save Our Homes, analyses show.
By BILL VARIAN, Times Staff Writer
Published August 29, 2007
TAMPA -- Living in your dream home? Have visions of growing old there?
You'll want to think long and hard before switching to a new "super homestead exemption" if voters approve it in January.
Most people planning to stay in their homes for the long term will pay less in taxes if they resist the allure of the super exemption, a new analysis shows. For them, it's better to stick with their Save Our Homes protection, which limits annual tax increases to 3 percent.
"The Save Our Homes protection has much more benefit for those who are going to stay in their homes for a long time," said Tim Wilmath, the Hillsborough County property appraiser's director of valuation, who performed the analysis.
Homeowners who make the wrong choice could cost themselves thousands of dollars in additional tax payments.
The super exemption amendment was born in June during a special session of the Legislature called to deal with the public outcry over property tax increases.
Currently, homesteaders get $25,000 knocked off the value of a home when their tax bills are calculated. But the heart of the current system is a 3 percent cap on how much their taxable values may increase annually. That's the Save Our Homes part.
Under the super exemption, homesteaders would get what is initially a more generous tax shelter: a 75 percent exemption on the first $200,000 in value of a home and an additional 15 percent on the second $300,000 in value. The maximum exemption is $195,000.
But the cap that comes with it is much less toothy. It caps the overall growth in property tax revenue to the rate of personal income in Florida, which averages 4 percent annually.
But unlike Save Our Homes, it places no limit on how much a homeowner's bill may increase. This explains why, over time, Save Our Homes is a better deal.
"The Save Our Homes cap insulates the property owner from large increases in value, whereas the super exemption does not," Wilmath said.
Passage of the super exemption amendment would not mean you would lose Save Our Homes.
Current Save Our Homes beneficiaries would have a choice: keep what they've got or go with the super exemption. They could make the choice at any time. But once they pick the super exemption, they can't go back to Save Our Homes.
The Legislature, without being more specific, said 73 percent of homestead owners would benefit from the new exemption. That figure was reached by counting any homestead that was better off in the first year of the new system.
Wilmath's analysis and a similar St. Petersburg Times analysis of Pasco County tax records confirms the Legislature's findings -- for the first year. In Hillsborough, 78 percent of homesteaders would benefit from the super exemption the first year. In Pasco, using the same assumptions that Wilmath did, it would be 70 percent.
But over time, things would change dramatically.
After five years in Hillsborough, only 57.7 percent of people who stay in their homeswould be better off with the super exemption. By year 10, it would be 25.8 percent. By year 15, it would be less than 5 percent. In Pasco, 58 percent would be better off by year five, 15 percent by year 10 and 2 percent by year 15.
None of which surprises Mike Wells, the Pasco County property appraiser.
"It's my belief that whether you should decide in January to go with the super exemption or keep what you've got is based ... on one issue," Wells said. "How long do you plan to stay in your house?"
For Wells, 60, who plans to live out his days in his current Dade City home, his savings under the super exemption would end after year two. Switching would ultimately cost him up to $11,000 annually by the time he turns 80, he said. So he'll stay put.
His son, however, bought a New Port Richey home last year and works for a large company that may ask him to move in the near future. For him, the super exemption would make sense.
The typical Floridian stays in a home five or six years, a figure that has dropped sharply in the past decade. That may reflect the effects of speculators who flipped houses and condos during the housing boom for quick profits.
Wilmath's projections assume that property values increase 7 percent annually, the historical average in Hillsborough since 1980. He also assumes that personal income in Florida -- the basis of the government cap -- increases by an average of 4 percent annually. And he used the maximum 3 percent rate increase under Save Our Homes to make the comparison.
Pinellas County Deputy Property Appraiser Pam Dubov thinks the analyses discount the immediate savings people would enjoy under the super exemption.
In short, while Save Our Homes might be the better bet for the long-term homeowner, the super exemption might make more sense for someone who plans to stay in a home just a short time.
"I wish I had the imagination to figure out how to measure the turnover rate into this," Dubov said. "I don't know how you do that."
The analyses don't suggest how people should vote on the issue. Warren Weathers, the deputy property appraiser in Hillsborough, said he thinks homeowners are taking a nuanced view of the issue.
Speaking at the politically active retirement community of Sun City Center recently, Weathers asked a crowd of 60 to 70 whether they would make the switch if he promised them $1,000 in initial savings. Not a single hand went up.
But one woman told him she still planned to vote in favor of the measure. Given that it's optional, she wouldn't mind the choice in case she does move one day.
She was referring to a benefit the amendment would offer people who now feel locked into their current homes by Save Our Homes. They know that if they move, they might well pay higher taxes on a less expensive house. This absence of "portability" is considered a major flaw of Save Our Homes.
Under the amendment, she could have the best of both worlds: Save Our Homes protection in her current home and the super exemption if she moves.
"Basically she's voting to have an option," Weathers said. "That way she can have the super exemption in her hip pocket if she moves."
Times researchers Caryn Baird and Connie Humberg and staff writer Alex Leary contributed to this report. Bill Varian can be reached at varian@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3387.
FAST FACTS: How to choose
Save Our Homes or super homestead exemption? You've got a big choice to make. For help, go to the Times' new property tax page at politics.tampabay.com.
There you will find a link to your property appraiser's Web site. Look up your home. Once you find your records, you will see a button usually in red that says something like "SUPER EXEMPTION CALCULATOR." Press the button, and you'll get an analysis comparing your taxes under Save Our Homes and under the super exemption going out 15 years or more. You'll be able to adjust variables, such as the annual rate of home appreciation. Adjusting the variables will change the result.
[Last modified August 29, 2007, 01:14:44]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Scott
|
09/30/07 10:55 AM
|
|
Cake and eat it too? Providing you move and flip homes you save. However, You will pay again if you settle down in 2nd,3rd home . Government is trying to remove the homesteaders, revamp Fl lifestyle to growth that accomodates short term investors.
|
|
by Dominic
|
09/22/07 10:41 PM
|
|
It is so sad that our representatives in Tallahassee or in Washington are making laws by judging their own status no the need of the people.
|
|
by Gary
|
09/14/07 02:08 PM
|
|
The new system will eventually lead to people being taxed out of their homes. The exact reason Save our Homes was established. Maybe thats why they called it "Save Our Homes". Its working! Don't be fooled by short term gain to get your votes.
|
|
by Jamie
|
09/10/07 07:41 PM
|
|
as said in prior posts - most of you are not realizing that this is not really giving you portability or a choice - if you move you switch no choice and no going back!
|
|
by Caba
|
09/10/07 04:21 PM
|
|
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you need X amount of revenue now, you will still need it after the change. Unless a fundamental system change is done for money going out, this won't make a different. Prepare to pay more differently.
|
|
by Marti
|
09/08/07 12:10 AM
|
|
I am in SOH & am voting YES for the SE. Reason, you will have a choice to keep your SOH or go with SE. Right now, I can't move because of SOH, as it is not portable. With SE, it gives me a way out, if I choose. For me, this is an ace in my pocket!
|
|
by John
|
09/07/07 04:59 AM
|
|
Why Marian? If the Super Amendment passes, those owners can still keep Save-Our-Homes. They do not have to switch--but have the choice to.
|
|
by Bob
|
09/06/07 10:22 AM
|
|
Hernando County lowered the tax rate but increased the assesed value They also raised the just market value. My taxes will be going up 3% for quite a few years. Market value should be going down not up. The property appraiser has his head in the sand
|
|
by Marian
|
09/04/07 04:23 PM
|
|
This is a ripoff. If anyone has owned their house for longer then 6 years, they should look seriously about staying with the current exemption.
|
|
by Larry
|
08/31/07 09:48 AM
|
|
This does confirm my theory that Florida is now a state of migrant workers. Mostly from Ohio, Pa, NY.
|
|
by Ann
|
08/30/07 11:34 PM
|
|
I'm voting YES. Not a perfect solution but better than status quo of doing nothing. Plus this solve part of the portibility problem.
|
|
by Victor
|
08/30/07 08:02 PM
|
|
Victor the article clearly states we have a choice between the two plans.
Lewis
|
|
by Maggie
|
08/30/07 07:22 PM
|
|
Adding another 15% exemption to the second $300,00 only encourages people to build larger homes - putting a greater strain on our resources.
|
|
by headley
|
08/30/07 06:16 PM
|
|
The sales tax should be the better option and eliminate property taxes i.e everyone should pay; why punish home owners?
|
|
by John J
|
08/30/07 04:13 PM
|
|
For most people, the super exemption is probably a good choice to support. If you have SOH, you can still keep it and have a chance to switch if you move without a time limit. I'm voting YES.
|
|
by Arnold B.
|
08/30/07 03:52 PM
|
|
VOTE NO! People may vote yes because they do not understand the plan, the summary is 27 pages long!! They may feel that something is better than nothing, we need to know exactly how much our taxes are when we buy, so 2 neighbors don't have 3x taxes!
|
|
by Chunky
|
08/30/07 03:48 PM
|
|
NOT super-exemption..We need a plan that you will know exaclty what your taxes are, not left up to the whims of officials opinions of value.It must based on price you paid for the property & locked in for ALL owners, not just homestead,Calif prop 13!
|
|
by Christina
|
08/30/07 03:31 PM
|
|
Florida, we need this. Why should homes of the same value pay different amounts? The current system penalizes you for moving or upgrading to a larger home, & only benefits those who have been in their homes forever. Why are the young always punished?
|
|
by John B.
|
08/30/07 03:29 PM
|
|
Eric - liberal and conservative have nothing to do with it - it's just math. The numbers for the super exemption don't add up to a pile of pigeon poop.
|
|
by John
|
08/30/07 03:02 PM
|
|
ED, although overall taxes may be low in FL, property taxes are what we are talking about. We have one of the highest in the nation. We should be lowering prop. tax & adding more in sales tax.
|
|
by Eric
|
08/30/07 12:20 PM
|
|
VOTE YES, Don't let the liberal ST.PETE TIMES TRY AND FOOL YOU!!!!
|
|
by Irving
|
08/30/07 12:01 PM
|
|
It may be interesting to note that cities and counties are basically funded through property taxes while the state government is funded through sales tax. And the state hands down many unfunded mandates to the cities/county.
|
|
by Greg
|
08/30/07 10:09 AM
|
|
This is simply pay now or pay later. It would take about 20 years for the annual taxes in either case to be the same. The cumulative tax paid would be the same after 30 years. I would rather keep my money. Vote YES. Save NOW. Revisit later.
|
|
by Jack
|
08/30/07 09:20 AM
|
|
If you vote for the super exemption and you move, you'll never have the 3% cap again. You're not voting for an option. You're voting to have your taxes increased. This is back door way to increase taxes! Wake up! Vote NO!
|
|
by Chris
|
08/30/07 05:53 AM
|
|
I pay $5k, my neighbor pays $1500 for the EXACT same house. How is that fair? By the way, this comment section sucks. It rolls off previous comments. Another lame-o thing from the sptimes. Vote YEEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!
|
|
by Andromeda
|
08/30/07 12:23 AM
|
|
The largest on-line source of real property records is HomeInfoMax.com.
Instant access to property info is now available in 50 States, including all of Florida! Residential, Commercial, Land and more at: http://www.homeinfomax.com - try now.
|
|
by JR
|
08/29/07 09:57 PM
|
|
Stop renting your property from the government. The sales tax approach is the best one. Include sales tax on services for the rich. Vote no on the super exemption and force the legislature back to drawing board and local GOVT to cut spending.
|
|
by Ronan
|
08/29/07 09:21 PM
|
|
Best plan is still to raise the sales tax and reduce or eliminate property taxes. But since that proposal is not on the ballot, this is the best one so far. I'm voting yes. Then we lobby to get more reduced for sales tax.
|
|
by Ed
|
08/29/07 09:20 PM
|
|
And FWIW, all these crazy schemes to skew property tax one way or the other are garbage. Lower the millage rate, tax every property equally. It's not that complicated. The boom is over, it's time to level the playing field.
|
|
by Ed
|
08/29/07 09:18 PM
|
|
Try living someplace with a 6% income tax, and then tell me you pay too much here in Florida. My household take-home went up $700/mo (same pre-tax) simply by moving to Florida (and no income tax). You gotta pay somehow, overall this place is cheap.
|
|
by ted
|
08/29/07 08:58 PM
|
|
I will vote for it since I can keep my cap and change later if the super is better
|
|
by Alvin
|
08/29/07 08:39 PM
|
|
Got my TRIM, my taxes are down 10%. Why eliminate SOH, when I move I want that prtection, under this plan I wouldnt have the choice - I VOTE NO
|
|
by Harry
|
08/29/07 07:59 PM
|
|
This plan like all other government ideas is a sham. No matter what comes from this approach the taxing agents will win, not the people that pay the taxes.
|
|
by bob
|
08/29/07 07:47 PM
|
|
Tax every home for it's true value and only give exemptions for over 65 years.It is the only fair way.I pay 3800.00 and my neighbor pay 5800.00 in same condo.
|
|
by Ken
|
08/29/07 06:59 PM
|
|
J.C. better due his homework and check the possable rates. If I go with the amendment my taxes will increase 900%. Why would any one want that result.
|