News
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Column
Reasons to vote 'no' on unfair Amendment 1
By JEFF WEBB, Editor of Editorials
Published January 28, 2008
The elected brain trust in Tallahassee got it wrong in naming the latest proposed change to Florida's Constitution "Amendment 1." It should be called "Amendment Some" - as in some tax relief that will benefit some people, while placing an added burden on some others.
Oh, and some of it also may be unconstitutional.
The reasons to vote "no" on this proposal, which is political placation disguised as property tax reform, are many. But here are, well, some favorites:
- If passed, it will not "double" everyone's homestead exemption. Anyone who says it will is either misinformed or lying. It's more like a 60 percent additional exemption because school taxes, which make up 40 percent of the average property tax bill, are not included in Amendment 1.
- It allows a homeowner to transfer his Save Our Homes assessment cap of up to 3 percent a year from one primary residence to another, up to $500,000. That so-called portability clause may help the richest folks who plan to sell and buy again in the next few years, but it doesn't do much for the rest of us, who already take advantage of the 3 percent assessment cap and don't plan to move.
- Save Our Homes already forces nonhomesteaded property owners and businesses to bear a greater proportion of the tax burden, and this amendment will increase that obligation.
- Speaking of increased obligations, Amendment 1 will mean local governments will collect less in property taxes next year. Those governments will have to cut their spending to make up for that loss of revenue. That means they will either need to raise millage rates or cut services and employees. We all pay for those cuts, either in cash, quality of life, or in the unemployment and welfare lines.
- Amendment 1 also would limit the Legislature's ability to reform nonhomesteaded property taxes later on. Settling now for a flawed proposal could hinder a more substantial effort later.
- Finally, this proposal never should have been placed on the presidential primary ballot in the first place. Tuesday's voter turnout is going to be even lower than usual because of the Legislature's those guys again! decision to break national political party rules by moving up the date of the primary. The result is a disincentive for Florida's Democrats and Republicans to go to the polls.
Voters also will stay home in droves Tuesday because, sadly, many of them don't understand Amendment 1. But there is no shame in that lack of understanding. I'll bet most legislators didn't understand it when they voted to put it on the ballot.
Still other voters can't be bothered Tuesday because they're too busy working a second job to pay their insurance and food bills and put fuel in their cars so they can drive to a job where the pay doesn't come close to keeping pace with the increased costs of living.
For sure, Florida's tax system is a mess and it needs reform desperately. But the deceitful deal that is Amendment 1 doesn't do the job; it only perpetuates the inequities and gives people an undeserved sense of confidence in their lawmakers.
And make no mistake about it: That's exactly what the politicians who back Amendment 1 are seeking. They want to go on the campaign trail this year and crow about how they saved you money by cutting your taxes.
(Remember, these are the same people who still claim - amazingly, with straight faces - that they solved the homeowners insurance crisis.)
I say vote "no" on Tuesday on Amendment Some and deny the incumbents the opportunity to insult us in that way. Defeat it and keep these legislators on the hook to come up with a more meaningful plan when they convene their 2008 session in March. That still gives them plenty of time to get another referendum on the ballot for the November general election, which will generate a much, much higher voter turnout.
And if they don't, some of them will just have to go.
And that about somes it up.
Jeff Webb can be reached at webb@sptimes.com or (352) 754-6123.
[Last modified January 27, 2008, 21:33:40]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Rayne
|
01/29/08 09:35 PM
|
|
I am a middle school student. Personally, I think that the schools need that money more than anyone else (with all due respect to everyone else). To give that away is to say that American children don't need education. I'd vote NO if I was 18.
|
|
by David
|
01/29/08 07:26 PM
|
|
please vote no one one!
|
|
by george
|
01/29/08 07:22 PM
|
|
i am not well informed about this issue. after reading this column it's unclear to me what the amendment will do, much less what is does not do. this story is for people who understand florida taxation and specifically property tax rules.
-want more
|
|
by Graham
|
01/29/08 04:26 PM
|
|
Come on SPTimes! Unfair?! How about our current progressive federal income tax system.... what about the Tax rebates where 70% goes to people who pay taxes! 30% go to people who don't pay taxes!!... are those fair?
|
|
by fred
|
01/29/08 02:18 PM
|
|
Vote YES. We need to force the counties to prioritize. Nonhomesteaded property? If you can afford a 2nd or 3rd home you can afford the taxes. Or go back to Joisey.
|
|
by Pamela
|
01/29/08 11:29 AM
|
|
This so-called editor is ill-informed. He doesn't seem qualified to give voting advice. If you vote NO, you are probably doing it for spite and that hurts ALL OF US. You're going to hold out for what? And at least until 2010? That's just STUPID.
|
|
by John
|
01/29/08 08:59 AM
|
|
I already voted Yes, government doesn't do a good job of handling our tax money so don't give them more.
|
|
by cg
|
01/29/08 08:02 AM
|
|
How can someone become "editor of editorials" for the SPT without understanding that constitutional amendments are, by definition, "unconstitutional"? Jeff Webb, you are either ignorant or deliberately misleading people.
|
|
by Edward
|
01/28/08 11:44 PM
|
|
Amendment 1 helps nobody but politicians who can later claim they voted for tax relief. The tax system in this state may have made sense when it was voted in, but its time has passed. Eliminate SOH and level the playing field for everybody.
|
|
by JT
|
01/28/08 09:52 PM
|
|
EMS you are in for a shock when you get your Tax Bill in TX. OUCH is the G rated version of what you are going to say and when you look at that dirty brown water you are going to say it again. Vote YES on 1 and cut taxes and therefore spending.
|
|
by Sarah
|
01/28/08 06:44 PM
|
|
Vote NO to Amendment 1! Save your local fire and police forces. If there's no one working to save your house from burning down, what good will Amendment 1 have done for you?
|
|
by TR
|
01/28/08 06:35 PM
|
|
The taxes need to be rolled back for all state local governments by 15% to 20%. Then put on a 3% cap. Make the governments live on a budget, like the rest of us.
|
|
by Chris
|
01/28/08 04:10 PM
|
|
Too bad I'm not allowed to call anyone here an idiot, or a liar.
|
|
by theman
|
01/28/08 03:06 PM
|
|
Last I checked Florida is still one of a handful of states without a state income tax. Is it really so shocking that property taxes, and sales taxes are what they are? In one form or another the government WILL get its money from you.
|
|
by Jay
|
01/28/08 02:46 PM
|
|
From what I have read so far, the best argument to vote no, force Tallahasse to come up with a better plan and pay for it with expulsion if they don't. For yes,"Take it with you"...one more thing, I would bet Mr. Webb is not Rep. TY for the articleJW
|
|
by ADS
|
01/28/08 02:06 PM
|
|
We must think long term. This is an ill advised quick fix and we will be in the same position in several years. Buyers who have purchased in the last 2 years have little or no cap to port to another home and are left paying for all the others
|
|
by Heidi
|
01/28/08 01:54 PM
|
|
If taxes are cut in one area, don't you realize they will be raised in another? Govt. will NEVER cut spending! If they aren't taking out of your right pocket, they will surely reach into the left!
|
|
by Jean
|
01/28/08 01:34 PM
|
|
Why should we be trapped in our homes?? Portability is even more important than doubling the homestead exemption!!!!
|
|
by Jeff
|
01/28/08 01:12 PM
|
|
Vote yes, tax relief is tax relief. You will never get what you want, take what they are offering.
|
|
by AB
|
01/28/08 01:08 PM
|
|
Couldn't agree with Tom more. This only helps a few Floridians. I want Charlie and the legislators to go back to the drawing board and save us more money. Insurance is not why I am a slave to my home, it's my property taxes!
|
|
by tom
|
01/28/08 12:55 PM
|
|
This by Webb is the first St P Times editorial I do not trust or respect. What is needed is a giveback of wasted money. Or a cadre of angels. We are stuck with humans.
|
|
by EMS
|
01/28/08 12:46 PM
|
|
I'm voting NO. I want them to get back to work on insurance companies that screwed us. BTW, my house is for sale. I'm moving to TX. I can't take my tax cap with me. But then, I won't need it there.
|
|
by wazzamattaU
|
01/28/08 12:43 PM
|
|
The Times bias is showing again. Why not another headline: 'Reasons to vote Yes'?
|
|
by JR
|
01/28/08 12:35 PM
|
|
"The richest folks"? Anyone who has owned a home for a while and wants to move benefits. Upsizing, downsizing, etc. Some people can't afford their home now, but the tax increase for selling prevents downsizing. Portability is a great thing.
|
|
by Sasha
|
01/28/08 12:34 PM
|
|
If we don't give businesses and rental properties a better break, many will have no where to work and no where to live.VOTE NO! This should have been in 2 separate parts.
|
|
by Ron
|
01/28/08 12:17 PM
|
|
The amendment may not be perfect but it is the best that we have now. Put some money back in the pockets of the citizens now and then vote on a new, maybe better, amendment next year. In the meantime, maybe government will learn to budget their funds
|
|
by TF
|
01/28/08 12:15 PM
|
|
True. You save money theoretically. Good luck reviving yourself when there in not enough Fire Rescue to come to your aid!
|
|
by Tom
|
01/28/08 11:34 AM
|
|
I agree. Amendment 1 should be voted down to compel elected leaders in Tallahassee to do a better job of fixing the problem.
|
|
by KT
|
01/28/08 10:28 AM
|
|
this is an ill informed editorial, read the amendment for your self and decide, this is all opinion and not fact
|
|
by Dorothy
|
01/28/08 09:55 AM
|
|
Increased cost of living is indeed the real issue and it will continue to get worse until we return to sound money and get rid of the private Federal Reserve banking cartel. Notice the opposition of "big money" and media to Ron Paul?
|
|
by seth
|
01/28/08 09:54 AM
|
|
And to follow up, you complain that nonhomestead owners pay an unfair burden... snowbirds, landlords and businesses? If "the richest folks" aren't among landlords and people who own two houses, I don't know who you think you're looking out for.
|
|
by seth
|
01/28/08 09:51 AM
|
|
I don't understand how you can say portability only helps "the richest folks". I'm not rich, and my house is not that expensive. I bought when values were low, so if I now tried to move to a comparable house without portability, I'd take a huge hit.
|
|
by BILL
|
01/28/08 09:22 AM
|
|
AT 1ST I WAS ALL FOR AMEND.1 HOWEVER SAVING 2HUNDRED DOLLARS A YR. IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY LIFE 1 BIT. THIS PLAN IS FOR THE WEALTHY NOT THE WORKING STIFF LIKE MYSELF. WE WILL BE PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK TO SAVE PENNIES A DAY !!
|
|
by Kenny
|
01/28/08 09:00 AM
|
|
I agree. The tax structure should be torn down and rebuilt completely. No more exemptions of any kind and tax all property at 100% of value, and lower the overall tax rate. that would be fair to all and not favor just a few.
|
|
by john
|
01/28/08 08:53 AM
|
|
It will save me money. I vote yes.
|