[IceEnclosure]

Bad for renters and poor folk, great for the big dog homeowner.
This would be the highest sales tax in the nation. I don't like the sound of it. I think I'll make an effort to buy more online, out of state. That'll show 'em!

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16752065.htm

[NYK Ace]

ha! here in new york we have sales tax as high as 9.5% in some counties AND we have property taxes that are of the highest in the country. If we would reduce taxes to 8.5% and get rid of property tax i would look into buying a house right now (as opposed to renting to avoid the tax)

[Dork.]

It wouldn't necessarily be that bad for renters, as long as landlords reduce rents to match the tax break they are getting. But it's my opinion that any sales tax increase will hit poor people harder, even with all the exemptions that are in place for food, medicine, etc.

Property taxes are a simple concept to understand: if you own land in a town, you ought to pay for basic services in the town, If you own more land, and more expensive structures on your land, there's more work for the town to do, so your tax should be higher. Doing away with them entirely takes away the connection between living in a community and helping to maintain it, and that's bad, IMHO.

The real problem is how property taxes are assessed. Assessing taxes by the value of the property (which is how most places do it) seems a bit odd, since property values can vary widely from year to year. Unless a locality makes a concerted effort to re-assess houses in their area, there are going to be situations where new homeowners pay more of the tax burden, all things being equal, than older homeowners. There are really two figures that control how much tax you pay: the current open-market value of your home, and the current tax levy rate, and they both change independantly. (And no matter which way they change, the net result always seems to be your taxes going up from year to year).

Perhaps a better way to do it would be to set a base tax rate for each property that rarely changes, and just tinker with the tax levy rate. Re-evaluate that base rate when a homeowner makes a major capital improvement on the property, but not when a real-estate bubble hits. (Maybe base it on acres of land + square footage of dwelling, or something like that) This will prevent the situation where a certain real estate market gets hot, and now all of a sudden people who have lived there all their lives need to move because they can't afford the taxes anymore.

And I'm well aquainted with the Empire State's taxation policies. Luckily, I live in a county with somewhat lower sales taxes and reasonable property taxes....

[Dark Helmet]

8% sales tax is nothing.

[Kevin]

Not in commie land no.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Property taxes are a simple concept to understand: if you own land in a town, you ought to pay for basic services in the town, If you own more land, and more expensive structures on your land, there's more work for the town to do, so your tax should be higher. Doing away with them entirely takes away the connection between living in a community and helping to maintain it, and that's bad, IMHO.

That's where I think you've got the wrong idea. Property taxes make even property ownership nothing more than renting, for if you don't pay your property taxes, your property is seized. It is on that fundamental belief in the ownership of property that I firmly support this proposition in Florida and across all U.S. states.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

That's where I think you've got the wrong idea. Property taxes make even property ownership nothing more than renting, for if you don't pay your property taxes, your property is seized. It is on that fundamental belief in the ownership of property that I firmly support this proposition in Florida and across all U.S. states.

If you don't like the idea of property taxes as a source for municipal revenue stream how do you think local and state governments should fund the services they provide to their communities?

[Kevin]

How about jailing for not paying instead of seizing property.

[alex_kac]

One big issue with property taxes is schools in low income cheap housing areas suck and those in posh neighborhoods are very nice. Then you have things like Texas Robin Hood plan to equalize things and your "sense of community" is gone since you're paying for a school a hundred miles away.

Its far better, I think, to use sales taxes or business taxes to cover all state revenue and school funding and just get rid of property taxes or make them so small. For example - in Texas I pay $15k a year for property taxes, but no state income tax. I was against state income taxes until my brother in law in Colorado with a similarly priced home told me he pays $3k in property taxes a year and $1500 a year in state income taxes.

[nonhuman]

8.5% sales tax in San Francisco too...

As a homeowner myself, I'm all in favor of reducing property taxes. Especially since I can always just slip across the border to New Hampshire for large purchases.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If you don't like the idea of property taxes as a source for municipal revenue stream how do you think local and state governments should fund the services they provide to their communities?

Sales taxes, mostly targeting luxury and vice items (big-screen televisions and alcohol, for instance), with a progressive slant and no upper limit on the taxable price of the item (therefore a yacht would be taxed at its full value, instead of being capped at $250 or some other equally lame amount).

[Peder Rice]

Oh, and I'm a paleoconservative for the win. Down with materialism! Hoorah property rights!

[OAW]

I see nothing wrong with this proposal at all. I can sum up why in 3 quick points:

1. Property taxes suck. Period. You are essentially paying the government for the right to own something. And as someone mentioned before, it essentially reduces you to renting because if the tax isn't paid the property you supposedly "own" can be seized. There are two many examples of poor and/or elderly people losing their homes because they are able to pay this tax.

2. This has the capability to eliminate the disparities in school funding between wealthy and poor municipalities. Property tax based school funding inherently results ins funding advantages for wealthier areas. A statewide sales tax that is then funneled to all districts based upon population would be much more equitable.

3. Since food, medicine, services and rent will be exempt from the sales tax, the ability of the poor to purchase necessities won't be adversely impacted by this. Additionally, wealthier people tend to spend more than poor people. So they will still be paying more in taxes.

By no stretch of the imagination am I some sort of right-winger. But on this issue, I agree with the Republicans in Florida. It's a more straightforward, simpler, and more equitable approach to taxation.

OAW

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

One big issue with property taxes is schools in low income cheap housing areas suck and those in posh neighborhoods are very nice.

Yeah.

And another thing, there are significant tax breaks for property ownership (i.e., the mortgage interest deduction), so why not just get rid of both property taxes and the mortgage interest deduction and call it good?

I can understand wanting to get rid of or reduce property taxes, but it would be more fair to replace them with income taxes rather than sales taxes.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by alex_kac 

One big issue with property taxes is schools in low income cheap housing areas suck and those in posh neighborhoods are very nice. Then you have things like Texas Robin Hood plan to equalize things and your "sense of community" is gone since you're paying for a school a hundred miles away.

Its far better, I think, to use sales taxes or business taxes to cover all state revenue and school funding and just get rid of property taxes or make them so small. For example - in Texas I pay $15k a year for property taxes, but no state income tax. I was against state income taxes until my brother in law in Colorado with a similarly priced home told me he pays $3k in property taxes a year and $1500 a year in state income taxes.

Agreed.

And not only does the current property tax use mean crappy schools in the hood, it also means anyone who chooses to send their kid to a private school is paying taxes towards an education they're not particularly interested in using.

Or, you know, we could start to reduce extraneous spending on social programs so that we wouldn't have to raise taxes so much in one place when we want to cut taxes in another place.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

...but it would be more fair to replace them with income taxes rather than sales taxes.

And that's a good debate in and of itself, but I think this bill is at least a step in a positive direction.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

And that's a good debate in and of itself, but I think this bill is at least a step in a positive direction.

I don't think it's moving in the right direction, for the reason the original posted suggested: This would amount to a large transfer of the tax burden from higher-income people to lower-income people, a reverse Robin Hood policy.

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't think it's moving in the right direction, for the reason the original posted suggested: This would amount to a large transfer of the tax burden from higher-income people to lower-income people, a reverse Robin Hood policy.

How do you figure? Is it not still a progressive sales tax?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

How do you figure? Is it not still a progressive sales tax?

Sales taxes of this kind, where just a flat percentage of each sale is taken, are not progressive just by their nature. People who own no property aren't paying this property tax now, but they would pay these sales taxes.

[Doofy]

For all those in favour of property taxes, have a read of this:

Daily Express: The World's Greatest Newspaper

COUNCIL tax snoopers want to know where you go on holiday, what you eat and even whether you use a dating agency.

They will note if you have a pet and who you vote for.

A list of 287 intimate details to be pored over by town hall spies includes how much you earn, and even whether you do the crossword.

In an extraordinary expansion of Big Brother Britain, Labour will collect and store lifestyle information on households across the country as part of its council tax re-banding scheme.

Data will be gleaned from sources including supermarket loyalty schemes. Along with photographs of properties it will be stored on a Whitehall super-computer and will be used to calculate council tax. Last night critics claimed this is the latest in a series of attacks on householders’ privacy.

Shadow Local Government Secretary Caroline Spelman said: “The Big Brother tendencies of Labour are becoming increasingly clear, with their plans for an ID card database, council tax inspectors coming into your home and a massive ‘spy in the sky’ system to facilitate their plans for a national road pricing scheme.

“Now they want to gather even more information to build up a database about people’s property and lifestyles, and this data will be used to decide your council tax bill.

“When Gordon Brown sees an opportunity to increase the tax burden by stealth, it’s clear any regard for our privacy goes straight out the window.”

Ministers have spent almost £60,000 buying a database of “lifestyle variables”, which critics fear will be used to increase bills by as much as 400 per cent.
The snoopers’ directory breaks down all 1.9 million UK postcodes, using more than 125 demographic statistics within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The core data consists of information about age, marital status, salary, children and home ownership. But also listed are details of private pension plans, charity donations, political membership, illnesses and hobbies.

It is noted who is vegetarian, who has central heating or a conservatory and which newspapers are read.

The Acorn company – which has developed the database sold to the Government – uses a number of sources to assess people’s standards of living.

These include readily-available Census information – but also data taken from sources such as supermarket loyalty cards.

This means shoppers’ grocery choices will go some way to defining which council tax band their house falls under.

The firm also carries out independent market research using questionnaires to uncover the demographic, lifestyle and purchasing habits of local communities.
Civil liberty campaigners were outraged at the development.

Mark Wallace of The Freedom Association said: “For the State to be collating so much personal information raises questions about the future of privacy in Britain.

“It’s extremely disturbing that political membership, for example, can be used to determine council tax in a certain area.

“Under Labour we have seen a massive extension of the Database State. So much private detail has been collected, innocent people have had their DNA taken and, of course, we face biometric testing.

“Politically, this is undoubtedly a case for concern. That any government could attempt to determine tax levels by drawing on the type of newspaper a person reads or if they are vegetarian is very worrying.’’

Liberal Democrat spokesman for local government, Andrew Stunell, said: “People will be extremely concerned at this scheme’s apparent extension of the state’s power.”

He added: “It takes us a hundred years past 1984, far into the world of Big Brother.”

He criticised the “waste” of money on this scheme just a month before Sir Michael Lyons is due to publish his review of the council tax system. The Lyons review is expected to recommend higher bands, hitting those in London and the South East particularly hard because of the way properties there have increased in value.

Mr Stunell added: “It undermines all his good work and shows they have no interest in introducing a fair local tax based on people’s ability to pay. Hard-working families expect their Government to throw out the hated council tax, not to try to patch it up with this overbearing and intrusive system.’’

Ministers want to scrap the current council tax system, which grades homes in five property bands. Campaigners have warned that whatever new system is introduced will see millions facing massive increases in their council tax.

The average bill for a typical Band D property is currently £1,268 for the current year – up from £689 when Labour came to power in 1997.

But that is expected to soar after the revaluation and re-banding of properties which happens this April in Northern Ireland, to be rolled out in England and Scotland later.

In Wales, where re-banding has already happened, there have been massive council tax rises. If the revaluation reflects price rises since the council tax was introduced in 1991, the value of a property in Band D – the marker from which other bands are calculated – would move from the current level of £68,001-£88,000 up to £195,000- £250,000.

Fears over state snooping grew after revelations last year about a 4,000-strong batch of inspectors set to check on people’s private lives.

From June, anyone wanting to sell a house or flat will be legally obliged to pay as much as £700 for a new Home Information Pack.

The property will be checked by one of the new Home Inspectors now undergoing training.

That's on top of the fact that local councils are to be given the legal right to enter your home (even against your wishes) and take photographs in order to value your property.

Oh, don't forget we pay a 17.5% sales tax too.

Still think Florida has it bad with this new move?

[dcmacdaddy]

After reading some of these explanations I too would agree an across-the-board sales tax, especially on luxury items with no tax limit, would make the most sense. Those who consume the most would be contributing the most to the economy, both through the money spent on their direct purchases as well as through the taxes generated on their purchases.

Would it be possible to fund the entire federal government on such a scheme (i.e.: no personal or corporate income taxes but every person/company pays what is essentially a consumption tax?

If I've got this right, theoretically you could be mega-rich but have a low tax burden based on modest spending patterns whereas someone middle-class could have a high tax burden because of ecessive spending or even deficit-spending (credit-card, home equity loans, etc.).

I actually like this idea more and more I think about it. Assuming it really was applied fairly, with no major exceptions other than for food or medicines, I think I could get behind such an idea. (I am pretty much a flat-taxer at heart and this seems to be doing the same thing--standardizing the rate people pay--but basing the charge amount on spending as opposed to income.)

[torsoboy]

I don't know what political line I stand on with this, but I disagree with property taxes 100%. The city does NOT make improvements on my property, and even if they claimed to do something like that I already pay for that crap through my utility bill, my water bill, and my income and sales tax that I pay. When I see $20k blown on a statue by the side of the road, and $10k blown on a fish tank in the city offices, etc. I can see what that money is used for, and I shouldn't hav to pay it. If you own a big house you probably already pay more taxes than everyone anyway, and then they want you to pay more to live on your own private property just because you saved up to buy a nice home? big thumbs down on that one.

I also 100% disagree with taxing based on income. Why should I pay more than someone that made less? Will I take more from the city/state/country than they would? Most likely I will be giving more to the city through charities, etc. with my money than the poorer people would. I have less of a problem with a flat tax rate, but even that seems very ridiculous using the same arguments. I made more money than someone else so I have to pay more than them overall?? WTF for? I am already being a bigger player than they are in the global economy if I make more money, so the government wants to punish me for it?

Taxing based on spending is something that I can get behind I suppose, but I would like it to include spending on food as well. That way it doesn't matter who you are or what you do you are simply taxed as a human being and everyone is equal in the eyes of the government. lol. That'll be the day!

And FYI, I currently live in a manufactured home in the crappiest area in the city on a tiny lot, so I am not biased by my own personal wealth or large home ownership taxes. I just don't think that taxing based on income or ownership is something anyone should support.

[climber]

Sales taxes tend to place a higher burden on the lower classes. Real estate/property taxes tend to burden the wealthy.

[d4nth3m4n]

sales tax is already up to 8.25% here in tompkins county NY. for a .25% jump, i'd be happy to give up property tax on the land i own.

[Montezuma58]

One of the big problems with property taxes in Florida is that your the tax on your home as long as your living in it can only increase a small percentage each year. But when the property is sold it gets reassessed at current value. This can result in people living next door to each other with the same valued house paying radically different property taxes.

The theory is that this protects old people from big increases in property tax. But it also screws people over that are just entering the housing market, have to move due to job changes, need to go to a bigger house due to their family growing, or would like to move out of a crappy neighborhood. I know people in Florida that could not afford to move even if they went to a similarly valued house due to the jump in property taxes.

[strictlyplaid]

I think I agree with eliminating property taxes for the school funding and ownership reasons mentioned above. But a sales tax is not the way to do it. It has been empirically shown that the more money you make, the less you spend and the more you invest or save (I can dig up links if you like.) That means that under a sales tax system, poorer people are paying higher taxes as a percentage of their income than richer people. A flat tax is one thing, but a regressive tax? That's harsh.

Simplified income taxes FTW!

[Mastrap]

Property taxes pay for the upkeep of common amenities that the property owner uses. The more are used, the higher the tax should be. If you own a ten bedroom home then you'll need more water, more sewer capacity, more road access, more snow ploughing (ok, not in Florida but you can see where I am going with this), more of everything than somebody who lives in a two bedroom bungalow.

So to me it seems fair that there's a difference in taxation.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Property taxes pay for the upkeep of common amenities that the property owner uses. The more are used, the higher the tax should be. If you own a ten bedroom home then you'll need more water, more sewer capacity, more road access, more snow ploughing (ok, not in Florida but you can see where I am going with this), more of everything than somebody who lives in a two bedroom bungalow.

So to me it seems fair that there's a difference in taxation.

My argument here is that if you use more water you are already paying for more water. Same goes for sewer, etc. The "road access" and snow plowing ones are a big stretch... a mansion next to a small home will have the same road and snow plowing needs. It's not like they make two trips out for richer people. And from what I have seen around here the poorer people tend to have five or six junky cars that do a lot more damage to the road than the two or three nice cars a more wealthy person has. Oh, and what makes you think that a poor person has less needs? The poor family with eight kids in the 1200 square foot home use a lot more water, sewer, and road capacity than the wealthy family with one or two kids in the mansion.

So I fail to see where that is a fair tax at all. And throw in the "impact fees" that you alreayd have to pay when you buy a bigger lot and you'll see that can't really use that argument at all since you have already paid for the larger capacity everything that they claim you will need.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Property taxes pay for the upkeep of common amenities that the property owner uses. The more are used, the higher the tax should be. If you own a ten bedroom home then you'll need more water, more sewer capacity, more road access, more snow ploughing (ok, not in Florida but you can see where I am going with this), more of everything than somebody who lives in a two bedroom bungalow.

More swimming baths requirements? More policing requirements? More library requirements?

I think not.

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

So to me it seems fair that there's a difference in taxation.

You've been tainted with Londinium and their idiot mayor's guff for too long Mas.

Why should someone pay more to live in their chosen style of property simply because they've chosen to invest their income in their house rather than the wall behind the pub?

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

More swimming baths requirements? More policing requirements? More library requirements?

I think not.

You've been tainted with Londinium and their idiot mayor's guff for too long Mas.

Why should someone pay more to live in their chosen style of property simply because they've chosen to invest their income in their house rather than the wall behind the pub?

Exactly.

[Trygve]

In Prague our sales tax is 19% (effectively 24% on imported stuff), but my annual property tax for a new apartment was $19. I think I'd like a lower sales tax!

Dubai has no taxes... but the rents make London and San Frnacisco look cheap.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Would it be possible to fund the entire federal government on such a scheme (i.e.: no personal or corporate income taxes but every person/company pays what is essentially a consumption tax?

It's called the FairTax

google it

[alex_kac]

In our area (Texas) I own the road where my house is (yes, literally, not figuratively) as does every house around here own the part of the road in front of their house. I pay a HOA for maintenance on that road. I have septic so no waste there. I already pay for water and for any other improvements like the electric line - I paid for that. So tell me, what does my property tax pay for? School, police, and fire. That's about it.

[wallinbl]

Something has to change. I pay $6300 per year, and my neighbors average around $2700. Why? I'm the most recent to move into the neighborhood. My taxes were low on my last house, as I had it a while. Had a few kids, needed a bigger house, so my taxes went through the roof.

The real problem around here isn't the taxes, it's the spending. The city budget here is up over 80% in the last few years. They're raking in the taxes to the point that they fully funded their own pension.

[Northeastern292]

Upstate NY (Franklin County) has dirt cheap taxes. Maybe that's why an 11th grader (me) can't take an AP course and can't use a Mac in school because I happen to live in the fourth poorest school district in New York.

I went from a ritzy, Mac-using (at least the Art department at Brewster High School) suburb downstate to a "poor mountain town in Colorado". Problem is that mountain town is in a state with a great public school system (except for the high school Math programs).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by NYK Ace 

ha! here in new york we have sales tax as high as 9.5% in some counties AND we have property taxes that are of the highest in the country. If we would reduce taxes to 8.5% and get rid of property tax i would look into buying a house right now (as opposed to renting to avoid the tax)

Total sales tax is usually higher than the state sales tax. For example, here in Washington we have a 6.5% sales tax. But Seattle adds a bunch of local sales taxes. So in Seattle, sales tax is around 9%. So if Florida increased it's state sales tax to 8.5%, that would mean most places would have a total sales tax of around 11%, which is higher than NYC.

So you wouldn't be looking at a reduction at all.

[el chupacabra]

I have waterfront in Florida, therefore I'd love to see property tax gone. And if anyone wants to inherit property well they won't be able to pay the tax. Guess they'll just have to lose it. I think even poor people can more easily deal with 9% sales tax than most property tax.

As for the city what do they do? Plant flowers at some of the street corners?

edit this would be great for businesses that have a demand product but are low rev; who pay the same tax as high rev businesses.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

As for the city what do they do? Plant flowers at some of the street corners?

Don't cities maintain local roads and public safety departments?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Don't cities maintain local roads and public safety departments?

Not really, wish they would, they sure do get a llllllllot of money for it

[wallinbl]

Part of the problem with the proposal is that the property taxes would remain on rental properties. This needs to be lifted so that it doesn't result in a double taxation on renters (property tax via the landowner and sales tax via purchases). If this were lifted, it would be an improvement from the standpoint of both owners and renters. Many renters are currently renting because the combination of property values, insurance and taxes are so great that they cannot purchase. In general, it is a good thing to make property ownership affordable to as many as possible. Reducing or removing property taxes would help with this.

I'm not sure how their math works on the sales tax, but with a 2.5% increase, I would need to spend $252,000 per year to make up my share of property taxes. I know that we have tourists and people who don't pay property taxes now and all that, but my share of the tax burden would go down significantly, and it seems like there aren't enough places to make it up from.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

Property taxes pay for the upkeep of common amenities that the property owner uses. The more are used, the higher the tax should be. If you own a ten bedroom home then you'll need more water, more sewer capacity, more road access, more snow ploughing (ok, not in Florida but you can see where I am going with this), more of everything than somebody who lives in a two bedroom bungalow.

So to me it seems fair that there's a difference in taxation.

My taxes are $6300/year and my neighbors' taxes are $2700. Their house is 400 square feet bigger and would sell for more than mine would. Six people live in that house compared to the four in mine. They have three kids in school compared to my zero (will be two eventually). They own four cars compared to my two. They use more water, more school, more road, more everything, yet I pay far more than they do.

The difference in taxation is in no way 'fair'.

[torsoboy]

It seems that most of us common people think that property taxes are unfair in principle and as a whole. I wonder how the locally elected officials (which were previously common people) came to decide that property taxes are something that is fair or in any way appropriate.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

It seems that most of us common people think that property taxes are unfair in principle and as a whole. I wonder how the locally elected officials (which were previously common people) came to decide that property taxes are something that is fair or in any way appropriate.

More tax revenue = bigger budgets for their personal pet projects.

[cgs2201]

Best do your homework before you show us as highest sales tax in the nation at 8.5% we'd be in excellent shape with no income tax! this is the best thing to happen FL in a long time. Poor folks and renters are going to have to learn how to better themselves in other ways to keep up with the costs of living. Make More Money!

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

Bad for renters and poor folk, great for the big dog homeowner.
This would be the highest sales tax in the nation. I don't like the sound of it. I think I'll make an effort to buy more online, out of state. That'll show 'em!

MiamiHerald.com | 02/21/2007 | Florida House's bold tax-swap plan raises questions

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So if Florida increased it's state sales tax to 8.5%, that would mean most places would have a total sales tax of around 11%, which is higher than NYC.

Sales tax in Florida is the same everywhere in the whole state. Counties and cities can't add more.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Montezuma58 

Sales tax in Florida is the same everywhere in the whole state. Counties and cities can't add more.

Not at all true.

[♥]

Yes, they should do away with property taxes and raise sales tax.

For the person who wants to get into a home but cannot because that first year he will have a $6000 or more tax bill that there is no way he could pay then this will allow him to get into a home. Food and drugs are not taxed anyway.

[Peder Rice]

And farmers and seniors would likely benefit a ton from this. Bye-bye farm subsidies!\

//edit: actually, they don't much pay property tax, do they? Tax exemptions and all...

[mindwaves]

All I know is that after I buy that shirt at Target and pay the sales tax, I'm left with 58% of my earnings.....