Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I'm going to vote for it, but I noticed today that Harold Bubil of the Herald Tribune had a guest on his online video segment who, in my view, was using some thinly veiled scare tactics to sway opinions against it.
Initially he said people with lower priced homes would save money, but later backfilled that by saying if values go up in years to come "these people could be taxed out of their homes".
He didn't make it clear that a homeowner could choose to stay with save our homes or choose the super exemption.
He made it seem like if this passes, everyone is stuck with it.
He also said that if 40% of the people vote against it, then it doesn't pass.
I didn't realize that.
Just didn't seem like a balanced piece to me.
Is this what we're going to see leading up the January vote? Those who have an interest in this not passing controlling the media.... using scare tactics?
Fl should dump all homestead exemptions and tax ALL prop at a percentage of market value as TN and other states do along with a cap to some index (cpi or other) for the state on prop valuations and cap spending by counties. It would end the full time vs snowbird, investor vs owner issue forever it would also rein in county commissioners who are like kids who won the lotto on spending.
It would do wonders for the real estate business and you would not be afraid to sell your home and move to new one. I am stuck in this position right now. I can't even rent out my prop for a few years to say go to school or check out another area of the country without losing my homestead and taxes sky rocketing. If all home were taxed at a % of market value you could do all of that and still keep or sell a home when you were ready and it would be FAIR. Taxes would not rise as rapidly ( and would most likley go down over all) as everyone is paying a fair share, no ones burden more than another unless you choose a very expensive property and you can afford that choice.
I agree with you. That would be a fair plan. But since this is not going to happen, I am currently leaning toward keeping SOH. I just don't think the super exemption will be helping us down the road, but the SOH sure will. In ten years we retire, and will be on a fixed income. I don't want to be priced out of my home. Prices in our area were projected by Money Magazine last fall to appreciate almost 60% over the next 5 years, downturn and all. So you can see where I am coming from here.
As I have said in posts several times,SOH is best for retiree not moving.Otherwise do not be surprised if you are taxed out of home.A cap is only way to prevent escalation.
I will vote for Save Our Homes.......my home went up in value 10,000 and my taxes stayed about even........I don't trust what they want to do, I feel that eventually the people with the super exemption will be screwed one way or the other. At least with my SOH it can't go up more than the 3%.
The only ones that will benefit from the super exemption is the people that recently bought and overpaid for the homes they bought......and I can't worry about their stupidity. Each indivual has to do what is right for themselves......it will come down to what is good for each family or person.
Voting Save our Homes.
I believe those who bought expensive homes and can not afford the taxes bought out of there means. For those that have two homes that is the price you pay for having a second home or vacation home.
I and many others will not vote for the super exemption.
Tropics
What about the people who contracted for a home and by the time it was done the assessed value was 50% more?
Did they buy out of their means?
If that is the reason you are voting against it though I can not quite understand. Do you plan on being in your current home the rest of your life?
If you vote for, you can still choose to keep the SOH on your current home.
I've thought about this some more, and I'm leaning strongly towards voting AGAINST the referendum (NO Super Exemption).
I played with the Super Exemption calculator on my city's Property Appraiser site, and I see a problem with this Super Exemption:
If any one of the three determining factors of my assessment goes beyond "the norm", the benefit of the Super Exemption would be eclipsed by the standard SOH that I currently have.
The three factors are:
Real Estate Appreciation
Per Capita Income Growth
Consumer Price Index
The default settings on the calculator are quite reasonable, but when you play with the numbers to see a "what if" scenario, it changes considerably.
Having just come from back-to-back years of rising home values of 17%, 18%, etc., I know that it IS possible that it could happen again, and if it did, I'd be in trouble with the Super Exemption and I'll wish I had stuck with the SOH .
So who benefits from the Super Exemption? I have to wonder.
If I have the attitude of 'well, it doesn't matter to me, I'll just stick with the SOH, why do I care if someone else wants to choose Super?', then I'm not really making my vote count for something.
So, as of now, I plan to vote against it. I'd like them to go back to the drafting table and come up with something better (like rolling back millage rates.....what's so hard about that???).
I'm not a paranoid person, but I feel like there's something fishy about this and I can't quite put my finger on it yet.
What about the people who contracted for a home and by the time it was done the assessed value was 50% more?
Did they buy out of their means?
If that is the reason you are voting against it though I can not quite understand. Do you plan on being in your current home the rest of your life?
If you vote for, you can still choose to keep the SOH on your current home.
Most people contracting to build a home are saavy enough to see the home rising in value as it's under construction - they're no dummies, I'm sure they were tickled that the home was going up in value even before it was finished. If they weren't, they should have cancelled the contract. They're not victims.
It is one possibility that indeed this Super Exemption is designed to bail those very people out, and if that's the case then somehow, someway we are all paying for it.
You're a realtor Mike, so it makes sense that you'd want it to pass. The more people move and the more they spend, the more you make. This is why the Realtor Association recently put a million dollars of their money to help push this through.
If it's not in the best interest of the greater whole and the future of the middle class in Florida (a shrinking group nationwide ), I can't be supportive of it.
Most people contracting to build a home are saavy enough to see the home rising in value as it's under construction - they're no dummies, I'm sure they were tickled that the home was going up in value even before it was finished. If they weren't, they should have cancelled the contract. They're not victims.
It is one possibility that indeed this Super Exemption is designed to bail those very people out, and if that's the case then somehow, someway we are all paying for it.
You're a realtor Mike, so it makes sense that you'd want it to pass. The more people move and the more they spend, the more you make. This is why the Realtor Association recently put a million dollars of their money to help push this through.
If it's not in the best interest of the greater whole and the future of the middle class in Florida (a shrinking group nationwide ), I can't be supportive of it.
They may have been happy that the value was going up but I am sure when they bought the house they figured a certain amount for taxes. Being they wouldn't be able to apply for the homestead exemption till after the home is completed the tax figure could be quite a bit higher than originally budgeted.
Forget for a minute the fact that I am a realtor. It seems that fact influences responces to my posts more than the actual text in my post. By staying with the current system the local politicians would have continued carte blanche with our money. My county grew about 10% in population over the last 2 years. The tax revenue in that time went up 100%. If the cost to produce a loaf of bread went up 10% but the stores started charging 100% more there would be a revolt.
I listen to the people saying they are voting against it and one common theme is " Why should I care about anyone else". I hate to break it to you but it most certainly will affect you, your neighbors and your property values.
If taxes are not fixed there will be more foreclosures, more empty homes and some neighborhoods will be like ghost towns.
I guess you also will be in your current home the rest of your life. One big benefit of the new proposal, if you decide to move you would have the super exemption. Under the current system you may move to a smaller house and have double or triple the taxes dependent upon how long you had been in your current house.
Vote however you choose but I would hope that people will think about the overall benefit or consequence of the way they vote.
If you vote for the proposal you can have your SOH if you choose so you are happy and others that choose the super exemption are also happy.
If you vote against the proposal you will have your SOH so you will be happy and the others will continue paying high taxes to suppport a government gone wild.
They may have been happy that the value was going up but I am sure when they bought the house they figured a certain amount for taxes. Being they wouldn't be able to apply for the homestead exemption till after the home is completed the tax figure could be quite a bit higher than originally budgeted.
I listen to the people saying they are voting against it and one common theme is " Why should I care about anyone else". I hate to break it to you but it most certainly will affect you, your neighbors and your property values.
If taxes are not fixed there will be more foreclosures, more empty homes and some neighborhoods will be like ghost towns.
I guess you also will be in your current home the rest of your life. One big benefit of the new proposal, if you decide to move you would have the super exemption. Under the current system you may move to a smaller house and have double or triple the taxes dependent upon how long you had been in your current house.
Vote however you choose but I would hope that people will think about the overall benefit or consequence of the way they vote.
The people that went into contract to build can't have it both ways - if the value of the home goes up, so do the property taxes. If you signed on for a $300k house and at the time of closing it's worth $400k, sorry, you pay taxes on what it's worth at the time of closing, just like everyone else who buys a $400k house - no special breaks. The idea that the homebuyers could not calculate the higher property tax amount is silly. When you sign on the dotted line at closing, the decision is yours, we're all adults and we live with our choices.
I built earlier in the boom and my house also was worth more than what I had signed on for by closing. Sure I was happy with the equity, but I also knew there was a good chance I'd get assessed higher than I had planned. I could have bailed before the closing if I could not handle the increase.
As for 'why should I care about anyone else' - I don't think that was directed at me since I am saying quite clearly above that what affects one of us affects all of us.
No, I never had any intentions of staying here for the rest of my life. In fact, I've stayed twice as long as I intended, but the market changed and I adjusted my plan. I've lived here for four years and that's the longest I've ever lived in one place in my adult life .
The days of downsizing to a smaller house later in life and capturing your equity are over. Even small houses cost a lot these days in Florida. The Super Exemption will do nothing to keep the prices of houses down, in fact, it may cause housing prices to INCREASE (hence my realtor association comment) and there may be a point when Super Exemption or not, the houses themselves will be too expensive. Let's not forget Homeowner's Insurance which is also based on the value of the home - it's more expensive to insure a $500k home than a $200k home.
I just don't think it's a reasonable solution, and the more comments I read here and in other threads today, the more I've convinced of that.
I just don't think it's a reasonable solution, and the more comments I read here and in other threads today, the more I've convinced of that.
Good for you, riveree. I urge everyone to think carefully about the long-term implications of this proposal.
Can you really trust that cabal of politicians/developers/suicide-mortgage pushers/realtors who have so perversely skewed the economy of the state of Florida and stacked all the cards in their favor?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bale, I don't trust them.
.
), I can't be supportive of it.
. 
