Billionaires no-tax strategy is designed to reduce the population and make Florida less attractive to working class folks. As AI takes over, forcing unemployed people to leave the state is cheaper than Universal Basic Income. Kudos to Florida in planning ahead.
Give them what they’re voting for – good and hard.
intercst
There are 41 billionaires living in Florida. It hardly has a massive impact on the avg cost of living and housing. Naturally, very attractive areas to live, the cost will go up as people gravitate to those areas with money. It’s no different than the cost of living in Telluride, Carmel, Soho, and South and West regions of Maui.
In addition, there is a systemic inflation problem that is driving up the cost everywhere. Florida does have some unique property insurance issues, given its proximity to hurricane activity. What is Florida doing about it? Right, they are proposing an end to property taxes on primary residences up to a certain value with the eventual goal of the elimination of it.
What are other areas doing and how are they solving the affordability issue? It looks to me like they are raising taxes and doing little but driving out the wealthy, making affordability worse, and hollowing out the middle class. Worst of all, many cities are cutting vital emergency services, including police and fire. In Portland on July 11th, it took the police 30 to 40 minutes to respond multiple 911 calls of man trying to stab multiple people in a local park. The Police have blamed staffing shortages of about 24%. The bureau has had to absorb nearly 70 vacancies and 20 million in budget cuts.
In part, there is little effort to try and partner with businesses to try and find solutions or even fully understand these problems. Many Billionaires and wealthy individuals are coming forward willing to do and pay more but recognize the level of incompetence running these states and cities means simply throwing good money after bad. Florida is by no means perfect. But, it is an example of what competent leadership looks like and where businesses are viewed as partners in helping develop and grow the local economies.
And, with state-level insertion into local govt policy, Florida municipal govts are concerned about state overreach into local government self-determination and taxpayer representation.
And municipalities are quite concerned about such a blunt instrument, one-size-fits-all property tax policy on local delivery of essential services, like police, fire, infrastructure.
Mindless tax cuts didn’t work in Kansas. And not working at the federal level.
Anyway, some say we learn best by doing.
Municipalities are not afforded the same state vs Federal rights. It’s less about local govt self determination or taxpayer representation. It is about maintaining the structural status quo. The state of Florida does not allow by law local income taxes. I see no reason why it cannot extend that to property taxes if it is what the citizen’s want and express through their state representatives.
That’s not what I see coming from elected representatives of the municipalities.
How did the Kansas low tax experiment work out?
I suppose we could ask the KS governor about her experience with the policy.
You’re going to have to explain to me the KS tax policy and how it relates to Florida’s proposed reduction of property tax rates. I’m only familiar with the Brownback plan. It had several flaws. Further, Kansas does not derive a great deal of tax revenue from tourism and other sources unique to Florida. You see, when you attract a lot of economic growth, are careful about social safety net spending, it gives you options to reduce other taxes while maintaining sufficient revenues to cover the budget.
Florida’s entire state budget is less than that of New York City. This is what prudent spending looks like. All bureaucracies derive their power from the ability to spend. They can’t help themselves. The tendency then is always to spend. It so odd that people are complaining about the affordability of housing and Florida is trying to help and people are whining about a reduction in the single largest ongoing annual expense other than the house itself.
Let me ask you this, do you find it fundamentally immoral that someone works their entire life to pay off a home and ends up on a fixed income but is forever indebted to the govt? On top of that, because the house has appreciated mostly because of govt induced inflation, the homeowner owes a life long and ever increasing tax on it. Does that sound fair to you? Since Florida is first addressing any home valued under $280k, does it sound like this helps the least fortunate or the most fortunate?
Is this an issue with whom is proposing it? Personally, I don’t care where good ideas come from. There are other states taking this same issue up. In almost everyone, democrats are blocking it. In Georgia, it is going so far that they are blocking even a vote that would allow the citizens of the municipalities to decide a trade off of a higher sales tax on some items for lower property taxes.
Yep. Give them what they voted for – good and hard.
I bet you can go even further in reducing the life expectancy of Florida residents.
New York City has a significantly higher life expectancy than Florida. Residents of New York City average around 82.6 to 83.2 years at birth, while Florida’s statewide life expectancy is roughly 77.9 years. [1, 2, 3]
This notable gap highlights the general trend where urban areas with robust healthcare systems and specific lifestyle factors frequently outpace state-wide averages in Southern regions.
The Miami metro area has about a 2 year lower life expectancy than New York City, but of course, that varies by the wealth of the neighborhood. I doubt any of the billionaires moving to Fisher Island are suffering any deficit in their longevity.
intercst
Repeating some, but:
KS and FL tax ideas are both clumsy, blunt-instrument, step-change policies.
Yes, the KS policy was flawed and therefore undone.
For FL, why would citizens want a one-size-fits-all tax policy across very different municipalities of an entire state?
Especially those of us that support smaller, less-centralized government and decision-making in smaller units, such as at the community level, which better enables freedom and individualism?
I can support any variety of careful policies, but just hammering every city with the same coarse policy does’t strike me as well-thought-out.
I don’t know if you have ever been to Florida or lower property taxes. But, there is a Florida redneck lifestyle that isn’t conducive to life expectancy. I doubt NYC’s Life expectancy rates have anything to to do with tax rates but I am open to being proven wrong. Overall, Florida has the highest avg life expectancies for the states in the southeast.
Is that what citizens are saying or is it the municipalities? Is there anything in the proposed Bill that prevents local govt by re-introducing ballot measures? It seems to me if this is about local control for the individual. Paying a property tax that increases in perpetuity without a regular vote by the citizens doesn’t give them much control.
Several other states have tried to do as you suggest and let each local area decide. Democrats are trying to stave off even letting the voters decide at this level. Part of the reason Florida may be doing this at a State level may in fact be to avoid this hurdle.
What’s wrong with the regular municipal vote in their regular elections?
Why would you want everyone else in a state to have such a strong say in a given municipality’s tax policy?
You lost me here on any consistency with smaller, less centralized government and being closer to individual freedoms and determinism - which is what local government is.
I don’t have an issue with municipalities putting the decision to voters. But, it appears democrats are blocking even a vote at that level. I do fundamentally have a problem with lifelong taxes on a primary residence. It is illiquid and the increase in value isn’t real but more so the result of govt induced inflation. As people age, there income becomes fixed in many cases, while property taxes go up.
Who is stopping municipal elections from occurring? Stopping municipal citizens from electing local representatives and determining local govt structure and policy?
If a local doesn’t like their local government, they can vote accordingly or migrate to a more preferred municipality - just like has been suggested for people unhappy with the US, for example with healthcare - they can migrate to Denmark or Singapore or wherever.
At the moment, democrats that run local municipalities are blocking a vote. Yes, I suppose longer term they could vote for legislators that will pass one.
Fundamentally, I have a problem with property taxes at all.
Seems highly unlikely. Remember, the vote he’s talking about is the same type of vote that occurs at the state level - the vote to elect the members of the governing body (state Legislature and Governor, city Commission/Council and Mayor).
But you are ok with a person living in county Lincoln to use a large, centralized state government to determine the local tax policy of other counties, Washington, Jefferson, etc, who already have their own local governments to determine their own local policy?
I thought you preferred smaller government, more personal freedom and individualism (which is exactly what local government provides relative to a much larger state government)?
This is the kind of clap trap that passes for thought on radio talk shows.
Do those people still consume government services? Yes, they do. Are their streets still paved, their stoplights still functioning, their zoning boards still meeting, their police and fire departments still operating, trash still being picked up, schools teaching kids, environmental issues being addressed?
Brief answer: yes, they are. Next question: why shouldn’t they pay for this? Or are you in favor of some people (with money) paying for others (without)? That sounds suspiciously like that very scary socialism we hear so much about.
You should check your consistency meter, I think it’s pinging.
They should why does have to be tied to an asset? Further, the tax increases based on the value of the home, not the necessity of those services. In states like Florida, where
presumably these local services can be paid for by other means, why do you have a problem with alleviating one of the costs of ownership. Florida plans to use its budget surplus to establish a separate trust fund to help municipalities that see shortfalls through the loss of property tax revenue.
This is one of the benefits of smart fiscal planning.
Sure they do. It’s a lot easier to get Medicaid in NY City and NY State, paid for by taxes. Anyone in the bottom 90% of the income distribution is likely better off in New York, overall. I agree that Florida may be cheaper for the wealthy with a preference for low taxes.
Anyone with a disabled child getting some kind of state assistance in New York has second thoughts on the decision when they arrive in Florida if they haven’t researched the issue before hand.
intercst
Because property taxes are a very efficient way to impose taxes. The underlying asset is hard to move or conceal, which makes it very difficult to avoid taxation. Which means that property taxes are among the most neutral of taxes - they minimize economic distortion, because there are few incentives to alter your economic activity to avoid such taxation. Income taxes create disincentives to working (or working in ways that are subject to the tax) and create rewards for hiding your economic activity (legally or illicitly). Ditto sales taxes. Real property is hard to conceal and hard to move. That’s why it was one of the preferred sources of tax revenue for the Founders - nearly all the colonial government tax revenue came from real property taxes or from head taxes/poll taxes (which have similar attributes).
This is especially important for local governments, because local governments are geographically small compared to other units of government. So it is very easy for people to move whatever you’re taxing out of the jurisdiction. Impose a higher sales tax than your neighboring city, and folks will just do their shopping there. Impose a higher income tax, and people will move their businesses to the next town. Etc. But it’s much, much harder to do that with a fixed asset like land and buildings.