It is true that Florida does not have a stand alone program for disable children (Katie Beckett prog). The whole household income must qualify. The reality is the proportion of middle income families living in NYC has been cut in half and now sits at 20%. The middle class is leaving and has clearly decided these select benefits are not worth the cost or they can save more by living somewhere else. But you are correct, Florida is not looking to be a haven for the poor.
I understand the reasons why it make sense for the govt to choose to tax property.
Florida is carrying a sufficient surplus believes it can absorb the revenue loss. If we think of this like a company with extra cash giving a special dividend, what is the issue?
Further, we admittedly have a housing affordability issue. Why is this not a way to address it? I’m not advocating for fiscal irresponsibility. I’m saying that states that have responsibly managed their budgets, may want to consider it. Perhaps, municipalities can decide to use other methods if needed to raise revenue.
But, if you’ve been sending your little ones to private prep school, Florida, just a few years ago, started providing $8k per child per year in taxpayer money to help pay tuition.
Regardless of income.
I wonder the marginal return of that $8k on test scores?
3 Likes
New York spends twice as much per pupil as Florida for public education. Are they getting twice the benefit?
1 Like
Well, let’s do an economics calculation.
The marginal educational benefit of spending $8k of taxpayer dollars on a child already attending a private school already fully paid with family funds is about zero.
That’s how FL is spending tax dollars.
Do you still support living in Lincoln county and voting on another citizen’s local taxes (and determining their pursuit of individual freedom) in Washington county, a separate local jurisdiction?
What if the state referendum is to raise local taxes across state municipalities, do you still support this form of big, centralized government?
1 Like
Florida’s position is $8k represents the variable cost. If the parents want to choose to send the child to private school, this portion should follow the child.
I know, it’s a strange concept that tax dollars are controlled by the taxpayer. Additionally, it gives parents more financial freedom with school choice.
Are you going to answer the question or not? Florida spends 1/2 per student as NY. Are New Yorkers getting twice the return for spending twice as much?
Here is part of what they get. NY has incredibly strict tenure rules. Rather than fire unfit teachers, they simply house many of them in non teaching positions at the tax payers expense.
You can twist this anyway you choose. The reality is people keep more of what they make in Florida and have more direct control over their education dollars. Florida intends to do something to bring down the cost of home ownership. Almost everything in New York is more expensive. Citizens are choosing to go to Florida and elsewhere to get relief. Although the people of New York are great, nobody seems to talk about how much value they get for their tax dollars. Specifically in NYC, they have and are heading down a path that will only get worse. They are going get what they voted for and good.
Wealth is leaving and so is the middle class.
1 Like
Well, I have been waiting on these more fundamental questions about individual freedom and self-government.
Questions about central government vs local government.
But no answer for some reason.
1 Like
I gave my answer. For property taxes and to improve the affordability, I have no issue with the state exerting authority. If you need a more complicated answer. State authority has always superseded municipalities’. Their authority is granted by a delegation of state law. You’re trying to make an argument similar to state vs federal but it is not how municipalities derive their authority. You’re wrongly equating local laws with the concept of individualism.
1 Like
Well, local governments are smaller governments.
And an individual has more say in a smaller government, and therefore more self-determinism.
An individual in a municipality of population 200 has way more potential to influence government than an individual in a municipality of size 200,000.
That’s why I don’t see your support for state control as consistent with your view of smaller government.
I think most observers would notice that irony.
But you are saying your desire for lower taxes outweighs your preferences for smaller government, stated for example:
3 Likes
My broader view is that when possible individual’s control the decisions with the majority of wages and income they earn. Your argument isn’t one of smaller govt but where decision making should rest. It has nothing to do with the concept of individualism. It’s an absolute argument of Individual determination vs govt power not where or how local that power resides.
States retain these broad powers to avoid the nightmare of tiny little fiefdoms that complicate rather simplify laws from one area to the next and the freedom of movement physically and financially from one area to the next.
I don’t disagree that the property tax decision takes away the local entities decision making regarding the source of a portion of tax revenue. But, the state intends to supplement that from the state budget. Local residence and local govt still exercise authority over how to allocate those dollars.
Lower taxes do result in smaller govt, in some sense. as I said, you are confusing concepts about where power rests within the govt with idea of smaller govt. those are not the same thing. In addition, you are assuming the loss of property taxes impacts local residences control of local services. There is no evidence that is the case, until we see if the state trust fund is sufficient to replace those dollars and under what terms. I understand your point that a vote 1 of 10k holds greater influence than 1 of 10mil. It is logical.
1 Like
It’s simple.
Three facts:
Local government is smaller than state government.
Local government, being smaller, and comprises individuals, is closer to individual decision-making.
State government control of local tax policy takes decision-making away from local government (and therefore farther away from individual decision-making).
You just prefer lower taxes for yourself, in your jurisdiction, even if it means infringing on the ability of fellow citizens in other local jurisdictions to exercise their ability for self-government of their local jurisdiction.
Why wouldn’t you just move to another jurisdiction that better matches your tax preferences?
Like you suggested here:
It’s a view someone can have.
But it’s not particularly congruent with preferring decision-making by smaller government, because state governments are by definition larger than local governments.
It’s also not particularly congruent with freedom of individuals (relative to governing bodies) because the larger group is imposing its policy on the smaller group.
Or, in your words:
3 Likes
Again, you are conflating different concepts and also intermixing comments from different discussions on different issues both in terms of concepts of positive and negative rights.
My notion of smaller govt rests on the idea that individuals not smaller governments or greater representation within the group is the better choice, speaking specifically to capital allocation. Admittedly, there are things we need and want to provide and should collectively as a society. It’s not an absolute position but a leaning.
If I was only faced with the choice of a bigger voice in a smaller bureaucracy vs a larger one on more local issues, we are in complete agreement. However, that is not the choice presented to voters at the moment. Moreover, individuals could in fact decide to make voluntary donations to the local community if there were services not being met or introduce new methods to pay for them. But, again, there is no evidence that the local decision on how money is spent will change at all. However, I recognize it could if the state funding is insufficient.
Again, I also have a specific issue with what has happened with property taxes over the decades. The rate that owners are paying is based on an asset where partial liquidation is impossible to satisfy it. Unlike an income tax, it does not fluctuate based on the amount of money the citizen brings in. Coupled with shortfalls in retirement and a mounting housing affordability problem, I want to see how this policy plays out as a solution. I don’t see where returning tax dollars to the individuals that paid them at the direction of the state vs the local govt as somehow in favor of larger govt.
All very valid - which is why probably most if not all states provide some form of property tax relief to seniors.
Looks like Florida has at least three senior-related/adjacent tax exemptions.
2 Likes
It’s very limited in its application. It’s either confined to senior only communities, maximum property and income values, along with having lived in the home for at least 25 years.
It does not address the other end of the affordability crisis which is even more concerning, which are first time purchasers. I think the most recent data says the avg first time buyer age is hitting close to 40. I suspect this also has a downstream impact on when people get married and decide to have children.
Again, areas like NYC that want to offer free rent and buses and if taxpayers want to pay twice the rate to educate children, it can allocate those revenues as they decide.
I see no reason why states that have demonstrated fiscal responsibility and have the financial ability to do so shouldn’t try to alleviate some of the financial pressure on housing affordability. Whether it works or not and if local services suffer, we’ll have to see how that plays out. If I am wrong, you can tell me you told me so 
1 Like
That would seem to be a supply and construction issue, and less so a property tax issue. Florida (state) caps the property tax so if a person can’t afford their property taxes at the time of purchase, then that is very likely an issue of the purchase price, not the taxes.
2 Likes
Which of the facts I posted above is wrong?
It’s simple.
Some people want to impose their tax policy on people living in another jurisdiction.
Understandably, people in the jurisdictions that are the recipients of outside interference in local government don’t like that interference.
1 Like
The affordability issue is a multi factor one. Loan to income ratios are based on one’s ability to service the mortgage, insurance and taxes. The lesser the cost of insurance and taxes, the more one has to apply towards the mortgage. I agee supply and construction are probably also major issues. How much alleviation of the property tax helps first time buyers, I don’t know. It does free up ongoing income that can be spent on other areas such as college, raising families, and retirement savings.
Sure it is - but just like weight loss is a multi-factor issue but cutting one beer a week won’t make a major difference, focusing on property taxes also won’t make a major difference.
Starter home prices have increased by 130% in the last ten years in Florida; or by about $200,000. A commensurate increase in property taxes of $6000 isn’t the issue.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree that it may take an all the above approach. You’re still going to have to explain to me the following. Florida has decided its budget surplus is such that property tax relief is viable. It’s going to stop taking from Floridians money it doesn’t need to operate the govt. Think of it like a mutual insurer that cuts you check at the end of the year for excess premiums. Whether it has some, a lot, or zero impact on housing affordability, I am in favor of it. Candidly, if you haven’t had to live modestly, I don’t think you have any idea how much every dollar matters and $6k is a lot. Over 20 years, it is a $120k without any appreciation.
1 Like
I get it, my state also has a surplus. I simply think (and know) that cutting property taxes won’t make [much of] a dent in affordability.
[Edit: What I put below is incorrect. It isn’t $40 a month but I am leaving it there for authenticity. It is $500 a month - did the math wrong. Still not as significant at the $1300 a month due to higher home prices.]
It is a lot, but if we are talking about 1st time home buyers, it is an extra $40 a month on a 30 year mortgage @ 7% (not accounting for any future assessment increases).
Again, that $40 a month is [less significant] compared to the extra $1330 a month due to the increase in the median cost to purchase such.
1 Like