I’ve had a post on property tax reform rolling around in my head for a day or two now, but it looks like Mark Weaver ably beat me to the punch. Still, there is much to be said about this ill-conceived tax “reform” plan. (NOTE: Mark has once again just posted on this very subject at the FPC. I reccomend his entry to you.)
First, the wonky must-reads on this: the Senate Revenue Impact Methodology [PDF]. And the Senate proposal (what was basically passed by the House) which features a county-by-county breakdown [PDF].
This is a link to S2-D: Relating to Ad Valorem Taxes/Tangible Personal Property. This is the bill that proposes amendments to the State Constitution relating to property taxation.
S4-D: Relating to Ad Valorem Taxation This authorizes the Department of Revenue to adopt emergency rules. Provides for the assessment of homestead property following a change of ownership based on the difference between just value and the assessed value of the immediate prior homestead. Increases the amount of the exemption provided for homestead property. Provides for an additional exemption for levies other than school district levies, etc.
S6-D: Relating to Special Election/Ad Valorem Taxation Provides for a special election to be held January 29, 2008, for the approval or rejection by the electors of amendments to the State Constitution proposed by joint resolution. Provides for the publication of notice and for procedures, etc.
I have been struck by two things throughout this debate. The first is how this debate – ostensibly within a representative democracy – was conducted. I know that Ken has made a plea, and I agree with the post by Vrej Esphanian, that we need more postings on the business of local government here at the Florida Progressive Coalition and in the blogs of our friends and neighbors. That said, Marco Rubio has not made access to information a trademark of his authoritarian leadership of the House (and Legislature – it’s no secret who wears the pants up there).
During their first go ‘round on this issue, the property tax reform plan was hammered out in secret, in a back room somewhere. Democrats stood on the floor and wondered what they were going to vote on. No one knew. That was, more or less, how it played out this time, too. In the end, House members – with great reluctance – passed the Senate version of tax reform by a 97-18 vote.
And with that, the proposed amendment will be on the Jan. 29 ballot, unless legal challenges – widely seen as inevitable – overturn it once again.
For what it’s worth – apparently a paltry average of about 240 bucks per home owner – this version of reform includes:
• Save Our Homes portability, up to $500,000 (reduced from $1 million). This is what Crist and his fellow salesmen are hanging their hats on with this package, marketing-wise.
• Doubling the $25,000 homestead exemption, with school taxes exempt. Not incidentally, taxes paid to schools account for about 40 percent of a property tax bill so the “doubling” is really more like an additional $15,000 exemption, not just $25,000.
• A tangible personal property exemption of $25,000.
• A 10% cap on assessments for non-homestead property. Once again, school taxes will be exempt. This provision sunsets in ten years, when it will come back to the voters for reauthorization.
• The proposed amendment also requires the state to statutorily appropriate state funds annually to reimburse fiscally constrained counties for any revenue lost from this proposal. In other words, we have to help the counties and municipalities that would suffocate to death on this reform. That ought to be a red flag right there, don’t you think?
From a progressive point of view, this proposal is terribly weak in a number of ways, outright irresponsible in others. There is no exemption for new homeowners. There is not an ounce of relief for low-income seniors. There is no relief for working waterfronts. There is no affordable housing relief. So let’s review the bidding. Who gets screwed out of relief? Young people just starting out, old people and the working poor. Please, don’t tell me you’re surprised.
I also noticed that, once again the issue of highest and best use – to my thinking, one of the biggest problems with taxes in Florida today – was once again ignored.
The governor has launched a ridiculous statewide campaign, apparently kicking the whole thing off early at a college drinking hole (what, no gang signs, Charlie?), to promote the constitutional amendment. It needs 60% to pass, but I’ve not heard one ringing endorsement, except from the Governor himself.
Before the start of the regular session this year, Marco invited a guest speaker to address members of the Legislature. It was a guy named Grover Norquist. You may not have heard the name, but he’s a big deal in GOP circles. One of the so-called Gang of Five, he fancies himself a founding member of the current neo-conservative philosophical movement. His mother must be so proud. He runs an anti-tax organization called Americans for Tax Reform. His claim to quasi-fame is that he is the guy who said, “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Delightful. I’ve been trying to figure out what defines Republicans for years, and here this self-righteous, wormy little thug does it in two snarky sentences.
Actually, a better illustration of the mind set of Grover Norquist – and of the mind set he peddles to the likes of Marco Rubio and his underlings in the Legislature – is this exchange with the host of a British television program.
Host: “Why shouldn’t the state help the needy?” Norquist: “Because to do that, you would have to steal money from people who earned it and give it to people who didn’t. And then you make the state into a thief.” Host: “You’re suggesting that taxation is theft?” Norquist: “Taxation beyond the legitimate requirements of providing for justice is theft, sure.”
Ah, the old don’t take my money yarn. Taxation as theft. That’s just fantastic.
I’ve actually heard that a lot, seen a lot of comment to that effect in places like The Buzz. Considering we live in something like the seventh lowest tax burden in the country, I’m quite surprised by this.
I don’t think I’ve met a single person who thinks the tax system in Florida is fair or equitable. It’s clearly not and it clearly needs revision and some work. And here’s where I’m going to part ways with Mark’s earlier good post on this – this is not something that should be addressed via Legislative ballot fix. Ultimately, the tax code of this state must be cracked open and re-configured.
The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission has authority to place amendments directly on the November 2008 ballot. They’ve now conducted six public hearings around the states, and are working on proposals. According to some reports, the prevailing sense on the Commission is that the legislative proposals do not go far enough. There was much discussion about the lack of relief for small businesses and first-time home buyers. Over the next couple of months, they will be accepting proposals for property tax reform as well as other pieces of the tax code.
Is a progressive measure likely to get passed by this particular Commission? Any proposal needs a 2/3 vote of the 17 members to get on the ballot in November, although some recommendations can be adopted by a 13-member majority. I suspect the answer is probably no, but I sure don’t think that means someone doesn’t try (not me – I’m no good at math). I’m not saying this is a perfect solution for the current situation, but it’s a start.
To my thinking, it’s time for Democrats in Florida to stop running against lousy tax proposals cobbled together by the Republican Norquistian government-haters in the House and Senate, as they send their empty suit Governor out to campaign for it. It is time for Democrats to run on a better proposal. If that proposal is submitted to this Commission – even if it is voted down – it shows that we at least know the proper place to start.
I’ve got a sneaking suspicion this anti-tax sentiment won’t last. Why? It goes back to whose money it is to begin with and the false logic of the government “stealing” your money. Government services like, say, subsidized childcare, or early education (note: cuts to public schools in Florida under this plan could go as high as $3 billion) will be cut. It’s that simple. It’s not a question, and it’s not up for debate: if this tax plan passes in January, you’ll see less of those sorts of services than before. And what that means is, in a few years, you’ll see increased incidences of things like juvenile crime, and even adult crime. People will begin to wonder, Why? What happened? What’s with all these messed up kids? What’s with all these messed up Floridians? And then someone will show us all the balance sheet, the cost of incarceration, how much they’re in the hole for a new prison, or for “rehabilitation” programs. Some number crunchers will explain the cost/benefit to the economy of having affordable, quality child care for working families. They will make the same case they have for years, which is an investment in children and families at an early age pays off in dividends later on, whereas the criminal justice system is just a money pit. They'll say we need families to go to work to invigorate the economy, and there are only a few really necessary things you need to work. One of them is usually a car. The other is child care. Because you can't leave your kid at home. And we'll realize that we're paying the same amount -- or more -- that we always have. It's just going to a different place. Never our money to begin with...
I think the pendulum will swing back the other way, and someone – someone much smarter than me – will take a look at the tax code of Florida and figure out how to make it fair and equitable, how to provide relief to those that really need it, and how to maintain a quality of services that will allow all Floridians to grow and thrive. I’ve got my fingers crossed that day is coming sooner rather than later.
cross posted at FLAPolitics and The Florida Progressive Coalition.
