Current market value.
$150,000 = SOH
Protected "Portable" value.
$500,000 = New home market value.
- $200,000 = Deduction for "Portable" value.
= $300,000 Taxable value
- $50,000 = "New" Homestead Exemption.
- $250,000 = New total deduction.
$250,000 = New taxable value.
* $275,000 for school purposes.
dollars, you take a percentage equal to the percentage of your old savings.
$350,000 = Current
$150,000 = SOH
$200,000 = Protected
$200,000 = 57%
of $350,000, the current homes value
$200,000 = New
homes market value
- 57% = Percentage value of savings from
$86,000 = New
homes assessable value
-$50,000 = New
SOH exemption is then deducted
$36,000 = Taxable
assessed value of new home.
* $61,000 For
property tax cap:
Similar to Save
Our Homes, this cap limits the assessed increases of commercial, rental and
second home property taxes to a maximum amount of 10 percent per year starting
personal property exemption:
Under the amendment, the Tangible Personal Property (TPP) exemption for businesses is
$25,000. The Legislature estimates that this tax - paid to local governments on
items such as shelving, desks, computers, and other office equipment - will
exempt about 1 million of Florida's
1.2 million businesses that currently pay it. The amendment also drops the
requirement to file for the TPP tax.
failure of the proposed Property tax revision due to Constitutionality Issues:
According to the
legal analysis in a study by University
of Georgia law professor
Walter Hellerstein, portability will trigger lawsuits arguing its
constitutionality. This study was funded
by our Legislature and will be officially presented, along with other studies
on portability, on Feb. 15.
According to that
report, there are two provisions of the U.S. Constitution that could be used to
overturn Save Our Homes portability.
The Commerce Clause, which says states
must not discriminate against interstate commerce is expected to be accepted by
a federal court as a legitimate challenge to portability on the basis that it
discriminates against out-of-state homebuyers in Florida.
Quoting from the
report by Hellerstein - "The evidence might demonstrate that the
portability provisions effectively imposed a higher cost on interstate than on
[many] intrastate relocations; that individual decisions about whether to
relocate in Florida were adversely affected by such costs, thereby affecting
interstate labor mobility; that businesses were deterred from relocating to
Florida due to the increased costs associated with relocating their employees
to the state; and that there were nondiscriminatory alternatives for achieving
the ostensible purpose of the portability provision."
In simple language this means that people "relocating" into Florida would not have the same privilege of
bringing their lower taxes with them. If
a company wants to relocate to Florida
and its employees don't get economic equality, the company would lose a lot of
those employees and that would block that company from relocating.
there are many Constitutional right to
travel precedents that don't let states deprive new residents of
governmental benefits granted to longtime residents.
In that same
report by Hellerstein, among the examples they point to is the case of Saenz v.
Roe - a 1999 case in which the Supreme Court invalidated a California law restricting welfare benefits
to first-year state residents. California tried to
treat new residents differently that current residents.
This ruling could be used to argue against
Save Our Homes portability.
portability, long-term residents would be treated differently than new
residents to the state. Again quoting the report, "In our view, the right
to travel and, in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court precedents invalidating
state efforts to deprive newly arrived residents of the same governmental
benefits that are available to long-time residents provide the most powerful
constitutional basis for challenging the Save Our Homes portability
If Save Our
Homes portability is enacted and then found unconstitutional, it would trigger
years of litigation over whether Florida
should retroactively award tax breaks to out-of-state buyers or tax in-state
buyers who took advantage of portability, the report said.
Two justifications for a constitutional challenge to portability are:
1st Amendment -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
to a constitutional challenge - The right to assemble would be denied on
persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
to a constitutional challenge - Economically
preferential treatment for current residents over new residents creates a
situation in which there are 2 classes of citizens
report by Hellerstein is due February
15, 2008: http://edr.state.fl.us/property%20tax%20study/Ad%20Valorem%20iterim%20report.pdf
Florida Taxation and Budget Reform
Commission is a bipartisan commission that meets once every 20
years. During 2007 they've been meeting
and preparing recommendations to the state for consideration later in 2008.
voting now, if this proposal is approved, we lose the benefit of the knowledge
in the Hellerstein report and the recommendations of the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform
today's news - A recent class-action lawsuit claims state tax laws pit recent Florida home buyers
against long-time residents and aims to force local and state governments to
return four years of property tax collections.
lawsuit also anticipates challenges against the proposed constitutional
amendment on the Jan. 29 ballot, saying that if the amendment is approved, it
will make Florida's
Save Our Homes protections even more "skewed and disparate."
suit was filed in Leon County Circuit Court in November by four Florida homeowners who
started paying taxes on a homestead within the past four years. The four-year
time frame aligns with the statute of limitations for tax issues, plaintiff
attorney William C. Owen said.
Over the past
10+ years our legislature has allowed certain tax cuts and tax exemptions that
have benefited the wealthiest few at the expense of the voters of our
state. The end result has been to shift the burden of paying the states
"bills" onto the working men and women of our state.
force business owners to charge more or relocate and take the jobs they offer
with them in order to survive.
multiple properties who can provide affordable rental housing are forced to
charge higher rents that eventually lead to the disappearance of that
Taxes in Florida can not be
allowed to continue to climb and the burden can no longer be shifted to the
working men, women and small business owners who built our state and nation.
As a candidate for State Representative I have given much thought to this and believe I can offer a fair, workable solutions. To see my proposals, go to my website at www.billramos.com to learn more.
Bill Ramos, Candidate for State Representative, District 81