I promised to "show my work" and post about how I was figuring out whether to vote in favor of or against Amendment 1. I didn't. Hey, I'm sorry, some stuff came up (some good, some REALLY bad). So, instead of telling you my whole thought process, I'll just tell you that I decided to vote "no."
Why?
Well, for one thing, I kept hearing from supporters that "Amendment 1 isn't perfect, but it's a start." Well, that's what I call damning by faint praise. "This is crap, but it's slightly less crappy than some other crap" ain't exactly a strong sell in my world. Particularly when you're talking about something as important as taxes. And I'm tired of the knee-jerk argument that "government wastes too much money" and "tell those bastards they'll just have to tighten their belt more." Well guess what, WE'RE THE BASTARDS. Our government is not some distant, alien entity. It's us. You and me. So if we think our government is bloated and inefficient, it's up to you and me to do something about it. I don't believe that just closing the purse is the right way to do things. Rather, we need to focus on being more efficient, combining redundant services, eliminating unnecessary staff positions, etc. And that will be painful. We have hard decisions to make.
So let's get started.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Amendment 1? Will it survive the courts?
Like a lot of folks, I'm mulling over the "Amendment 1" property-tax proposal in advance of the January 29 vote. I think that I have a pretty good understanding of how it is supposed to work. The easy part is the bit about doubling the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 for primary residences. Considering that the original $25,000 homestead exemption was put in place years ago, and, when indexed for inflation, would exceed $50,000 today anyway, this part seems like a no-brainer.
The "Save our Homes" portability bit is the poser. I think there is a lot of confusion about SOH in the first place, much less making it "portable." For those who aren't aware, SOH was a state constitutional amendment approved in 1992 (effective 1995), which caps increases in a home's assessed value for tax purposes at 3% per year or the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. (See Florida Statute Sec. 193.155 here). So, as your home's value (hopefully) increases over time, it's actual market value can outstrip it's taxable value. The longer you own your home, the greater this disparity can be. Ultimately, people can come to feel "trapped" in their homes, because if they sell and move into a new house, they lose the benefit of that valuation disparity. The "portability" part of the proposed "Amendment 1" is designed to allow homeowners to carry that benefit with them into their new home. If you move into a more expensive home, you'd carry the dollar-amount of the previous assessed value with you into the new house. If you move into a less expensive home, the percentage of the previous taxable value vis-a-vis the market value would be transferred.
Seems like a great idea, but, as always, there are some problems. The Orlando Sentinel has a good explanation of some of those problems in its Sunday edition today. They point out that the amendment may well not pass constitutional muster, as it unfairly benefits long-time Florida residents over new home buyers, which could improperly affect interstate commerce.
I'm still undecided, but leaning at this point toward voting "no." I will continue to post as I hash this thing out in my head in the next few days.
Nothing like waiting until the last minute, I always say...
The "Save our Homes" portability bit is the poser. I think there is a lot of confusion about SOH in the first place, much less making it "portable." For those who aren't aware, SOH was a state constitutional amendment approved in 1992 (effective 1995), which caps increases in a home's assessed value for tax purposes at 3% per year or the change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. (See Florida Statute Sec. 193.155 here). So, as your home's value (hopefully) increases over time, it's actual market value can outstrip it's taxable value. The longer you own your home, the greater this disparity can be. Ultimately, people can come to feel "trapped" in their homes, because if they sell and move into a new house, they lose the benefit of that valuation disparity. The "portability" part of the proposed "Amendment 1" is designed to allow homeowners to carry that benefit with them into their new home. If you move into a more expensive home, you'd carry the dollar-amount of the previous assessed value with you into the new house. If you move into a less expensive home, the percentage of the previous taxable value vis-a-vis the market value would be transferred.
Seems like a great idea, but, as always, there are some problems. The Orlando Sentinel has a good explanation of some of those problems in its Sunday edition today. They point out that the amendment may well not pass constitutional muster, as it unfairly benefits long-time Florida residents over new home buyers, which could improperly affect interstate commerce.
I'm still undecided, but leaning at this point toward voting "no." I will continue to post as I hash this thing out in my head in the next few days.
Nothing like waiting until the last minute, I always say...
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Presidential Candidate Select-o-matic
Minnesota Public Radio has a neat issue-based presidential candidate selection thingy.
Don't tell my wife, but it shows my views as most compatible with Madam Clinton.
Huzzah!
Don't tell my wife, but it shows my views as most compatible with Madam Clinton.
Huzzah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
