I'm out of town next week so I'll be voting early, just started looking at my sample ballot.

With respect to Amendment 3, that one feels like an easy YES vote, but I'm always skeptical.

Thoughts?

It's a yes for me. Local commercials are doing there best to get folks to vote no but it should pass.

I’ll be voting no, no, no.

In general, I’m opposed to constitutional amendments on the ballot. That’s how we got high speed rail and how did that work out for us? I’ll never forget 2002’s Amendment 10 either; the pregnant pig amendment. The state legislature can’t pull itself together enough to change laws so we have to amend the state constitution?

Amendments 2 and 3 are not going to limit local government spending, but instead change how local governments raise the money. What stops local government from raising non-ad valorem taxes? In other words, instead of fire protection being tied to property value, everybody gets charged a flat fee instead. Property value seems like a fair way to assess fire protection. The more a property is worth, the more the holder of that property pays for fire protection. Flat fee seems to shift the burden from the wealthy to everyone else.

For amendment 1, I’m not clear on what a rainy day fund is or why it should be 25% of revenue. Where is the state going to get that extra money from to invest in a rainy day fund? Again, start with the state is not going to cut spending and go from there. The state is going to take money from the people and save it how? Saving and investing the people’s money is not a function of government I believe in.

I'm a no on one, mostly because DeSantis has said it's a no. We have a huge rainy day fund. Not sure why they would want to increase the amount. I'm open to alternative points of view.

Question 3 is a huge Yes. I assume people voting No have something to gain or are liberal. Sorry, my opinion. Who wouldn't vote to lower taxes? All the arguments against are bull, in my opinion. If they want to raise funds to line their pocket then let them explain it with the new fees and taxes they try to implement. At least they will be more accountable.

Oh and Yes on 2 as that lowers taxes on agricultural use land.

I agree with frayedends.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
I'm out of town next week so I'll be voting early, just started looking at my sample ballot.

For us other 49-state uninitiated, could you lay out these amendments for us?

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
For us other 49-state uninitiated, could you lay out these amendments for us?

Of course.

https://constitutionalinitiatives.dos.fl.gov/

Amendment 1: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to increase the amount of funds that may be retained in the budget stabilization fund from 10% to 25% of general revenue collections, require the legislature to transfer the lesser of $750 million or the amount required to reach 25% of the general revenue collections each year unless certain conditions are met, and allow the legislature to withdraw funds for critical state needs.

Amendment 2: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to exempt tangible personal property habitually located or typically present on land classified as agricultural, used in the production of agricultural products or for agritourism activities, and owned by the landowner or leaseholder of the agricultural land from ad valorem taxation. If approved this amendment would first apply for tax years beginning January 1, 2027.

Amendment 3: This amendment increases the homestead exemption, for all non-school taxes, to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, and adjusts for inflation thereafter. It requires the Legislature to prescribe a uniform procedure for counties and municipalities, for their respective levies, to increase the homestead exemption up to full assessed value, and allows special districts, subject to referendum approval, to do the same. Persons who are not Florida residents on December 31, 2026, will receive the existing homestead exemption upon qualifying for a homestead exemption, with the increased homestead exemption beginning with the fifth year of exemption, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment reduces the annual cap on assessment increases for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. This amendment requires counties and municipalities to use property taxes solely for public safety, education and schools, infrastructure, natural resources, bond debt service, retirement benefits for employees, and operations and administration. Other expenditures may be approved by county officers or county or municipal governing bodies unless prohibited by general law, notwithstanding Article VII, Section 9(a) of the Florida Constitution, which allows counties and municipalities to levy property taxes for their respective purposes. This amendment takes effect January 1, 2027.

Voted already, No on 1, Yes on 2 and 3.

Fist off Amendment 3 only applies to the non-school homestead exemption, it raises it to $250K from $50K where it's sat for decades. Meanwhile our home values have skyrocketed, the result is local property tax revenue has almost doubled for every county/city in the state, outpacing inflation, expenses and budgets.

It also only applies to family owned individual homes, it doesn't apply to commercial or rental properties, vacation homes, second homes, or property owned by non residents in the state. So the "sky is falling" argument is pure fear mongering.

These local politicians are about to lose that massive windfall and they are scared. Even with the homestead increasing they still will be getting more than enough money. It doesn't wipe them out 100%.

The argument against 3 is complete BS, property taxes in this state have almost doubled in the past 5 years due to high net worth northerners coming in and drying the housing market up for several years.

City/Counties get paid property tax the State doesn't get paid any property taxes. They have been reaping a windfall of extra money, more than enough to cover the costs of fire and police. It's the same old government threat of "you'll lose services" not once do you hear them say, "well, we could stand to reduce payroll"

We have several Sheriffs, ones that I like and we hear good things about who gave themselves big time raises in the past year some almost six figures. Mayors, staff, all making big time money.

Remember Milton Friedman on governments and money....

https://x.com/MiltonFriedmanW/.../2110395454337011770



Also forgot to add, the amendment locks funds for police, fire and water only, local governments can shout how residents will lose safety coverage but it's not true. Everything you see on X, FB, tv about us losing police and fire is bullshit.....

https://x.com/RonDeSantis2024/.../2115051955194388733

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HRK,

26 years now in Florida and I don’t believe my county has ever spent less money from one year to the next. Amendment 3 will not lower taxes and will not force local governments to spend less money. The local governments will raise the mil rate and/or setup more MSBUs to charge fees for services. The burden will also be shifted to businesses and guess who those extra costs will be passed on to?

None of this is new or because of the northern boogieman. I still remember watching the Collier County Government cable channel in 1993 and listening to a guy complain that he was on a fixed income and wouldn’t be able to afford the $30,000 in property tax on his Gulf Shore Blvd mansion.

It’s easy for me to vote against Amemdment 3. I certainly see the Socialist appeal of voting to have someone else pay for the services you are receiving.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
26 years now in Florida and I don’t believe my county has ever spent less money from one year to the next. Amendment 3 will not lower taxes and will not force local governments to spend less money. The local governments will raise the mil rate and/or setup more MSBUs to charge fees for services. The burden will also be shifted to businesses and guess who those extra costs will be passed on to?

None of this is new or because of the northern boogieman. I still remember watching the Collier County Government cable channel in 1993 and listening to a guy complain that he was on a fixed income and wouldn’t be able to afford the $30,000 in property tax on his Gulf Shore Blvd mansion.

It’s easy for me to vote against Amemdment 3. I certainly see the Socialist appeal of voting to have someone else pay for the services you are receiving.

These are the liberal talking points. I'm amazed to see conservatives pushing to not lower taxes. Saying it won't lower taxes because they will find other ways to raise the taxes isn't a good argument to not lower them, in my opinion. The things that we want the government to spend on, fire/police, will still be funded.

If the burden is shifted to businesses (I don't believe that to be the case) and they shift it to the consumer, then the consumer can make the decision if that business is something worth their spending. That is why I've always been more a fan of sales taxes on non-essentials over property or income tax. I can choose what I spend my discretionary income on.

100% Yes on #3.

quote:

Originally posted by frayedends:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
26 years now in Florida and I don’t believe my county has ever spent less money from one year to the next. Amendment 3 will not lower taxes and will not force local governments to spend less money. The local governments will raise the mil rate and/or setup more MSBUs to charge fees for services. The burden will also be shifted to businesses and guess who those extra costs will be passed on to?

None of this is new or because of the northern boogieman. I still remember watching the Collier County Government cable channel in 1993 and listening to a guy complain that he was on a fixed income and wouldn’t be able to afford the $30,000 in property tax on his Gulf Shore Blvd mansion.

It’s easy for me to vote against Amemdment 3. I certainly see the Socialist appeal of voting to have someone else pay for the services you are receiving.

These are the liberal talking points. I'm amazed to see conservatives pushing to not lower taxes. Saying it won't lower taxes because they will find other ways to raise the taxes isn't a good argument to not lower them, in my opinion. The things that we want the government to spend on, fire/police, will still be funded.

If the burden is shifted to businesses (I don't believe that to be the case) and they shift it to the consumer, then the consumer can make the decision if that business is something worth their spending. That is why I've always been more a fan of sales taxes on non-essentials over property or income tax. I can choose what I spend my discretionary income on.

The Amendment only increases the amount of the homestead exemption, which, already exists, That was originally $25,000 back in 1980, then increased to $50,000 in 2008 and hasn't been adjusted since.

Since 2008 the home values in Florida have grown by approximately 139% over 18 years, the exemption has not increased one penny in that time.

From 2008 to current local and city government tax revenue has increased 135%

Florida's population has grown by approximately 4.94 million people from 08 to 25 or 26.6%

Considering those numbers, a 27% increase in population has resulted in a 139% increase in property values
and a 135% increase in local city county tax revenue.

Homes have not doubled in numbers, population has not doubled, but the tax payments to local governments have almost tripled in that period and the homestead exemption has remained stagnant resulting in massive increased in tax bills and revenue increased to local governments who have grown their budgets with high paying top level jobs and exorbitant spending. Cape Coral just dropped $170,000 on a new high speed offshore boat for enforcing Licenses and Permits... read that again, $170K for a boat.

Amendment 3 would simply catch up the exemption rate for single family resident home owners who already have a $50,000 exemption to $250,000. So it's not zero for high dollar $3 million vacations homes on the gulf. The people who would get the most benefit are the lower valued homes, which include many retired single income or fixed income homeowners.

Nonetheless, since when do we consider reducing taxes is somehow socialism at work, isn't that something we ask of Washington on a regular basis?

#3 is a definate yes for a few reasons for me:
1. It does not effect what Police, fire, and schools get at all.
2. Homestead exemption hasn't been raised in almost 20 years but the taxes have more than doubled.
3. The cities have been spending money like drunking sailors with no oversight
4. It helps renters also because NON homesteaded properties taxes can only increase 5% year over year.

I just got my 2027 tax bill today. My assessment is around 500k and the homestead exemption is $50k. So I pay tax on 450k value If the exemption jumps to 250k my tax will go down a lot. School tax stays the same and the fire department tax is separate well. Rental homes 2nd homes and commercial don’t get any homestead exemption. So these sheriffs and county people crying poor and threatening houses burning down etc can go fuck right off. Their budgets have ballooned dramatically last few years due to crazy home building and increasing values. I voted Yes on 3 and no on the other ones. Needs 60% to pass and I believe it did.

It passed

Socialism for the win!

You guys didn't vote for lower taxes. You've freely admitted you voted for lower taxes for you as an individual and higher taxes for everyone else.

I'm curious how many of you decried these policies in the threads about New York and California? How many of you cheered when companies and people left those places for the greener pastures of other lower tax states? How's that working out for those states, like Texas? In 26 years, I had never seen a California license plate in Florida until COVID. Now they are everywhere along with Oregon, Washington and Vermoont. I seem to be seeing more New York and New Jersey plates on this side of the State as well.

Interesting that the other lower tax amendement only garnened 42%. I guess there weren't enough farmers to vote for themselves. How could you guys not vote for lower taxes you liberals you.

For the record, I'm thrilled the house I bought in 2000 is worth 3x what I paid for it.

The GOP wanted a yes vote on all three amendments. The democrats wanted a no vote on all three amendments.

Amendment 3 is not socialism. Rolls eyes. It’s redistributing taxes to be more fairly share by all. Which is EXACTLY what needed to happen. I agree taxes/revenue are unlikely to go down. They WILL raise fees and taxes elsewhere to make up the shortfall.

Tourists, renters, illegals, will pay more and homeowners will pay less. This is a net win for Floridians.

The GOP, that bastion of fiscal conservatism! I'm thrilled the GOP has control of the federal budget and that the national debt is decreasing.

Amendment 3 was pandering of the highest order.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
Amendment 3 is not socialism. Rolls eyes. It’s redistributing taxes to be more fairly share by all. Which is EXACTLY what needed to happen. I agree taxes/revenue are unlikely to go down. They WILL raise fees and taxes elsewhere to make up the shortfall.

Tourists, renters, illegals, will pay more and homeowners will pay less. This is a net win for Floridians.

Did you write this with a straight face? What do you call it when people vote to have someone else pay for their stuff? Where is it I've heard about wanting people to pay their fair share? Talk about liberal talking points.

All R wins in Tallahassee, the only big 10 populated state that stayed Red.

Amendment 3 passes...


https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/2117842149803012446

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Socialism for the win!

You guys didn't vote for lower taxes. You've freely admitted you voted for lower taxes for you as an individual and higher taxes for everyone else.

I'm curious how many of you decried these policies in the threads about New York and California? How many of you cheered when companies and people left those places for the greener pastures of other lower tax states? How's that working out for those states, like Texas? In 26 years, I had never seen a California license plate in Florida until COVID. Now they are everywhere along with Oregon, Washington and Vermoont. I seem to be seeing more New York and New Jersey plates on this side of the State as well.

Interesting that the other lower tax amendement only garnened 42%. I guess there weren't enough farmers to vote for themselves. How could you guys not vote for lower taxes you liberals you.

For the record, I'm thrilled the house I bought in 2000 is worth 3x what I paid for it.

It's not Socialism, it lowers future taxes on EVERYONE. Homestead exemption increases to $150k next year and $250k the following year to match the 100% inflation of taxes (and property values) in the past 6 years. It also limits tax raises on NON-homesteaded properties to a maximum of 5% a year (previously capped at 20% PER YEAR). (Helping renters just as much as property owners). The taxes on my small 4 unit building have gone up over 100% in the past 5-6 years, guess WHO has to pay that (the renters) and I'm making much less at the same time.

Lowering taxes is the sheer definition of Capitalism.

WHO is paying for someone else's stuff and HOW? Your accusations of this are ludicrous and there is no basis for it.

IF and HOW they raise taxes in the future is a sheer guess and they could do that anyways. Taxes in and of themselves are socialist.