|
With portability, tax cut could move when you do
Jan 6, 2008
The Save Our Homes amendment of 1995 caps property tax increases at 3 percent annually for those who live in homes they own. However, should the homeowner move, that tax break disappears.
The proposed Amendment 1, to be voted on Jan. 29, would create portability for the Save Our Homes tax cap. The amount of the cap to be moved would be limited to $500,000.
Frank Slusser, 70, a retired teacher and coach, and his wife, Eleanore "Sissy" Slusser, who live in Escambia County, would be helped immensely if the amendment passes. A 60 percent majority is required for passage.
On the Slussers' waterfront home on Innerarity Point, the Save Our Homes provision protected more than $677,000 of property value from taxation. In 2007, the couple paid $2,213 in taxes on the home they've owned since 1985. Without Save Our Homes, their taxes on the Innerarity home, which they still have not sold, will exceed $13,000 this year.
For 2008, the Slussers have moved their homestead designation to a smaller home in Cantonment.
Without portability, they will pay $2,461 in taxes on the full assessed value of their new homestead.
With portability, they would pay less than $600 because they would take part of their Save Our Homes benefits to their new home in proportion to its lesser value. The provisions of Amendment 1 would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007.
"We decided we wanted to move while we still had our own faculties," said Slusser, who as a pitcher for the Florida State University baseball team in 1958 threw the program's first no-hitter.
But he said he favors Amendment 1 for broader reasons.
"It may not be perfect, but we've got to have something that would jump start the economy," he said.
It is homeowners like the Slussers who prompt some more recent residents to oppose Amendment 1. The ability to take huge, built-up tax protection to a new home would exacerbate what some see as a system of inequality.
Jo Ann Koffman bought her Cape Coral home five years ago, moving to Florida from Maryland. Last year, despite $152,490 in Save Our Homes protection, she paid more than $9,800 in property taxes. Koffman sees neighbors with huge Save Our Homes benefits paying a fraction of her taxes because they've lived there longer.
"On a $10,000 tax bill, this is going to save me roughly $170," Koffman said. "I don't know what it's going to save those paying $2,000 (in taxes) on my street. I look at the people on my street. I look at the people in other neighborhoods. There's a terrible discrepancy."
She's fed up. She said the tax structure in Florida has turned her off so much that she's ready to move to North Carolina.
"Why should longtime homeowners pay taxes on yesteryear's market values, while newer homeowners pay taxes on today's market values?" Koffman asked.
Portability would serve to entrench further the Save Our Homes provision, critics say.
"With this proposal, a permanent tax inequity will be cemented for those of us who purchased homes in the last several years," said Mark Jones of Tallahassee. "We don't mind paying taxes to fund services required by citizens, but they need to be fair to all."
Alan Schleifer first moved to Florida in 1991 from New York City. Since then, he's bought up property, renovated and sold it. Most recently, he bought an Estero condo in September, after selling another condo in Fort Myers.
So Schleifer, 55, never stayed in one place long enough to build up substantial Save Our Homes benefits. He paid $2,644 in taxes this year, with only a homestead exemption — exempting the first $25,000 of a home's worth from taxes if the owner lives in the home full time — reducing his taxes.
That others reap those Save Our Homes benefits and pay much less in taxes is OK with him. He favors the amendment with the hope it will spark the real estate market.
"The real estate market is on a resuscitator right now," Schleifer said. "The people who have stayed in one place have made that their home. You can't have it all."
Paul Flemming
News Journal capital bureau
Back
|