County and city governments take another hit on revenues

November 7, 2012

Florida voters passed three amendments that will expand property tax exemptions. The estimated cost to Escambia County alone is about $1 million next year:

These passed:
Amendment No. 2
Veterans Disabled Due To Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount

Amendment No. 9
Homestead Property Tax Exemption For Surviving Spouse Of Military Veteran Or First Responder

Amendment No. 11
Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency On Property; Equal To Assessed Value

All the other amendments proposed by the Florida Legislature failed to get the necessary 60 percent of the vote.

You Might Also Like

  • Dale Parker November 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    My problem with the one amendment is that it offers tax breaks to those NOT A FLORIDA RESIDENT at the time of injury. Therefore, if you live in a state that does not offer this it creates an incentive for them to come to Florida as a tax burden on the rest of her citizens.

    Furthermore, this also drives up costs to the citizens of Florida through other services, etc with no means of recouping those costs again falling on the taxpayers RTDavis speaks of.

  • RTDavis November 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    With an apology for sloppy keyboarding in the previous posting, please consider the following CORRECTION: Insert “made based upon” between “necessarily” and “rational.”

  • RTDavis November 7, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    The arguments for these approved amendments clearly appealed to emotions of people rather than reason, which means that people can feel good about giving tax breaks to selected populations, even though the decision was not necessarily rational reasons. This vote on property taxes highlights two important issues: (1) we have another example of the widespread “progressive tax” ideology, exempting some people from taxation (sometimes even with justification) but increasing tax rates for others more able to bear the taxation (sometimes without justification), which means fewer people must bear more of the tax burdens; and (2) all governments (state and local)in the country find themselves having to do more with less, even though all governments inexplicably persist in doing more and more in spite of the realities of less and less revenue (mostly because none of the people being served by those governments will tolerate not having more done for them by their governments).