Two amendments placed on the November ballot by the Florida Legislature involve tax money. One affects taxpayers; the other affects how politicians finance campaigns.
The Sentinel recommends a no vote on both.
Amendment 5: Homestead exemption
One of the Legislature’s worst traits is to cut taxes at someone else’s expense — and that’s the problem with Amendment 5.
It would provide cost-of-living adjustments to part of the homestead exemption that offset the taxable value of owner-occupied residences. It’s the part between $50,000 and $75,000 of a home’s value as applied to the tax bases of all local governments except schools.
Amendment 5 would not change the basic homestead exemption, which exempts property taxes on the first $25,000 of a home’s value. But it could reduce taxes paid of all governmental agencies except schools, on the exemption that now excludes valuations between $50,000 and $75,000 of a home’s value.
If inflation were to go up, the city, county and special district taxes on that other part would go down — unless those governing boards raised tax rates. In other words, revenue that pays for police, fire, roads, parks and other municipal and county services could be cut — and while that extra exemption may not save individual taxpayers much, it could be devastating to local governments. True to form, the Legislature is not offering state revenue to make up for the losses.
Some governments are at their tax millage limits, but most aren’t, and they may raise those rates rather than cut spending on public safety and other needs. That gets us to what else is wrong with Amendment 5.
Any tax-rate increases would fall hardest on property that does not qualify for the homestead exemptions, including businesses and rental property.
Every business owner and every renter has good reason to vote “no” on 5, which worsens the already discriminatory effects of the homestead exemption. Any homeowner with a conscience should vote against it, too.
Economists view tax exemptions as “tax expenditures,” the same as money voted out of the public treasury. Any such spending should serve a public purpose, and be done fairly.
Helping citizens with shelter costs serves a legitimate public purpose. But it isn’t even-handed. Federal and state tax policy favors homeownership over renting. It is not fair to keep slashing taxes for homeowners at the expense of people who rent, especially when those who rent have no choice.
According to the Florida Housing Coalition, more than 2.1 million households pay more than 30% of their income for housing and are considered cost-burdened. Many of those are renters. They would bear much of the brunt of this. And while this amendment starts small, state economists estimate the loss to local governments at $112 million a year by fiscal 2028-29.
The 2020 census found that just under two-thirds of Florida households are owner-occupied. Amendment 5 favors them at the expense of the other third, who rent.
Amendment 5’s homestead adjustments would occur in future years. State economists estimate the loss to local governments at $112 million a year by fiscal 2028-29.
Such a fiscal analysis would have been an important addition to this amendment on the ballot, but voters won’t see it on their ballots because it was proposed by the Legislature instead of voters. Of course, a politically motivated, phony fiscal analysis on the unknown costs of the abortion rights Amendment 4, which the Legislature is against, is on the ballot.
During floor debate on Amendment 5, Sen. Jason Pizzo, D-Sunny Isles Beach, tried to limit the exemption value increases to 3% a year. It failed on a voice vote. The amendment, HJR 7017, passed almost entirely on party lines, though Republican Sen. Joe Gruters of Sarasota broke ranks and opposed it. He was right. Voters should follow his example.
Amendment 6: Public campaign financing
Little remains of the idealistic legacy Florida government created half a century ago. Partial public financing of statewide campaigns is one of those scraps intended to create a more representative, citizen-led government. A cynical Legislature wants voters to erase that, too.
Voters should hang on to this tiny remnant of accountability and vote “no” on Amendment 6. Special interests are already too influential.
The targeted program awards matching funds for political contributions of $250 or less from Florida residents. The money goes to candidates for governor and the Cabinet who agree to limit total spending to $2 per registered voter in a governor’s race, and $1 per voter for races for attorney general, agriculture commissioner and chief financial officer. They can put no more than $25,000 into their own campaigns.
Critics complain that it subsidizes candidates who don’t need the money. But it also gives assistance to low-budget candidates who try to compete with the big bucks.
In the 2018 governor’s race, Andrew Gillum’s $2.6 million in matching funds helped him win the Democratic primary and stay competitive with Republican Ron DeSantis, whose subsidy was $3.2 million and who won by less than half a percentage point.
Democrat Nikki Fried’s $158,507 public subsidy was critical in her razor-thin victory in that year’s race for agriculture commissioner over a Republican who didn’t seek matching funds.
In the most famous example, public financing helped a Republican win.
Bob Milligan defeated entrenched Democratic incumbent Gerald Lewis in 1994 for the office of state comptroller and banking regulator. It was a huge upset: Florida was still Democratic then, and bankers and their big money felt obliged to support Lewis.
“We got 100,000 bucks, which matched what we had raised. It helped,” Milligan recalled in a text to the Editorial Board.
The public financing law is flawed in some ways. Money spent by candidates’ political committees, such as Friends of Ron DeSantis, should be counted against the limits. The Legislature can fix that.
In 2022, DeSantis spent nearly to the max while taking $7.2 million from the treasury, even as his PAC spent millions more on his behalf that didn’t count against the ceiling.
Despite that flaw, matching funds are among the few restraints against cash-register government. The U.S. Supreme Court barred mandatory spending limits in 1976.
Thirteen other states have some form of public financing. An earlier attempt to repeal Florida’s failed at the ballot box in 2010.
“Public campaign financing gives everyday Floridians more influence,” said Amy Keith of Common Cause Florida, which opposes Amendment 6.
As the conservative U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater once said, “Unlimited campaign spending eats at the heart of the democratic process.”
Repealing Florida’s public financing law would, too. Amendment 6 deserves a resounding no.
We urge voters to not rely solely on our opinions in deciding how to cast a vote. Do your own research. Ask friends and neighbors what they think. For candidate endorsements, we’ve recorded our interviews and posted them in full at OrlandoSentinel.com/opinion.
Election endorsements are the opinion of the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board, which consists of Opinion Editor Krys Fluker, Insight Editor Jay Reddick and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel, which includes Editorial Page Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writers Pat Beall and Martin Dyckman and Anderson. Send emails to insight@orlandosentinel.com.
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
