Title on Ballot: Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value
Sponsor/Originator: The Florida Legislature
What it would do:
This amendment would give an additional property tax exemption to low-income seniors who have lived in their home for more than 25 years.
If You Vote Yes:
A “yes” vote means you think cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.
If You Vote No:
A “no” vote means you do not think that cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.
Click here to visit the Florida Division of Elections Background on Amendment 11 (including full text of the amendment)
Summary of Amendment (from Division of Elections site):
Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.
Arguments for:
Supporters say this amendment will benefit elderly residents on fixed incomes. They say the property tax discount can help with medical bills and may allow more elderly residents to stay in their homes as they age.
Arguments against:
Opponents say state and local governments face mounting budget shortfalls in part because of diminished property tax returns. Schools and local governments need to maintain the tax base.
Should cities and counties be allowed to grant a full property tax exemption to certain low-income seniors?
Amendment 11 authorizes cities and counties to grant full homestead property tax relief to low-income seniors who have lived in their home for at least 25 years. In short, it would allow local governments to eliminate the entire property tax bill for qualifying seniors. Homeowners who meet the following requirements would be eligible: 1) aged 65 and older; 2) have a household income of less than $27,030; 3) own a home with a market value of less than $250,000; 4) have lived in the home for at least 25 years. City councils and county commissions must pass the exemption by a super-majority vote before the full exemption can be offered.
The measure won unanimous support in the Senate and House. There is no organized opposition. As with all amendments, passage requires approval by 60 percent or more of the voters. If passed, cities and counties would be authorized to grant the exemption beginning Jan. 8, 2013.
History
Voters in 1998 approved a measure that authorized the Legislature to allow cities and counties to grant a homestead exemption up to $25,000 to seniors over 65 whose household income (at the time of the bill’s passage) did not exceed $24,200. That homestead exemption was in addition to the $50,000 in exemptions extended to all Florida homeowners. Schools taxes are excluded from the tax break. In 2012, state lawmakers passed a measure to place on the November ballot a proposed amendment authorizing cities and counties to grant a full homestead exemption to qualifying seniors. It became Amendment 11 on the ballot.
Fiscal Impact
The state estimates that the combined tax revenues schools and local governments would lose if Amendment 11 passes, and if every city and county in the state were to approve the exemption, would be a combined $18.5 million over the first two years it was offered.
IF YOU VOTE YES:
A “yes” vote means you think cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.
IF YOU VOTE NO:
A “no” vote means you do not think that cities and counties should have the authority to grant a full property tax discount to eligible seniors.
___________________________________________
I see no reason for this. Being old and not well off may be tough, but there’s no reason to give them a break on taxes (and thereby raise everyone else’s tax bill) just because of that.
Agree, once again, Ernest. And I’m a senior but do not expect further deductions for that; to increase taxes for young families? No, indeed.
This is essentially punishing those that properly plan and save for their retirement because they’ll have their taxes raised to cover that of their neighbors that will be living on social security and getting more exemptions.
I understand that it would maybe bring other peoples tax up, But if an older person has to spend there money on tax they must give up something else like food or meds. Yes there are those that planned for there retirement and I know that there are just as many that would have if they could. Some of us were lucky if we could get a house paid for to have in our old age let alone save for retirement. I worked all my life and the best year I ever had was 25,000. All that time I never got unemployment, Medicaid or food stamps. I was not able to put money aside and I paid my taxes. So now that I make 10,000 a year and have bad health it would be nice to know that I will not lose my home to taxes. I did not save for retirement but is was not because I was lazy.
Do not believe we should pay for people’s poor choices. Planning ahead is required. Social Security was NEVER meant to be a retirement plan.
People’s poor choices? It sounds like you are refering to people that did not save hundreds of thousands for retirement, most of those people served their society so people like you can built their nestegg for retirement, people like lawn man, grocery store cashier, backer, dry cleaning staff……the list goes on. Can you imagine a society without these trades. Everything you buy eventually becomes yours free and clear after it is paid off except your house, you continue paying the taxes for it or risk losing it.
I think as a society we should be more compasionate toward each other, for a senior person with a limited income that have been paying his or her property tax for 25 years without a glitch, the humane thing is to give them a break.
I don’t agree with this. If you’re fortunate enough to own a home, you should have to pay taxes on that home. If seniors are that hard up to pay their bills, they should sell their homes and live off the income rather than expecting the younger generation who will be lucky to own a home to cover their tax bill. For a person who lives to 85 on a fixed income, you’re looking at 20 years of no tax liability. A better proposal for this would have been real property under $100,000 and an age of 70. That way you’re helping people that REALLY need it.
Harrison. I’m with you. I see my mother struggle every mo. To pay for food , electric, and meds. She has not purchase clothing in years. My mom worked hard for years and was proud to be a homeowner. If we don,t help our elderly in these ways that we can we will have to support them in others because some will lose their homes and have no place to live. We always want to help our children. Who can,t. Help themselves why can,t we help our elderly who are being put into the same position. Please vote yes for all our moms and dads.
Remember, this is about giving county or municipal legislatures the power give full property discounts to seniors. If you think with your heart, it sounds good but if you think with your head, it’s a great way for politicians to buy votes with public money.
Thank you Jack. Right on. How can this country keep paying for other’s poor choices and planning. I am retired, but I planned for it.
This is shocking. Nice try legislators. Who will make up for the shortfall? This would have have been considered if the authors had included such wording as: “and double the property taxes for homes valued over $500K and the owner has been a permanenr resident for more than one year.”
How can we throw seniors out of their homes if they lived in them for 25 years ?
Huh? What if they’ve lived in an apartment for twenty-five years? If their means no longer adds up I don’t see that this amendment will be particularly helpful to these poor seniors…even at the expense of other seniors who must still pay their property taxes. Vote with your head, otherwise we vote for propaganda.
This amendment would give an additional property tax exemption to low-income seniors who have “lived in their home for more than 25 years.”
I will vote ‘yes’ on this one.
I would benefit from this passage……….BUT, I think everyone should pay something.
No one should have to lose their only place of residence due to the inability to pay taxes, especially low income elderly. That is not something Jesus would approve of.
actually God and Jesus state that we are to pay our taxes… So, as a believer you are to pay your taxes and you are to also be a good steward.
Amen
this is a great idea in many aspects. the ability for seniors to pay less in taxes is always beneficial to economy especially florida that is based around seniors. this will basically give the poorest of the seniors to give less money to the government and keep less $500 of property tax that they will spend on home improvements, local restaurants, and local shopping which most of the money the local government would be receiving through property taxes they would be getting from income, business, sales tax that they would be losing by seniors spending it because the poorest seniors do live paycheck to paycheck. READ THE AMENDMENT THIS IS NOT FOR WEALTHY SENIORS BUT POOR THAT HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES AS LONG AS POSSIBLE INSTEAD OF NURSING HOME BECAUSE THEM GOING TO NURSING HOMES COST ALL US FLORIDIANS MORE MONEY IN TAXES. … IM HAPPILY VOTING YES AS A 26 YR OLD HOMEOWNER AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNER
Generally all retired seniors are low income. If your not working, your low income. However, they may be very well off financially. This is a dumb amendment. It the retiree had to prove their networth, then I’d be for it. Otherwise, I am against it.
I think everyone who commented before me has forgotten one thing! this is for Seniors who have been in their homes for 25years or more!! not some old couple who just moved here. That means they have been a part of the community and we need to get back to Respecting our Elders, for we too will be Elders! and I hope I Never need or qualify for this exemption!
I believe it is our onus, if you will, to have a little empathy to our elders, mothers and fathers, etal. I agree with Harrison, struggling elders were for the most part, trying to eke out a living. They’re not just looking for a handout, but if they were, I think a higher power would approve of our giving these folks the benefit of a doubt and give them a break. Those that can pay their taxes should do so, and hoorah for them. Those who didn’t or more likely they couldn’t, lets forgive them for it, and give thanks for not being in the same spot. AMEN!!……((=”~
I agree w. Jack!
The numbers do not make sense. If you worked hard enough to pay for a $250,000 house, then you should have been smart enough to save for retirement.
Will the government look to see what kind of savings these “low income” seniors have?
I would consider voting yes if the house was a low income house too. But until then, my vote is NO.
This is a “Catch 22″ situation. While we must reduce all giveaway programs if we are to survive, I sense allowing them to stay in their home will keep them off other more expensive programs.
I am retired and have been widowed since 1991. I am also a cancer patient (not due to poor planning). I have a mortgage and the basic living expenses. At the end of the month, I struggle, but I manage without any help. Shame on you for passing judgement on others. I realize there are individuals who take advantage of the system, but there are many others who, even though they had plans in place for their life, could not accomplish them. Not for lack of effort but due to circumstances beyond their control. Those of you who seem to have everything in place are fortunate except sometimes events overcome the plans.
This ammendment does not address all senior citizens, only those who have lived in their Florida homes for more than 25 years, PAID their taxes, and now find themselves strapped with rising bills and falling income. There should be a time when we say “Enough is enough.” It does not affect those of us who have planned our retirement and can afford our homes and taxes. A YES vote says that!
Read the ammendment. It is for seniors who are below the poverty threshold, over 65, AND have lived in their home as a permanent resident for 25yrs. This means that they have been PAYING full taxes for 25 years. How about local governments start spending less and stop burdening the people with higher taxes. I see this not as a “charity” to those people, but as a limitation on the government by reducing their revenue and forcing them to STOP spending so much of OUR money.
What happens when the senior dies and he has family living in the house. Do they start paying property taxes? What if a senior of 66 yrs marries a young lady and he dies soon after. Will she pay property taxes? I’m just so tired of being taxed so much and watch the federal govt waste billion of dollars without giving a care….
I don’t know of any low income ($24,200 or less) elderly people in a $250,000 plus house! My aunt could benefit from this but by those standards doesn’t meet the requirements. With her retirement plus SS, she is well over $24,000 and her house isn’t valued anywhere near $250k!
Seems like a very reasonable proposition. Low-income seniors are some of the most vulnerable citizens, and often not by “choice”. Anything that can be done to safeguard their last few years is reasonable and good for society. I cannot justify “penalizing” them to make up for State short-falls
Let’s please not forget that the ‘Save Our Homes’ amendment is still in effect that restricts the increase in the property assessment on their homes to a rate that usually is far beneath that of the market value growth of their homes. As such, after 25 years of owning a home, the taxable value should be significantly lower than the market value, building in a gain for the owner that is only taxable upon final sale. This is another silly attempt by government to create yet another ‘class’ of citizens. I’ll be voting no on this one.
Just value of $250,000 or less. How about just value of $75,000. If you could afford a house over $75,000, then you could afford a retirement plan to protect it. Besides if you bought a house 25 years ago at $250,000 or less, you bought a mansion.
I have friends who “planned” for their retirements, but instead the wife became ill and unable to work in her 40′s and the husband got laid off from his job of many, many years just a couple of years before retirement age, resulting in NO pension. They have lived in their home for 25 plus years and he just turned 65. For them, I vote YES.
@Laura
Voting based on personal opinion may not be the best plan. Does this couple meet all the other proposed requirements for tax exemption?