This is a May 2025 article, and it is excellent. I'm hearing the plan DeSantis initially introduced last year has changed to use the Homestead Exemption with increases. That makes much of this moot. Really concerned. Does anyone have an update on whether it is just critics or those in the know?
Comrade, being opposed to collective government’s extorting of a man’s personal property in Oregon is racist, sexist, greedy, and is another form of anti-societal, toxic masculinity.
I don't think what the voters of California did in 1978 is really what DeSantis is talking about when opposing Gavin Newsom a half-century later.
As I recall, Ronald Reagan was the most prominent backer of Prop 13, and strongly encouraged its adoption by every state. Also, we're going to abolish property tax on primary residences. Prop 13 merely capped it.
It is certainly possible that home values could increase, since you won't be able to lose your house to the state any longer. But that seems like a win-win. It will immediately give Florida homeowners more security and more equity, while either reducing the rate at which the whole country is moving here or increasing the amount of capital they invest in our economy. Sounds pretty good to me.
Meanwhile, our 143 million tourists will keep paying our sales taxes, which greatly reduces the burden on our 23 million Floridians.
I live in Florida. I have no problem paying yearly tax on my home as a responsible citizen. I cannot fathom how government services are going to be funded without property taxes. Sales taxes are unreliable, going up and down based on the economy, and are highly regressive. States do not impose tariffs so what is that about? Also Trump's tariffs are not working well for many reasons including how erratic they are, how harmful they are to American business and agriculture. So just how are counties supposed to operate reliably?
I'm also a Floridian. But a system that operates reliably by making everyone a renter and taking paid-off homes from elderly widows is simply not acceptable.
Florida has run budget surpluses almost every one of the last 25 years, while repeatedly cutting taxes. Much of that surplus has gone to build our Budget Stabilization Fund for down years. We also have 143 million tourists every year (and growing fast) to help pay our sales tax burden. So it's hard to see where we're going to have trouble handling this.
But even if we did, I'm opposed to evicting widows. Homeownership should be as near absolute as we can make it. And there are about a billion other things we can tax if we really need to.
If you're not paying property tax you will be spending into the economy. Generating sales taxes. Property tax is the most regressive of all. Especially when it is based on taxing unearned income.
I personally would likely not spend more, though I suppose that might be what others do. I looked up about property tax being regressive and was told it is. The solution to that would be to adjust taxes so low value homes paid little. If I lived in a high property tax State, I probably would be much more bothered by it.
If we're going to do that, why would we leave this trap in place at all? A widow misses a payment, and boom! Her house is sold at auction. Making the payment smaller doesn't solve that problem. And why should she have to pay rent to the state at all? It's not like we don't have other taxes.
Again, even if everyone in the entire Florida legislature and governor's office is utterly stupid and this completely blows up because their fiscal record demonstrates how utterly incompetent they obviously are, it would still be worth it to stop stealing from widows. God hates that.
That is good Florida runs in the black. I suggest a way be found to lower house insurance costs. That would certainly help a lot more people. Or not let people build stupidly on the coasts.
How many elderly people are evicted? Basing a whole States Budget on that seems a bit foolish. Tourist trade goes up and down with the economy also and relying on that almost exclusively seems well unreliable. And just to mention again, sales tax is very regressive hurting the poor much more. Republicans often get hammered on being 'heartless' and this seems an example. I sit on a county Parks and Recreation citizen Board and they are quite worried about how to pay for improvements.
Even one person, of any age, being evicted from their home is too many. Let's stop lying to people and telling them they "own" something when they're actually paying to create more rental properties for the state. It's immoral.
As to homeowners, the legislature passed a great reform package a couple years ago, and rates are coming down, 14% last year alone in one of the worst counties (Broward). Most of the elevated cost is litigation, not storms. People seem to think that hurricanes make Florida uniquely risky. They clearly didn't grow up in Tornado Alley (most of the center of the country) or near the wildfires and earthquakes of California. There is risk everywhere.
So the elderly do not deserve any consideration even though they are among the most vulnerable poor? Because they can no longer work or help themselves out of a financial hole when medical bills eat up their meager income. And does it matter how many elderly get thrown out of their home?! One injustice is still an injustice. Bear in mind, these are people who have often paid into the city and county coffers for decades. I would say they have done their part.
Also, there's a number of other sources of revenue. Local government can modestly expand fees, user charges, or business-related levies. There are different revenues to be gained from tourism. Many places have high tourism (like FL) and that extra capacity is actually what increases the expenditures for infrastructure beyond normal. School taxes would remain and should be paid by residents (but they shouldn't ever be a reason to repossess a person's home). Targeted tax cuts are usually the way localities give tax relief. So assessing taxes on non-permanent residents (like snow birds) or foreign investors who own real estate here. Commercial and business property would not be exempt. Data centers are coming and they will cost residents far more revenue than they offer in new jobs. So these businesses should carry the burden of their own expenses. These targeted taxes can spread economic impact to those who can bear the cost and should because they are profiting from the local economy or natural resources.
Furthermore, the increase in revenue due to skyrocketing housing costs and a marked increase in tourism has swelled the coffers of many counties and cities, without a directly proportional increase in necessary expenditures. So where is that money going? New development is usually required to fund their own infrastructure and yet they still manage to make a profit. This results in a big windfall for localities and they should be reducing property taxes for residents rather than wasting that revenue, or dreaming up new projects.
Thank you. It is a pleasure to have someone who thinks about issues discuss them with me.
I gather from various substack writers that those on the more left side are motivated a lot by Fairness and that's one reason they fight for trans people who make up a very small portion of population. Most, I think, would say that emphasis on fairness for a few to the detriment of the most is wrong think. Isn't this idea that the whole budget has to be changed to prevent one person from being evicted is the same wrong think?
No, because we're talking about the fundamental right of all people to be secure in their property. That's something the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, and that the Bible maintained throughout the Law. The state could not seize anyone's home, and when Ahab did, God destroyed him.
You should not be able to work your whole life, miss a single payment, and lose your home. It's just wrong.
As to transgendered people, they have exactly the same rights everyone else does. What the left is demanding is that they get special rights above and beyond yours or mine, including the right to override our First Amendment rights. That's a different thing entirely: it's creating a special class of people above all the rest.
This is probably going too far off in another direction, but if any of the many voting restrictions being suggested disenfranchise even one person (say they can't get a birth certificate) then the restrictions are wrong.
Copies of birth certificates are easily sourced for very little expense. I believe that getting an ID requires one. Voting is a privelege not a right. So to vote you need to prove your ID.
The problem is that the democrats have perfected this scam of stealing ballots, particularly mail in ballots, via the ERIC database which identifies registered but nonvoting people. Judicial Watch has sued and gotten hundreds of thousands of names removed from the rolls. Jay Valentines group Omega4America has also identified hundreds of thousands of ineligible voter registrations. The whole system is corrupted and needs to be reset. A few disenfranchised people may be the price we pay for clean elections.
States regularly clean their roles. It is a difficult job and likely could use more standardizing. As for Judicial Watch they talk a lot but investigations show no verified evidence of harvested ballots. Lots of misdirection.
Voting is a Right and doing steps that keep citizens from voting is wrong.
Also very limited info to say more than a few illegals vote. It's a made-up problem.
And not learning to drive can prevent a person from getting a drivers license. So it takes a little effort to get what you want. That's life and as my parents said, "Quit complaining and get off your butt and do something about it!".
We are supposed to allow everyone to be utterly irresponsible, and burden all of society for their convenience. That is the Democrat platform in a nutshell.
Do you really want a list of things for which you have to show ID? Do you really want a list of countries that require ID? Do you really want a list of things -- like buying firearms -- for which you must show ID to exercise your Constitutional rights?
You're not being serious at this point. You actually want the most important thing we do as citizens to be the least secure. I don't have time for that.
Yes, ID is needed for all sorts of things. Yes, it is very confusing the numerous ways States handle this. I am being serious that the SAVE Act is going to disenfranchise a lot of people and that disturbs me because I have seen no evidence that there is an actual problem to solve. That's the crux of the matter to me. That's all. Thank you.
I agree on both issues. You laid out the principle very well in the article. Our founding fathers would be scratching their heads, completely baffled by our current system, and wondering why we haven't already mounted a rebellion!
As far as transgenders' special status goes, that is a clear case of tyranny by the minority. Women's rights are completely trampled upon by men cosplaying as women. And nowhere is it more obvious than in women's sports.
On top is the valuation scam. Unearned income taxation that is immoral and unethical.
And Texas just keeps on gaslighting us, pay attention Abbott.
This is a May 2025 article, and it is excellent. I'm hearing the plan DeSantis initially introduced last year has changed to use the Homestead Exemption with increases. That makes much of this moot. Really concerned. Does anyone have an update on whether it is just critics or those in the know?
It's actually a today (May 2026) article: there was just a typo in the dateline.
Comrade, being opposed to collective government’s extorting of a man’s personal property in Oregon is racist, sexist, greedy, and is another form of anti-societal, toxic masculinity.
DeSantis says he does the opposite of what California does, but here he is pushing Prop 13 on steroids
I don't think what the voters of California did in 1978 is really what DeSantis is talking about when opposing Gavin Newsom a half-century later.
As I recall, Ronald Reagan was the most prominent backer of Prop 13, and strongly encouraged its adoption by every state. Also, we're going to abolish property tax on primary residences. Prop 13 merely capped it.
It's going to cause home prices to balloon.
It is certainly possible that home values could increase, since you won't be able to lose your house to the state any longer. But that seems like a win-win. It will immediately give Florida homeowners more security and more equity, while either reducing the rate at which the whole country is moving here or increasing the amount of capital they invest in our economy. Sounds pretty good to me.
Meanwhile, our 143 million tourists will keep paying our sales taxes, which greatly reduces the burden on our 23 million Floridians.
I live in Florida. I have no problem paying yearly tax on my home as a responsible citizen. I cannot fathom how government services are going to be funded without property taxes. Sales taxes are unreliable, going up and down based on the economy, and are highly regressive. States do not impose tariffs so what is that about? Also Trump's tariffs are not working well for many reasons including how erratic they are, how harmful they are to American business and agriculture. So just how are counties supposed to operate reliably?
I'm also a Floridian. But a system that operates reliably by making everyone a renter and taking paid-off homes from elderly widows is simply not acceptable.
Florida has run budget surpluses almost every one of the last 25 years, while repeatedly cutting taxes. Much of that surplus has gone to build our Budget Stabilization Fund for down years. We also have 143 million tourists every year (and growing fast) to help pay our sales tax burden. So it's hard to see where we're going to have trouble handling this.
But even if we did, I'm opposed to evicting widows. Homeownership should be as near absolute as we can make it. And there are about a billion other things we can tax if we really need to.
If you're not paying property tax you will be spending into the economy. Generating sales taxes. Property tax is the most regressive of all. Especially when it is based on taxing unearned income.
I personally would likely not spend more, though I suppose that might be what others do. I looked up about property tax being regressive and was told it is. The solution to that would be to adjust taxes so low value homes paid little. If I lived in a high property tax State, I probably would be much more bothered by it.
If we're going to do that, why would we leave this trap in place at all? A widow misses a payment, and boom! Her house is sold at auction. Making the payment smaller doesn't solve that problem. And why should she have to pay rent to the state at all? It's not like we don't have other taxes.
Still seems very iffy and highly unreliable. I guess we will see what happens.
Again, even if everyone in the entire Florida legislature and governor's office is utterly stupid and this completely blows up because their fiscal record demonstrates how utterly incompetent they obviously are, it would still be worth it to stop stealing from widows. God hates that.
Indeed.
That is good Florida runs in the black. I suggest a way be found to lower house insurance costs. That would certainly help a lot more people. Or not let people build stupidly on the coasts.
How many elderly people are evicted? Basing a whole States Budget on that seems a bit foolish. Tourist trade goes up and down with the economy also and relying on that almost exclusively seems well unreliable. And just to mention again, sales tax is very regressive hurting the poor much more. Republicans often get hammered on being 'heartless' and this seems an example. I sit on a county Parks and Recreation citizen Board and they are quite worried about how to pay for improvements.
Even one person, of any age, being evicted from their home is too many. Let's stop lying to people and telling them they "own" something when they're actually paying to create more rental properties for the state. It's immoral.
As to homeowners, the legislature passed a great reform package a couple years ago, and rates are coming down, 14% last year alone in one of the worst counties (Broward). Most of the elevated cost is litigation, not storms. People seem to think that hurricanes make Florida uniquely risky. They clearly didn't grow up in Tornado Alley (most of the center of the country) or near the wildfires and earthquakes of California. There is risk everywhere.
So the elderly do not deserve any consideration even though they are among the most vulnerable poor? Because they can no longer work or help themselves out of a financial hole when medical bills eat up their meager income. And does it matter how many elderly get thrown out of their home?! One injustice is still an injustice. Bear in mind, these are people who have often paid into the city and county coffers for decades. I would say they have done their part.
Also, there's a number of other sources of revenue. Local government can modestly expand fees, user charges, or business-related levies. There are different revenues to be gained from tourism. Many places have high tourism (like FL) and that extra capacity is actually what increases the expenditures for infrastructure beyond normal. School taxes would remain and should be paid by residents (but they shouldn't ever be a reason to repossess a person's home). Targeted tax cuts are usually the way localities give tax relief. So assessing taxes on non-permanent residents (like snow birds) or foreign investors who own real estate here. Commercial and business property would not be exempt. Data centers are coming and they will cost residents far more revenue than they offer in new jobs. So these businesses should carry the burden of their own expenses. These targeted taxes can spread economic impact to those who can bear the cost and should because they are profiting from the local economy or natural resources.
Furthermore, the increase in revenue due to skyrocketing housing costs and a marked increase in tourism has swelled the coffers of many counties and cities, without a directly proportional increase in necessary expenditures. So where is that money going? New development is usually required to fund their own infrastructure and yet they still manage to make a profit. This results in a big windfall for localities and they should be reducing property taxes for residents rather than wasting that revenue, or dreaming up new projects.
Many useful.points. I guess we'll see if Florida can still function.
Thank you. It is a pleasure to have someone who thinks about issues discuss them with me.
I gather from various substack writers that those on the more left side are motivated a lot by Fairness and that's one reason they fight for trans people who make up a very small portion of population. Most, I think, would say that emphasis on fairness for a few to the detriment of the most is wrong think. Isn't this idea that the whole budget has to be changed to prevent one person from being evicted is the same wrong think?
No, because we're talking about the fundamental right of all people to be secure in their property. That's something the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, and that the Bible maintained throughout the Law. The state could not seize anyone's home, and when Ahab did, God destroyed him.
You should not be able to work your whole life, miss a single payment, and lose your home. It's just wrong.
As to transgendered people, they have exactly the same rights everyone else does. What the left is demanding is that they get special rights above and beyond yours or mine, including the right to override our First Amendment rights. That's a different thing entirely: it's creating a special class of people above all the rest.
This is probably going too far off in another direction, but if any of the many voting restrictions being suggested disenfranchise even one person (say they can't get a birth certificate) then the restrictions are wrong.
Not restrictions for valid voters, only closing loopholes that eliminate the use of fraudulent votes.
But requiring birth certificates can certainly disenfranchise citizens.
Copies of birth certificates are easily sourced for very little expense. I believe that getting an ID requires one. Voting is a privelege not a right. So to vote you need to prove your ID.
The problem is that the democrats have perfected this scam of stealing ballots, particularly mail in ballots, via the ERIC database which identifies registered but nonvoting people. Judicial Watch has sued and gotten hundreds of thousands of names removed from the rolls. Jay Valentines group Omega4America has also identified hundreds of thousands of ineligible voter registrations. The whole system is corrupted and needs to be reset. A few disenfranchised people may be the price we pay for clean elections.
It's very hard to see how it would be difficult for anyone to obtain their own birth certificate. This is not complicated.
States regularly clean their roles. It is a difficult job and likely could use more standardizing. As for Judicial Watch they talk a lot but investigations show no verified evidence of harvested ballots. Lots of misdirection.
Voting is a Right and doing steps that keep citizens from voting is wrong.
Also very limited info to say more than a few illegals vote. It's a made-up problem.
And not learning to drive can prevent a person from getting a drivers license. So it takes a little effort to get what you want. That's life and as my parents said, "Quit complaining and get off your butt and do something about it!".
We are supposed to allow everyone to be utterly irresponsible, and burden all of society for their convenience. That is the Democrat platform in a nutshell.
You have to show a valid photo ID to buy cough syrup. Why is cough syrup more important than voting?
Cough syrup is not a right in the Constitution, voting is.
Do you really want a list of things for which you have to show ID? Do you really want a list of countries that require ID? Do you really want a list of things -- like buying firearms -- for which you must show ID to exercise your Constitutional rights?
You're not being serious at this point. You actually want the most important thing we do as citizens to be the least secure. I don't have time for that.
Yes, ID is needed for all sorts of things. Yes, it is very confusing the numerous ways States handle this. I am being serious that the SAVE Act is going to disenfranchise a lot of people and that disturbs me because I have seen no evidence that there is an actual problem to solve. That's the crux of the matter to me. That's all. Thank you.
What about people who are just plain lazy and apathetic. Do we have to kowtow to them too?
That seems to be the implication. We should make fraud widely possible just in case some lazy moron didn't bother to get a photo ID.
I agree on both issues. You laid out the principle very well in the article. Our founding fathers would be scratching their heads, completely baffled by our current system, and wondering why we haven't already mounted a rebellion!
As far as transgenders' special status goes, that is a clear case of tyranny by the minority. Women's rights are completely trampled upon by men cosplaying as women. And nowhere is it more obvious than in women's sports.
Thank you.