As I write this column, Florida legislators are hard at work on a measure to eliminate property taxes in the state.

Really? No. But it’s forgivable to have believed that based on clickbait headlines and the wailing of county-level politicians.

What legislators actually have in front of them is a November ballot measure proposal that would

1) ask the state’s voters if they want to

2) increase the amount of the state’s so-called “homestead exemption.”

The  “homestead exemption” means that a homeowner doesn’t pay property tax on the first $X of assessed value on his or her primary residence. It doesn’t apply to second homes. It doesn’t apply to commercial properties. Just the one house you call home.

Right now, the Florida homestead exemption amount is $50,000. The proposal would raise that to $250,000.

Before going any further, let me acknowledge both my personal interest (my family recently bought a house, and the proposal would save us a LOT of money) and one likely down side of the proposal (since apartments and rental homes are commercial properties, they’d continue to be taxed, possibly at a higher rate, which would drive up rents for non-homeowners).

Now, let’s talk about the $50,000 versus $250,000 amounts. The former was established in 2008.

On a little AI-assisted searching, I find that average assessed Florida home values have increased by about 150% since 2008, and that there now about 2 million more homes in Florida than there were in 2008. In other words, a lot more homeowners are paying a lot more in property taxes than used to be the case.

In the meantime, average wages have only increased by about 35%, while inflation has driven up the prices of things Floridians buy by 75%. Which means those increased tax bills have become less affordable, even as county government budgets have continued to grow at or faster than the inflation rate. The state government has run budget surpluses since 2010.

It seems to me that SOME kind of correction is in order. Government keeps taking, and spending, more of our money, but our earnings aren’t keeping up with either that government growth or the cost of living.

To which the standard reply is that “government services will have to be cut.”

Which services?

Well, Alachua County’s government complains that it may not have enough money for “permitting and code enforcement.”

I consider that a feature, not a bug. The county demands thousands of dollars in rent (that’s what property tax basically amounts to) from my family every year … then considers it a “service” to make us bow and scrape for permission, and pay an additional bribe, for the privilege of putting, at our own expense, a shed or above-ground pool on property it says we “own.”

We’re also told that fire/rescue/police/schools, and other “essential services,” might have to be scaled back … but even if we convince ourselves those can’t be handled by the private sector, there’s no particular reason to believe that their size and cost absolutely, positively must scale ever upward, while the rest of us tighten our belts.

The alternatives on offer, should the proposal pass, all seem to be about finding ways to raise other existing taxes or impose new ones. Sales taxes, for example, which do tend to hit lower-income families harder. Or tourism-targeted taxes, which can kill that golden goose if overdone, and which are the first revenue sources to take a hit in a recession.

There’s another option, the one that’s always, under any plausible circumstance, best: Cut government spending. Even most non-anarchists understand that we suffer from FAR too much government. The best way to fix that is to stop over-funding it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY