After months of Gov. Ron DeSantis and Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia promising Floridians a chance to substantially reduce if not outright eliminate property taxes, eight Republican members of the Florida House filed legislation Thursday to achieve that goal.
All but one of the measures were filed as joint resolutions, meaning that if 3/5ths of the Legislature approves them in both chambers, they would appear on the 2026 statewide ballot, where they must get 60% support to become law.
All of the measures have language that specifically prohibits local governments from reducing funding for law enforcement. They all exempt school taxes. Property taxes comprise around 46% of school funding, according to the Florida Education Association.
Some are wider ranging than others, and it remains to be seen how many of these proposals will get through the Legislature and arrive on DeSantis’ desk. The governor said in Jacksonville earlier this month that if he isn’t particularly enamored by what the Legislature proposes, he could call a special session during the summer to address the issue.
He added it was important to write an amendment(s) in a manner “that resonates with people” and not “written in legislative, bureaucratic speak.”
House Speaker Daniel Perez said in a memo that the ultimate decision on what should happen doesn’t belong with elected officials, but the public at large.
“If we have faith in the voters to elect us, we should not be afraid to let them be a part of the conversation about the taxes they pay,” he said. “It is our position that the House does not need to limit itself in presenting one single plan, but instead allow the people of Florida the ability to choose some, all, or none of the proposals on the 2026 ballot.”
The most expansive measure is a joint resolution (HJR 201) sponsored by Republican Kevin Steele, R-Dade City, which would eliminate all non-school homestead property taxes.
A joint resolution (HJR 203) filed by Republican Monique Miller, R-Palm Bay, would phase out non-school homestead property taxes annually over ten years.
Miami-Dade Republican Juan Porras has filed a joint resolution (HJR 205) that would exempt Florida residents over the age of 65 from paying non-school homestead property taxes.
Florida law now allows up to $50,000 to be deducted from the assessed value of a primary or permanent residence. The first $25,000 of value is entirely exempt. The second $25,000 exemption applies to the value between $50,000-$75,000 and does not include a benefit on the school tax. Some of the proposals would provide additions to those homestead exemptions.
Rep. Shane Abbott, R-DeFuniak Springs, has filed a joint resolution (HJR 207) that would create a new homestead exemption for non-school property taxes equal to 25% of the assessed value of the House.
Rep. Demi Busatta, R-Miami Dade, has filed a joint resolution (HJR 209) that would create a new property insurance relief homestead exemption of $100,000 — as long as the property is covered by a comprehensive “multiperil” property insurance policy.
Under Florida’s Save Our Homes benefit, the maximum amount of a portability transfer from a single homestead is $500,000. However under a proposal (HJR 211) filed by Rep. Toby Overdorf, R-Palm City, that cap on portability would be eliminated, allowing a homeowner to transfer their entire accumulated Save Our Homes benefit to their new home, even if that home has a lesser value.
Overdorf is co-chair of the House Select Committee on Property Taxes, formed by Speaker Perez earlier this year to craft potential constitutional amendments on property tax reduction.
Rep. Philip “Griff” Griffitts, R-Panama City Beach, has filed a joint resolution (HJR 213) to limit the growth in assessed value of non-school homestead property to 3% over three years (it’s now 3% per year) and 15% over three years for non-homestead property (it’s 10% per year now).
The only bill filed to address property tax reduction that would only need to pass the Legislature and get signed by the governor to become law is a measure (HB 215) filed by Rep. Jon Albert, R-Frostproof, that would make various statutory changes including requiring a 2/3 vote for any increase in the millage rate by a local government and allow newly married couples to combined their accumulated Save Our Homes benefits, not exceeding a total of $500,000.
Perez noted that the joint resolutions won’t have “accompanying implementing legislation,” meaning there would be no need for the Legislature to do anything more. But he did say that decisions “should be made by the Legislature once they know which proposals have been approved by the voters and can devise an appropriate statutory framework that accounts for how the various provisions might work together.”
–Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix
Rick G says
Hey here is an idea…. since homeowners insurance is a smidgen of what property taxes are how about reducing that cost….
Rick g says
Restated…. Since property taxes are a smidgen of what homeowners insurance is perhaps the Legislature should spend more time on how to reduce that.
Atwp says
What will happen, we don’t know. Political language sound like foreign language to me. Less tax burden on the people sound good to me. This government don’t care about we the voters.
Palm Coast Citizen says
Eliminating or significantly reducing property taxes would further erode local government autonomy and civic accountability, continuing a broader trend in Florida toward centralized, state-level control.
We’ve already seen this pattern through measures like the Live Local Act and SB 180, which preempt local decision-making on zoning, land use, and community planning. Now, by targeting property taxes, the primary revenue stream for counties and cities, the state risks weakening the very level of government most responsive to citizens.
Local governments are where people actually see democracy at work. They are close enough for residents to attend meetings and voice concerns. People could more easily relocate to communities that reflect their values at the local level then state or even federal level. The more we strip away that layer of self-governance, the more we consolidate authority upward, first to Tallahassee, and eventually to Washington.
While property tax relief sounds appealing, especially when we consider long-time homeowners, the cost could be far greater than the savings: the loss of local voice and control over our own communities.
Jim says
I think this is great! I don’t want to pay property taxes, either!
I do have a few small questions, though…. If we’re not going to pay property taxes, what is the funding mechanism for things like sewer and water support/expansion (Florida is growing!). How are city governments financed? (Or do we just get rid of all the city employees? I guess since the federal government doesn’t need them, cities don’t either, right?) Do we get rid of libraries? (On the positive side, no need to ban books if they’re aren’t any!). How do we have stop signs and street lights and stop lights and such? How do we fund road repairs?
It seems to me that a solution to those issues (and so many more) should be out there so we’ll know what the repercussions of this magnificent plan might be!
Ed P says
Let’s ask Zohran Mamdani. His plan is to increase income tax on the wealthy and corporations just 2% more to pay for free transportation(buses). He’s going to freeze rents.( price controls are a deadly) Create city owned grocery stores and provide fee childcare. A modern day Robinhood.
Quick civics review. Florida doesn’t currently have an income tax, neither did Connecticut until 1991. Now Connecticut income tax ranges from 2-7% and real estate taxes are still higher than Florida. New York State income tax ranges from 4% to 10.9 % and NYC adds 3.207% to 3.876%. New York real estate taxes are even higher than Ct. NYC sales tax is 8.875%. And by the way, both states have estate tax. Florida does not.
How will Florida do it?
We have an equitable system that has not yet been infected by the insanity of the north east. Don’t need a crystal ball to see the future.
When the northeast has a marginal income tax reaching 40% plus your social security and Medicare contributions combined with state and local sales tax, ask yourself if keeping 40 cents of every dollar you earn seems fair? Correct taxes consume 60%.
Substantial reduction of real estate taxes in Florida through exemptions requires increases in sales taxes. Period. And when that doesn’t prove enough, Florida legislators will try an income tax. Then Florida’s tax system tilts away from the young growing families who both work and haven’t been homesteaded for 30 years. They would shoulder an inequitable portion of the plan. Does anyone think we need more old people here? Because all the young families will eventually leave. Why stay?
My vote. No.
Laurel says
The Republicans are throwing out tasty bait; don’t bite! Why are these bills not bipartisan bills? Where are the Democrats? You are going to lose your exemptions, your protections, but the school taxes will continue to fund private schools. Interesting! School choice for those who can already afford it. Do you realize there are many properties on the coast of South Florida that have annual taxes of six digits? Poof! Gone! But their kids will still get help from the state. More tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. How’s that going to help you? Oh, you will pay!
The current government will be going after you equity. They gotta get the federal debt under control, and giving tax cuts to the very wealthy needs to be paid for. Instead, they go after Medicaid. They go after food stamps. They go after children’s’ lunches. Your equity is next. Bit by bit, you will lose, thinking you have control. You won’t if you vote “yes” for this.
Please, think this out and discuss it with your friends and families. Think of the questions brought here by Palm Coast Citizen, Jim and Ed P. Both our parties are failing us. The money for services has to come from somewhere!
Vote NO!
Ray W. says
Hello Ed P.
I asked an AI search engine whether a combined federal, state, city, sales, excise and property tax rate for a person living in the northeast could approach 60%.
The answer? For a New York City resident earning over $25 million per year, the combined tax rate can be as high as 54.126%.
Thank you for the thought exercise.
Pogo says
@Think
… always.
As stated
https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/
As stated
https://www.bing.com/search?q=regressive+tax+definition
Ibid
https://www.bing.com/search?q=progressive+tax+definition
Ed P says
Ray W,
Did your inquiry include social security, Medicare, or the Mansion tax on properties over 1 million dollars which doesn’t get you much. Then add the proposed 2% more for social programs and don’t forget congestion pricing tolls to get into Manhattan $9.00. Or the of $15 during peak hours to cross the George Washington bridge, like going to work. God forbid you smoke, just state and city tax is $68.50/ carton. But they only tagged liquor a few dimes.
Yes, 60% is a real number.
No wonder Florida appeals to so many.
Laurel says
The Republicans have provided eight bills on the topic, all at once. Do y’all know exactly what each bill means? Are there well thought out plans to make up for the loss of these taxes? Is this just more bombardment to keep us off balance?
It took me less than five minutes to find a home in Manalapan that pays $202,000 property tax annually. Just five of these homes (and there are lots) takes $1,000,000 out of the local budget. They are eligible for school vouchers.
Where, exactly, will the revenue, for services, road construction, parks, etc., come from? It may very well come from additional consumer taxes, which may cost you more than property tax in the long run. Meanwhile, you lost your homestead protections, making assessments open for reevaluating.
What is the real goal here? Don’t vote for something until it is well thought out, and a plan to fill the tax gap is understood to be clearly for our benefit. I’m not yet seeing that.
Pogo says
@Anyone
… even liars, fools, and fools who fool themselves:
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=ftt+tax
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+cost+of+illegal+us+tax+evasion
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+cost+of+legal+us+tax+evasion
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+cost+of+shrinking+irs+budget+resources
One of God’s little jokes; widows and orphans know… 9 out 10 grave diggers support…
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+cost+of+tobacco+related+disease+treatment+death+suffering
R.S. says
These measures still cater to the well-to-do and leave poor folks by the wayside. Strategy is to cull poor folks out of the voting possibilities and to bribe well-to-do folk by bribes. Disgusting! Why not use some of the income for housing for the homeless or food for the hungry or medical aid to the destitute.
Laurel says
The current administration is changing Original Medicare to mimick private Medicare Advantage by requiring patients to have preapproval for care and testing, like HMOs (HMOs are the worst in my opinion). The claim is to reduce fraud and waste, without evidence. It is considered a “pilot program” to last for several years.
The real reason is to distance us further away from a single payer system, which is superior to private insurance.
Oh, and by the way, the current administration is also reducing private Medicare Advantage benefits as they are “too costly.”
The richest country the world has ever seen is reducing our health plans even more. Is this that ten year old “concept of a plan”?
How long do y’all want to put up with this?
Ray W. says
Hello Ed P.
You prompted me to think further.
And I wish to emphasize that your argument as you originally framed it at the top of this thread is that total taxes on income can reaches as much as 60% in New York City. Since property tax is a tax on a valuation of property, not on the income that the property owner makes, I find it difficult to add property taxes into your argument. And since excise taxes are a consumption tax, just as sales taxes are a consumption tax, and not an income tax, that too places difficulties for me to add consumption taxes to your argument.
But you seem to want to mix three different classes of taxes together to make your argument, so let’s do that.
First, there is a difference between a tax rate and an effective tax rate. One can have a maximum 37% federal income tax rate on $25 million in income, but the effective tax rate is 36.8%, because we have a progressive tax rate that starts at a lower percentage tax on income, a tax percentage that rises as total income rises.
The same, too, for New York’s state income tax. The maximum rate is 10.3%, but the effective state income tax rate on $25 million in income is 10.1%.
For New York City’s income tax, the maximum tax rate is 3.876%, but the effective tax rate on $25 million in income is 3.8%.
That means when adding the big three together, the maximum effective tax rate on $25 million in income is 50.7%, leaving a 9.3% margin for all other taxes on income to get to 60%.
Medicare and Medicaid do not have dollar limits and the maximum tax rate is 3.8%, so adding 3.8% to the 50.7%, yielding a 54.5% effective tax rate on a $25 million income.
The Social Security tax rate is as high as 14.2% for the self-employed, but that rate applies only to the first $176,100 in income. The tax rate then drops to zero on any income above that figure. The effective tax rate on Social Security for earnings of $25 million is below one-tenth of one percent. Thus the effective tax rate on $25 million in income including Social Security is 54.6%.
You mention liquor and cigarette taxes, but those are called excise taxes, something I factored into my original search algorithm. Besides, I remain unconvinced that taxes on liquor and cigarettes would constitute more than a tiny percentage of a $25 million income. Even an $8 excise tax on a pack of cigarettes might come to $4800 for 350 packs a year. As a percentage of a $25 million income, this is a drop in the bucket. Same for liquor taxes. People can only drink so much alcohol each year.
Other items subject to New York state and city excise taxes include winnings on gambling and sports betting, adult-use cannabis and motor fuels.
In total, excise taxes as a percentage of a $25 million income are almost nil. One percent of $25 million is $250,000. I just don’t see cigarette and alcohol taxes and tunnel fees adding up to $25,000 (one-tenth of one percent), much less $250,000.
As for sales taxes in the City, the 8.875% tax is a consumption tax, too, not an income tax. A wide variety of goods and services are subjected to this particular tax. According to my AI search parameters, the average amount that a New York City resident spends of goods and services that are subject to the city’s sales tax was $22,377, yielding a sales tax amount of $1,986 per person in 2020, the pandemic year. I suspect today’s average sales tax collection is higher. Either way, a resident earning income in the amount of $25 million is likely to pay more in sale tax than is the average New Yorker. But even if such a resident were to purchase goods and services subjected to sales tax at a rate 20 times the average, that would be $38,720 in sales taxes. This is less that one-tenth of one percent of an income of $25 million.
This leaves property taxes. That figure is so variable as to defy any one identifiable percentage share of a $25 million income. A person could live in a $1 million apartment that has been in the family for generations and still earn $25 million per year. According to an AI search, property tax on a $1 million apartment would carry a little over a 0.2% share of $25 million in income per year. Or a person could live in a $50 million apartment and earn $25 million per year and pay a much higher percentage in property taxes.
In conclusion, it is the property tax issue that separates us.
If a New Yorker who earns $25 million a year lives in an apartment with a lower property valuation, then the 54% figure I posted seems to be the more accurate number. If a New Yorker who earns $25 million a year lives in an apartment with a significantly higher property valuation, then the 60% figure might be an attainable number.
But remember that a property tax is based on valuation on property, not on an owner’s income. And that excise taxes and sales taxes are based on a person’s expenditures, not on that person’s income.
As for the “mansion tax” you reference, any city residence that sells for $1 million or more is subject to a minimum of a 1% mansion tax, paid by the buyer at closing. A $25 million mansion sale can draw the maximum 4.9% mansion tax, paid by the buyer at closing.
Just as with property taxes, a mansion tax is not a tax on income. Rather, it is a tax based on a property valuation.
You started this comment thread on the idea that New York City has a combination of income taxes that can be as high as 60% of a person’s income. I argued 54%. It sure seems like my figure is the more accurate, even when you rename a property valuation tax and a personal consumption tax as an income tax.
Again, thank you for the thought exercise. You are still, in my estimation, a much better Ed P. than you once were. I remain hopeful that you can become a quality conservative voice driven by zealous advocacy and intellectual rigor on the FlaglerLive forum.
Ed P says
Ray W,
You brought a smile to my face this morning. You are correct in drilling down to focus exclusively on income tax. My error is framing “a tax is a tax “. Someone making 25 million pays multiple times more in excise taxes than a person earning $250,000. Exotic cars, boats and planes, all have sales tax greater than a Chevy. Someone making $25 million doesn’t normally slim in a million dollar property either. They also employ nanny’s, house keepers, chefs and even security personal or drivers.
My point was Florida’s taxation is preferable over NY/NYC. To follow a leader who doesn’t know where they are going, is dangerous.
Maybe you can expand on the following.
If that same wage earner who earns 25 million dollars and pays the full 54%, does it still indicate millionaires don’t pay their fare share?
Without spending too much time, let’s say that through proper tax planning and a staff of CPAs and tax attorneys, they only pay 27%, is 6.75 million a fair share?
If you are really tired of one of the two parties who sit atop a political party being lie launders, can we put to rest the above theory.
Wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.
Ps maybe my definition of “fair” will be different from yours. But before you start, when was there any year, you paid over a 24% marginal tax rate. Most Americans are somewhere between 0-22%.
Pogo says
@Anybody
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+literacy+by+country
And, how do US voters whose biography is summed up by their accumulated forms W-2, yet require a tax preparer in order to submit a 1040 short form, access this news, and these comments?