This state may offer a cautionary tale
That's the question Wyoming is grappling with. Earlier this year, Wyoming lawmakers passed a 25% cut to property taxes. The tax exemption applies to 'primary residential structures up to the first $100 million of the structure's fair market value.' At first glance, it looks like a win for homeowners, but municipalities are bracing for impact, according to the Tribune News Service.
Like Florida, Wyoming doesn't impose a state income tax, making property tax revenue a key funding source for cities and municipalities — including fire and police departments, schools and other services.
Fremont County, the fifth most populous in the state, has announced $300,000 in library cuts and warned that other services may see deeper cuts. Most troubling is the possibility of cuts for public schools, which receive 70% of their funding from property taxes and now face a serious deficit. According to the state's April 2025 long-term revenue expenditure forecast, Wyoming's school foundation program account — which is responsible for funding public schools — is projected to experience a $686 million deficit by 2029-30.
While Wyoming has a population of 587,618, and is far different demographically from Florida — with a population of 23 million spread over 67 counties — the struggles Wyoming residents are facing may offer a preview of challenges Florida could expect if DeSantis' proposal becomes reality. Florida's unique challenges — including rapid population growth, the housing and insurance crisis and hurricane risks — create strong fiscal demands that exceed what Wyoming faces. These realities make property tax elimination, or even a deep cut, more problematic for the Sunshine State.
The Florida Legislature recognised the need to think things through before barreling ahead to help DeSantis eliminate property taxes. The Legislature allocated $1 million in its proposed state budget for state economists to study the elimination of property taxes, a responsible position. The study would've given Florida's leaders a clearer picture of the implications of such a significant change.
But DeSantis vetoed the budget item, dismissing it by saying, 'We don't need to give a bureaucracy money to study this. We know what needs to be done, so let's just do it.'
That was a short-sighted move. Cutting or eliminating the state's property tax requires a plan and consideration of the impacts, and maybe even examining what's happening right now in Wyoming.
As Budge Huskey, president and CEO of Premier Sotheby's International Realty, told Fox News Digital, 'At the end of the day, you cannot simply lower property taxes or eliminate property taxes without replacing at least a significant majority of that revenue through alternative means.'
According to the Florida Policy Institute, property taxes make up an estimated 50% to 60% of the state's school district revenue. In order to replace revenue lost, Florida would most likely need to double its state sales tax to 12%, FPI found, resulting in the tax burden being shifted rather than eliminated.
While DeSantis and fellow Republicans love to tout Florida as the 'free state,' removing property taxes from the state's financial equation would put local government into a funding free-fall. Giving Floridians financial relief is critical as the cost of living continues to rise, and Wyoming's efforts may offer some lessons. But slashing property taxes without a serious plan to manage the impacts isn't the way forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
2 hours ago
- Arabian Post
US-EU Trade Deal to Reshape Energy and Investment Landscape
A transformative trade agreement between the United States and the European Union is poised to redefine their economic relations. US President Donald Trump announced the deal, which is set to have far-reaching implications on both sides of the Atlantic. The agreement includes the unprecedented opening of trade at zero tariffs, along with a significant commitment from the EU to purchase $750 billion worth of energy over the next decade. Moreover, the EU has pledged to invest an additional $600 billion in various sectors, significantly surpassing previous investment targets. The deal was hailed by the Trump administration as a major victory for the US economy, promising to bolster energy exports and enhance investment flows. While the specifics of the energy sectors involved remain under discussion, the agreement signals a substantial shift in the global energy market. The US, a major producer of natural gas and oil, is expected to benefit from increased exports, particularly in liquefied natural gas and other energy resources. At the heart of the deal is the mutual understanding that both parties will benefit from zero tariffs on industrial goods, which has been a longstanding issue in US-EU trade talks. The tariff reduction is expected to boost economic growth on both sides, especially for sectors such as automotive, technology, and agriculture. For the EU, the opening of the US market is seen as a crucial opportunity to tap into the world's largest economy without facing the heavy tariffs that have traditionally limited market access. ADVERTISEMENT Investment plays a pivotal role in the agreement, with the EU's commitment to direct $600 billion more than previously agreed upon into US infrastructure, technology, and innovation. This will likely lead to a surge in American jobs, particularly in industries poised for growth. It also presents a major opportunity for EU businesses to secure a foothold in the burgeoning US tech sector, which has long been a hotspot for investment. The announcement of the deal was accompanied by optimistic rhetoric from both US and EU officials, who described the agreement as an example of transatlantic cooperation that will not only benefit both economies but also foster stronger geopolitical ties. Experts believe the trade deal could serve as a model for future trade relations, potentially influencing global trade dynamics and setting a precedent for other international agreements. However, the deal has faced criticism from some quarters. Critics argue that the focus on energy purchases and large-scale investments could overshadow critical issues like labour rights, environmental protections, and fair competition. Some environmental groups have voiced concerns about the potential long-term environmental impact of increased energy trade, particularly if it leads to more fossil fuel reliance. These concerns underscore the ongoing debates about the balance between economic growth and sustainability, a tension that continues to shape global trade discussions.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
US reaches deal with Japan, tariff cut
The United States, riding a tariff wave launched by President Donald Trump, has concluded a trade agreement with Japan, the fourth largest economy in the world, in Washington on Tuesday. According to the agreement, the US will impose 15 per cent tariff on all goods imported from Japan. This is a much lower rate than the 25 per cent that Trump had threatened Japan with from August 1. Even as the deadline hovered over the talks, the two sides managed to arrive at an agreement much before the dreaded date. Trump had declared on his Truth Social, his personal portal, 'This Deal will create Hundreds and Thousands of Jobs – There has never been anything like it. This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan.' Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said, 'Since February, we have been negotiating with our national interests at stake. Both sides have engaged in all-out, close-to-the-edge negotiations over automobiles and other products. I believe this outcome reflects those efforts.' The trade agreement reflects interesting details. Though it appears that the United States has gained hugely going by the headline figures – Japan will have to invest $550 billion in the United States, open its agricultural sector to American rice – the impact on the Japanese GDP would be a mere 0.55 per cent. Even if the tariff rate had remained at the apparently punitive 25 per cent, the impact on Japanese GDP would have been 0.85 per cent. The US was running a trade deficit of $69.4 billion. And Japan will channel the investments in the US from state-backed institutions like Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) or through guaranteed loans. The Japanese investments are to be made in semi-conductors, pharmaceuticals, steel, shipbuilding, critical minerals, aviation, energy, automobiles, AI and quantum technology. The sensitive area for Japan is the import of rice. Japan consumes seven million tonnes of rice every year. It maintains a tariff-free quota of 770,000 tonnes. And it will increase the ratio of US rice imports within this range. It is said that there is room for rice imports outside the free tariff quota, with the proviso of 341 yen ($.2.33) per kilogramme of rice. Prime Minister Ishiba referring to the opening of rice imports from the US, said, 'You can think of it as increasing the proportion of rice procured from the United States, under the minimum access arrangement, but this agreement does not include any provisions that would sacrifice agriculture.' Both sides have bargained hard, and each side has claimed victory. The Japanese believe that that they have succeeded in bringing down the reciprocal tariff rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, a clear 10 per cent reduction. The US believes that it has managed to force Japan to necessarily invest in the US – according to the deal $550 billion – and that 90 per cent of the profits made from the investments will remain in the United States, and that it has succeeded in prising open the protected agricultural market, especially with regard to rice. It is expected that the US-Japan trade deal will serve as a template for the trade agreements with the European Union (EU) and China. The expectation is that the US will settle for a 15 per cent tariff with these two as well. The US is willing to be reasonably generous with big trade partners like Japan, EU, and China. But with smaller countries and economies like the Philippines and Indonesia it is playing tough. In the deal with the Philippines and Indonesia, the US has brought down the tariff regime from 20 per cent to 19 per cent. The trade balance of the US with these two countries is much lower, $17.9 billion with Indonesia and $4.9 billion with the Philippines.
Middle East Eye
2 days ago
- Middle East Eye
US condemns France's release of political prisoner Georges Abdallah
The United States has voiced strong opposition to France's decision to free Georges Ibrahim Abdallah and deport him to Lebanon. 'The United States opposes his release,' said State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce in a statement shared on X. 'His release threatens the safety of US diplomats abroad and is a grave injustice to the victims and the families of those killed,' claimed Washington Washington also said it would continue backing efforts to seek justice in the case. Abdallah, a pro-Palestinian Lebanese fighter, was jailed in 1984 for the killing of an American and an Israeli diplomat in France. After serving nearly four decades, a French appeals court ordered his release, citing the length of his imprisonment and his age, calling continued detention 'disproportionate.'
