logo
Florida's menu of property tax cut options

Florida's menu of property tax cut options

Politico06-03-2025

Presented by
Good morning and welcome to Thursday.
Gov. RON DESANTIS wants property taxes gone — or reduced, at the very least.
State lawmakers started looking at the big picture of what it would take during a state Senate Finance and Tax Committee meeting Wednesday. Some came out of the meeting skeptical and wanting a lot more information, as local governments use property taxes to pay for schools, police officers, firefighters, waste management and many other services. Any cut in funding could impact those services or cause local governments to raise taxes elsewhere.
At the same time, lawmakers know the cost of living is crushing residents, so they're looking at other ways to limit Floridians' property tax bills, though they're expected to consider their options and come up with a plan rather than advance multiple measures at the same time. State Sen. BRYAN AVILA (R-Hialeah Gardens), who chairs the Finance and Tax Committee, said during Wednesday's meeting that members would be 'taking time to look at each proposal' that's been introduced.
Here's a look at some of the ideas lawmakers are discussing:
Increasing the homestead exemption. Legislation from state Sen. BLAISE INGOGLIA (R-Spring Hill) would ask voters to consider raising the homestead exemption. Right now, homeowners can apply to have the first $25,000 of their primary residence's assessed value exempt from property taxes, then the second $25,000 exempted from non-school taxes.
Ingoglia wants to raise the cut off to $75,000 and have it indexed every year with inflation, which he estimates would cut taxes by $2.6 billion. He told Playbook the current exemption was 'really not offering any relief,' whereas with his bill, 'as people's homes go up in value, so does their homestead exemption.' He would, however, support going even further.
'We should be as aggressive as we can with the largest property tax cut that we can pass through constitutional amendment,' he said.
Going beyond homesteads. A bill in the state House, from Rep. RYAN CHAMBERLIN (R-Belleview), would have a constitutional amendment go before voters asking whether they want to raise property tax exemptions on homes to $100,000. It would apply not just to primary residences, but to all property.
Limiting assessments. A couple proposals have been introduced to ensure people don't get taxed more just because their home is worth more after they harden it against storms.
Creating carve outs for vulnerable groups. Legislation from state Sen. ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ (R-Doral) would cap off the assessed value of a homestead property to the amount it was the year a resident turned 65, provided they meet income thresholds.
Limiting how much local governments can collect. Another bill from Chamberlin that he's working on with state Sen. JAY COLLINS (R-Tampa) would only allow localities to increase their property tax collections by 2 percent year-over-year. Anything extra that's collected would need to be rebated to residents or used to pay off debt.
Increase early-payment tax discounts. Under current Florida law, homeowners get a discount if they pay their taxes earlier than their due date of March 31. The property tax discounts are tiered by month, with people getting a 4 percent reduction if they pay their taxes in November and others getting a 1 percent discount when they pay in February.
State Sen. KATHLEEN PASSIDOMO (R-Naples), urged her colleagues during Wednesday's committee hearing to 'start being more creative' with ideas for tackling the issue, floating higher discounts when taxes are paid early as a possibility of what might be considered.
Start with a study. Lawmakers could also decide to punt the decision until they learn more. State Sen. JONATHAN MARTIN (R-Fort Myers) and Chamberlin filed legislation to have state officials estimate what could replace the property tax under a full repeal.
— Gary Fineout contributed.
Have a tip, story, suggestion, birthday, anniversary, new job, or any other nugget that Playbook should look at? Get in touch at: kleonard@politico.com.
... DATELINE TALLAHASSEE ...
EYES EMOJI — Another sign of a gubernatorial run ahead? State Sen. DANNY BURGESS (R-Zephyrhills) introduced two bills on Hope Florida — the initiative led by Florida first lady CASEY DESANTIS. One would move the program under the jurisdiction of the governor's office and the other would exempt personal identifying information of people who participate in Hope Florida from public records.
MANDATE PROTECTIONS — 'DeSantis on Wednesday called on Florida lawmakers to make a series of pandemic-era medical protections meant to block federal Covid-19 vaccine mandates permanent, as state health officials scramble to address a potential measles outbreak in Miami-Dade County,' reports POLITICO's Arek Sarkissian.
'The protections are due to expire in June, and legislation sought by the Florida Department of Health in this year's session seeks to make them permanent. DeSantis said during a news conference in Tampa that although the pandemic has died down since the Legislature first approved the protections in 2021, he cannot predict future crises.'
CORPORATE SHOWDOWN — 'Fresh off a newly minted lawsuit against Target, the state's massive pension fund is preparing to be more aggressive about suing companies and corporations over everything from actions deemed detrimental to shareholders to corporate governance,' reports POLITICO's Gary Fineout.
'DeSantis and the two other trustees who oversee the roughly $200 billion Florida Retirement System on Wednesday agreed to set aside $20 million for a litigation fund to hire law firms to represent the state in securities-related lawsuits against businesses.
'The move came after another vote to officially ratify last month's Target lawsuit, which alleges the retailer misled investors and created a backlash over an LGBTQ marketing campaign.'
DOGE IN FLORIDA SCHOOLS — 'State lawmakers have Florida's public universities in their sights as they — and DeSantis — look to scale back spending with their own DOGE-style efforts,' reports POLITICO's Andrew Atterbury. 'The state House, on the Legislature's opening day, began probing university expenses by scrutinizing costs racked up by former University of Florida President and Sen. Ben Sasse, alongside other schools that were questioned in state audits.'
FLORIDA CRYSTALS LAWSUIT — The Clarkson Law Firm on Wednesday filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in California against Florida Crystals, one of the state's top sugar producers, over burning sugar cane as part of its harvest practices. The lawsuit claims Florida Crystals and the Fanjul Corp. violate consumer laws by stating their products are earth-friendly despite pollution from burning.
In response, Florida Crystals told POLITICO it is the only sugar grower in the United States whose products are certified 'regenerative' organic, meaning they conserve soil, biodiversity and water.
— Bruce Ritchie
— 'Democrats see Republican leaders in Legislature borrowing a lot of their ideas,' reports Jacob Ogles of Florida Politics.
— 'Florida's demand for immigration aid surges amid policy changes,' reports Juan Carlos Chavez of the Tampa Bay Times.
— 'Florida groups call for clarity on immigration enforcement at schools,' by Central Florida Public Media's Danielle Prieur.
— 'Florida's undocumented students could be banned from most public universities,' by Central Florida Public Media's Danielle Prieur.
— 'Civil, voting rights groups condemn DeSantis' push to restrict ballot initiatives,' by Jackie Llanos of the Florida Phoenix.
CAMPAIGN MODE
FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Democrat JOSH WEIL, a progressive congressional candidate in the 6th District, is out today with his first TV ad of the season. Weil is running against President DONALD TRUMP-endorsed state Sen. RANDY FINE (R-Melbourne) for the deep-red district's seat, which opened up after Rep. MIKE WALTZ became national security adviser.
The 30-second ad describes Weil as 'one bad-ass candidate.' The spot shows Weil, who's a teacher, with his students and sons.
'I'm not a career politician. I'm a math teacher, and I know the numbers aren't adding up for Florida families,' Weil says in the ad, in which he promises to help lower grocery costs and protect Social Security.
It's a $250,000 spot running through March 12 on broadcast, cable and digital channels, per spokesperson JOE CAIAZZO. The general election is April 1.
UTHMEIER CHALLENGER? — 'In a hypothetical primary matchup against Attorney General James Uthmeier, [Matt] Gaetz was favored 39 percent to 21 percent, according to a recent survey of likely Republican voters by Tony Fabrizio, one of the nation's top pollsters who works for Trump and several GOP clients,' reports Axios' Marc Caputo. Gaetz is considering running but 'a race against Uthmeier would be no slam dunk for Gaetz. Fabrizio's poll found 40 percent of GOP voters were undecided.'
PROPOSAL ON TERM LIMITS — 'In November, as Miami residents vote on a new mayor and city commissioners, they could also weigh in on a proposal to create lifetime term limits for elected officials — a major shakeup to a system that currently allows elected officials to, under the right circumstances, spend decades in City Hall,' reports Tess Riski of the Miami Herald.
PENINSULA AND BEYOND
FSU ERASES DEI — 'Florida State University is taking a deep dive into its websites, scrubbing them of keywords, according to a list that includes the terms 'women,' 'diverse,' 'systemic' and 'cultural relevance,'' reports Tarah Jean of the Tallahassee Democrat. Whether this list came from the government or university is unclear.
BROWARD RESPONDS TO DOGE PUSH — DeSantis wants to DOGE local governments like Broward County, which he claims has had a 82 percent increase in its budget, reports Lisa J. Huriash of the South Florida Sun Sentinel. The county spokesman said it is 'not clear how the 82 percent figure was derived,' given general government services 'have increased by 39 percent' in the last five years, 'or less than 8 percent each year.' These services fund 'the provision of public safety, constitutional officers, and other traditional government services.'
ICE PARTNERSHIP — 'Miami-Dade County jails could soon be handing out deportation orders to inmates under an agreement required under Florida law that won formal approval this week,' reports the Miami Herald's Douglas Hanks.
— 'In Key West, testing shows cruise ships stir up as much sediment as a hurricane,' by NPR's Greg Allen.
DATELINE D.C.
TRUMP'S SENATE FIXER — When it comes to bringing Trump's agenda to the Senate, Sen. RICK SCOTT (R-Fla.) has become a key 'liaison in Congress,' reports Axios' Marc Caputo. 'In a sign of Scott's influence, he brought Elon Musk on Wednesday to the weekly closed-door lunches with Republican senators at the conference's steering committee, which Scott chairs.'
NATURAL PARK FIRINGS — More than 750 U.S. natural park employees have lost their jobs in the wave of federal layoffs the Trump administration has ordered, reports Axios' Alex Fitzpatrick. Florida's Everglades National Park is among those affected, losing 15 workers.
— 'Byron Donalds backs James Uthmeier's probe of Andrew and Tristan Tate,' by A.G. Gancarski of Florida Politics.
TRANSITION TIME
— KRISTIN QUIRK has joined the Republican Party of Florida as a fundraising specialist, reports Florida Politics. She previously worked as the director of membership and partnership at the Florida Senior Living Association and served in positions in the state Senate and Florida House Majority office.
ODDS, ENDS AND FLORIDA MEN
— 'Thief in Florida swallows stolen Tiffany diamond earrings worth $770,000,' per the Tampa Bay Times.
BIRTHDAYS: Juan Alfonso Fernandez-Barquin, clerk of the courts of Miami-Dade County ... state Rep. Taylor Yarkosky.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.

A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement

Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain

The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up So it's basically a wash. Advertisement That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. Advertisement 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Advertisement Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. Advertisement 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''

The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk
The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

The changes coming to Trump's 'big beautiful bill have little to do with Elon Musk

Washington was on two parallel tracks this past week when discussing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." On one front: The nation's capital was transfixed by a seismic fight between Elon Musk and President Trump, centered on the cost of the $3 trillion tax and spending bill. On another front: Republican leaders steadily advanced the pricey package with only a few changes apparently on offer. "Pedal to the metal," Senate Majority Leader John Thune offered in a speech Thursday near the height of the Musk drama — ignoring promises from the world's richest man to oust lawmakers who didn't join his effort to kill the bill. Republicans instead appeared to move closer to passage. They previewed changes that will be of interest to taxpayers and businesses, but with little to fulsomely address the critique from Musk and others around the package's price tag. In spite of Musk's campaign and multiple government and independent analyses that found at least $2.4 trillion in new red ink, Thune dismissed Musk this week by saying "we're a long ways down this track" and that his party is "rowing in the same direction." Thune may be overstating things a touch, with a vocal group of fiscal conservatives emboldened by Musk suggesting they will vote no. But Republican leaders from the president on down echoed Thune's position throughout the week. Stifel's Brian Gardner offered a bottom line in a note this past week, suggesting the fighting "makes for great TV and fodder ... but it is unlikely to fundamentally change the composition of the tax bill." "Musk's sway among Republican voters is limited," he added. The week saw a flurry of negotiations over changes to the House package, but, perhaps Washington being Washington, even the cost-saving changes appear to have been immediately spoken for. A meeting on Wednesday with the president, Thune, and members of the Senate Finance Committee ended with a focus on two changes. The first could save significant money by paring back a $40,000 tax deduction in the House bill for state and local taxes (SALT). Any changes there will face fierce opposition when the bill returns to the House, but the Washington Post reported this week that Trump has even indicated he is willing to lower the deduction. But any savings there may be quickly eaten up by the second bit of news this week, which concerns making some business tax incentives permanent. These tax deductions to businesses involve property depreciation, interest expenses, and R&D and are currently temporary in the House package. But an array of key Senators are keen to make them permanent (and more expensive). It's still a matter of some debate, with some hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having told reporters he is looking to keep those tax breaks temporary and that Trump isn't sold. Johnson had emerged as a fierce critic of the package over spending and is also threatening to reform or break the package into different parts. He would need at least three Republican senators to join him and stand up to what is expected to be a fierce White House pressure campaign. Another key business-world change in the offing that emerged this week involves a provision that says no state may make its own law to regulate artificial intelligence in the coming decade. The need for changes there became evident when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia acknowledged she hadn't been aware of the provision when she voted yes in the House, but that she would flip to no if it stayed in place. Those proposed revision — seen this week as part of a larger spectrum package released by the Senate Commerce Committee — would change the House plan for a 10-year outright ban to a system that blocks some federal broadband funding if a state passes certain AI laws. Tech companies will be watching those developments closely, but they're not expected to have much impact on the bill's price tag. Another possible change could actually push up the price tag, with a growing debate around changes in the House bill to Section 899 of the IRS code, focused on what Republicans call "discriminatory foreign countries." The provision would allow the president to impose new taxes to combat the practices. Removing that change could cut into future government revenues, allowing the president to levy fewer taxes as a result. Other changes could also be coming that might increase the price tag, with some senators still concerned that current cost-saving measures go too far. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has been outspoken on one of the key changes around limiting Medicaid benefits, writing in a recent New York Times op-ed that cuts will hurt the working class and that the core of the issue is "will Republicans be a majority party of working people or a permanent minority speaking only for the C-suite?" Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store