Tax reform for the landed gentry

Time to go back to high school history.

In the infancy of the United States, voting rights were enjoyed only by white, male citizens who owned property. Over the years, of course, those restrictions (other than age) were lifted, with the first of these being property ownership.

Now, Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio (R-Miami) wants to reinstate special privileges for property owners by shifting a large portion of the tax burden onto the poor, specifically, by raising Florida's sales tax to the highest in the country (from the current 6% to 8.5%) and reducing or eliminating property taxes altogether. (Florida has no state income tax.)

Not only would lower-income individuals suffer disproportionately under this proposal, it potentially could destroy the tax revenues of municipalities and adversely affect small businesses, which could face reduced sales because of the increased taxes.

A proposed constitutional amendment, if passed by the Legislature, would go to voters later this year or at the 2008 general election.

[...]

The amendment would need at least a two-thirds vote of support from voters.

"This is going to have to be a really, really good idea that's going to have to stand up to political campaigns (opposed to it) statewide," said Rubio.

The state sales tax increase portion of the plan would seek to help local governments contend with the massive revenue losses they would see by losing property tax revenue. That means, though, the poor and others who rent, could see their bills go up because of the sales tax but won't see a direct tax cut because they don't pay property taxes directly, though those costs are typically factored into their rent.

"We must be cautious that we do not shift the tax burden from one group to another," said House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, who offered a cautious response to the Republican plan, also noting that there's high public demand for property tax relief.

Of course, shifting the tax burden to the poor (or, as some would prefer it couched, "shifting it away from the rich") is a long-time Republic Party tactic, and in true GOP fashion, Rubio just doesn't understand why anyone would object.

Rubio rejected criticisms of how it will impact renters, telling reporters that property tax cuts will make home ownership easier to achieve. He also noted that many basic necessities, such as medicines, don't fall under the sales tax. Rubio also didn't rule out the possibility of the Legislature developing the plan to require landlords from passing their property tax savings through to their tenants.

The tax scheme, which Rubio called "just a starting point" for property tax cut talks, is already seeing sharp opposition from a wide array of groups, including advocates for the poor and local government officials concerned about the impacts to the budgets of cities and counties. It's also expected to see opposition from several groups that have been complained loudly about rising property taxes, including out-of-state residents, known as "snowbirds", and landlords.

Let's face it: home ownership is nothing but a pipe dream to tens of thousands of Floridians, who have seen property values skyrocketing at annual rates upwards of 20-25% in some areas over the last several years. Rubio is being disingenuous at best (or callously ignorant at worst) if he truly believes that his plan will help a large number of people buy their own homes. It's more voodoo, trickle-up economics from a Republic legislative majority that just doesn't understand -- or refuses to understand -- what real life is like.

I presently rent a townhouse, but I believe I will own a house again before too long. With my then-wife, I owned three homes, two in Florida and one in Michigan, during the course of our marriage. Even if I were still a homeowner, though, I would oppose this measure, for it transparently benefits one class -- property owners -- over those who do not own property. Indeed, if it passes (and there's still many more hurdles to clear before it does), I wonder if it even could pass muster constitutionally; surely there would be challenges.

At any rate, don't talk to me about "compassionate conservatism." As Marco Rubio reminds us, there's no such thing.