House Speaker Proposes Tiered, Percentage Based Property Tax Reform

Property tax burden would shift from lower value to higher value homes

May 12, 2007 – Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio introduced a new approach to property tax reform yesterday in a piece he wrote for the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. The concept, proposing a homestead exemption based on a home’s value, was originated by Rep. David Simmons (R-Maitland). Under the proposal, each home’s tax savings would be based on its assessed value, with higher valued homes paying proportionally more. Rubio gave an example of what the effect might be if a three tiered proposal was adopted.


  • 80% of the first $300,000 of assessed value would be exempt from real estate taxes.
  • 70% of the assessed value over $300,000 and up to $1 million would be exempt.
  • 60% of the assessed value in excess of $1 million would be exempt.


The millage rate would apply to the taxable value as follows:


$300,000 home:


$60,000 ($300,000 less 80% exemption).


$1 million home:


$60,000 (as above)

$210,000 (next $700K less 70% exemption)

$270,000 (taxable value)


$1.7 million home:


$60,000 (as above)

$210,000 (as above)

$280,000 (60% exemption applied to amount over $1 million)

$550,000 (taxable value)


The new plan, if adopted, would do away with and replace the existing Save Our Homes tax exemption. Details need to be worked out and voters would have to approve the final plan. Dean Cannon (R – Winter Park), head of the house committee working out a property tax compromise with the Senate, stated that he thought the concept would be appealing to both the House and the Senate.

8 replies
  1. BB
    BB says:


    So how is this fair? My taxes would benefit at the maximum from this (since my house is valued at less than $200,000), but I’m not sure inequitably taxing people is the answer to anything. Our payroll tax works this way, and that principle has only bred unrest with the system. How about everyone carry their own weight? Or reduce the size of our government?

  2. JM
    JM says:

    Property Tax

    Reform is on the way

    I guess that BB just does not get it his property would be impacted the most under this plan his $200,000 home would be assessed at $40,000. That is how he would beneft your property tax would be minimum.


  3. Ray Miller
    Ray Miller says:

    Property Tax Reform

    Best solution I have heard. Doing the math,my taxes would be about the same. My home has a value of approx $500,000. There is no reason for anyone to pay NO real estate taxes at all.Even a trailer on an acre worth $50,000 would be taxed on $10,000. We should all pay our fair share. The higher the value of your home, the more taxes you should pay. Period! If I sell a $500,000 home and buy another of the same value in the same tax district, my taxes should not change.

  4. BB
    BB says:


    In response to JM, I know that I would benefit from it. You have made my point for me. The vocal majority of people in the lower incomes are continually screwing the paying minority of people at higher incomes. A million dollar home uses no more public services than a $200,000 home. In fact, some would argue the million dollar home uses less. Redistributing wealth just because \”hey they can afford it\” is not equitable-it’s communism.

  5. greggloans
    greggloans says:


    this is a start, but the only fair way is to eliminate the real estate tax completely, cut the govenment substantially, and implement an increase a sales tax. Now, the sales tax will only work if there is an amendment to cap the sales tax.This will not \”hurt the poor\”. With the current system we have now, it hurts the poor. Investors have to increase the rent to cover ridiculous tax hikes thus tenants have to pay more or move (which increase their expenses). the lower income can not qualify for mortgages under $200,000 purchase price as they once did 5 years ago. There have been 4 files on the borderline on qualifying for a purchase around $160,000. What squashed their hopes for the american dream was the monthly tax payment. Their debt to income ratio was to high with an interest rate of 5.875%!!!!!
    These are some of the reasons to scrap the system, but the main reason is the fairness factor. If someone took a risk and wanted to invest for their familys future…why should they pay more? And with the extra taxes they are paying, is the fire truck going to arrive faster at their home during the fires????…..

  6. HG
    HG says:


    After reading these comments, I wonder if folks are confusing market value of their homes with assessed value… can make a HUGE difference in tax paid.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply