Transcript Slide 1

Amendment 5
A Bad Bet For Florida
Presentation to
Florida Home Builders Association
August 2, 2008
Dominic M. Calabro
President and CEO, Florida TaxWatch
How Much $$ Need to Be Raised?
The Education Hold Harmless Provision
FEFP in the FY 2008-09 Budget
RLE
$8.267 billion
State Appropriation
$8.605 billion
Total
$16.872 billion
Growth Adjustment
16.6%
(previous 2 years growth)
Total State FEFP Appropriation in FY 2010-11 Must Be:
$19.7 Billion
Tax Swap or Tax Increase?
State FEFP Appropriation Required in 2010-11
$19.7 billion
Current State FEFP Appropriation
$8.6 billion
New State Funds Required
$11.1 billion
Property Tax Cut
$8.3 billion
$11.1 billion - $8.3 billion = $2.8 billion
Economic Impact of Tax Swap
 The economic impact of replacing property taxes with sales taxes is at best debatable and at worst
detrimental
 Both Florida TaxWatch and TBRC research show such a swap reduces jobs (-47,000 annually), real
disposable income (-$4.6 billion annually) and gross state product (-$1.7 billion annually)
 Both analyses modeled a revenue neutral swap, this plan is likely a tax increase
 Uncertainty about the tax structure could reduce investment in Florida in the next two years as the
legislature decides what to tax
Other Concerns
 Current revenue estimates and the state’s recent Florida economic forecast show that it will be even
harder than expected to fund the swap.
 Because a 1% sales tax rate increase and eliminating exemptions will likely not produce more than
half of the $11.1 billion needed, significant, yet unidentified revenues will have to be raised. This raises
the specter of a services tax.
 Forcing the legislature to repeal a significant portion of current exemptions may produce some
costly, counterproductive results, such as the elimination of critical economic development exemptions.
Implications for Education
 Fiscal Trojan Horse - no assurance that education funding will be ‘held harmless’ after the first year.
After year one, K-12 will have to compete with other education entities, as well as other state priorities,
for funding every year.
 Taking a dedicated funding source for public schools, like the RLE, and replacing it with a less
stable general revenue would not be a good deal for Florida’s school districts.
It is doubtful future state appropriations for FEFP will grow as fast as RLE has in recent years
 Further undermines local control of public schools. If you don’t want your local school run from
Tallahassee, then vote No on amendment 5.
Other Implications
 The hold harmless provision could create serious budget woes for non-K-12 entities, including
universities, community colleges, and early learning and other budget areas such as Health & Human
Services, Corrections, and the Courts.
 It is doubtful the estimated revenue from a new $10-11 billion tax package will equal actual
collections. This could put education funding and the entire state budget, at risk.
 Because “first-year cash” from new taxes can be significantly less than annualized revenue, the
legislature will have to enact annualized tax increases in excess of the replacement amount in order to
meet the first-year mandate of Amendment 5.
What Will $11 Billion in New
State Taxes Buy Florida?
Having to enact as much as $11 billion in new state taxes to simply replace a long-standing local
revenue source will seriously reduce the flexibility the state has to meet any future revenue needs of its
own.
These new taxes required by Amendment 5 will be several times bigger than anything the state has
enacted before, but they will not significantly improve education, build more roads, provide better
public safety, insure more children or enhance anything else.
Thank you for
your interest in
Florida TaxWatch.
For more information, please visit:
www.FloridaTaxWatch.org