I thought the next time I came to this blog it would be to talk about the trade off’s of reducing – and potentially eliminating – property tax in Florida. I wish it was. I probably would have hit publish by now. But I need to go one more rung down the rabbit hole; I need to understand not just how much money I will save, but how much money our County stands to lose. And to put that into context.

If you need to, get updated on the Property Tax discussion before moving on.

Almost immediately after I posted Part 1 (that did a poor job in estimating the impact on your household), I saw that Governor DeSantis’ office had released a VERY functional Save Our Homes Tax Savings Calculator that tells you exactly how much you will save with a $250,000 Homestead Exemption.

Go look at it, and go see exactly how much you plan to keep.

And I say “keep” intentionally. You’re not getting more money; you’re keeping more of what you already have. That’s an important distinction. You won’t see more money, you will just see less of it going to our County, and possibly allocated to what they can no longer afford.

So what would that trade off look like?

For my family, the savings would be substantial. We would pay little to no property tax, and that kind of relief is hard to ignore. A whole bill…just gone. The appeal is real.

But we also can’t ignore the consequences of what that could do. Property taxes are the primary funding source for county government.

Sarasota County’s own budget documents describe the General Fund as being “primarily supported by property taxes.” According to the Florida Association of Counties, Sarasota County collected about $361 million in property tax revenue in FY 2024 out of $1.728 billion in total revenues—roughly 21%.

One thing that stood out to me is that the county already collects even more through fees and charges for services. It makes me wonder, why aren’t we looking at taking some excess funding from property taxes to lower those fees?

But for now, imagine your household suddenly lost 21% of its income.

What would you cut? What would you keep? How would you make up the difference?

Most of us have thought about that scenario. Most of us have been kept up at night because of it.

The county will have to do the same, except the decisions affect things we all rely on: law enforcement, hospitals, roads, and other public services.

Economists call these “public goods.” The reason governments exist at all is that some services become dramatically cheaper and more effective when everyone shares the cost.

So this conversation isn’t really about property taxes. It’s about bills. About how much we pay for those services now, and how much the bill for those services will go up when they aren’t collectively secured.

The proposed policy brings up a lot more questions than solutions. And it’s hard to be comfortable voting for a shift in how we pay for public goods when the cost will go up – and there are no answers provided to the question: “But how will we pay for those things that are no longer funded?”.

It’s simply the wrong question. The questions aren’t: “Will services be cut?” or “Will the government have to find a way to make up the difference?” We know those answers. It is a resounding yes.

And we also know how much money will stay in our household’s pocket.

The real question is whether it’s enough to buy back everything the county currently provides – or if we’re willing to lose it.