To the Editor:
I do not support Amendment 3, for an array of reasons. But if Florida voters approve it, local governments will face a new fiscal reality, and we should begin thinking now about what comes next.
One principle seems important to me: If there is going to be financial pain from significantly reducing property-tax revenues, that pain should be shared as broadly and reasonably as possible. It should not simply result in cuts to services or shift a greater burden onto a narrower group of taxpayers.
So here is one thought starter: Allow counties, with appropriate state authorization, to impose a local-option surtax on package alcohol sales.
I am talking about off-premise purchases at liquor stores, grocery stores, convenience stores and similar retailers — not restaurants and bars.
Why alcohol?
Unlike an across-the-board sales-tax increase, this would target a discretionary purchase rather than broadly taxing everyday consumption. Someone who does not purchase alcohol pays none of the tax. A percentage-based surcharge also means that someone purchasing a higher-priced product pays more. And in a tourism economy such as ours, visitors and seasonal residents would contribute along with permanent residents.
There is precedent worth examining. In 2011, Maryland increased its sales tax on alcoholic beverages from 6% to 9%. Maryland’s approach is statewide, but the simplicity of the model is interesting: Alcohol is simply taxed at a somewhat higher percentage than ordinary purchases.
A Florida variation could be local rather than statewide, allowing individual counties to decide whether it makes sense for their communities.
How incremental county revenue might be shared with municipalities would require considerable thought. But direct revenue sharing is not the only possibility. Additional funds could support mutually beneficial regional needs that otherwise require substantial local tax dollars. Stormwater, flooding and resiliency infrastructure immediately come to mind.
There are obviously many questions to be answered, including the appropriate rate, state authorization, voter approval, revenue distribution and eligible uses.
I am not suggesting this is the answer. I am suggesting it is one idea worth putting on the table.
If Amendment 3 passes, we will have made a major decision about one side of the local-government ledger. We had better be equally serious about the other side — how we continue paying for the communities and services we expect.
David Lough
Sarasota
