How 32 lawmakers killed fair tax relief and protected sweetheart deals instead
Over the past several weeks, the South Carolina Senate has heavily debated S.768, a bill that would give a property tax break to those 65 and older who have lived in South Carolina for ten years or more.
S.768, also known as the Homestead Act, was introduced and pioneered by Senate Finance Committee chairman Harvey Peeler. Peeler himself is nearly 80 years old and has held the same senate seat for 45 years.
On February 18th, Senator Lee Bright offered amendment 6 to the Homestead Act which would allow all taxpayers to receive the same property tax break, not only senior citizens.
"I understand the need to want to please seniors, but I think about our greatest generation and they're, you know, in their upper 70s now...and they have kids and they have grandkids that are trying to survive this economy. I don't think these cuts that pit generations against one another are a good idea." [00:35]
Reimburse Taxpayers For Using Their Money for Failed Deals
"I've been gone for nine years and this budget has doubled...We gave Scout $1.3 billion. We gave the Panthers $130 million...I just feel like people are over-taxed." [01:31]
For context, in 2023, the Senate voted 36-4 to give Scout Motors over $1.3 billion incentives package, including $400 million in cash. The only nay votes were Richard Cash, Tom Corbin, Shane Martin, and Danny Verdin.
In South Carolina, property taxes are collected at the local level and those governments set tax rates (also referred to as millage rates.) Bright commented on how Spartanburg County Council is very loose with their money. This same council has been in the news frequently for passing the second reading of a tax breaks package for a data center that has yet to be announced and has faced overwhelming backlash from residents.
"My county council, they meet just to give away money. I mean, it's out of control...there's just a total disconnect with the people. The people just get more and more upset. They see how highly taxed we are in the southeast and I know we are trying to make things better but this is an opportunity to really do a huge benefit to the our taxpayers." [02:11]
Senator Jeffery Zell asked Senator Bright what the amendment “would cost in overall tax”, to which Bright replied, "It’s going to be about $400 million less than Scout in terms we can understand. So that’d be the number there." [06:15]
Senate Tries to Kill Amendment Before Vote
Some senators did not respond well to Bright’s amendment, obviously irritated that they would be on record for voting against giving fair tax breaks to all of their constituents.
The bill’s author, Senator Peeler, tried to bribe Bright with “a seat at the table” if Bright withdrew the amendment. Senator Lee Bright refused, stating he does not want to go back on his word after committing to proposing it [22:32]. Bright remarks, "I'll just go down swinging like I did when I was here before" [24:44], referencing the last time he was elected to the Senate in 2014.
Senator Larry Grooms attempted to alter the amendment with a "poison pill" by proposing to raise the exemption from $100,000 to $1 million, which Bright immediately objected to, recognizing it as a tactic to ensure the amendment would fail [29:40].
Senate Votes to Table (Kill) Amendment 32-10
After Senator Bright finished explaining the amendment and answering questions (some of which were just insulting to any taxpayer under the age of 65), Senator Danny Verdin of Greenville moved to table the amendment, which would kill it. 32 senators voted to kill the amendment, while 10 voted to pass it. Here is the final count:
The bill that did pass allows anyone 65 and older who has lived in the state for 10 years or more to receive a break on taxes for the first $150,000 of their property’s value, while those who have lived here for at least five years would only pay property taxes above $75,000 and anyone above 65 could claim $50,000 homestead exemption that is already allowed by law. S.768 is now headed to the House and is waiting for a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee.
All taxpayers should be disgusted that the majority of their senators think so little of them. These senators expect to spend your money and give you nothing in return. They love to discuss growth and act confused when they don’t understand why young people don’t buy land in their districts. I’m going to probably shock all of them when I say this: it’s because we can’t afford it.
These 32 senators should be ashamed of their vote and should not expect anyone under the age of 65 to vote for them. When they speak about getting their young people to stay in district, I hope you remind them of their folly. Bookmark this one.
