Historical attempts to eliminate property taxes in US states

1. Why Abolition Keeps Coming Back — and Why It Fails to Stick

State lawmakers and advocates repeatedly propose abolishing property taxes because homeowners view them as visible, recurring, and often rising costs; this political salience drives legislation and ballot measures in many states. Analyses show dozens of bills and initiatives in multiple states — including recent activity in Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, and others — seeking reduction or elimination, especially of taxes on tangible personal property (TPP) and for particular taxpayer groups such as seniors ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Yet every serious push confronts the fiscal reality that property taxes account for the majority of local government revenue, funding schools, police, and local infrastructure; proposals either fail or are pared back into reforms such as exemptions, caps, or targeted repeal of narrow tax types ^{[2] [7]}.

2. The Range of Reforms: Caps, Exemptions, and Targeted Repeals

Rather than wholesale repeal, states have enacted a spectrum of measures that relieve taxpayers without eliminating the tax base. Common responses include assessment limits, levy caps, homestead exemptions, and repeal of intangible/tangible personal property taxes for businesses or individuals. The Tax Foundation recommends levy limits as a pragmatic middle path to restrain liability growth while preserving local finance stability ^[1]. Empirical tracking shows nearly 100 bills in 2023 across 23 states targeting TPP and similar carve-outs, with states like Wisconsin and West Virginia making measurable progress in easing specific burdens ^[4]. These reforms reflect a compromise: reduce visible pain without dismantling the principal funding mechanism for localities ^{[1] [4]}.

3. The Replacement Problem: Revenues, Distribution, and Equity Trade-offs

Eliminating property taxes forces hard choices: either dramatic cuts to local services or replacing revenue with other taxes that shift the burden across economic groups and geographies. Analysts calculate that property taxes represent roughly 70 percent of local tax revenue in many contexts, meaning replacement via sales or income taxes would either have to be large or unevenly distributed, creating winners and losers across counties and income brackets ^[2]. Experts warn that consumption taxes are often regressive, and broad rate reductions can underfund schools and public safety. Policymakers who push abolition must confront both fiscal substitution challenges and geographic allocation problems of replacement funds ^{[2] [8]}.

4. Political Dynamics: Popular Appeals and Institutional Constraints

The political appeal of eliminating property tax is powerful: homeowners, retirees, and certain business groups favor relief, and ballot measures can capture voter attention ^{[3] [5]}. However, institutional constraints — state constitutional uniformity clauses, local government dependence on property levy autonomy, and the complexity of reallocating state-to-local aid — blunt the feasibility of abolition. Proposals to amend constitutions or pass statewide repeals often trigger institutional backlash from school districts, municipal associations, and fiscally conservative analysts who emphasize long-term budget stability over short-term tax relief ^{[7] [9]}. The result is frequent legislative activity but conservative policy outcomes.

5. Evidence and Outcomes: What Reforms Achieve in Practice

Where reforms have passed, the measurable effects are modest: targeted TPP repeals reduce administrative burdens and modestly shift business costs, while caps and exemptions slow assessment-driven spikes but do not erase the property tax’s core role. Analysts note reform success in reducing distortions for specific taxpayers (e.g., commercial equipment) but caution that broader abolition would introduce fiscal volatility and inequitable distribution of services ^{[4] [1]}. States that choose caps rather than repeal preserve local revenue autonomy but leave unresolved debates about fairness and long-term housing market effects ^[9].

6. What Policymakers and Voters Should Weigh Next

Future debates will hinge on transparent arithmetic and trade-offs: advocates must present credible replacement revenue plans and distribution formulas; opponents must quantify service cuts and local fiscal harm. The most constructive path shown in recent analyses is targeted relief paired with levy or assessment limits that hold down homeowner liability without undermining local budgets, coupled with state-level mechanisms to smooth inter-jurisdictional disparities ^{[1] [8]}. Voters and legislators should evaluate proposals against two clear benchmarks: fiscal plausibility and effects on equitable local service provision, rather than rhetorical simplicity.