Originally published on Substack.

​​Texas leaders are finally talking about spending restraint. That is welcome. But Texans should not confuse a smaller agency request with a smaller government.
​
Governor Greg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and Speaker Dustin Burrows recently directed most state agencies⁠ to reduce their base budget requests by 3% for the 2028–29 biennium.

Abbott promised “strict standards of efficiency and accountability,” Patrick said the guidance would keep Texas on a “fiscally conservative path,” and Burrows called it the baseline for a conservative budget focused on affordability and property tax relief. Those are worthy goals.

Now comes the hard part: proving it.

Three Percent of What?

A 3% reduction sounds substantial until taxpayers ask the obvious question: 3% below what?

Is the “base” last session’s agency request, the amount lawmakers appropriated, actual spending, or some administratively adjusted figure? The announcement does not make that comparison clear enough.

That matters because agencies are not being ordered to cut state spending by 3%. They are being asked to request 3% less from a baseline, while retaining the ability to seek additional money through exceptional items. Public education, Medicaid caseload growth, debt service, employee benefits, and education savings accounts are among the major exemptions.

Without clear accounting, agencies and lawmakers could maneuver around the target, increase total appropriations, and still claim a fiscal victory during an election year.

Texans deserve transparent budgeting that shows, side by side, the last appropriation, current estimated spending, the proposed appropriation, and the population-growth-plus-inflation benchmark.

Compare Apples to Apples

The correct comparison is appropriations to appropriations, not spending in one period against appropriations in another. Mixing those measures is an apples-to-oranges comparison that can disguise government growth.

On an apples-to-apples basis, state funds appropriations increased 42% over the last two budget cycles, while population growth plus inflation increased about 25%.

As I said in our joint statement from fiscal conservatives⁠, spending has substantially outpaced the average taxpayer’s ability to pay. Without actual appropriations cuts, the 3% request policy risks becoming “window dressing for political points in an election year.”

Jeramy Kitchen put it well: the goal should not merely be a smaller request but “restoring a culture of fiscal responsibility.” Bill Peacock noted that state funds appropriations have risen $110 billion, or 78%, over ten years, feeding a system organized around special interests. JoAnn Fleming was even more direct: conservatives did not fight merely to slow government growth. “We fought to shrink government.”

Property Taxes Still Rise

State leaders also cite $51 billion in property tax relief. But policymakers should explain exactly how that figure is calculated.

It is not all school district maintenance and operations rate compression. It also includes homestead exemptions and other tax preferences. Those are not economically equivalent.

Broad-based compression lowers rates for everyone. Exemptions narrow the tax base, shift burdens among property owners, and require more state tax revenue to finance the same level of government.

Meanwhile, total local property tax levies reached $89.4 billion in 2025, up roughly 22% since 2021. Historic “relief” alongside rising total levies tells us the underlying problem remains: excessive state and local spending.

Cut the Budget, Then the Tax

Texas can eliminate school district M&O property taxes through recurring surpluses dedicated to permanent rate compression. But those surpluses should come from disciplined budgeting, not temporary revenue windfalls or larger tax collections elsewhere.

Lawmakers should cut appropriations, keep future growth below population growth plus inflation, eliminate lower-priority programs, and strengthen state and local spending limits.

Real fiscal conservatism is not measured by press releases or shifting baselines. It is measured by a smaller government, lower tax burdens, and more freedom for Texans.

Spend less. Tax less. Let Texans prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

​This week reinforced a lesson that cuts across nearly every policy debate in America:
​
People work better than government.

That may sound obvious, but it’s amazing how often policymakers forget it.

Whether the topic is poverty, jobs, housing, taxes, budgets, or inflation, the instinct in Washington and many state capitals is often the same: create another program, spend more money, or expand government authority. Yet the evidence continues to point in the opposite direction.

Take economic mobility. In my recent article for The Daily Economy⁠, later republished by RealClearMarkets⁠, I challenged the myth that America has a permanent underclass trapped in poverty.

The reality is that most people move through income brackets over their lifetimes as they gain skills, build careers, start businesses, and accumulate wealth. The goal of public policy shouldn’t be managing outcomes—it should be expanding opportunities.
​
The same principle showed up in the latest U.S. jobs report.

​While headlines celebrated job growth, my analysis found much of the increase came from government and government-dependent sectors. A bigger government payroll is not the same thing as a stronger economy. Lasting prosperity comes from productive private-sector growth, entrepreneurship, investment, and innovation. That’s where rising living standards come from, not government expansion.
​
Housing affordability tells a similar story. In my recent RealClearMarkets commentary⁠, I argued that America’s affordability challenges stem largely from supply constraints.

​Too many policymakers focus on restricting growth instead of expanding supply. Whether it’s housing, energy, water, or data centers, abundance—not scarcity—is the path to lower prices and greater opportunity.
​
The question of ownership remains central as well. In my latest property tax work, including Wyoming’s path toward property tax relief⁠, I continued making the case that if government can tax your property forever, ownership is incomplete.

Families should own their homes, not rent them from government through perpetual taxation. The solution starts with spending restraint and using surpluses to reduce and ultimately eliminate property taxes.
​
That same spending restraint is at the heart of the Sustainable Budget Project. Whether examining Alabama’s $18,000 spending problem⁠ or Alaska’s resource trap⁠, the lesson remains remarkably consistent: government spending that grows faster than population growth plus inflation eventually leads to higher taxes, slower growth, and fewer opportunities.

They’re largely the result of inflation, Federal Reserve policy, rising funding costs, and increased lending risks. When policymakers abandon fiscal discipline, families eventually pay the price.
​
One of the highlights of the week was seeing my work published internationally through the Instituto de Liberdade Econômica⁠, where I made the case that free-market capitalism remains the greatest engine of prosperity ever discovered.

No economic system has done more to lift people out of poverty, improve living standards, and expand opportunity.
​
My economic episode this week was on how government failures hurt our ability to prosper in many ways.

Across all these issues, the lesson is the same. Economic mobility requires opportunity. Housing affordability requires abundance. Ownership requires property rights. Growth requires entrepreneurship. Prosperity requires freedom.

Government has an important role, but it cannot replace families, businesses, churches, charities, and communities. Those institutions remain the real engines of human flourishing.

The more we trust people, the more they prosper. And that’s exactly what public policy should be designed to achieve.

Affordability continues to dominate the concerns of American families, and for good reason. As prices remain elevated, energy costs are squeezing household budgets, housing has become increasingly out of reach, and the value of every dollar continues to erode. But these problems didn’t appear out of nowhere; much of today’s affordability crisis is the result of years of bad policy.

In this episode of This Week’s Economy, we’ll examine why inflation remains a persistent burden, how housing shortages and overregulation continue driving up living costs, why tax and spending reforms matter for long-run affordability, and what the future of the Federal Reserve under Kevin Warsh could mean for restoring sound money and economic discipline.

Watch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify, and visit my website for more information about my work at Ginn Economic Consulting at vanceginn.com and show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.

Originally published on Substack.

​My work this week kept coming back to one theme: government keeps finding new ways to trap people.

Property taxes trap homeowners in perpetual payments to government. Exit taxes try to trap residents in failing states. Regulatory barriers threaten to trap innovation before it can grow. Bloated state budgets trap taxpayers with rising future burdens. And the Fed’s oversized balance sheet traps markets in a cycle of distortion and dependency.

Different issues. Same root problem.
Government grows, taxpayers pay, markets distort, and freedom shrinks.

That is why spending restraint, property rights, sound money, and economic freedom are not abstract ideas. They are the difference between owning your home or renting from government, moving freely or being punished for leaving, building the future or regulating it away, and saving in dollars that hold value or dollars that keep losing purchasing power.

Here’s the week’s breakdown.

Stop Renting From Government

A property tax revolt is building across America, and it is overdue.

You can pay off your mortgage, maintain your home, insure it, improve it, and still receive a government bill every year just to keep what you already own. Miss enough payments, and the government can ultimately take the property.

That is not true ownership.

That is renting from the government forever.

This is why states such as Florida, Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana, and others are debating property tax relief or elimination. But too many proposals still miss the core point: property taxes are primarily a spending problem.

My latest piece, Stop Renting From the Government: Consider Wyoming, builds on my new Wyoming brief showing that the state spent roughly $4 billion above a population-growth-plus-inflation benchmark from FY 2017 to FY 2025 while building major reserves. The fiscal capacity for meaningful relief exists. What’s missing is the political discipline to restrain spending and return surplus dollars to taxpayers.

That same principle drives my new national report, Securing Ownership by Eliminating Property Taxes, which uses Montana as a case study. Montana is especially important because it has no broad statewide sales tax, yet spending has still outpaced sustainable limits. That proves the problem is not a lack of revenue. The problem is government spending too much.

Homestead exemptions, assessment caps, targeted rebates, and one-time checks may sound good politically, but they mostly shift burdens and leave the spending machine untouched. The better path is strict state and local spending limits tied to population growth plus inflation, surplus-driven rate compression, school finance reform, and constitutional taxpayer protections.

Read the Wyoming piece here, the Montana framework here, and share the Wyoming property tax thread on X.

Let AI Build

AI infrastructure is not abstract.

It needs land, power, fiber, water, transmission, and data centers on the ground. Kansas can either welcome that opportunity with light-touch rules and fast permitting, or it can let local zoning, regulatory uncertainty, and political fear hand the future to larger, politically connected firms that can afford the compliance costs.

In my piece for Kansas Policy Institute, Kansas Should Welcome AI Growth, Not Zone It Away, I argue that Kansas does not need subsidies or corporate welfare to benefit from AI infrastructure. It needs predictable, market-driven rules that let builders build, communities benefit, and competition work.

Regulatory bottlenecks rarely protect the little guy. More often, they protect incumbents by raising the cost of entry.

The AI economy will not wait for states to get comfortable. The infrastructure will be built somewhere. The question is whether Kansas and other states want more opportunity, investment, tax base, and energy innovation, or whether they want to regulate the future away.

Exit Taxes Admit Failure

When people and capital leave high-tax states, politicians have two choices.

They can reform the policies that drove people away, or they can punish people for leaving.

Too many are choosing the second option.

In my latest piece for AIER, Exit Taxes Won’t Save Failing States, I argue that exit taxes are not serious fiscal policy. They are a confession of failure.

Economic freedom means people can move to where they are treated best. Families leave when taxes are too high, housing is too expensive, regulation is too heavy, crime is too high, or opportunity is better elsewhere. Businesses move when the policy environment becomes hostile to investment, hiring, and growth.

The right response is not to trap people.

The right response is to compete for them.

Flatten taxes. Restrain spending. Reduce red tape. Protect property rights. Make the state worth staying in.

Exit taxes are the policy equivalent of a bad business charging customers a fee to stop shopping there.

Texas Needs Accountability

Episode 200 of the Let People Prosper Show is here, and we did not spend it on a highlight reel.

I sat down with Jeramy Kitchen, president of Texas Policy Research, for a serious conversation on whether the “Texas Miracle” still matches reality. We talked about rising government spending, persistent property tax pain, school finance, corporate welfare, and the need for real accountability in a state that too often relies on branding instead of restraint.

Texas still has enormous advantages: no personal income tax, a dynamic economy, energy abundance, entrepreneurship, and a strong culture of work. But those advantages must be protected. A reputation for freedom is not self-executing.

The state has to earn it every session.

That means real spending restraint, property tax elimination through surplus-driven compression, broader school choice, less corporate welfare, and more respect for taxpayers.

You can listen to Episode 200 on Apple Podcasts, watch it on YouTube, and share the episode thread on X.

Shrink the Fed

With Kevin Warsh now sworn in as Federal Reserve Chair, the moment demands more than rate talk.

The deeper issue is the Fed’s balance sheet, which remains far too large and continues to distort markets, punish savers, reward leverage, and enable congressional fiscal recklessness.

In Kevin Warsh’s Fed Moment, I argue that real monetary reform should mean a rules-based framework for price stability, a path toward a 0 percent inflation target, and a dramatically smaller balance sheet. My North Star is a Fed balance sheet capped near 6 percent of GDP, compared with roughly 20 percent today, until it can be eliminated.

That means letting short-term assets mature without rolling them over, exiting mortgage-backed securities, and returning the Fed to a narrow lender-of-last-resort role until we can ultimately move beyond central banking altogether.

This connects directly to property taxes, exit taxes, and state spending. When government grows faster than the productive economy, people pay through higher taxes, higher prices, distorted markets, trapped mobility, and weaker prosperity.

Sound money and spending restraint go together.

The Bottom Line

This week’s lesson is clear: government is too often trying to trap people.

Property taxes trap homeowners in perpetual payments. Exit taxes try to trap residents geographically. Regulatory barriers trap innovation. Monetary distortions trap markets in dependency. Excessive spending traps taxpayers with rising future burdens.

The answer is not better central planning.

The answer is to constrain government, protect property rights, restore sound money, and let free people and markets allocate resources better than politicians ever can.

That is how we let people prosper.

Five Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Property tax relief without spending limits is cosmetic.

States should enact binding expenditure limits tied to population growth plus inflation, use surpluses for rate compression, and protect taxpayers constitutionally.

2. Exit taxes signal failure.

If people are leaving, fix the tax, spending, regulatory, and public safety problems that pushed them out.

3. AI infrastructure needs permission to grow.

States should streamline permitting, avoid subsidies, reject local regulatory choke points, and let competition work.

4. The Fed’s size matters as much as rates.

A bloated balance sheet distorts markets and enables fiscal recklessness. Rules-based reform and balance-sheet reduction should be central.

5. Texas and every other state must earn their reputation daily.

Prioritize taxpayers over cronies, transparency over branding, and spending restraint over expansion.

Join the Conversation

Thank you for reading and sharing this work. If this added value, please forward it to a policymaker, staffer, journalist, homeowner, business owner, or friend who cares about ownership, mobility, sound money, and prosperity.

I’d especially like to hear from you: What is the best path to eliminating property taxes in your state?
​
Drop your thoughts in the comments, share this post with someone who should read it, and follow me on X for real-time updates.

Originally published on Substack. 

​Before we dive in, I recently published a new policy brief, “Wyoming’s Path to Property Tax Relief Through Spending Restraint,” which examines how sustainable spending limits can create the fiscal space for meaningful property tax reduction and elimination of school district property taxes in Wyoming.

The findings help explain why a growing tax revolt is spreading across America.

From Florida to Wyoming, Texas to Nebraska, and Iowa to Pennsylvania, taxpayers are asking a simple question: If I paid for my home, why do I keep paying the government every year just to stay in it?

That question gets to the heart of what makes property taxes different from nearly every other tax. Income taxes apply when you earn. Sales taxes apply when you buy. Property taxes apply simply because you own.

Or at least think you do.

Miss a property tax payment long enough, and the government can ultimately take your property. That’s why property taxes are fundamentally different. They are not a tax on a transaction. They are a tax on ownership itself.

Across the country, taxpayers are reaching a breaking point as assessments rise, tax bills climb, and affordability worsens. The result is a growing movement to reduce—and ultimately eliminate—property taxes.

The question is no longer whether states should pursue property tax relief.

The question is how.

The Wrong Path: Shifting Taxes Without Fixing Spending

Many lawmakers respond to taxpayer frustration by proposing larger homestead exemptions, assessment caps, circuit breakers, and other targeted relief programs.

While these measures may provide temporary relief for some taxpayers, they rarely reduce the overall tax burden. Instead, they often shift taxes from one group of taxpayers to another.

We’ve seen this happen repeatedly.

In Texas, lawmakers have enacted multiple rounds of homestead exemptions and appraisal caps over several decades. Yet property taxes continued climbing because local government spending continued growing.

The exemptions changed who paid the taxes.

They did not meaningfully reduce how much government spent.

The same risk exists in Florida, where policymakers are increasingly discussing larger exemptions and other forms of targeted relief.

Without spending restraint, tax relief becomes temporary.

Government simply finds new ways to collect the money.

The lesson is simple:

You cannot permanently reduce taxes without permanently restraining spending.

Wyoming Shows What Is Possible

My latest policy brief examining Wyoming’s finances highlights an important reality.

Wyoming does not have a revenue problem.

Wyoming has a spending discipline problem.

Using data from the National Association of State Budget Officers and applying a Population Growth Plus Inflation (PGI) spending limit, Wyoming spent approximately $4 billion above a sustainable spending benchmark from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2025.

That is not a one-time event.

Since fiscal year 2020 alone, spending exceeded the PGI benchmark by roughly $3.3 billion.

Since fiscal year 2023 alone, spending exceeded the benchmark by roughly $1.6 billion.

Meanwhile, Wyoming reportedly maintains roughly $36 billion in reserves and related balances while residential property taxes have risen dramatically over the last several years.

The takeaway is clear: The money exists.

The challenge is prioritizing taxpayers instead of continued government expansion.

The Key to Sustainable Tax Relief

This is why I continue advocating for Population Growth Plus Inflation spending limits.

The concept is straightforward.

Government spending should show slower than:

• population growth, plus
• inflation.

Government spending should change no more than growth of the population it serves and the cost for what taxpayers can afford.

When spending grows faster than that, government begins consuming a larger share of the economy and a larger share of taxpayers’ income, reducing economic activity.

The result is predictable:

• Higher taxes.
• Larger budgets.
• Less affordability.

By contrast, spending limits tied to population growth plus inflation create recurring surpluses from different taxes that can be used to reduce taxes year after year.

This is not austerity.

It is simply aligning government growth with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for it.

The Property Tax Elimination Framework

My research in Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Florida, and other states points to the same framework.

First, limit spending changes at the state and local levels with a strong Population Growth Plus Inflation cap.

Second, use surplus revenues to compress school district property tax rates (for those states without an income tax like Texas or another major tax like no broad-based sales tax in Montana).

Third, dedicate future surpluses toward continued school district property tax rate reductions.

Fourth, maintain prudent reserve balances while returning excess resources to taxpayers.

Over time, property taxes can be substantially reduced and, in many states, eventually eliminated. Here’s an example of what this surplus buydown could have looked like using historical data and trends starting in 2017, and ending school district property taxes by 2024.

This approach differs fundamentally from exemptions, rebates, and temporary relief programs.

Instead of treating the symptom, it addresses the underlying cause.

A National Movement Is Emerging

The growing push to eliminate property taxes is not happening because taxpayers suddenly became anti-government.

It is happening because families increasingly feel trapped.

• They work hard.
• They buy homes.
• They pay off mortgages.
• Then they discover they never truly stop paying for their property.
• At the same time, government revenues continue growing faster than many household budgets.

That is neither sustainable nor consistent with the principles of ownership and economic freedom.

States that want meaningful property tax relief must stop focusing exclusively on tax policy and start focusing on spending policy.

Because property taxes are ultimately a spending problem.

And spending restraint is the only durable solution.

Closing Thoughts

America’s property tax revolt is really a demand for something much deeper.

• Ownership.
• Security.
• Affordability.
• Accountability.

If lawmakers continue relying on exemptions and carveouts while allowing spending to grow unchecked, taxpayers will continue facing the same problems year after year.

But if states adopt responsible spending limits and dedicate surpluses toward tax relief, they can finally provide something taxpayers have been demanding for decades:
​
A pathway to true ownership. Here’s what the surplus buydown could have looked like in Wyoming.

Originally published on Substack. 

Across America, taxpayers are asking a question politicians would rather avoid:

Do you really own your home if the government can tax it forever and take it if you cannot pay?
​
That is the issue at the heart of the new property tax report I co-authored with Joseph Johns of JDJ Insight Partners, formerly of Tax Foundation.

We use Montana as a case study, but the framework applies far beyond one state. Property taxes are frustrating families in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Wyoming, and many others because people are tired of rising tax bills, rising housing costs, and local governments that keep growing faster than taxpayers can afford.
​
Check out:

1. New national framework
2. Download the full report
3. See Joseph’s publication announcement
4. Explore the Montana estimator for reform comparisons.

This builds on my earlier policy guide, which lays out why property taxes are uniquely harmful and how states can move from temporary relief to durable reform.

This is not just a tax issue.

It is about ownership, affordability, economic freedom, and whether government should be forced to live within the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for it.

Ownership Should Mean Ownership

Property taxes are different from other taxes.

Income taxes punish work, saving, investment, and success. Sales taxes, when broad-based and applied to final goods and services, are more visible and less harmful than taxes on income, capital, or property. But property taxes are uniquely damaging because they apply to ownership itself.

You can pay off your mortgage. You can maintain your home. You can live responsibly for decades. But if the tax bill never stops, and government can eventually take your home if you cannot pay, then ownership is conditional.

That is why I have long argued through my property tax research and a recent podcast episode on whether you really own your home as property taxes make homeowners permanent renters from the government. That sounds harsh, but it is true.

And this does not stop with homeowners. Renters pay through higher rents. Businesses pay through higher costs. Workers pay through lower wages and fewer opportunities. Property taxes punish improvements, discourage mobility, distort housing markets, and raise costs across the economy.

In a time when affordability is already one of the biggest issues in America, property taxes make it harder to buy, rent, build, invest, and stay rooted in a community.

Relief Is Not Reform

This is where many policymakers get trapped.

Homestead exemptions, appraisal caps, rebates, and temporary compression may reduce some bills in the short run. But too often they shift burdens, narrow the tax base, complicate the system, and leave the spending machine untouched.

That is why I am skeptical of carveout-heavy tax policy. It creates winners and losers. Renters, businesses, future buyers, and people outside the favored category often pay more. Politicians get to say they “cut taxes,” while government keeps spending more.

That is not reform.

That is pressure relief for a system still designed to grow.

The real question is not whether government can make a property tax bill look slightly less painful this year. The real question is why government needs so much money in the first place.

Property taxes rise because spending rises. Appraisals matter. Rates matter. School finance formulas matter. But the root problem is spending. If state and local governments keep growing faster than taxpayers’ ability to pay, tax bills will keep rising under one label or another.

That is why tax reform without spending restraint is a mirage.

Why Montana Matters

Montana is not just an example. It is a serious test case.

Unlike most states, Montana has no broad statewide sales tax. The ATR Sustainable Budget Project reports Montana’s state-local sales tax rate at 0.0 percent, while its top individual income tax rate is 5.7 percent, its corporate income tax rate is 6.8 percent, and property taxes paid as a share of owner-occupied housing value are about 0.8 percent.

Montana also ranks 6th in the Tax Foundation’s overall State Tax Competitiveness Index. That means Montana has real strengths, but its property tax burden is still becoming a major political and economic issue.

That combination creates an opportunity.

Montana can think differently because it does not already have a broad statewide sales tax layered on top of everything else. A constitutionally limited, broad, flat, low-rate sales tax on final goods and services could be one option to help reduce or eliminate major property tax burdens.

But the word “limited” matters. A sales tax that simply funds more government is not reform. It must be paired with strict spending restraint, permanent property tax reduction, and strong taxpayer protections.

The spending data show why.

From 2016 to 2025, Montana’s state funds and all funds budgets both grew faster than population growth plus inflation. My work at Americans for Tax Reform estimates Montana’s 2025 state funds budget was $649 million higher than it would have been under a sustainable budget limit, and cumulative state funds overspending reached $3.0 billion over the decade. On an all funds basis, the 2025 budget was $1.7 billion above the sustainable path, with $13.8 billion in cumulative overspending from 2016 to 2025.

That is the case study in one sentence: Montana does not have a revenue shortage; it has a spending problem.

If spending had been restrained, much more fiscal space would exist for lasting tax relief. That is why the Montana estimator is useful. It helps move the debate from slogans to tradeoffs by allowing people to see how current burdens, partial reform, broader reform, possible sales-tax offsets, and net savings may affect households and businesses.

Montana matters because it shows the broader lesson for every state: mechanics differ, but principles do not.

Control spending. Lower rates permanently. Avoid gimmicks. Protect taxpayers. Secure ownership.

The Best Paths Forward

There is no one-size-fits-all model because every state has a different constitution, economy, tax system, school finance structure, and local government setup.

But two options deserve serious attention.

One is surplus-driven rate compression. That means limiting spending growth, using surplus revenue to lower property tax rates, and repeating that process over time. The goal is not another temporary check. The goal is permanently lower rates that keep moving toward zero.

Another is structural tax reform, especially moving away from taxes on ownership and toward flat, broad, low-rate sales taxes on final goods and services. A well-designed final sales tax is more transparent and less destructive than taxing homes, income, or capital. But it must not become a blank check for government. The goal should be a broader base, lower rates, fewer carveouts, and smaller government.

School finance reform is also central. In many states, school property taxes are the largest part of the property tax burden. Since states already control much of education finance through formulas, mandates, and funding rules, lawmakers should look closely at reducing school property taxes first while protecting taxpayers and expanding education freedom.

Texas shows this opportunity from another angle. In my work on property tax elimination, I have argued that states can start with school district maintenance and operations taxes, use spending restraint, apply surplus compression, and consider broader sales tax bases without pretending government must keep growing forever. Earlier research on replacing property taxes with sales taxes also found potential economic gains when paired with strict spending limits.

The point is not to shift the burden from one taxpayer to another.

The point is to reduce the overall burden and secure true ownership.

Answering the Critics

Critics will say eliminating property taxes is unrealistic.

I disagree. What is unrealistic is expecting taxpayers to accept unlimited government claims on their homes forever.
Critics will say property taxes are stable.

Stable for whom? They may be stable for government, but they are not stable for retirees, young families, renters, small businesses, or workers whose incomes do not rise with assessments and spending decisions. A tax should not be praised because it is easy for government to collect and hard for taxpayers to escape.

Critics will say local governments need the money.

Core services matter. Police, fire, courts, infrastructure, and education matter. But “need” cannot mean every agency, district, and local government gets to grow faster than taxpayers can afford. Local control should not mean unchecked local extraction.

Critics will say sales taxes are regressive.

That concern deserves to be heard, but it misses the broader point if property taxes are ignored. Renters already pay property taxes through rent. Lower-income homeowners can be squeezed out of their homes. Businesses pass property taxes through prices and wages. A broad, low-rate final sales tax paired with property tax elimination, spending restraint, and fewer carveouts can be more transparent and less damaging than a hidden, perpetual tax on ownership.

Critics will say exemptions are easier.

They are. That is the problem. Easy relief is often weak reform. The goal should be equal treatment, lower rates, and a smaller burden for everyone, not a political carveout for some.

The Right Standard

Every property tax proposal should face a simple test.

Does it reduce the size and cost of government, or merely change who pays?
Does it lower rates permanently, or provide temporary relief?
Does it treat taxpayers equally, or create favored groups?
Does it protect homeowners, renters, and businesses, or shift burdens among them?
Does it move us toward true ownership, or preserve government’s annual claim on property?

That is the standard.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Property taxes undermine true ownership.

A family should not have to make annual payments forever to keep what it already bought and paid for.

2. Spending restraint is non-negotiable.

State and local governments must limit spending growth to no more than population growth plus inflation, preferably less, or property tax relief will not last.

3. Use structural reform, not gimmicks.

Surplus-driven rate compression and flat, broad, low-rate sales taxes on final goods and services are top options, but both must be paired with spending limits, school finance reform, and strong taxpayer protections.

The Bottom Line

Property tax elimination is not radical.

It is the logical next step for states that care about ownership, affordability, economic freedom, and limited government.

Families should not rent their homes from the government forever. Renters should not face higher housing costs because local governments refuse to restrain spending. Businesses should not be punished for investing in property and expansion. And taxpayers should not be told government must always grow while their own budgets keep getting tighter.

The North Star is clear: restrain spending, lower rates, broaden bases, avoid carveouts, protect taxpayers, and secure ownership.
That is how states can reduce property taxes.
That is how states can eliminate property taxes.
That is how states can let people prosper.

Thank you for reading and for sharing my work. If this added value, please send it to a policymaker, staffer, local official, homeowner, renter, business owner, or journalist who needs to think seriously about property tax reform.

Through Ginn Economic Consulting, I’m glad to work with policymakers, organizations, and media outlets across the country on property tax elimination, spending restraint, tax reform, and pro-growth policies that let people prosper.

Read more about the new framework here, download the report here, explore the Montana estimator here, and find more of my work at vanceginn.com or vanceginn.substack.com.

​

Policymakers, policy staff, or media: Check out the full report and contact me at the button below if you'd like to discuss. ​

Originally published at the Houston Chronicle. 

Friday is the last day for Texans to appeal their property taxes, and there’s no doubt that plenty of Texans are rightly frustrated that their bills keep rising even after years of proclaimed “relief.” Local property tax collections are now about $90 billion per year, even as state lawmakers cite “an overwhelming $51 billion in relief.”

The problem is not that Texas lacks the tax revenue to cover state needs or the policy tools to address the problem. It is that the state has tried to lower property tax bills without fixing the structure that causes property taxes to grow year after year.

The ongoing debate between Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reflects this tension. Abbott has spoken openly about eliminating school district maintenance and operations property taxes for homeowners, while Patrick has emphasized expanding homestead exemptions on those property taxes. 

Both approaches appeal to voters. But exemptions, limitations on tax revenue growth and other partial fixes do not reduce the size or scope of government. They redistribute who pays for it while allowing spending to continue. Nothing is free, including government spending.

At its core, this debate is not just about taxes. It is about the proper role of government. Government exists to preserve liberty, protect property rights, enforce contracts and provide limited public services. It is not meant to permanently claim a share of what people own or to grow faster than the average taxpayer’s ability to sustain it. When the government exceeds those limits, taxes rise regardless of how they are labeled.

As a native Texan and an economist who has spent more than a decade studying state and local public finance, including detailed work on property tax elimination, I have reached a consistent conclusion. Eliminating property taxes is morally the correct thing to do and can be done either quickly or gradually. What matters is whether lawmakers commit to spending discipline and permanent tax rate reduction rather than temporary relief.

The most logical place to start is school district maintenance and operations property taxes, which make up the largest share of the property tax burden. Public education is already governed by state funding formulas, mandates and recapture rules. If the state largely controls the system, it should fund it directly rather than forcing homeowners to pay a perpetual tax on homeownership.

The lieutenant governor has claimed that eliminating school property taxes would require a massive sales tax increase. That’s not true. According to my calculations, by spending less and broadening the sales tax base — in ways such as by taxing services and currently exempt items — Texas could replace school district M&O property taxes with a sales tax rate no higher than 9 percent, compared with today’s 8.25 percent combined state and local rate. 

The key variable that is too often overlooked is not the tax base or the tax rate — it is excessive government spending. When spending is limited, base broadening can support necessary revenue without punishing taxpayers. That restraint requires a binding limit on state and local spending growth tied to population growth plus inflation, a principle central to sustainable budgeting. 

When the government grows more slowly than the average taxpayer’s ability to pay, excess taxpayer money collected — known as surpluses — emerges. Over the last two budget cycles, Texas has had more than $50 billion in state budget surpluses because of a fast-growing economy. Applied consistently through a surplus buydown with tax revenue collected above population growth plus inflation, those funds could have dramatically lowered school property tax rates without raising taxes.

Local control would remain intact. School boards would still operate schools. Voters would still approve bond elections for facilities and repay that debt locally until it matures. What changes is the funding of day-to-day operations, not who governs.

Cities, counties and special districts should eliminate their property taxes through the same surplus buydown principle applied locally. Local governments should be allowed to rely more on sales tax revenue — but only if that revenue is dedicated to reducing property tax rates rather than expanding spending. Unlike property taxes, sales taxes follow economic activity more closely, naturally capping spending and generating surpluses during expansions while not overly burdening taxpayers during recessions.

Debt should be treated differently. Voter-approved debt should remain local and be paid by the voters who approved it until it matures. The state should not redistribute or socialize local debt across taxpayers who never consented to it.

Texas once led the nation by pairing low taxes with disciplined spending. In recent years, that leadership has slipped as spending has grown faster and relief has increasingly relied on homestead exemptions rather than structural reform. Other states are moving faster on tax modernization and fiscal restraint. Texas risks falling behind if it continues to avoid hard choices.

The time to lead is now. With clear limits on government growth, zero-growth levy rules without voter supermajority approval, surplus buydowns, a modern tax base focused on final consumption rather than property ownership, and political courage, Texas can restore conservative principles to fiscal policy and once again set the standard for economic freedom.

Affordability is under pressure across the U.S.—and the root causes are increasingly tied to policy choices.

In this episode of This Week’s Economy, we examine how persistent inflation, excessive federal spending, weak state tax reform, regulatory burdens, and supply constraints are driving higher costs and limiting opportunity for families and businesses.

The stakes are clear: when government expands and markets are distorted, the result is higher prices, reduced investment, and slower economic growth.

This episode provides a full economic health check—from CPI and jobs data to federal budgeting, property taxes, banking regulation, lawsuit costs, and emerging risks to future growth like data center restrictions.

The payoff is a roadmap for improving affordability: restore fiscal discipline, remove barriers to supply, and allow markets to allocate resources more efficiently.

🎧 Watch the full episode at the link above. 
📖 Read the full show notes: https://vanceginn.substack.com/p/ca1a37b7-7c59-4410-ba95-faa5c8dc2eb0

Subscribe, share, and explore more at vanceginn.com to stay informed and engaged.