Stop Renting From the Government: Consider Wyoming

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.

Three Takeaways for Policymakers

1. Property taxes are fundamentally a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
   
2. Homestead exemptions and targeted relief often shift tax burdens rather than reduce them.
   
3. Population Growth Plus Inflation spending limits create the recurring surpluses necessary for lasting property tax reduction and eventual elimination.