If families and businesses have to tighten their belts in tough times, why shouldn’t local governments? Before you buy into the doom-and-gloom about property tax limits, let’s take a closer look.
Local governments are warning that limiting property tax growth will hurt communities. They say higher property taxes are necessary for economic growth. We say hardworking families and businesses grow the economy—not rapidly expanding government budgets. If families and businesses have to tighten their belts in tough times, why shouldn’t local governments? Before you buy into the doom-and-gloom about property tax limits, let’s take a closer look.
Claim: Every dollar we receive is directly tied to the essential services we provide.
Counterpoint: While essential services like police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance are important, local governments must prioritize needs over wants. High property taxes often fund non-essential programs, bureaucratic expansion, and unnecessary spending instead of prioritizing core functions. A constrained budget forces efficiency and accountability in spending.
Claim: A reduction in resources translates into less capacity to provide essential services and fewer investments in areas critical to sustainable growth.
Counterpoint: This assumes that government spending automatically translates to economic growth, which is not true. Many local governments operate inefficiently, funding projects that do not generate returns. Restricting revenue growth encourages smarter budgeting and eliminates wasteful expenditures.
Claim: Targeting property taxes to spur economic growth is counterproductive.
Counterpoint: Does anyone really believe higher taxes spur economic growth? The assumption here is that government growth is the only path to prosperity. In reality, lower taxes put more money into the hands of residents and businesses, encouraging private-sector investment, job creation, and consumer spending. High property taxes deter investment, making it more expensive to own property, build businesses, and attract new residents.
Claim: Economic growth thrives on certainty and investment in infrastructure, services, and long-term planning.
Counterpoint: Economic certainty does not come from expanding government budgets—it comes from stable, predictable, and low tax burdens that allow businesses to plan for the future without the fear of increasing taxation. Growth that stems from the private sector is more sustainable than reliance on government spending.
Claim: If our revenue is not growing at least at the rate of inflation, we are effectively deteriorating and losing the ability to serve our residents.
Counterpoint: Households and businesses do not have the luxury of automatically increasing their income by the rate of inflation—why should local governments? Governments should adjust spending just as individuals and businesses do when times are tight. Rather than demanding more revenue, they should look for cost-saving measures, privatization opportunities, and private-public partnerships.
Claim: Cities are in survival mode. They are being forced to slow down spending, defer maintenance, and reduce investments in areas crucial to their growth.
Counterpoint 1: This suggests that every dollar of government spending is productive, which is misleading. In reality, many municipal budgets are filled with non-essential programs that could be reduced without harming residents’ quality of life. A focus on core services, rather than unnecessary initiatives, would alleviate this concern.
Counterpoint 2: Across the state, cities grew their property tax collections by more than 6% in the current fiscal year.
Claim: We need to support stable, predictable revenue sources.
Counterpoint: Stability does not require rapid growth. If local governments budget responsibly, they can maintain stability without needing tax revenues to skyrocket. The argument against property tax restraint is really an argument for ever-expanding government budgets.
Instead of advocating for higher property taxes, local governments should focus on responsible financial management that puts taxpayers first. That means prioritizing essential services over wasteful spending, fostering economic growth through lower taxes, and reducing the burden on homeowners and businesses. Rather than relying on ever-expanding budgets, local officials should embrace private-sector-driven development, streamline operations, and eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic costs.
Higher property taxes do not create economic prosperity; they push businesses and residents away, eroding the tax base and making long-term growth unsustainable. Limiting how much property taxes can grow is a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility, ensuring that local governments operate efficiently—just like hardworking families and businesses must do every day.
Print a PDF