Other Ways to Fund Repeal
Beyond a sales tax swap: three more real, implemented models
A sales tax swap (see The Replacement Revenue Math) isn't the only way states have approached property tax. These three models are all real and currently in use somewhere, not proposals — but none of them is full elimination, which remains the Coalition's own position (see About This Educational Guide). They're covered here as comparative evidence of what else has been tried.
| Model | Eliminates property tax? | Reduces it? | Changes who pays? | Requires new revenue? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign wealth / trust fund (ND, AK) | No — funds a credit toward zero over time | Yes, via a credit | No | No — uses an existing asset |
| Land value tax (PA municipalities, Detroit proposal) | No — restructures it | For most homeowners | Yes — shifts burden toward land value, away from buildings | No — revenue-neutral by design |
| Phased homestead exemption (FL, TX) | Partially — non-school or school-only, for homesteaded property | Yes | No | Sometimes — TX used a budget surplus; FL relies on absorbing the loss |
Sovereign Wealth Fund / Dedicated Trust Fund
Rather than raising another tax, a state can dedicate a stream of existing revenue (from natural resources, budget surpluses, or investment returns) into a permanent fund whose earnings pay down property tax over time.
North Dakota's Legacy Fund is the leading current example. Built from oil and gas tax revenue — not from raising any tax — its earnings now fund a primary-residence property tax credit: $1,550/year in the 2025–27 budget cycle, targeted to reach at least $2,000/year by 2027–29, alongside a 3% cap on local budget growth. State officials have described the explicit goal as putting most primary residences "on a path to zero" property tax over roughly a decade.
Alaska's Permanent Fund is the oldest and largest example of this model (over $78 billion in assets), funded by at least 25% of the state's oil and mineral royalties since 1976. It's important to understand what this fund actually replaces: Alaska has no state income tax, no state sales tax, and pays residents an annual dividend (roughly $1,000–$3,300/year depending on the year) — but Alaska does not have zero property tax. Property tax in Alaska is set entirely at the municipal/borough level (averaging around 1.0–1.5% effective rate), and the Permanent Fund does not offset it. A resource-funded dividend can replace state income and sales tax, but hasn't, in practice, been used to eliminate local property tax anywhere it's been tried.
The Kansas question: Kansas doesn't have Alaska's or North Dakota's oil and mineral wealth at the same scale, though the state does hold budget surpluses and other funds — the state's rainy day/budget stabilization fund was referenced directly in Governor Kelly's 2026 relief proposal as a funding source for a smaller-scale vehicle tax credit (see The Path to Repeal). A Kansas version of this model would need to identify a comparable, renewable, dedicated revenue stream — agricultural, energy, or investment-based — rather than relying on general fund appropriations that compete with other state priorities every year.
Land Value Tax (A Structural Alternative, Not a Full Replacement)
A land value tax (LVT), rooted in 19th-century economist Henry George's writings (sometimes called "Georgism"), taxes the value of land itself while taxing buildings and improvements at a lower rate or not at all — the opposite of penalizing someone for building or improving their property.
In practice, most U.S. implementations use a "split-rate" tax: land is taxed at a higher rate than buildings, rather than eliminating the tax on buildings entirely. Pennsylvania has the longest track record — roughly 20 municipalities have used split-rate taxation, including Allentown, Scranton, and Harrisburg (Pittsburgh used it for nearly a century before repealing it in 2001). Detroit's current proposal is a large-scale test case: to stay revenue-neutral, the plan would cut the tax rate on buildings from 2% to 0.6% while taxing land itself at 11.8%.
Economists generally favor LVT because a tax on land value — which doesn't change based on what an owner builds — doesn't discourage improvement or development the way a standard property tax can. However, an LVT is a restructuring of property tax, not an elimination of it — it wouldn't, by itself, achieve full repeal, though it's sometimes discussed as a way to shift the burden more toward large landholders and away from homeowners who improve modest properties.
Phased Homestead Exemption Growth
Rather than a single amendment or a new tax, some states are phasing out property tax gradually by repeatedly raising the exempt portion of a home's value.
Florida's 2026 ballot measure (following passage by the required three-fifths vote of both chambers) would raise the homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, with a stated multi-year goal of eliminating non-school property tax on primary residences — but current versions include a "glide path" of six or more years, following concerns raised by local governments and public-safety agencies about lost revenue (estimated at $4.6–8.4 billion/year for non-school local governments).
Texas's 2023 constitutional election raised the school district homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000, funded by directing about $18 billion of a state budget surplus toward reducing school district tax rates — using an existing surplus rather than a new tax, though Texas's ability to do this depended on an unusually large, temporary surplus that has since diminished (see How Other States Have Tried This for the full Texas story).
There's also a proposal from an outside advocacy group — not a real-world implemented model like the three above — that goes much further than any of these: see Other Proposed Frameworks.
← Back: The Replacement Revenue Math | Next: Other Proposed Frameworks →
This guide reflects publicly available legislative and government records as of September 2026. Bill status, vote counts, and program details should be verified against current session records before republishing or citing specific figures. See Sources for citations.