As numerous states in the United States consider eliminating property taxes, which residents would benefit? An argument about what could happen in Florida:

If retirees on fixed incomes can’t afford their insurance payments and families can’t figure out how to cover their tax bill, maybe. Yet the number of Florida homes and buildings that are delinquent on their property taxes has fallen slightly since 2020. The number of foreclosures has increased a bit, but remains low. The state’s housing market is fraying and distressed sales are increasing, but that’s because of climate change and mortgage rates, not tax assessments. Floridians may not like paying a higher tax bill, and carrying costs might be spurring some of them to downsize. But in general, property taxes are levied on people who can afford them. The typical homeowner earns twice as much as the typical renter, and has 43 times the net worth.

Tenants are “the loser in all this,” Ken Johnson, a professor of finance at the University of Mississippi, told me. Many cities and counties offset lower taxes on owner-occupied properties with higher taxes on commercial residential properties. Landlords pass those costs on to their renters. The policy will also benefit longtime homeowners at the expense of prospective homebuyers. Low property taxes increase home prices, making it harder for people without a lot of money in the bank—such as new parents and just-married couples—to get approved for a mortgage. Then they remain tenants, subject to never-ending rent increases.

In addition to distorting the housing market, Amendment 3 will devastate public finances. Property taxes provide 43 percent of revenue to Florida’s municipal general funds, the bank accounts that cities and counties use to finance day-to-day services. Amendment 3 will cut collections by as much as 30 percent, and will hit hardest in areas with a lot of homes and not a lot of commerce. To cover the $12 billion budget hole, cities and towns will likely raise or impose sales taxes and sin taxes; increase fees at the DMV, permit offices, registrars, and courts; charge more for waste removal and water; and put additional taxes on tourists. The state will trade out a solidly progressive, uniformly applied tax for an obscure, regressive mishmash of charges.

But municipalities aren’t expected to make up all of the lost revenue. They’re expected to cut. Amendment 3 explicitly protects tax financing streams for schools, meaning that cities and counties are contemplating draconian budget reductions for public-safety offices, libraries, after-school programs, summer camp, day care, flood prevention, public transit, roads, parks, senior services, homeless shelters, legal-aid clinics, domestic-violence shelters, and many other things. Austerity will be regressive too, harming the poor more than the wealthy. Rich Floridians aren’t relying on the bus to get to work. They’re not picking up free meals, taking adult-literacy classes at the library, or seeing a dentist at a pop-up clinic in a middle-school gymnasium either.

These predictions suggest an immediate reduction or removal of property taxes could prove popular with homeowners but has longer-term consequences for those who are not homeowners and for communities at large who will have to adjust their tax base.

Is this then similar to the mortgage-interest deduction that tends to benefit people who are already financially okay? Is there a way to reduce property taxes for all residences?

Thinking more broadly, is there any way that Americans who live in or own different property types could work together to address their concerns about property taxes and local revenues? While homeowners might be fed up with rising property taxes, how does this intersect with concerns about tax breaks given to data centers or whatever is the latest development rage? Or the work of business owners to limit their local taxes when local schools and other amenities benefit from such monies? Or local government bodies raising rates in order to have the revenues they say they need to provide local services?

If the different actors are trying to find a good advantage for themselves, their actions could impact others. Perhaps it is time more communities have conversations about taxes and services. What are their priorities? What do they need? What issues do they each face? They might not agree and communities or states might take different approaches but they might find some common ground or new approaches.