Real property is an excellent tax base because it can’t be moved and it lasts a long time. In the case of land, it usually lasts forever. We, as economic actors, cannot respond to a higher tax on land by reducing the amount of land that exists. We may change what buildings to construct and where, but once a building exists, it’s not likely to move in response to tax changes.

In rare cases, property taxes can get so high that they encourage people to abandon their property (see Detroit). But in general, property taxes simply lead to an efficient transfer of wealth from property owners to the government. That’s not necessarily lovely for property owners, but we need to finance government somehow, and it’s best for the economy that the manner be an efficient one.

So from an economist’s perspective, it’s a bit of a problem that Americans have fought so strongly against property taxes for the last 40 years. Since the 1970s, most states have significantly restricted how high local property taxes can go. The main effect has been not to restrict the growth of government but to push government to rely on less economically efficient taxes.

Property taxes declined to 24 percent in 2007 from 31 percent of local government revenues in 1977. Even as property taxes were restricted, local government grew as a share of the economy, driven by a combination of higher sales and income taxes and greater aid from state governments.

Increased reliance on these taxes has brought problems, and not just because they cause people to change how much they work or where they spend:

Sales tax, which falls disproportionately on the poor, is what economists call regressive. Property tax is often perceived as regressive, but because wealthy people own much more property than poor people do, it is more progressive than sales tax, though not as progressive as income tax.