Recently, Robert McCollum, a Republican candidate seeking to flip Tallapoosa County Commission District 4 from Democratic control, announced a proposal that immediately caught attention: the elimination of county property taxes. In a state where property tax reform is often discussed but rarely pursued in earnest, the idea represents a sharp departure from the status quo, positioning Tallapoosa County as a potential first mover in Alabama.
According to McCollum’s campaign, the proposal would replace annual county property taxes with a one-time payment collected only when property changes ownership. Under the plan, new buyers would pay the equivalent of 10 years of county property taxes at closing – an amount that could be financed as part of a mortgage – after which no further county property taxes would be owed on that property. Current homeowners would not be hit with an abrupt change; instead, their property tax bills would be phased out over five years, declining by 20% each year until reaching zero.
McCollum frames the proposal as a response to what many homeowners experience as an unpredictable and ever-rising cost of living: annual tax bills that increase through reassessments and inflation, regardless of whether household income rises alongside them. His campaign argues that shifting taxation to the point of sale would provide greater predictability for families, reduce monthly housing costs, and allow long-term homeowners – particularly seniors and those on fixed incomes – to remain in their homes without fear of being priced out by future tax increases.
I support this effort because, when examined closely, property taxation lacks a sound moral foundation and is economically structured to grow more burdensome over time.
Property tax rests on the assumption that the state retains a permanent claim on land and labor that rightly belongs to individuals.
Scripture presents a different starting point. In Genesis 1:26, God grants man dominion over the earth – establishing property and stewardship as pre-political rights. Government exists to protect those rights, not redefine them.
“The State is not God,” Oklahoma State Sen. Dusty Deevers says. “In the compulsory income and property tax, the State claims ownership over the first fruits of people’s work and property, thereby making them wards in custody of the State.”
Before families can provide for themselves, they are compelled to make a forced contribution to a government that neither created, sustains, nor redeems them. Man is not a dependent of the State; his life, liberty and property do not originate there.
This warning is not merely philosophical – it is biblical and historical. In 1 Samuel 8, the prophet Samuel cautions Israel that centralized authority will inevitably take the labor, sons, and land of the people. “He will take your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves,” Samuel warns. Property taxation follows this same pattern. Ownership becomes conditional, contingent upon continued payment. Fail to pay and the land is no longer yours. Over time, this arrangement quietly converts freeholders into tenants of the state.
Economically, the consequences are increasingly visible. Property taxes disproportionately burden the elderly and the poor – those least able to absorb rising costs. Seniors who have spent decades paying off a home face escalating tax bills on fixed incomes. Low-income families see assessments rise without any corresponding increase in earnings, leading in some cases to displacement and the erosion of generational wealth. Reporting on property tax crises across the country has documented homeowners forced from their property not by debt or neglect, but by tax bills they could no longer afford. “When ordinary families can no longer afford to stay in their homes, ownership often shifts to institutional landlords and investment groups,” Jack McPherrin of The Heartland Institute says. What begins as a revenue mechanism ends as a quiet transfer of property away from local families and into the hands of distant financial interests.
Some argue that because Alabama’s property taxes are relatively low, reform is unnecessary. I argue the opposite: If the tax is truly small, replacing it with a more transparent, predictable, and morally defensible system should be entirely achievable.
This proposal does not eliminate funding. It shifts collection to a one-time property transfer fee at the point of sale – when liquidity exists and financing is available – rather than imposing a perpetual charge simply for remaining in one’s home.
The affordability benefits are concrete. In Tallapoosa County, property taxes typically add $78 to $180 per month to a homeowner’s mortgage escrow. Eliminating that recurring payment increases purchasing power by approximately $12,000 to $28,000 under standard 30-year mortgage underwriting. For many families, that margin determines whether they qualify for a home, can age in place, or are pushed out by rising costs. In this sense, replacing property tax with a one-time transfer fee is not merely a tax reform – it is a structural affordability reform that strengthens ownership, stability, and economic freedom in Tallapoosa County.
Property rights and property taxes cannot coexist. You cannot claim to own your land while the state holds a lien on it year after year.
To secure our liberty and ensure the survival of a free society, we must abolish property tax – and reclaim the God-given rights our Constitution promises to protect.
Dr. James Kring is a homeschool father, homesteader, farmer, and resident of Tallapoosa County.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
