Indiana Republican platform now backs property tax elimination, closed primaries

[Muda69]

https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/06/24/indiana-republican-platform-now-backs-property-tax-elimination-closed-primaries/

Quote

A Republican legislator campaigning for the elimination of property taxes in Indiana is hoping for a boost from the issue being included in the party’s new state platform.

Delegates to last weekend’s state party convention added language supporting property tax elimination to the party’s policy platform over the weekend, along with an endorsement of closed primary voting.

Those topics were added to the draft platform during a Friday night committee meeting to a final document that was approved without any debate by a voice vote Saturday by the full convention in Fort Wayne.

Following a platform section stating a commitment “to keeping taxes low and promoting policies that encourage growth and investment in our state’s economy,” a new sentence was added: “In the pursuit of eliminating property taxes, we direct the General Assembly to take up the measure in the next general session.”

Support for ending property taxes

Property tax elimination has gained favor among many conservatives who argue the tax wrongly forces home and business owners to “rent” their property from the government.

Gov. Mike Braun and Republican lawmakers pushed through property tax revisions in the 2025 legislative session, but the changes have left many homeowners dissatisfied with little or no savings.

City and county governments and public schools districts — which receive much of their revenue from property taxes — have faced a growing financial squeeze.

 

Braun has said he wants to see legislators take up the property tax issue again in the 2027 session.

Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City, said he hopes the Republican platform plank will lead General Assembly members to take up his proposal to eliminate property taxes. His plan would replace that revenue by extending the state’s 7% sales tax to include a vast array of currently untaxed services such as haircuts, construction labor costs and lawyer fees.

“I think it shows members that there is support for the plan,” Prescott told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. “Is it hard and fast that it’s going to force a conversation? No, but I think it does show that there is grassroots support growing for this, and people want to see change.”

Prescott was a convention delegate but said he didn’t propose the platform change.

He is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee that has jurisdiction over tax issues and has introduced a property tax elimination bill the past two sessions that was never taken up by the committee.

Consideration of such a major change to how money is raised for local governments and schools and distributed to them will be complex, said Stephanie Wells, president of the nonpartisan Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute.

“There will be consequences to shifting that tax burden to different Hoosiers,” Wells said. “There always is, and so I think that needs to be discussed.”

Proposal adds sales tax on services

A Legislative Services Agency analysis earlier this year of Prescott’s proposal estimated that the 7% sales tax on services would generate between $13.1 billion and $15.1 billion during 2028. That compares to anticipated property tax collections of $11.6 billion for the year.

Prescott’s plan would not charge the sales tax on healthcare or mental health services. Merchandise currently exempt from sales taxes, such as groceries, would remain the same.

Previous proposals for expanding Indiana’s sales tax, which is the second-highest state rate in the country, have drawn criticism that it would hit the state’s poorest residents hardest.

Prescott, however, argues that people who rent their homes are indirectly paying higher property taxes since rental properties have a 2% tax cap, while resident-owned homes have a 1% cap. He also calls his proposal “a consumption-based tax.”

“People are going to spend based on what they can afford to spend,” he said. “So your lower-income families are going to pay less in sales tax on services, and higher-income families are going to, obviously, spend more.”

Prescott is promoting his proposal through a series of public town hall meetings around the state this summer, with at least a half dozen still coming up.

“Ultimately, we have to have a mechanism to fund local units of government,” he said. “If anybody has an alternate proposal, I’m all ears.”

Endorsement of closed primaries

Another late addition to the Republican platform was giving full support to restricting Indiana’s primaries to registered members of their respective parties.

That push became a top issue raised by Max Engling in his successful campaign to win the Republican nomination for secretary of state.

“I will fight to close our primaries,” he said to cheers during his Saturday convention speech. “Only Republicans should choose our Republican nominees. No Democrat interference.”

 

The party platform plank makes a similar argument, saying “We believe in the freedom of Republicans to choose their own candidates.”

Hoosier voters can now choose either a Republican or Democratic primary ballot, with state law saying a primary voter must have voted for a majority of that party’s nominees during the last general election, or will vote for most of that party’s candidates in the next general election. 

Bills to restrict primary voting have failed in recent legislative sessions, but the Republican platform was revised to say “parties should have the exclusive right to select their own nominees without interference from voters affiliated with opposing parties.”

“Closed primaries preserve the integrity of the electoral process, strengthen party accountability, and ensure that Republican candidates are chosen by Republican voters who support the party’s platform and values,” the platform said.

 

This shifting of property taxes to a "service tax" is probably a non-starter.  But if it does become law I can see an increase in Hoosiers deciding to now "go outside the system" in regards to certain services,  having them instead be done by friends or family members. 

And anybody who supports closed primaries doesn't support freedom.  Like the uni-party. 

 

 

[Muda69]

Another opinion on the elimination of property taxes for senior citizens who own their homes:  https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/jacob-stewart/2026/06/26/indiana-property-tax-cuts-seniors-downsize-braun/90681257007/

Quote

It seems inevitable that Indiana legislators will cut property taxes for someone next legislative session. It probably won’t be me. I’m a young adult, after all, and those in my age group don’t vote enough for politicians to care all that much.

The vast majority of any property tax cuts will likely go to seniors instead.

It's bad policy. It pits generations against each other. Millennials and Gen Z are already frustrated by paying into a system that delivers most of its benefits to older homeowners.

There's a way forward, though, that benefits everyone. Indiana legislators should abolish property taxes for seniors, but only if they downsize.

Seniors want property tax cuts because their home values have spiked since they purchased them, in some cases decades ago. Many now live on fixed retirement incomes, so they argue they can’t afford to pay property taxes that match the current market values of their homes. 

If income is the problem, though, age alone isn't a sufficient reason to treat seniors differently than a 30-year-old mother of three working two jobs to keep her house after her husband passed away. Financial situations change for a lot of people. Credits or deductions for low-income homeowners regardless of age are a fair way to take them into account. 

If anything, young adults have a greater need for housing assistance simply by virtue of their age. They have had less time to accrue assets, build a credit history and set aside savings for a down payment. First-time homebuyers haven't built the equity that a homeowner has, either. That equity helps cover the down payment and closing costs that block first-time buyers.

 

There are other generation-specific barriers. Millennials own less than two-thirds of the real estate baby boomers did at the same age. The median age of a first-time homebuyer was 40 in 2025 — an all-time high. The share of Americans under 30 who are married and own a home has collapsed from 52% in 1960 to 12% in 2025.

It's much harder for young people to get married and have children if they can't afford a home. Without greater family formation, the birth rate will continue to collapse and the social support systems seniors depend on will lose their financial sustainability.

If lawmakers are determined to single out seniors for property tax relief, then there's a version that at least does some good for everyone else, too.

As seniors age, their children move out of their homes and they are left with far more space than they need and are able to easily maintain. Existing property tax credits — often framed as "helping grandma stay in her home" — insulate seniors and discourage them from downsizing. 

Nearly 40% of baby boomers, in fact, have stayed in their homes for longer than 20 years.

Gov. Mike Braun's proposal to completely exempt seniors from property taxes — with a special focus on those who have paid off their homes — would make that problem far worse. So would abolishing property taxes, as suggested by the new Indiana Republican Party platform and state Rep. J.D. Prescott's proposal to replace property taxes with a 7% tax on services.

 

Downsizing benefits seniors. It lowers the cost of living and home maintenance. It allows seniors to access the equity stored in their homes if they move to a cheaper one. Moving from a two-story home to a one-story home eliminates stairs and can help prevent falls. It also provides an opportunity for seniors to move closer to family and loved ones who might be able to help them age in place.

Downsizing also benefits young families. When seniors — who often live in houses with three or more bedrooms, including one or two spare bedrooms — move out, they free up larger homes for the growing families that desperately need them.

If legislators insist on more property tax breaks solely for seniors, they should replace the current system of senior property tax deductions and credits. A larger homestead deduction for seniors who live in a one- or two-bedroom home or with younger family members in a multigenerational home would be a much better alternative.

That would provide highly targeted property tax relief for the seniors who need it most. It would also eliminate a perverse incentive for seniors to stay in homes far too big for them to maintain on their own. 

Seniors will disproportionately benefit from any property tax cuts, given they own property at higher rates. Massive cuts are bound to promote generational resentment. Good policy alternatives benefit every generation, not just the ones that vote.

 

[Muda69]

Indiana might kill property taxes. Young families would pay.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2026/07/13/indiana-gop-property-tax-repeal-sales-tax-young-families/90877260007/

Quote

The 2027 state legislative session should be spent broadening Indiana’s tax base and building a system that is more attractive to younger families. Instead, it looks like lawmakers are poised to dramatically worsen Indiana’s appeal to young, mobile families.

Gov. Mike Braun first proposed to eliminate property taxes on retired residents and those without a mortgage payment. This would reduce available housing stock and raise tax rates or reduce services for younger families, probably both.

I didn’t think this plan, which I labeled as incoherent, could get worse. But the recent Indiana GOP convention came along and said, “Hold my beer.” Republicans want to eliminate property taxes altogether.

A useful way of thinking about raising or lowering taxes is to consider who actually pays. This is especially important for states, like Indiana, where most places struggle to attract residents or economic growth.

One look at our current (and now proposed) tax policies will show we do a dismal job of connecting taxes to economic growth.

 

Most households own wealth through homes, businesses and retirement funds. They also earn income on labor and consume goods and services. Everyone’s finances vary, but families tend to share similar circumstances based on age. Those similarities make age an important factor when considering the taxes we levy on wealth, income and consumption.

About 70% of household spending in Indiana is on services and about 20% on consumer non-durable goods, such as food and clothing. The final 10% is on durable goods.

Families with heads of household aged 20 to 40 have little wealth and consume more non-durable goods than older families at retirement age. Younger families also consume a lot more services, particularly local government services, such as schools. Older families consume fewer local services and more federal services — particularly Social Security and Medicare. These, of course, are paid for by current working families.

A tax system that promoted economic growth would focus on younger families because they are the most mobile cohort. Businesses, in turn, go where people want to live. The overwhelming majority of mobile families move to places with higher taxes and more abundant public services.

An ideal approach would comprise a broad base of taxes — all income, all property, all consumption — and tax all these activities at a low rate, then allow local governments to vary their taxes based upon the preferences of residents.

Indiana gets it backward

Indiana's tax system dampens economic growth.

First, the state’s tax revenues as a share of our economy are now as low as they’ve been since we’ve kept records. Both state and local government employment per 100 residents is near a 40-year low. The claim that state or local spending in Indiana is “out of control” or “skyrocketing” is a fantasy of purposeful ignorance.

Again, if tax rates really mattered as much as quality public services, Indiana would be a prosperous and fast-growing state. Instead, we are among the poorest dozen states in the nation, and among the slowest growing.

The current taxes on income seem about right, considering income is so heavily taxed at the federal level and likely to rise in the coming years. Our current sales taxes are higher than they should be because we have so narrowed the tax base.

By excluding all services and food, our sales taxes are at least 3 cents on the dollar higher than they could be. If we taxed all goods and all services, the sales tax could easily drop to 4 cents — and maybe even raise tax revenue.

Before 2025, our property taxes weakly supported economic and population growth. But the ill-considered, record-setting tax cuts to businesses made that much worse. Today, the tax burden for local government has been almost wholly shifted to families. That will necessarily worsen as most local governments raise local income taxes to backfill these enormous business tax cuts.

Now, Republicans are selling the elimination of property taxes through town halls across the state. Rep. JD Prescott is proposing to extend Indiana’s 7% sales tax to most services while exempting healthcare and childcare services, and eliminating all property taxes.

What this does to young families is shocking.

My back-of-the-envelope math (which is light years more sophisticated than the current plan) is that the sales tax on services will cost the average Hoosier $1,627 per year, or about $3,743 per family. That is the equivalent of property taxes on a home of close to $450,000, which is about double the median home value in Indiana.

Now, when I argue that Indiana needs to collect more taxes, I mean a modest tax increase overall — not an explosive tax increase on young families that the GOP is conjuring under its plan to eliminate property taxes.

But, eliminating property taxes won’t double taxes for most people. Businesses will see a windfall, particularly data centers and large manufacturing firms. Older folks who own homes and earn less income (because they are retired) will also get a windfall tax cut. And farmers will see their tax liability drop to well below zero (because they already are getting subsidies that are greater than their gross state and federal tax).

Everyone else, particularly younger families with kids, will face a staggering tax increase under the plan now being promoted by Prescott and the state GOP.

This is far and away the worst tax proposal I've ever seen emerge from a political party platform. It represents the biggest transfer of tax burden away from businesses and wealthy families to young and working families in any U.S. state since the Civil War (and probably before that).

The mere existence of this plan is scandalous and would give Indiana the most regressive state tax system in the developed world by a long margin. It should be entirely disavowed by election day.