THERE WAS something more than a little bizarre about last week’s dog-and-pony show at the State House, when folks demanding the abolition of residential property taxes handed out tea bags, to conjure up images of the Boston Tea Party. After all, the American Revolution was funded by ... property taxes.

Even if the gimmick was anti-historical, though, the event offered up a reminder of the emotional center of the current taxpayer revolt, neatly spelled out on one giant banner: “HELP!!! Save Our Homes.”

We’ve all heard about little old ladies being kicked out of the homes where they raised their children and lived out their lives. We’ve talked to people who are sure this will happen to them one day.

If people’s homes are being sold at tax auction because they can’t pay property taxes, by golly, then property taxes must be abolished. Slap on a higher sales tax to make up the difference, if you must.

Simple problem.

Simple solution.

And huge consequences, which will plague our state for years to come: The tax burden shifts to businesses and poorer people; less money is available to pay for schools and possibly even cities and counties; one of the highest sales tax rates in the country sends shoppers scurrying to other states and the Internet.

It is not the only solution.

It’s not even the best solution — at least not if your main goal is keeping the government from selling granny’s house out from under her.

It’s simply the solution the Legislature is talking about.

A reader called the other week to tell me that our neighbors to the north have come up with a much better solution, which addresses the actual problem, without causing the cascade of other problems that abolishing residential property taxes would: Don’t sell the houses of people who don’t pay their taxes; instead, place a lien against the property, and collect the taxes when the house is sold or inherited.

Turns out that’s not how they do things in North Carolina; they auction off houses just as we do. But officials there note that they exhaust “all other methods of collection,” including garnishing wages.

It’s such a good idea, though, that I still think it’s worth writing about.

I’m sure some people will label this a “death tax,” because that suits their political agenda. It is not. The so-called “death tax” is an additional levy on inherited property. This, on the other hand, is a deferral of regular taxes until death. It’s not unlike the reverse mortgages that have become more popular in recent years, which allow elderly homeowners to borrow money against the value of their homes; the bank collects the money when they die or sell.

I like the idea because it takes the wind out of an argument that is far more emotional than real. The number of homes actually sold at tax auction is minuscule — which is why you so seldom hear of specific cases of this happening.

I also like it because there actually are some people who lose their homes of several decades because they can’t pay the taxes, and this would prevent that.

There are all sorts of ways to design such a program. You could offer the option to everyone or limit it to a certain age or to people who have owned their homes a minimum number of years. Or you could sell the house if the unpaid tax bill ever exceeded the value of the home, which certainly wouldn’t happen to elderly homeowners.

Placing a lien on property rather than selling it at auction is a variation on a theme.

Some states use liens to let elderly residents delay the effect of reassessment. Homeowners keep paying taxes based on the value of their home when they reached senior status; the additional taxes are due when the home is sold or they die. Illinois and Oregon let some older homeowners defer the entire tax bill until they sell or die.

Other states take it a step farther and eliminate reassessment entirely for senior citizens, or for seniors whose income is below a certain level. Still others cap individuals’ property taxes at a set percentage of their income.

Technically, the question of what to do about reassessment is separate from the question of whether to tax homes. The latter is about how much of the overall tax burden will be borne by homeowners; the former is about how that tax burden will be split between homeowners in a given city or county.

But the political lines between the two quickly blur. If you eliminate reassessment and roll the assessments back to their previous levels, as the Senate is foolishly considering this week, then some people calling for an end to property taxes would be satisfied. On the other hand, if you eliminate some or most residential property taxes, as the House and Senate both will consider this session, then some people calling for the elimination of reassessment would be satisfied.

We miss out on a lot of creative solutions to our problems because we have a bad tendency to view the world in black and white; the spigot is all the way on or all the way off: Either you abolish property taxes, or the government will take people’s homes.

We forget that since the Legislature decides whether homes are taxed, the Legislature can decide (within limits) what to do when people don’t pay those taxes.

Once you wrap your mind around that concept, a whole world of new ideas opens up. We ought to be exploring those ideas, rather than accepting either/or options. Even though North Carolina’s system for dealing with unpaid tax bills isn’t so different from ours, I’m sure there are ideas we could borrow from them — just as there’s something different in any state that we could, and should, be learning from.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.