Indeed, there should be no tax for merely existing or owning something. That undermines the basic freedoms of life, liberty, and property on which our society is based.
The usage tax is absolutely the way to go.
If you use something that is a “public” capital resource, like roads, there is a way to tax that through fuel taxes.
Fire and police protection, however, are less of a “per use” kind of concept. But even today, we have renters who live under the protection of police and fire control without directly paying for it in the form of property taxes. Sales tax would be the way to cover that. If implemented, the cost of the property tax for the owner of the property would not be passed on to the renter, and would make up for the increase in sales tax.
Both could be paid by an annual fee which takes the budget of each department and dividing by the population. As long as each resident gets the same fire bill and police bill and has a say in how the budgets are made I have no problem. (actually there probably should be an opt out mechanism as well just in case the police chief goes nuts and supports SEIU or something)
Fire and police protection, however, are less of a “per use” kind of concept.
Fire is also a perfect example of something that MIGHT be handled by government, because it is best collectivized by the whole community, without competing agencies. Also because an unstopped fire on one property not subscribing to insurance can endanger other properties.
However, fire protection is actually a perfect example of something that can be privatized. A homeowner’s main cost of fire protection is paid to their insurance company (compare your insurance bill to your property tax bill, and look at the fire components of each). Where there is bad or no fire protection, then insurance premiums are higher.
So why not let the insurance companies contract with a private agency to provide fire protection for a community, and let the effectiveness of the protection meet their standards (instead of absurd government union affirmative action standards)? All cost would be paid by the insured, and those who go without insurance would not get protection, except as needed to protect nearby insured properties.
There might even be a legal mandate to have minimal (spread protection as opposed to property preservation) fire insurance, just as we have mandated auto liability insurance.