How to deal with increasing property tax burden?

Which municipality, with few exceptions such as [Baunatal], which as a rather small municipality has a huge taxpayer with the VW transmission plant, can manage with the tax revenues?

Just because there are a few examples in Hannover, Duisburg or Munich where people pay less, does not mean that in the same place many others do not pay significantly more?

And regarding this subtlety, whether it is revenue-neutral at the municipal, state or federal level. People were led to believe that no one would have to pay more. That "the total amount of revenue in the municipality remains the same, some pay more, some pay less." Or "if the municipality does not manage, it even raises the assessment rate so that everyone pays more."

That was never mentioned. Of course, that was completely unrealistic, since property tax is one of the very few taxes that a municipality can control itself. And it is all the more unrealistic because we must prepare for massive investments in infrastructure. But if you constantly treat people like fools, in the end you shouldn’t be surprised. I know where people will cast their vote at the end of February, those who are now raging about their property tax assessments.

Because it doesn’t help the owner of the beach bath either when he now hears that he apparently has paid too little over the last 20 years. Should he have complained and demanded to pay more?

Yes, that was clearly not a goal. Or rather an own goal. They should have implemented an evaluation method (but nationwide) to oblige municipalities to limit the increases and establish a hardship fund that, wherever the municipalities' revenues would have become significantly lower, compensates for the gaps over 10-20 years. The income approach is also nonsense with a very thick lumpy sauce when it comes to owner-occupied property.

The whole property tax is nonsense with sauce, because I pay taxes for something I bought, so it belongs to me, and I also take on numerous duties, such as clearing/maintaining the public space in front of my property (street, sidewalk), obligate myself to greenery, etc.

But that is unfortunately the absurdity of a bureaucracy. I have to have an identity card. And because I am forced to do so, I naturally have to pay for it myself, with already taxed money.

I think we are slowly finished.

I would not go that far, as I have already explained above. Taxes can also be used to influence behavior (set incentives). In my opinion, this is even the more important task of taxes, because the government can finance its expenditures in other ways. The property tax serves here to balance between the few who own a lot of land and use it alone (or not at all) and those who make a lot of land usable for many people, whether they keep it in ownership and develop it, then rent out real estate, or divide and sell it is irrelevant. The argument about money already taxed is also no argument. You constantly pay taxes from already taxed money, the best example is the value-added tax (which, by the way, as it currently exists, is still very unfair and in my opinion a misdirected tax), but strangely nobody complains about that (except maybe the left), at least nobody ever uses the argument of already taxed income. The problem is that this task of taxes is not only not understood by the population, but also by most politicians.

The entire property tax is nonsense with sauce, because I pay taxes for something I bought, so that I own it, and I also take on numerous obligations, such as clearing/maintaining the public space in front of my property (street, sidewalk), obligating myself to greening, etc.

Personally, from your own perspective, I understand your argument very well. From an economic point of view, it looks different – here personal optimization often proves to be "nonsense with sauce."

With taxes, you can also steer (set incentives). In my opinion, that is even the more important purpose of taxes,

Yes, steering with taxes is very important. State revenues without taxes will probably only be possible in countries with an extremely large number of raw materials or flourishing state-owned enterprises.

The best example is the value-added tax (which, by the way, as it is currently, is still very unfair and, in my opinion, a mis-tax), but strangely nobody complains about it (except maybe the left), at least the argument of already taxed income never comes up there.

Thanks for that! With wealth and inheritance tax, the argument comes up all the more strongly, yet especially here there is a need for steering. (here too, the debate contribution rather comes from the left).

But if you constantly treat people as fools, you shouldn’t be surprised in the end.
I know where people will cast their votes at the end of February, who are now furiously ranting about their property tax assessments.

It’s not that bad, after all, no solutions come from that political side anyway, and that’s what we would need, not more problems.
Upon reflection, it would seem more logical to me that revenue neutrality applies at the municipal level, since the money flows there as well. Our municipality is passing the buck to the tax offices via the official gazette even though they control the assessment rate themselves. But as you pointed out, it would then be in local and accessible hands, and one could and would be able to share one’s views there.