How to deal with increasing property tax burden?

Why exactly is that nonsensical?

I just explained that in the sentence right after? One can (exceptions confirm the rule) only buy things with gold and stocks by converting them into money, whose utility is other than the mere storage of value measured in money. If this is done by the majority, then the monetary value measured by gold and stocks immediately rises. Monetary value must consequently, for logical reasons, be measured by things that have a utility other than the storage/transformation of money itself. For example, the infamous basket of goods, as little as that may apply to me individually at a given time. The idea of a fixed standard (gold, for example) modeled after the prototype meter in metrology is already nonsense for logical reasons. Economics simply does not know such fixed quantities. That is why when measuring something like monetary value one must not look for objectivity, it cannot exist. Instead, one must consider what makes sense. Then one logically arrives at the aforementioned argument.

@Scale of monetary value: I actually find the Döner price quite suitable.
So many factors go into it. Basic foodstuffs (bread (= grain and water), salad, vegetables, meat), energy (the Döner grill usually runs on gas, sometimes on electricity), rent, labor costs. It is gastronomy without it being something only well-off people can afford.

@Purposefulness of taxes
We probably all agree that the design is botched.
But why is property tax inherently more absurd than, for example, VAT, where the poorer half of the population bears a much higher share of the tax burden than the richest 10%, simply because they have to spend almost everything on essential consumption, while the top 10% can still save, invest, and build houses.
Or insurance tax, where you basically provide in advance so that any potential damage is not borne by third parties.
Or dog tax but no cat tax?
Various trivial taxes that bring in less revenue than their collection costs (e.g., sparkling wine tax or coffee tax).
Again, taxes are not just pure revenue generators (or at least they shouldn’t be. In the case of property tax, unfortunately, that’s how it is for municipalities, but that’s again a matter of design). Since there is also no earmarking, it doesn’t matter at all whether you have already paid something related to the topic or not and where the money comes from.
I don’t want to judge here which other or which taxes are sensible or pointless or fair or not, but you often hear this with property transfer tax and inheritance tax or when someone comes up with the idea of introducing wealth tax, but almost never with other taxes.
One can (and should) gladly discuss designs, but the purposefulness of taxes in general should not be measured solely by whether property, consumption, or income is taxed. It always depends on what the goal is and what the resulting incentive (preferably goal-conform) is, and whether the specific design is effective (at least) and also efficient. And of course, you can have an opinion on it, but that can also be irrelevant or misguided.

@Idea for better property tax: maybe a mix: land value-based but buildings only usage-based. From my point of view, that would be fairer.
However, from my perspective, land values would have to be determined differently than by the standard land value rates. Because if, due to speculation in the region, the land value rates simply rise, the person who bought there for much less 10 years earlier and uses it themselves cannot do anything about it and does not benefit from it either (okay, they could probably take out a higher loan) just because their land is worth much more on paper.
Maybe work with a location factor or something like that. And I would always treat self-use differently than renting out or leaving land fallow for speculation.

maybe a mix: land value-related but building only use-related. That would be fairer from my point of view.

I think that's how it is here in Hesse. The standard land values are somehow factored into the multiplier used for the plot size, and then there are different factors for residential area and commercial area that are applied to the building size... I once looked at it more closely, but I don't remember exactly. As far as I know, a fictional total value does not play a role.

However, in my view, property values would have to be determined differently than by using the standard land values. Because if the standard land values simply increase due to speculation in the region, the person who bought there for much less 10 years earlier and uses it themselves gains nothing and doesn’t benefit from it (ok, they might be able to take out a higher loan), that their property is worth much more on paper.
Maybe work with a location factor or something like that. And I would always treat owner-occupation differently from rental or leaving it fallow for speculation.

And here we are again in Germany, they try to make everything somehow fair (which is not possible anyway) and therefore turn exceptions into exceptions of exceptions.

Even if you find VAT unfair, I would rather be in favor of relying heavily on VAT with different tax rates. As far as I know, VAT is one of the most efficient taxes in terms of revenue versus administrative effort.
If different tax rates (as is already the case) are set for different product categories, many other taxes (mineral oil, tobacco, coffee tax, sparkling wine, spirits tax, alcopop tax, beer tax, intermediate product tax, electricity tax ...) could simply be abolished.
Basic foodstuffs could have a very low tax rate and luxury items, mineral oil, tobacco, and alcohol a very high tax rate. This means less bureaucracy because there would be fewer laws and fewer tax filings.

Even if you consider the value-added tax to be unfair,

It is unfair as it is currently structured. I say this completely unemotionally.

I would rather prefer to cover a lot through the value-added tax with different tax rates. [...] If different tax rates (as is already the case) are set for different product categories one could simply abolish many other taxes (mineral oil, tobacco, coffee tax, sparkling wine, spirit tax, alcopop tax, beer tax, intermediate product tax, electricity tax ...). This would allow basic foodstuffs to have a very low tax rate and luxury items, mineral oil, tobacco, alcohol to have a very high tax rate. That means less bureaucracy, as there would be fewer laws and fewer tax filings.

That’s exactly how it should be done (I would do it that way)! The specific groups and rates could still be debated. Basic foodstuffs and other things one needs to survive, for example, I would tax at 0%.

Those were just a few examples. There is a nice overview showing that indeed the vast majority had such degrees.

Off topic: Why do people make such a change nowadays?

When the company closes down.
I received my severance pay and looked for a new job.
The selection was limited, but not too bad overall.
I am just the low earner in our company.

There are no companies nearby.
About 25% are below the chemical industry tariff, US losses on free retirement benefits.

But I move up 3 pay grades, so the loss is about 10% plus retirement benefits.

The chemical industry is really doing badly at the moment.