How to deal with increasing property tax burden?

If you change jobs, do you take the same salary as before? Or do you ask for more?

Actually a good analogy, just applied incorrectly.
The correct version would be, it’s the same employer, e.g. pizza delivery service.
Employer = landlord
Employee = tenant
Hourly wage = rent €/m² (but inverted, so an increase in the €/m² price corresponds to a decrease in the hourly wage)
Work volume in hours = size of the apartment
An aging driver wants to cut back, a driver previously working part-time wants to increase hours. They propose to the employer to do a swap of heads.
Both have worked for the service for a long time, so they earn well above minimum wage.
Now, analogously to the housing market, the employer would simply say no, a contract is a contract or yes, but then you both get minimum wage now.
Our suggestion: No, such a swap of heads must be possible under the same hourly wage. Unless there are really compelling reasons against it. In the work example it could be that one doesn’t have a driver’s license, but the multi-shifts also require further car driving. In the housing example the smaller apartment could be for grandma on the 5th floor without elevator. Then the landlord could refuse.
And then, as said, not with a small private landlord with one or two apartments, but only from 20 (according to , I would say from 10 already).

Your other comments about rent increases due to modernization have nothing to do with our measure. This is about the landlord simply being able to push through higher prices (without changing anything about the rented property) just because the market is the way it is and favors the more powerful. Here the state should create a balance.
Interestingly, in you just warned about what happens when the state regulates too little and then the “Babos” do whatever they want.

Before new rules come into effect, old ones could really and actually be abolished. The keyword for me here is "less government." A reduction in bureaucracy and lowering the barriers to acquiring property could quite positively influence the housing market. However, this consideration is not actively pursued at all. What surprises me a little here, though in politics it of course doesn't surprise me.

The problem is that at the time of signing the rental contract, it may not have been clear what changes and risks the landlord would face, and you also don’t know what else might come. Insulation obligation, photovoltaic obligation, rent control, wallbox obligation, interest rate increase, inflation, etc. Of course, the landlord, like any entrepreneur, must factor in changed conditions and risks, because anyone who does not factor this in when renting out anew might be the loser the day after tomorrow since they may no longer be allowed to adjust rents. So better to raise prices immediately if there are enough tenants willing to pay. Any entrepreneur would do the same. This uncertainty for landlords is a self-inflicted problem. Apparently, renting out is not so attractive either, otherwise much more would be built. You only have to look at property prices in high-price regions. If you then calculate with 30 times the annual rent, you know where rents will head. This will probably get even worse. I always wonder what still keeps people in the city when they can no longer enjoy the city’s advantages (culture/cinema/events) due to lack of money.

People, once again: You can do A and therefore B is not impossible. Nothing needs to be done sequentially; it can be done in parallel. Regarding the other thing. As far as I know, you are allowed to increase the rent during modernization. You are also allowed to increase the rent otherwise within the legal limits. No one is talking about banning that. Normally, however, the landlord is allowed to raise the rent more during new rental agreements (according to the rent index +20% AFAIK) and that prevents such exchanges of heads when the landlord wants to push it through. That's all it is about.

If you change jobs, do you then take the same salary as before? Or do you ask for more?

If there is a job that pays more. All the industrial jobs that are disappearing... No longer pay the same salary in their locations. = Whoever is now tied to a house You knew what you were getting into. I took whatever jobs were available on the market. Without collective agreements now. In the East or in my region, you hardly get 3k as a skilled worker base salary. Under collective agreements, everyone had significantly more. Before, I had E4 salary, something like semi-skilled in designation (despite skilled worker certificate) 54k plus a lot of AV for free. Now E7, must perform significantly more for just under 52k without much AV. And it was the only position that was even remotely well-paid. Otherwise about 40k... offers

(...) Interestingly, you have just warned in the about what happens when the state regulates too little and that then the "Babos" do as they please.

No. In this thread, I have warned that due to corruption, no one is interested in state regulations... Because honestly. When it comes to regulations, we really have no backlog compared to any other country in the world. Germany is world champion in regulating things... and above all world champion in adhering to all that nonsense down to the millimeter...