We have that in Michigan. Non-homestead property taxes. All it does is make apartments more expensive for renters. The cost is just passed on to the renter.
This, this will be actual result. "Just add more taxes" === the renters pay that delta.
Scale it per property === take the average of taxes / homes, pass it along to the renter.
About the only way I can the cost not getting passed to the renter is for a "the government" to set the rental prices as if the home was under a rolling 30-year mortgage, taking into account PITI. Adding a property tax on top of that ONLY to the property owner, maybe exponentially per property owned, could curb companies like Blackrock.
That being said, I have very faith that a "the government" could do this efficiently/correctly/at all. Trying to trace down umbrella corps and whatnot would be cat and mouse. The US government can't even figure out who is cheating on their taxes as it stands.
Raising property taxes on SFH rentals, but not apartments will make apartments more attractive. Sure, renting a house has advantages, but those advantages have a price, and how many renters are going to be willing to pay 40% more per square foot for a SFH over an apartment.
At some point, even an expensive mortgage is a better deal.
Apartments are great, we should incentivize apartments. They are high density and can be built in a variety of sizes.
Apartments are great, unless you want a yard, a large family, to let your parents[-in-law] move in so you can take care of them, a large dog, more than two cats, more pets than the property owner has arbitrarily decided to allow, equity, a barbecue, frequent parties, or the ability to not have to pay rent or a mortgage someday. Buying apartments is not the norm, nor are ones large enough for a family with more than 1 or 2 kids.
