In practice, wouldn’t this be regressive (tax poor more and rich less)? Imagine a homeowner who uses public transportation, sends their children to public scho

In practice, wouldn’t this be regressive (tax poor more and rich less)? Imagine a homeowner who uses public transportation, sends their children to public schools, and and supplements their income with public assistance. They need to create a price for their home. They live in an area with good public transit and good public schools. These public services figure heavily into the price of the house, pushing it up for tax purposes. Imagine the same house being owned by someone who sends their kids to private schools and drives everywhere. The quality of public schools and transportation doesn’t affect the value of the house. In practice, people who are poor are less mobile than people who are wealthy. This tax system favors people who are mobile (and don’t consume public services). How important is it that you stay at your current residence? The more you make, the easier the move (moving costs money too). Also, because public assistance doesn’t change with the value of the home, the larger the tax payment, the greater the fraction of the tax bill it is. This sounds nice, but is ultimately a tax on people who aren’t mobile.