I'm probably very progressive by American standards. I think the state should exist to protect citizens from the worst of the slings and arrows. That's the purp

I'm probably very progressive by American standards. I think the state should exist to protect citizens from the worst of the slings and arrows. That's the purpose of the state. Society should provide a basic level of health insurance, including disability allowance. (America's example suggests that this cannot be done privately, because insurers can bully citizens with size asymmetry.) I don't think that disability allowance should cover the property tax for a massive ranch, but it should allow a moderate lifestyle. If you pile all your wealth into lots of real estate and become disabled, you may then have a hard choice: rent out some property, or downsize. But I don't think that's too bad. I'm not arguing for guaranteed luxury. An average middle-class worker owning an average house who becomes disabled should not have to downsize; the allowance should cover property tax and running costs. And yes, I'd fund this benefit from wealth taxes such as property tax. Stepping back to address your main point, porqué no los dos? Tax property, but cover it for poor citizens with negative income tax. Professional landlords should profit from the value of maintenance they perform but, let's be real, what they mainly do is arbitrage rent against their credit rating on secured assets. That margin ought to be narrow; fuck 'em. It's an undesired effect to subsidise scroungers, but the lesser of the evils compared to rent-seeking. On one hand, scroungers are poor, on the other, they're wealthy.