Does a person who owns a $1 million dollar home "consume" more resources than a person who owns a $200K home? What if the homes are the same but in different parts of the city?
This is not a good argument. It would be the equivalent of me asking:
Does the trash pickup service, repairing potholes or patrolling the street cost more if the home owner just moved in than if has own the house for 30 years?
Well, that does argue for my previous stated idea of charging every property owner the same fee for the same service.
Trash pickup is actually a great example. Where I live it’s not part of your property taxes. It’s a separate bill and everyone pays the same amount.
The city council can set budgets for the different departments and set taxes based on the budget. Neighborhoods already do something similar via homeowner’s association fees and condo fees.
You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think.
Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.
Yes, there's a consumption component and a non-consumption component. Of course when either component goes up the total goes up. But the tax is on the total value and therefore it's not a consumption tax.
The cost of police, fire fighters, schools, roads, etc. don’t go up with the value of the home. There is no reason that you couldn’t charge a flat rate to every property owner - including businesses.