Yes. Obviously it's better to have money than not have money. Again, that is not actionable. Renting vs owning is the correct calculation, even for people who already have a home. The only thing that's different for them is they should be slightly more biased toward owning, since moving is expensive and a PITA.
I would massively increase land-value taxes, which are currently zero in most places. (I think Pennsylvania is the only state that has one.)
I'm not really interested in increasing property taxes, except inasmuch as it's politically easier to do that, since the basic tax code for property taxes is already in place.
Glad you asked. The reason that a land-value tax is better than a property tax is because the structures represent some genuine effort on the part of the landowner (or whoever they bought it from) to improve and develop their property. There's no need to do anything to discourage that. In contrast, the value of the land is determined by things mostly outside the property-owner's control: The location vis-a-vis desirable cities and neighborhoods, any natural resources under the land, the farming quality of the land, how naturally beautiful it is, etc. In the words of Barack Obama, "You didn't build that." I think it's less desirable to tax productive behavior, such as building a house on the land or setting up a factory.