4 ms·
Maybe just outlaw the ownership of more than 3 houses? Landlords will throw a fit but they're a minority and I think they're doing fine if they have 3+ houses.
by WilliamEdward 7y ago
Maybe just outlaw the ownership of more than 3 houses? Landlords will throw a fit but they're a minority and I think they're doing fine if they have 3+ houses.
- sokoloff 7y agoKeep in mind that most everything you do with the intent of harming landlords ends up also harming renters in some ratio.
- WilliamEdward 7y agoNot if you transfer the houses to the renters.
- big_chungus 7y agoHow would you "transfer" them? Some people need places to stay in the short-term and don't want to own a house. Also, it's not the government's house to "transfer".
- nickthemagicman 7y agoFalse. The renters would benefit from this or not be affected at all. They wouldn't even remotely be harmed by it.
- sokoloff 7y agoI suspect that what you'd find is both slightly fewer houses available for rent and more disorganized, part-time, hobbyist landlords in the market. I believe both of these factors would tend to harm renters. I lived in houses rented by these part-timers and they were pretty haphazardly managed compared to the [fewer] times I lived in clearly corporate-owned and managed properties.
- Nasrudith 7y agoWhy don't renters own their own property? Lack of capital to build or buy. Guess who has the capital and uses it to establish the supply of rentals either directly by building or indirectly by paying someone who built it and enabling them to build more? Even if you think the perpetuation of capital unfair the realities need to be acknowledged in order to even begin to think of a viable alternative.
- Pyxl101 7y agoLack of capital isn't the only reason to rent. You might also choose to rent because you are not interested in investing a significant amount of your money in real estate, or because you don't want to make a long-term commitment to live in one place.