semantics, point is taxes should be harsh to disincentivize buying/holding housing as an investment than residence. Which governing body should do it is not the

semantics, point is taxes should be harsh to disincentivize buying/holding housing as an investment than residence. Which governing body should do it is not the point. Let me bid 150% on all 50 units of housing this year but no problem, I'll just rent it at 200% more so that will cover the increased mortgage payments, as long as I can hold it for the next 10 years, and given govt has decided inflation is always a good thing prices will definitely 2x in a decade. It's a fail-safe strategy to get rich while partaking in vicious decentralized grand scheme that robs the poorest. Imagine a city with 1000 families and 1000 housing units, investors come in bid against each other, buy up all properties at inflated prices then rent it out at inflated rent. Now all 1000 population is paying 50% of salary in rent, banks are richer, investors also make few bucks along the way. People who actually live on the land and work, end up as biggest losers. Sure their house prices also appreciated, but they can't sell house they live in? If they do sell where would they move? prices have increased everywhere else too? The population isn't growing fast enough or housing supplying isn't short enough to cause such inflation adjusted increase in value as we have seen in last 10 years. It's all driven by 'investors' retail and institutional. Why worry about the cost when it can be offloaded to renters? What are the renters gonna do? Leave? Go where? it's same story in every city! This has detrimental effect on health, education, mental well being, economic prosperity, quality of life, economic mobility, and everything that is affected by money... like the entire economy.