Yeah, it makes sense when you consider what value landlords provide. A landlord may provide services like maintenance. But a renter pays not only for maintenanc

Yeah, it makes sense when you consider what value landlords provide. A landlord may provide services like maintenance. But a renter pays not only for maintenance costs, but also mortgage costs. And the only benefit they get is the maintenance — not even any of the property value. Renters essentially finance the ongoing ownership of an asset without getting any of the value back. At the end of the day, the landlord typically doesn’t have to do much work (or can use rent to pay someone to do the work), but gets an entire house in value. Whereas a renter does a huge amount of work to handle the cost of rent, but gets nothing at the end of their stay. The only difference between a landlord and a renter is that the landlord has enough money for the initial downpayment in the first place. The renter is still covering all ongoing costs associated with ownership anyways, including mortgage and maintenance. (If they didn’t, renting out wouldn’t make financial sense.) A renter will easily pay $90k over 3 years, but will have nothing to show for it. Whereas the landlord gets 3 years of their mortgage paid off. The financial aspect of renting is very unfair to renters, and incentivizes perverse behavior. And JUST because renters don’t have the upfront capital for a down payment, or because all housing inventory has been snatched by landlords. Reiterating: renters CAN handle ongoing ownership costs, because they’re already the ones paying for the landlord’s ongoing ownership costs. In fact, that’s the only way that renting makes sense for the landlord in the first place. So the entire concept of renting is based on one class of people having capital and one class not.