3 ms·
There'll always need to be other constraints on landlords because there's zero reason why they won't just all screw renters over in every area no matter how ple
by autoexec 9mo ago
There'll always need to be other constraints on landlords because there's zero reason why they won't just all screw renters over in every area no matter how plentiful housing is.
- Spooky23 9mo agoYou have to make it impossible for them to exist. Rentiers are the lowest form of business, and incentives need to make it difficult for them to prosper too much. These issues are why policy was oriented around individual home ownership for decades.
- triceratops 9mo agoThere's an argument that landlording gets entirely too favorable treatment from the tax code compared to any other type of business or investment. Seriously proposing eliminating property rentals is weapons-grade stupid.
- rangestransform 9mo agoOrienting policy around individual home ownership just ends up eventually with more people’s voting interests aligned with landowners, and is part of the reason why increasing property values and NIMBYism is so entrenched in American government structures
- autoexec 9mo agoWe could definitely stand to orient some policy around making sure that first time homeowners aren't typically buying their starter homes at age 40. Having voting interests aligned with landowners wouldn't be a bad thing if most people were landowners.
- kiba 9mo agoDoesn't really fix the problem. All you done is distribute unearned income to a larger class of people. People's labor and capital will get absorbed by land ownership. You need to tax it.
- triceratops 9mo agoHow would they do that if housing is plentiful?