• ttmrichter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Wouldn’t it be better to boost long-term personal residence ownership? Boosting the number of people renting is just a way, it seems, of exacerbating the heart of the housing problem.

    • MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      They need to do both. There are always going to be people who want/need to rent due to life circumstances as house ownership ties a person to the local area for an extended period of time. We need people to have the choice of moving, not never leaving their place because everywhere else is far more expensive than their current rates.

      However, people who are ready to buy shouldn’t be faced with property values 10-20 (or more depending where they are) times their annual salary. The issue is that housing needs to stop being seen as a investment and retirement fund, and just as a basic necessity of life.

      How do you ruin an entire generations retirement plan when that’s all they have? How do you screw over the following generations when most won’t have anything?

    • AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      You boost ownership by making it infeasible to be a landlord… You tax the fuck out of residential property ownership that is not your primary residence. If you own a home you don’t live in, 1% tax on the total value of the home, every year… And that tax rate increases at 2x the rate of inflation, every year. Within a decade or two, the housing market gets fixed as each individual owner determines that their ‘income property’ isn’t profitable anymore.