Or option 3, where we tax the hell out of non owner occupied houses, to the point they aren't worth owning anymore.
Despite what the news tells, we don't have a shortage of housing. We have an abundance of rent seekers.
Despite what the news tells, we don't have a shortage of housing. We have an abundance of rent seekers.
Single family homes should be required to be owner occupied, end of story. People in the US and abroad are instead treating them like Pokemon cards.
You've used this term several times in this thread, but it does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Are you sure [1]?
> My line of thinking is around Rent seeking (or rent-seeking) is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity.
and
> That said, it’s possible for landlords to engage in rent-seeking behavior.
So, I understand that rent in rent seeking is not and nothing to do with 'rent payments', so to speak.
It's more a question of are landlords trying to extract value without producing anything. My opinion is, in many cases, yes.
Especially someone like Invitation Homes, who essentially aim to corner a particular housing market for the sole purpose of extracting additional money from said units.
If this is not considered rent seeking behavior, I'll cede that point.
Although I do agree we would be better off with fewer single family rentals, that number is definitely not zero.
We have an abundance of landlords. Landlords provide lots of value. I own a house and when I tell my friends about all the shit that I have to do to maintain my house, a common refrain is, "that's why we rent."
A lot of people are intimidated by replaced a furnace that just broke and having their kitchen destroyed by a water leak.
Another factor is home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance is far more likely to cover high cost replacements than renter's insurance, and often is far more comprehensive in coverage. Renter's insurance might only cover up to $50,000 depending on your policy and exclude things like vehicles or special equipment like HAM radios. It also often doesn't cover certain natural disasters like earthquakes or tornadoes, which makes it harder for people in places like Memphis Tennessee to recover after those events.
Providing value, in a broader sense, would be paying a specialist to come in and fix the furnace. Something a modern homeowner would likely do anyways due to either the mechanical complexity, time involved, or level of skill required. That's money going to a dedicated job that's likely from a local business since HVAC and plumbing tend to be trades. The homeowner's upfront expense is more, but ignoring things like regional wealth extraction the local economy is strengthened because of it.
That's because I'm not a landlord.
Finding reliable professionals is difficult. They're also expensive.
Homeowners insurance is great. I've used it on a few occasions. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover expensive things that break at full cost. So if something breaks and it was older, you're on the hook.
You don't have to convince me renting is a bad financial move, that's why I don't rent, but you can't pretend like there is no benefit to renting.
After the things I've already mentioned, renting gives you much more freedom to move. That's a big deal if you're looking for work, for example.
Some people like to move around and experience different places before settling down. Renting provides value to those people.
Renting is definitely more expensive. You're paying for more. Free maintenance, no concern for depreciation, mobility and whatever other other things I don't consider.
Home ownership has been stressful. I think it's a better move, that's why I do it but I also know people who prefer not to.