possible solutions for the inaccessible housing issue:
- make it so the people profit from housing prices rising -> minimize building and housing regulation, forbid foreign ownership of the land(like at least 50% should be owned by a local) and by taxes and loans make it more likely that a lot of people will own some land then small percentage of the people own a lot of land, specify that all those rules are going to apply for 20 years(number of years calculated to the point when the land of the nation is owned by the nation and more or less even), and it will be a completely free market afterwards(so investors are not afraid to invest) — in a society with high income inequality will require either high taxes for landowners and/or long time to achive high level of land ownership
- government built, controlled and owned housing for the people(like singopore), — has a high potential for corruption, any country with weak institutions has a huge risk to end up without housing and with high corruption, income inequality etc
What needs to happen is owner occupiers are given a competitive edge when bidding for a property over a landlord. Hence more taxes and disincentives for buy to let purchasers.
So for example a property selling for $1m, what would happen if it actually cost a landlord say $1.5m after taxes, higher interest etc, but an owner occupier would still just have to pay $1m. That gives an advantage to someone who actually needs the home.
Edit: Also new supply takes a long time to ramp up, with planning permission, land acquisition, infrastructure, and there are materials shortages (wood especially) and cost overruns rampant at the moment. There is also a potential issue in the quality of supply (see the leaky building crisis in NZ in the 90s, or how small the apartments of the last decade are).
A vibrant rental market is a great thing for many reasons (e.g. look up any study on labour mobility). Not sure why we should have tax advantages for home owners and tax disadvantages for the rental market. It's certainly not equitable to the renter class. And there's tons of evidence that home owner tax advantages flow mostly to incumbent home owners who gain the proceeds from any tax advantages spent to help new home owners get into the market.
I'm personally supportive of housing as a human right and think it's worth it and actually stimulating all around, turns out removing stresses of life is good for the economy and people.
I think we did this backwards with stimi. Should have written checks to renters directly. The programs we do have for relief are woefully behind with hundreds of millions outstanding huge red tape.
Giving all renters point blank could maybe help start balancing the scales just a tiny bit.
Yes I agree some rentals are necessary given the practical nature of the housing system. But once they become the cause of people being unable to afford to buy their own home it is an issue that needs addressing.
There's no magic way around these economic laws.
Of course if demand grows faster, then prices still go up. But in absence of supply increases it'd be even worse. Supply definitely helps.
Not necessarily. By the UK Government's own estimate [1], 1-in-20 homes in West and Central London (the more expensive parts) are empty. The story I've heard is owners who use them as a store of wealth safe from their own government's hands (usually Russia, China, or places in the Middle East). They prefer not to have tenants because it adds risk and complexity. I'm not saying this is the true story, but it's what I've heard, and there are definitely lots of expensive, empty apartments.
[1] https://theconversation.com/londons-extraordinary-surplus-of...
