Not everyone wants to own the place they live in. Lots of people plan on only being in a location for a year or two or four, and would rather just rent.
Some people would just rather rent indefinitely.
The problem is free handouts for homeowners in general.
The handouts entice the landlords, because for the last 30 years with the exception of 3 years (2005-2008) - housing on leverage has absolutely destroyed equities as an investment.
If you got rid of the handouts, this wouldn't be the case. Then you wouldn't have people like Blackrock gobbling up houses. They'd just be buying equities (the things that are supposed to be investments?) instead.
You need people to be able to build and flip properties without being taxed at all. The current taxes are carving a modest profit down to "not worth it" for a lot of people who could otherwise build and revitalize affordable housing.
More taxes on home sales results in less homes for sale.
Speculators wanting to buy a house, redo the kitchen, and mark up the price 20% 6 months later though? We could just let older, unrenovated houses be cheap. That opens up deals to new home buyers. You can redo the kitchen after buying the house if you really care. You don't need some middle man to do it and mark up the house.
That’s the service flippers provide, IMO. (I’m not one but I think they’re more helpful than not in terms of providing housing that owner-occupants want.)
Stable and long term living arrangements are something the government should be incentivizing so primary residences should be taxed minimally.
Vacation houses and income properties should be taxed higher.
Yes, like the famously communist state of, checks notes, Singapore.
Sorry for the snarky reply, but I don't think calling the breaking of monopoly power/taxing unearned rents is communism.
IMO, the problem could be fixed by having stricter laws prohibiting people who aren't residents from owning homes in another country. The requirement to become a resident is only to live in a country for over 6 months out of the year. Before that, you can just rent. We could also do things like limit the number of houses a person can own, and tax every house sale based on capital gains (even primary residences).
However, another problem we have is that interest rates are too low, and there isn't enough construction. Those are harder problems to solve. I really think we should build more, but we'd need denser construction as well. What do you do if you need land to build and there's already a house there, or someone already owns the land? Maybe it's kind of silly to have this idea that a person can "own" a piece of this planet we all live on, but we probably don't want to live in a communist country where the government owns every home and everyone is renting either.
As for interest rates, this is driven by our current economic policy and money printing. Maybe there's a way to somehow detach the interest rate used for mortgages from that in other areas. Surely, the government could print stimulus money and direct it where it's needed without interest rates being artificially controlled? The main problem with these near-zero interest rates is that they completely kill the free market. We keep zombie companies alive and we allow people to speculate on home prices endlessly. That's not natural. In a "true" free market, there's a natural equilibrium between offer and demand, both home prices and rents will fluctuate but they will balance out. My ex's parents bought a home in the 1970s, they only had high school education and were both making minimum wage. Said home is now worth over a million and out of reach of anyone not making 200K+ household income.