> Renting is no less valid...than ownership

I think ownership is better because people value securing the shelter where they sleep. Renting is worse because you can't make decisions about how to improve land and architecture. You are only permitted to be there under a limited contractual agreement vs. being able to stay put until you decide to sell.

You are welcome to think that. But it is an opinion, and not one shared by everyone. Both are equally valid options; in my opinion. I've been in times of my life where owning was better for me. I've been in times of my life where renting was better for me. At the times I was renting, I was very grateful for the landlord I had at the time (mostly; I've had a small number of landlords I did not like); they take on the risk and responsibility that wasn't something I wanted to deal with at the time.

People tend to talk about two different things when they say renting: control and affordability.

Anti-renting people emphasize the control inherent in the relationship. Landlord sets the rules, including price; tenant required to abide. (Attempts to address the market by regulation here have had their share of severe side effects)

Pro-renting people emphasize the affordability and ability to offer housing to those without access to the capital to purchase, as well as the shift of asset risk (physical and market) from the renter to landlord.

The central evil seems not the existence of renting, but the ability of a landlord to capture underlying asset appreciation and charge rent.

Coupled with areas of constrained supply, this leads to landlords getting richer and renters... not. Which seems unfair.

You are welcome to think that but your wrong and have some weird agenda

Many people expressly do not value the things you claim, you are projecting your preferences on to people at large. Renting transfers many costs, risks, and hassles to the landlord, which is a desirable arrangement for a significant percentage of people. It is not uncommon for people to strongly prefer renting even when they can easily afford to own a place to live because it is a better use of their time and money.

> Renting transfers many costs, risks, and hassles to the landlord, which is a desirable arrangement for a significant percentage of people.

Agreed that it transfers risks and hassles to the landlord. It doesn't transfer any costs though, as they'll be bundled in the rent price.

Renting is like using AWS. You pay for the convenience of someone else taking care of the hardware, but they're making a profit from providing that service.

Instead of supposedly basing rental figures on median home values, which is highly non-objective, just make the public tax data more transparent. When people can see the relationship between taxes and prices, they can ask the right questions and make their own decisions– through policy changes in their locale if necessary.

What works in small town USA won't necessarily make sense in a Big 6, unless it affects huge national investors like Blackrock but not your small landlords or medium multi-family dwelling manager/owners.

Also, "tax them? might as well kill them!" is the type of nefariously silly exaggeration that is used to shut down discussions. Yours doesn't go quite that far, and I get the point of your example but don't find that limits of infinity are generally helpful.