It already is. There are many tax incentives geared towards making owning cheaper. If owning was t already subsidized do you really think anyone would be handing out 4% 30-yr fixed rate mortgages like candy? Removing these would also make housing prices crash, which would lower both purchase cost AND rent, yet I don’t see many people pushing that idea forward (because it also makes it almost impossible for most people to buy)

The “I think people should own property, so I’m okay making it more expensive for people who don’t” is bullshit.

> a lower portion of housing should be rentals

Without numbers (the baseline you’re considering as true, and the number that is “acceptable”) this is just trying to impose a specific viewpoint without any data to back it up.

Housing being used as a bet on appreciation, which fuels buying, which causes appreciation is best solved by building more housing. The way to make housing cheaper (or not be a speculation vehicle) is to build more housing. Full stop.

How much more expensive proportionally matters; it should be up for discussion democratically.

To own property is to accept responsibility for the land, architecture, and legal liability. If you abdicate that responsibility to another party you should pay for a service; and the bar should be high for the standards of that service.