So how do you think it will help anyone if it costs more to build more rental units. Every single response so far is going into moral outrage about JPM buying up existing home inventory didn’t even bother to read the bullet points

> The companies plan to acquire up to $1 billion in build-to-rent properties, starting in Atlanta.

The point is that it would incentivize them to sell condos instead, which are then tax-privileged.

And how does that help people who don’t want to commit to buying a house? The end goal should be affordable housing not home ownership. Buying and selling a house has high transactional costs and definitely shouldn’t be the go to. If you need to change jobs, it’s much harder to move if you own a home.

Besides, “owning” a condo when you still have all of the issues of being in an apartment is not ideal. You are still dependent on the condo association to fix common parts of the building , it needs to be a well run association, you have to deal with neighbors and shared walls etc.

Regarding the "owning a condo not being ideal", it's actually the norm in many countries, assuming by "condo" you mean a flat in a shared building with many houses - where I'm from, condominium is the name you give the association of neighbors, not the structure. Almost 50% of the EU residents live in flats[0]and have to indeed communicate with their neighbors and solve common issues together through a management company or directly through the owners association, depending on the building. I think you're making it out to be more complex than it is.

[0] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/flats-houses-types-ho...

> Let corporate land owners pay the higher tax on all value.

I'm curious as to who you think will pay the tax.. Wont it be the tenant?

Under your system rent will simply increase by the cost of the tax, which will fully be passed on to the tenant.

This is like applying an "import taxes" and claiming the foreign country "pays". - No they don't domestic consumption pays.

Land Value Tax is not incident on tenants.

https://gameofrent.com/content/can-lvt-be-passed-on-to-tenan...

tldr: if landlords could raise the rent and still get tenants they'd do it right now

"simply increase by the cost of the tax"

The "simple" part isn't correct. Renters will pay some share of the tax, but it's unlikely that the owners would be able to shift 100% of the burden.