[r3trohack3r]

I’m not sure this is the right lens. Poorer renter isn’t a static label, we need to build paths that allow the lower and middle class to build equity.

The goal of these policies, IMH(umble)O, should be to help poorer renters become richer homeowners.

I feel like you do that by reducing the total cost of walking that path. Not by increasing their tax obligation every step up the socio-economic ladder they climb on their way out of the lower class.

[dukeyukey]

Equally, you don't help people by taxing the poorer more than the richer. So maybe we should just tax land as land, and leave it at that? Being a renter is part of that path after all.

[r3trohack3r]

> Being a renter is part of that path after all

Renters are not building equity. They are spending their wealth every month and accumulating no equity in return.

I don't agree with calling a "homeowner" rich. Owning the ground beneath your feet is a big part of having equity. With a mortgage, unlike rent, every month an increasing amount of your wealth accumulates as equity as you pay off your principal. Once you pay off your mortgage, you've significantly reduced your monthly burn rate and can start moving your accumulating equity into retirement accounts.

Reducing the total cost of primary home ownership, reducing the cost of financing a primary residence to help build equity, etc. are all important parts of giving upward class mobility.

These are not things you want to disincentivize. You want your renters to become owners. You want your workers to become small business owners. You want your communities to build equity in themselves.

If you tell me that being a homeowner today makes you rich, I'll tell you that is part of the problem.