[dukeyukey]

> Taxes would still happen on renter investment property.

Exactly. It makes renter investment property more expensive to maintain, hence making rental properties a less desirable asset, reducing the numbers built and increasing the cost of renting.

Whereas a homeowner doesn't pay that tax at all, meaning the entire residential property burden is put onto renter.

[strangesmells06]

> hence making rental properties a less desirable asset, reducing the numbers built and increasing the cost of renting.

On the flip side it would increase the number of single family homes and make them cheaper so people could afford them and stop renting.

Sounds like a huge win for single familys and huge hit to giant private equity funds buying up homes and land to turn the middle class into an eternal population of renting serfs.

It would also keep communities intact as people would never be priced out of their own home.

Net win for everyone but the private equity landlords and bloated government.

[dukeyukey]

Also anyone who rents, which is most people at some point but especially students, immigrants (even richer ones), new grads, divorcees, basically anyone who can't dedicate a minimum of 5 years to an area.

I've been a victim to people thinking like that - which is why I'm currently paying £1600/month for a 500sqft 1-bed flat, shared with my girlfriend.

[strangesmells06]

Well if your proposed scenario as more houses transition to single family homes...renter supply will decrease.

But also as more people transition to single family homes renter demand will decrease as well.

It equals out except instead of private equity firm owning all the houses, normal people will.