[tossandthrow]

> So if someone inherits a fully paid off house, they are only allowed to rent it for a fraction of the rent allowed for the mortgaged, identical property next door?

Idk, what do you think is fair? In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent. If you take out a mortgage that you can not service a mortgage with this rent-level, then you are at fault. On the contrary, if you don't have a mortgage, then you can pay yourself a higher salary for maintaining your rental unit.

However, if you "win the lottery" and get a house for free, don't you have the moral obligation to not maximize your rental income? You really don't need all this money (this discussion, btw, also goes into the nature of inheritance tax, where one could argue that a fair society should tax you in a way that forces you to take out a mortgage on the house you inherit - after all, you did not work for it)

The core of this is to what extend housing should be a part of a free market.

IMHO, there is plenty of opportunity right now - just move a out of the big cities and you get housing thrown at you. I do see an insistence on wanting to live in a few select cities followed by complaints that it is expensive.

[SgtBastard]

> In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent.

Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock.

>Don’t you have a moral obligation

No.

[tossandthrow]

> Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock.

Sure, you get what you pay for.

> No.

That is fair. You definitely represent the profit obsessed sentiments that put money ahead of people. I hope you go bankrupt in a crash of a bubble with nothing but your own greed to thank.

[SgtBastard]

> In most rent controlled systems there is a per sqm pre-allowed rent.

Those markets are frequently characterised by poorly maintained rental stock.

>Don’t you have a moral obligation

No.