There's nothing actually wrong with renting, if there's enough supply to stop profiteering by landlords.

What's frustrating is when (as appears to be obnoxiously common in the UK) affordability requirements for mortgages mean someone "can't afford" to buy even when their mortgage payments would be less than their current rent. While the landlord probably has an interest-only mortgage and doesn't pay tax on their mortgage payments.

Here's a thought: tax landlords based on their self-assessed property value, but make it so that the tenant has the right to buy the property for that amount.

You can rent your home with x% profit, but after x # of years the home sells to the renter.

I like it but that seems like a system VERY susceptible to abuse.

You can bet landlords would be doing everything possible to force renters out just before the purchase window comes open.

That's definitely an issue, even if constructive evictions can be prevented, landlords would also have to be forced to renew leases (at limited rent increases).

One small catch, maybe even a constitutional hold up?

It's not really your home if you are obliged to sell it after x years.

The traditional societal compact with private property is that the property is yours for as long as you choose to keep it. (Providing you pay the taxes covering the costs to provide municipal services to your property.)

This kind of changes that, and I'm not sure it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny?

Again, traditionally, renting your property on terms an owner unilaterally determines was seen as a right of owning private property. Provided you're able to find a renter who agrees to your terms, and provided your terms are legal, you were allowed to rent your property, again, forever. For instance, it was perfectly legal to rent your apartments for USD1500 per month, and at the same time, allow your kid to stay in one of the apartments for free and give a USD500 a month break to a long term renter who maybe lost his job. It was your property, so whatever terms you had with each renter was very much considered to be your business. (Again, within the bounds of legality. You can't be asking for a cut of the drugs dealt out of your apartment as a condition for instance.)

Unless I'm misunderstanding the proposal, this would change that practice. You would be told how much you could rent the property for, as well as the date you would need to sell the property. (Which, I'm guessing, would be based on the rent amount?) So a radical change from before in terms of private property rights.

Forcing people to sell private property against their will is generally a pretty bad economic policy.

All they have to do is offer the owner an adequate price.

The problem is they can't give the owner an adequate price when they're paying for the owner to grow more equity in the property while also needing to save at a faster rate to afford a downpayment on a mortgage.

When was this?

Have you paid attention to the percentage of wages required for a unit nationally? In your area?

I too had roommates coming up. People today have roommates coming up. That doesn't change the fact that even with roommates, the burden is disproportionately higher than it was for the last generation, particularly with housing.

Median household county in my area is about $55,000 a year. The median price of a house is $450,000. Assuming two people, the 50th percentile wage is equivalent of $14/hour. (This as an eyeball looks pretty close to a median wage.) Fair market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment (40th percentile) is 1500, or 32% of income.

If you let everyone get their own bedroom? For a below median two bedroom apartment, they will barely be able to afford the place.

A 4 bedroom place is $2500, so you're going to get about 100 dollar discount, but that all gets wiped out if one of your roommates leaves and you can't find a replacement. The more people sharing a space, the more risk there is.

It's tougher out there right now if you're not on an engineer's wage.

If you are saving a down payment for a house you need to be spending far less than "32% of income" on your current rent. You need to move farther out, find a smaller/shittier place to live, be frugal with everything else, and/or increase your income. This has always been the case, unless you are earning well above average income.

> doesn't change the fact that even with roommates, the burden is disproportionately higher than it was for the last generation, particularly with housing

Oh totally agree. Just pointing out that a straight comparison of wages to home prices doesn't dictate unaffordability.

each successive generation shouldn't have to endure more and more hardship to achieve the same standard of living, especially if it's due to previous generations imposing regulatory barriers

That's a very different situation than the one you initially replied to. It's also not something everyone can do.