"We have seen corporate landlords—who own a larger share of the rental market than ever before—use inflation as an excuse to hike rents and reap excess profits beyond what should be considered fair and reasonable."
Just curious, why? What difference would it make for you? Many of these mortgages are government funded anyway. I don’t rent anymore but my government is far more inept and corrupt than any landlord I’ve ever dealt with. Just my experience though.
Well, paying an at-cost price would mean it is inherently cheaper as the government wouldn’t be trying to turn a profit, merely charge an amount that compensates for upkeep.
Many of these mortgages are government funded anyway.
But is still building equity for a private individual.
my government is far more inept and corrupt than any landlord I’ve ever dealt with
I have a say in my government though, at least theoretically. I think housing (at least primary housing) shouldn’t be a for-profit industry, so I advocate against it via my government.
I would rather pay the cost of service to the government than my landlord’s mortgage
So you want housing as government controlled? How much? 100%? 80%? 50%? How much private residential property should be stolen by the government to achieve what you want.
How much private residential property should be stolen by the government to achieve what you want.
wow is that the best strawman you could come up with? Public housing shouldn’t exist because *checks notes* it is literally impossible to achieve without stealing existing homes? That’s how you’re gonna present your initial argument? Be better sporto
I would rather pay the cost of service to the government than my landlord’s mortgage
Just curious, why? What difference would it make for you? Many of these mortgages are government funded anyway. I don’t rent anymore but my government is far more inept and corrupt than any landlord I’ve ever dealt with. Just my experience though.
Well, paying an at-cost price would mean it is inherently cheaper as the government wouldn’t be trying to turn a profit, merely charge an amount that compensates for upkeep.
But is still building equity for a private individual.
I have a say in my government though, at least theoretically. I think housing (at least primary housing) shouldn’t be a for-profit industry, so I advocate against it via my government.
lol.
With risk attached, yes.
Agreed. Nor should food, water, electricity, health services, etc. but here we are.
So you want housing as government controlled? How much? 100%? 80%? 50%? How much private residential property should be stolen by the government to achieve what you want.
wow is that the best strawman you could come up with? Public housing shouldn’t exist because *checks notes* it is literally impossible to achieve without stealing existing homes? That’s how you’re gonna present your initial argument? Be better sporto