> Additional property tax if you do not live in your home fulltime.

In states I've lived in with property tax there is a homestead exemption for the house you live in. In my current state that's about twice the tax.

The effect: Rent goes up to cover the tax and margin is added, so the rent goes up more than the tax.

>Rich investors and companies effectively get to buy homes at a discount vs average joes.

Usually the difference is that the big investor bought the property at lower price, and your rent is based on the lower valuation. Annual rent increases are usually are much lower than market increases - there's a lot of value in keeping a tenant year over year.

> Rich investors and companies effectively get to buy homes at a discount vs average joes.

Suppose you had $100,000 in cash, and buy a house for $100,000. You'll not be paying 5% interest on a mortgage. But if you did not buy the house, you would be investing that $100,000 for a 5% return.

So, you're either paying 5% on the mortgage, or foregoing 5% return for investing that money.

The rich person is not getting a discount.

It depends on the state, but that is largely kind of already the case. At least in my state you get a significant deduction to your property taxes if it is your primary residence.

That sounds nice, but I think that increased tax will just be passed down as higher rent.

With today requirements for accounting, somebody with economics background could tell what would be wrong with following solution?:

If you house owned by commercial entity - taxes are payed from full value, but the valuation to any collateral/derivative goes by something like (0.75x)^l, where l how many levels deep (counting ownership levels). For example it house is in some sort collateral/derivate/indirect ownership mix with 4 levels deep, it can only valuated as 0.31x value (you can only account as it is worth 1/3). In my mind it should reduce attractiveness for speculative buying.

Additional property tax? Do you have any idea what property taxes are like in places like NJ, NY? It's 2-3% of the value, sometimes assessed at sales value. People buy despite this because they like an area or a school system. If you raise it more, rest assured that only the rich will have the right to buy. It's as regressive as it gets, your proposal.

But you'd have an asset you own at the end of that period, and your mortgage payments wouldn't go up over time whereas rent likely would.

Key adjustment to your first proposal: the additional property tax should also be waived when having long-term renters/occupants.

Property taxes are directly and immediately translate into higher rent.

Making rent more expensive doesn't make ownership cheaper, just makes it more attractive relative to renting.

> If I were to try and buy the condo I rent, due to interest rates, taxes, and HOA's I would be paying $1000 more per mo

... and you would be building equity.

So you pay less and get less, right?

You're thinking this is a sign that you are being cheated. It seems to me that it's a sign you're getting a better deal by renting so that's beneficial to you.

You lumped a bunch of factors together (interest rates, HOA, taxes) that don't do much for your argument. You would pay less taxes than the landlord in most jurisdictions, because the unit would be owner-occupied. Do you think the landlord isn't paying HOA assessments? Sure they are. The landlord has a loan at 3% because they bought in 2021. You're offered 6.5% because you're buying in 2026. I'm not convinced it's worth my pity.

It'd be simpler to just have a high LVT and treat it as a credit instead of deductible.

Opportunity cost means makes purchasing with a mortgage wiser than buying cash. $1000/month more for a few years is nothing compared to the property value increase of a $1M property

1) Is already how things work. Every single municipality I've ever seen in the US offers an owner-occupancy tax abatement.

2) Would just inflate home prices.