… you mean all the reasoning I explained in my opening post?
That’s why.
You’re kindly asking for me to not be patronising towards you, but you really make it difficult.
So… just do what we’re already doing?
In the interests of there drastically needing to be some change, any change, capping rents set by private landlords according to the broken market is something, and of course the State need to pick up the slack in construction where the private market is failing so badly - but let me give you a UK statistic. I found an article that’s just over 6 months old, stating that UK councils are on average 6.2 years behind on a 10 year housebuilding plan… that’s just frankly shit.
The whole thing is such a mess, it needs a rethink, and my solution just so happens to solve multiple issues in one. The current proposed re-tweaks that you’re suggesting are not enough, nor are they as elegant and simple.
I didn’t borrow the idea from somewhere that was already doing it - I am in the business of coming up with new ideas. If my idea is already in existence, I am not aware of it.
You’ve asked why change it twice now. The last few paragraphs of this post are a re-cap since you obviously missed it the first time.
Price-capping and/or state new-builds are better than what we have now, but they’re neither working fast enough, nor are they optimal - nor are they the most ethical in fact.
The right infamously oppose taxation (e.g. to fund new-builds by the State) because it is immoral theft. Some would probably go as far as saying that price-capping what private owners could otherwise charge is theft, at least indirectly.
My solution not only undercuts taxation as a form of a comparatively less justifiable means of State income, but it also removes the laziness of landlords sitting on a title deed to property and watching their bank account grow, while poorer people who can’t afford to own property pay them for being richer than they are. Investment should be in productivity - the service of “allowing someone to live somewhere that’s already built” does not justify the unproductive payoff, even given the odd maintainence service that the landlord pays for to keep their property up to scratch. So my solution is more ethical in two ways than what we’re doing already that you’re suggesting we stick to.
The limited supply of housing relative to the growing demand incentivises less housing being built in the eyes of property owners - the less property constructed, the more they can charge for renting their property and the more its value appreciates once it’s time to sell it. This is partly why your suggestion of “just do what we’re already trying” is not enough. My solution transfers the incentive to building property to sell it to the state - and if we stick with your suggestion of getting to live rent-free in a property as long as you built it yourself, then that’s just more incentive to build. For everyone else, rent (or mortgage) is what almost everyone is used to paying anyway - but instead of paying it to a private landlord, you pay it to the State instead of tax. They need your money for public services anyway - I’m streamlining the process as well as eliminating dissent towards taxation. It makes sense to pay the State to live in the society they’re providing services for, it makes less sense to get less income after tax.
There’s rules about where and how much you can build either way, but one of the reasons State new-builds are disliked is because public motivation is high quantity low quality - to keep within budget - without reward for doing a better job, and this can either drive down house prices of nicer places nearby for multiple reasons. Private builds get rewarded for quality - which will be more popular with neighbours, and the building party can sell a more desirable property to the State for more money. Incentive to build solved.
Businesses that require property to run (even online businesses need property to keep their servers in) can struggle to run purely based on the costs of property. More incentive to start new businesses under my solution, and current businesses can spend more on staff and operation costs with less to pay in both tax and property costs. Incentive for business improved.
Equal opportunity is improved when kids of the rich and successful don’t get the same head-start, and the sense of spoiled self-entitlement that they might suffer from is eliminated: the lesson is strong and clear to work and earn your rewards without getting them for free. Natural talent is less compromised by such unfair advantages, and natural talent getting rewarded the most gets natural talent the most power to change for the better.
“Why need a transition at all”???
Multiple profound and far-reaching reasons.
I’m looking for a single valid reason why NOT to transition to what I propose, and so far there are none.