Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SportySaturn t1_it963i5 wrote

Reply to comment by pmmbok in Many countries have a "hidden welfare state" for incumbent homeowners, as governments subsidize homeowners through the tax system. The homeownership welfare state is strongest in the US and other Anglophone countries, but weakest in the Scandinavian countries. by smurfyjenkins

The government incentivizes home ownership, making it more affordable to buy and hold onto a home.

​

>It does NOT subsidize shelter for renters. My view. Do both, or do neither.

The point isn't subsidizing shelter, it's incentivizing and enabling home ownership. That's a good thing for everyone, in some respects even the people that don't own experience benefit.

https://www.midcityredevelopment.org/blog/increasing-homeownership-decreases-violent-crime

Does homeownership reduce crime? A radical housing reform in Britain

Closing the Gaps: Building Black Wealth through Homeownership

​

Whether non-owners should get their shelter subsidized is a worthy and important discussion (cliff notes: my answer is yes and there are lots of palatable options to me including UBI). But it's not the same discussion and lumping it in with home ownership is missing the important differences between mere shelter and ownership in people's lives.

1

pmmbok t1_it9p6kb wrote

There are important differences beyond just the money.

Some people buy a home cheaply as a labor of love. They see a transformed environment largely through their sweat, and in three years, their home is worth 3 times what they Paid for it. Well, their imputed rent goes up. I guess they would get to write off the cost of materials. And the labor. What rate will they get?

I am not economist enough to say whether this makes sense intellectually. It's a practical nonstarter

2