However, my opinion has been that housing /has been/ in a bubble since at least the mid 2000s (pre recession); and it didn't actually deflate (at least in the area I live in) /during/ that recession.
It would really be nice if some way of fixing this bubble chasing nonsense happened. Maybe if healthcare and retirement were fully socialized this would be less of an issue.
In the US, housing is an appreciating investment because we've made that a political axiom, and because homeowners hold political power that let them fight any policy that would make housing cheaper.
There's a case to be made that the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Sure, by the traditional definition of "investment", a profit or gain is required, but a broader understanding includes considerations such as risk and loss avoidance (i.e. hedging).
Even under the traditional/strict definition, a car could be considered an investment if the loss from depreciation is less than the loss from not having it available (e.g. having to pay more for rideshare services).
That said, with housing, it's important to remember there are two components, the depreciating part (the structure) and the land (location). The latter both doesn't depreciate and is usually the part people are investing in, at least in high-cost areas.
Housing appreciates because land supply is limited in big cities. You can't manufacture more land
What we don't have enough of is density in the places where people actually want to be, and that's not a natural limit. You could make more density, if it weren't illegal in all of these desirable places.
And I just mentioned Tokyo, which actually does have serious land constraints but does zoning and transit well. (And where they are making more land.) Ordinary people can afford homes there and almost nobody is homeless.
"They're not making any more land" isn't a relevant thing about urbanism, it's just a cliche that a realtor says to convince you to buy.
Most cities would fail to function if they all had the same density as New York or Tokyo
To solve the infrastructure problem, you have to, again, invest billions.
A car depreciates because it has high long-term maintenance costs due to wear and tear. A 10 year-old car more expensive to maintain than a 2 year-old car. Almost everything in a car eventually needs to be replaced. The exception is at the high-end where some cars become collectors items after 30+ years and will then appreciate due to rarity (as per your original argument).
Houses properly built will literally last centuries. My old house in Baltimore is over 100 years old.
Penalize corporations (banks) for holding inventory, rather than the other way around. Vacant residences should have a higher tax rate.
Plus insulating existing homeowners from the rising market value of land is a tax on literally everyone that does NOT live there.
Though note that at age 55, you can move into a less-expensive home and keep your old property tax basis (if you meet certain restrictions). This provides somewhat of an escape valve that allows empty-nesters to downsize and new families to move in.
I believe the benefits can also be passed in some non-sale transfers of the property; IE passing it on to loved ones. So if something stays within the family those benefits are locked in at the old rate instead of hitting the new rate. Which while it sounds nice for handing off a property among married couples creates an entirely new class (literally) of people as land ownership flows through family generations.
Prop13 was expanded to allow transfer taxes between parents & children and grandparents & grandchildren.
Also, commercial property is covered by prop13 too.
Also, prop 13 is not limited to the primary residences.
Also in many places schools are funded from property taxes, so all those complaints about horribly underfunded non-performing Californian schools have big "FU, got mine" from homeowners behind them.
And in case if you don't have kids but pay way much more than your next door neighbours?
Or in case if the majority of your neighbours pay almost nothing in taxes? Then your taxes alone will not cover the expenses of that local school for you to benefit from.
Why have public schools then?
Actually what I want to say is that there is nothing fair in Prop13.
"In 1986 and 1996 respectively, California voters passed Propositions 58 and 193, which extended Prop 13 to exclude from reassessment property transfers between parents and children (58) and grandparents and grandchildren (193). As a result, when you inherit a home in California, you inherit its tax assessment as well"
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/prop-13-transfers-to-g...
But back to taxes in general - if we want to have schools funded only by current parents contributions those are private schools.
It can’t be used to pass off property whenever you wish — only when you die. Given how long people generally live, this means that the people inheriting properties are usually already homeowners themselves, and in many cases already senior citizens.