Hacker News Reader

Comment by candiddevmike | Hacker News Reader

Owning a house only to rent it out is part of the problem here. You're adding to the scarcity of housing while being blessed with parents who can house you.

View on HN

You're blaming the symptom instead of the problem.

Given the current state of affairs, OP is doing the 'most logical' thing. If he sells his rental property, someone else will pick it up and rent it out.

The real problems are the rules that make it very difficult (practically impossible) to build high-density housing where it is needed and tax incentives that benefit owning multiple homes.

Being part of the problem is still being part of the problem. Agree that there needs to be a reduction of incentives, but folks could just stop taking advantage of the current system too. Logical doesn't mean right.

If they don’t take advantage, someone else will. That’s the entire point of what you’re responding to. You are at best attempting an ethics argument but ethics doesn’t always win.

It’s a broken system but this is akin to telling people to solve global warming by making small individual choices: it doesn’t work and we need larger action at the top to force the change.

They are not adding to scarcity because they are renting it out. The unit remains available on the market to house people. 1 house = 1 house.

If they were just sitting on it, that would be reducing available housing.

Incentivized by low interest rates, terrible housing supply inelasticity, and a confidence that population (and therefore demand) will grow, owing to immigration policy. All of those can be adjusted. Mostly investors buy houses to sell at a higher price, not rent out indefinitely. If the property taxes and mortgage rates hurt their bottom line and if demand does not surge as high, they would sell and would stop buying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com