Wouldn't building more houses solve the problem without having to increase taxes and create programs?
A house wouldn't be at these incredible prices of $500,000 or $1 million if there were more of them available (supply/demand), real estate investing would in general be less incentivized, where today it's a major channel for loans and investment.
It's fine that it is - of course investors should be able to trade housing and properties like anything else - but it's wrong and cruel to stop building them, as the population continues to increase. They're making people homeless so a much smaller group can make millions of dollars off the scarcity.
It's not a great future if the average person can't afford to own a shelter, and if the price to rent one continues to be thousands of dollars every 30 days in relation to these wages - nobody can realistically pull away when the house price and the rent rate both are rising so fast. My Sacramento midtown apartment in 2010 was $660/mo, my first place in SF was $900/mo the next year. The same places are both over $3k/mo now, yet I made less money in 2023 than I did back in 2010, doing the same job and working more hours.
Meanwhile those who inherited a house for free, or bought it for a lot less money than they cost today can make hundreds of thousands from refinancing (doing nothing) or millions from selling it. That so-called value was created out of intentional scarcity and nothing else - out of depriving other people of homes.
Even the average homeowner can make out like a rockstar investor year-after-year without even having to try because houses are just increasing in value as supply diminishes, there's a problem - it's a real estate bubble that will burst the moment people start building houses and neighborhoods again.
I agree we have to cut down real estate investors, I just think you can solve it in a productive way rather than battling them in politics.