“We also rely on rent control, but it differs dramatically from these others. It requires landlords to provide housing to some at a lower price than to others, irrespective of the size or profitability of the landlord’s business. And, unlike all other government assistance programs, we do not require that rent-controlled housing units go to those most in need. Or even in need at all.”
“One idea is “rent stamps:” That is, a state rent subsidy program that is broader than the federal Section 8 housing subsidy. We must figure out how we decide who gets subsidies, and in what amounts (our state having widely varying costs of living); and how we pay for them. Do we tax real estate profits, or rental real estate profits? Or do we spread the cost more widely by tapping the state’s general fund, which depends on personal income and sales tax revenues?
One thing is certain: Rent control — originally adopted to deal with World War I-era profiteering — has proven it is not the solution to providing shelter for all.”
Doesn’t rent stamp induce higher rent?
Did food stamp raise food price?
Rent stamp is only for low income people.
False equivalency Turnover of food is too high to be affected by the relative small food stamp. Rent stamp seems broader and applies to certain profile of people who tend to go to certain neighborhoods i.e. A much smaller set and can be affected by injection of money.
Rent stamps … so basically increase the size of the welfare program? Welfare for all? Rent welfare? (Tongue in cheek.).
If the legislature were honest about this, they would tax all w2 income for rent welfare. Then everyone can see how much subsidizing their neighbor costs.
Exactly, rent stamp and food stamp should come from income tax and sales tax. The whole population needs to share the burden of low income renters.
Sound like communism? Are liberals becoming Communists and Communists becoming capitalists?