No need to go through the trouble of any of those three options. Just sell. If taxes make it unprofitable, chances are prices are higher than they should be.
We should not allow speculation or “ownership for profit” of finite natural resources, especially if those resources are in excess of what that person/family needs for their own use.
(a) most landlords are small businesses and work damn hard at maintaining their properties, dealing with tenants, etc
(b) not everyone wants to own. A good supply of inexpensive rental properties is important for mobility — if I have to move to a given city for six months for work, I’d want to rent, not buy
(c) the current situation has proven that a lot of Americans are simply too rock-dumb, not to mention financially retarded to be allowed to buy property[/quote]
Yes, many landlords work hard, and many don’t. Still doesn’t mean that taxpayers have to subsidize their profits.
Agree that many people do not want to own property, and many are too stupid or incapable of dealing with the responsibility. But most would agree that owning vs renting tends to be in society’s best interests because people will be able to (hopefully) have a paid-off home in retirement, and because people tend to be more engaged in their communities when they own.
For those who need/want to rent, I have no problem with tax subsidies as long as the renters receive a major portion of the benefits. Otherwise, we’re right back to subsidizing the profits of landlords who neither need nor deserve the subsidies.
