I fully understand the idea behind the MID. Yes, it’s a business expense.
Here’s my point (and the socialist in me is definitely coming out here):
-housing should not be a “business” where the landlords have greater benefits than the primary residents or renters. I know that people will argue that LLs offer a service to renters, and that’s true, but let’s not pretend it’s for altruistic reasons. I would continue with the current tax laws for multi-family dwellings (apartments, 2-4 unit rentals, etc.) and for SFHs where the LL agrees to be bound by strict rent control laws, but we should not be giving preference to LLs over owners.
Start a shoe business, make TVs, boats — any number of things that are “wants” and not “needs” and I have no problem with Darwinian capitalism WRT those industries. But a country’s natural resources (esp ones that are considered “needs” by the contry’s citizens) should be owned, controlled, or regulated by the govt, and that includes land (with the exception of a single, owner-occupied residence and possible exemptions for businesses).
Not saying we will ever come to an agreement, as we likely come from two very different perspectives and have different beliefs about capital, labor, and ownership of natural resources. This is just my personal opinion, as I think it would be in the best interest of society, as a whole.
