As a free marketeer my instinct is to say ‘no good’. But there is a part of me that says it is good. It’s really not a totally free market. There is a lot of interference and influence peddling. There is a tendency take the path of least resistance and the guy with $50 billion+ is an easy path for regulators and tax collectors and inspectors etc. The deck is stacked in these and many other ways . So a part of me agrees that industrial ownership of single property housing is a bad idea. They will never selll, and reap windfalls from rental income in perpetuity and inhibit individual ownership and probably negatively influence new development via lobbying. So while it shouldn’t prohibited per se, then perhaps it should be incrementally more heavily taxed. The more homes you own the more tax you should pay, to the point that it becomes prohibitive. 1 home shouldn’t be no tax. Two homes some tax. 200 homes heavily taxed. 2000 homes (not developed for sale) 100% tax. Something along those lines. We need policies that encourage home ownership and discourages conglomeration of single family dwellings - and maybe this should apply to other properties like multi tenant and commercial properties. Individual should be encouraged but monopolistic tendencies discouraged.
^ correction: one home, no tax is what I meant. Typo. In principle I oppose taxes on basic human nature and necessities. A home for a family should not be taxed because everyone needs shelter. Wages should not be taxed because everyone needs to work to provide for their families. Food and medicine should not be taxed because everyone needs these items to live. Investments can be taxed. That’s how I see it.
In reality, the “free market” is Main Street and Small Business.
Agreed. There should be no property tax on primary residence and should pay higher and higher tax on the more homes they own. It would not hurt the house flippers too much, but would encourage them to flip faster. There should be more restrictions on foreign ownership of land.