Why not outlaw landlordism?

[Xithras]

127. That would be financially destructive to many of the poor who need mobility.

The problem with the concept is that it presumes home ownership to be an ideal that everyone should pursue. Many of our societies young and poor require mobility to pursue jobs and opportunities as they arise. By eliminating rentals, you are forcing them to purchase land that ties them to one spot. If a move is then required for a job (or anything else), the person now has to figure out how to buy a NEW piece of land at their destination. If they are in a downmarket or blighted area where the sales market is poor, that means you're going to require them to either take a huge financial loss, or sit on it for months or years until it eventually sells.

The net effect is that moving becomes an even larger financial burden than it already is, and would likely become a source of constant financial loss for those at the lower end of the economic scale (who tend to move far more than the wealthy).

On top of that, many people choose not to own because of the increased costs. I just put a new air conditioning unit on my house. Cost? $11,500. It was a hit, but I can afford that. Many people can't, which is why they rent (a landlord can amortize a large repair bill like that over many years). By requiring people to own their properties, you are limiting the quality of their residence to what they can afford to pay for out of pocket. Within a generation, most people will be living in hovels. Renting allows poorer people to attain a higher standard of living than they could afford out of pocket, because part of the cost of a homes quality and repairs is covered by the landlord as an investment (that obviously doesn't apply to slumlords).