This is exactly my problem with these arguments that demonize landlords. I've lived in multiple cities where I knew I'd only live there for a couple years, and I'm only interested in renting. How do you live somewhere short term without someone owning the rented property?
Swapping the base layer of the capital stack has zero visible change to the person renting. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's common in asia.
Instead of:
Investor owns the land
Investor pays for construction, finance, maintenance
Investor receivers rent
They do:
Government owns the land
Investor pays to lease the land for 30 years or whatever
Investor pays for construction, finance, maintenance
Investor receives rent
The active roles don't change, the market that keeps them dynamic and competitive doesn't change, but the firehose of passive money goes into tax revenue instead of some rich guy's pocket.
Of course it is not a solution to current situation when real estate are very expensive, but in theoretical discussion where real estates are affordable you can buy it and sell when you move.
But I don't want to buy a home, maintain it, and have to sell it 2 years later. Renting provides a great solution that makes both sides of the transaction happy.
Real estate transactions are extremely expensive. Even if you sell the property for the same price you paid for it, you lose a huge amount of money in the process.
