I agree with you but I'll take a devil's advocacy position for the sake of debate.There is nothing wrong with your stance, however my point is Investors should not be given financial benefits (via tax breaks etc) to buy additional properties when someone buying their first home does not get these benefits.
Why should someone who already has wealth, be given benefits to create more wealth over someone who doesn't?.
It makes ZERO sense.
It makes sense if we are thinking of utilizing surplus means above the base cost of living into something that benefits others in the wider community, reducing their cost or risk or access because they either can't afford or otherwise can't secure the lending to get in.
The current cost of buying a house is roughly $100,000 cash and then $600 a week in mortgage payments. That's quite a threshold to jump, but if someone else takes their $100,000 and puts it into the house for you and you paid them $600 a week in rent then they've subsidised your access to the property for the cost of them receiving the future gains.
They take the risk, all the risk. The renter can walk out on short notice relative to the time property is held with nothing hanging over them. Their own employment security isn't as vital because they aren't servicing a debt.
Plenty of investment advisors promote the idea that renting and investing the difference can leave you better off, but we know the reason that doesn't work for so many and why their own home is usually the primary and only serious investment people make in their lives is because it's effectively forced savings.
But allow me to raise an alternative. Owning an investment property doesn't make you money. Think of how much you pay on a mortgage over thirty years, do we really expect property to triple in price from here?
The entire concept is money making from banks and other lenders that secure your payment of multiples of your house price over decades, the employers keep you working because you have to.