Bolded is the problem here, all about me me me. Housing investment in this country is about building personal wealth. It's a selfish means to an unnecessary end. The person in your example could easily plow cash in to shares, super, bonds, cash or other investments and be perfectly well off for retirement. As it is, they're sucking up housing supply to the detriment of others. Investment properties are usually existing dwellings, they add very little to new housing stock. How many investors are sitting around thinking "Ooh, that migrant family in Melton probably can't afford a home, I'd better build one so they can have a roof over their heads"So I’m a property investor and in true capitalist form I am hoping my properties increase in value over my lifetime so I have sufficient funds to retire with , meanwhile providing affordable rental accommodation for people who require it ( haven’t put our rent up in about 4 years and kept the same happy tenants )
Is it ok that I’m capitalist but not ok that I’m an investor? I’m confused?!
Your solutions whereby the government provides affordable housing is in fact sound more socialist than capitalist.
A balance of both would be ideal IMO but where does the government get that kind of money ?
Their current capitalist model incentivising investors to build more housing satisfies this demand .
Perhaps what we are both saying is that investment incentives are ok for new housing but should not extend to buying existing properties?