I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? And no buying and selling property like we currently do. Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point of this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares' values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or lawmakers/voters pick some threshold everyone agrees on) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc.) If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. The amount you pay in taxes is based on how many shares you own. Dividends are also paid out per share, perhaps trading those for physically living there once or once you pass the threshold. So if you lived there, your "rent" pays the dividends to the sharerolders. Or maybe you are contractually bound to pay some agreed number of shares to the 51% owner, and the "property taxes" or what that formerly was in the old syatem are what pays the dividends. The "renter" pays by buying shares and paying the "property tax" (there being no more tax to the government for this), and cannot recieve dividends from their shares until they pass 51% threshold. This way a "landlord" could generate income with their property by either selling shares in the market up to 49% to stay in their house and still recieve dividends from their shares(similar to a reverse mortgage), or "rent it out" and have a "tenant" (seller) live there if the owner is able to relocate somewhere else (i.e. had >51% stake in multiple dwelling properties)

I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could that work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?

I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? And no buying and selling like we currently do. Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point of this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares' values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or lawmakers/voters pick some threshold everyone agrees on) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc.) If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. The amount you pay in taxes is based on how many shares you own. Dividends are also paid out per share, perhaps trading those for physically living there once or once you pass the threshold. So if you lived there, your "rent" pays the dividends to the sharerolders. Or maybe you are contractually bound to pay some agreed number of shares to the 51% owner, and the "property taxes" or what that formerly was in the old syatem are what pays the dividends. The "renter" pays by buying shares and paying the "property tax" (there being no more tax to the government for this), and cannot recieve dividends from their shares until they pass 51% threshold. This way a "landlord" could generate income with their property by either selling shares in the market up to 49% to stay in their house and still recieve dividends from their shares(similar to a reverse mortgage), or "rent it out" and have a "tenant" (seller) live there if the owner is able to relocate somewhere else (i.e. had >51% stake in multiple dwelling properties)

I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could that work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?

I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? And no buying and selling like we currently do. Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point of this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares' values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or lawmakers/voters pick some threshold everyone agrees on) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc.) If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. The amount you pay in taxes is based on how many shares you own. Dividends are also paid out per share, perhaps trading those for physically living there once or once you pass the threshold. So if you lived there, your "rent" pays the dividends to the sharerolders. I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could that work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?

I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? And no buying and selling like we currently do. Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point of this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares' values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or lawmakers/voters pick some threshold everyone agrees on) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc.) If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. The amount you pay in taxes is based on how many shares you own. Dividends are also paid out per share, perhaps trading those for physically living there once or once you pass the threshold. I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could that work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?

I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? And no buying and selling like we currently do. Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point of this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares' values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or lawmakers/voters pick some threshold everyone agrees on) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc.) If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. The amount you pay in taxes is based on how many shares you own. I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could that work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?

I had this theory. I don't know if it would work. What if there was no rental property? Instead you basically mortgaged property from the owner (no bank). Maybe some incentive could be worked out between the seller and buyer (formerly landlord and tenant) such that they split these annually assessed prop tax costs. Of course it would be nice to get rid of that (since that was the whole point if this thread), and this arrangement would make banks unnecesarry (yay!). Perhaps houses are traded with "property shares" instead of the base currency, and the shares values are based on market demand (location location location) and these shares can be bought and sold in some sort of property stock market. When you get to 51% of shares, you are the majority owner or something (or pick some threahold) and can do what you want with the property (live in it, "rent" it, etc. If a buyer (tenant) moves out, he/she can either sell their shares back to the seller (landlord) or sell them on the market for cash. I dunno just a thought. Need to hash the details out, but could thay work? Downsides? Upsides? Worth it?