Perhaps my favorite part of these continually idiotic and unarguably harmful schemes is the capriciousness of the criteria: 5% and 50 units. So, do 4.9% increases from those who own 51 units or 8% increases from those who own 49 units make much more ethical and economic sense? Thus, in addition to creating all the perverse incentives you note that harm almost exclusively poorer people, these schemes also encourage landlords to find creative ways around these numerical restrictions and to waste resources in doing so.
Bingo. It would be funny if it wasn't so dumb and harmful.
Also notice how the "solution" is in response to a problem caused by some other government policy. In this case, ultra loose monetary policy that caused massive asset inflation, leading to the huge rent increases over the last several years.
Perhaps my favorite part of these continually idiotic and unarguably harmful schemes is the capriciousness of the criteria: 5% and 50 units. So, do 4.9% increases from those who own 51 units or 8% increases from those who own 49 units make much more ethical and economic sense? Thus, in addition to creating all the perverse incentives you note that harm almost exclusively poorer people, these schemes also encourage landlords to find creative ways around these numerical restrictions and to waste resources in doing so.
Bingo. It would be funny if it wasn't so dumb and harmful.
Also notice how the "solution" is in response to a problem caused by some other government policy. In this case, ultra loose monetary policy that caused massive asset inflation, leading to the huge rent increases over the last several years.