What I'm describing has been federal law for over 30 years. The European criticism about ID cards is nonsensical. Every time you obtain, renew, or amend your drivers license or ID, you update your voter registration.

Remember the context of my comment: I am replying to European criticism of registration. The European approach is for everyone to obtain a government issued ID card and present it at the polling station. The NVRA already does this. We have already adopted the European solution to this problem.

being hit with a tax that basically kills any chance of renting out something.

That is exactly what should happen. It should be practically impossible for an owner to "rent" a property for enough to justify doing it. Landlords should be heavily pressured to convert tenants to buyers.

"Renting" should be confined to commercial activities, not residences. You want to rent out space for a shop, warehouse, office, factory, no problem. This is only for residential property that you are not living in. It should not be economically feasible to rent out such property as an investor, because that practice strips tenants of equity and is the leading factor driving people into poverty.

Go ahead and use your property to generate an income, but do it by charging interest on a loan, not rent.

The entire concept of rent needs to die in a fire. It is inherently exploitative. There is no way to redeem it.

Rent needs to be replaced with "private mortgages" or other approaches that return equity to the occupant.

Individuals that need the flexibility of temporary, short-term housing can use "land contracts" rather than exploitive rental agreements. Land Contracts have fixed payments for the life of the agreement: no annual rent hikes. The occupant is considered an "owner" rather than a "tenant", but only begins gaining equity after three years. The occupant is free to walk away before three years, or renegotiate after.

How do we eliminate renting? We make it less lucrative than other investment options. We increase the tax rate on residential properties to be extremely high. But, we also create a tax exemption for owner-occupants, so your effective tax rate is actually lower on your own home. Landlords are forced to choose between a small return on a rental, or a larger return on a private mortgage or land contract.

With that simple change, landlords will be fighting tooth and nail to convert "tenants" into "buyers", so they don't have to pay the excess taxes.

Beyond renting, with this change, lenders are motivated to work with borrowers rather than resort to foreclosure. As soon as the bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they are on the hook for the increased tax rate.

This, but unironically.

Tell him to change his name to "Without Prejudice Bob Smith".

Tax discounts to lower rent prices only incentivize the worst, most negligent slumlords, in a race to the bottom for housing quality. Rent controls and discounts on taxes for below-market rents exacerbate the major problems with renting.

Jacking up taxes jacks up rental prices.

It does. But, if nobody will be renting; nobody will be paying those jacked up prices. Read my comment again: I am trying to eliminate the concept of renting, and replace it with a much more equitable approach.

I want to replace "renting" with "land contract".

A land contract is a type of purchase agreement that starts off similar to a rental. They aren't used very often because they are somewhat complex, and they put a lot of power in the hands of the buyer/tenant rather than the seller/landlord. Land Contracts have a fixed monthly price: there is no year-to-year price hike.

Most importantly, they gain equity for their tenant/buyer.

Caption: Taylor Swift, wearing a black turtleneck, holding her dinner.

That's arguably treason.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Because you got straight C's in high school."

You know, if you just kill everyone, there will be nobody left to accuse you of supporting atrocities.

the maximum output of a horse can be up to 15 horsepower,

That's the problem. The unit was not developed on the maximum power a horse could put out. It was intended to be what a typical horse could continuously sustain throughout the work day.