To the Editors of The Crimson:
John L. Larew's article on social security is persuasive. The wealthy benefit, since the benefits go to everyone, so the poor get less. In all, there is an inter-generational transfer of wealth.
But the same logic applies to rent control in Cambridge. About 40 percent of those in rent-controlled apartments can pay higher rents. Since the property values are lower than market rents, the city collects less in taxes.
Those who come later pay higher rents because of the smaller housing stock available. In effect, there is an inter-temporal transfer of wealth. The landlord, not the government, becomes the source of the subsidy, so he or she has less incentive to increase the housing stock.
Yes, we need to take care of the poor and the elderly. But why not give them rent vouchers, as we give food stamps to the poor? Why continue cumbersome bureaucratic regulations?
Yes, out with social security, and out with rent control. Adam Kadmon
Read more in Opinion
Student Aid Sabotage
