I think you will find there is a strong correlation between religious believers and capitalism supporters.

He should come back as a ghost and win his own prize.

So you're admitting that if you can't get free money for nothing (since on my deal, you can deduct any costs to you and keep that money), you have no incentive to be a landlord. In other words, the only reason to be a landlord is as a way of extracting money out of people with less money than you.

That's great. So if we make rental arrangements more fair as I've described, fewer people will be landlords, voluntarily. That means they'll sell off their unused properties, which are no longer free passive income for them. But nobody else will be buying them as "investments" anymore, so the only people buying will be the people who actually need them to live in, i.e. people who would otherwise have been renting. So landlords as a class will have to sell at whatever the people who would otherwise have been their tenants can actually afford to purchase, even if that's at a loss, or else take a complete loss on their "investment" -- besides whatever free money they've already gotten from it.

So the cost of home ownership will come down to what people who need housing to live in can actually afford, i.e. the parasitic effect of people buying properties to rent out as a source of free money will be removed.

Mission accomplished.

How's this for a fair deal:

Tenant pays you a security deposit, and monthly rent while they live there, while you pay property tax, possibly mortgage, and maintenance, including maintenance work to return the place to the same condition they took it in after they move out.

Then after they move out, you tally up their deposit and rent payments, then subtract your property taxes, mortgage interest (not principal; you're getting a house in exchange for that money, it's not a cost to you), and all maintenance fees, including the move-out restoration process that negates all your issues above... basically subtract anything it costs you to be a landlord... and then return to the tenant the remaining amount of money.

And the burden of proof is on you to prove all of your deductions; without a court order to the contrary in lieu of tenant agreement to your receipts, failure to return 100% of their rent when they move out is considered theft.

That sounds like a much fairer deal than one where the tenant pays for housing for years and years on end, and ends up with no house to their name when it's all over, while you keep all of that money minus whatever comparatively small costs you're paying for upkeep, and use it to pay off your mortgage, so you got a free house out of the deal when it's all over. One that's now worth several times what you(r tenant) paid for it.

Tell me about it. Knifehand strike, ridgehand strike, spearhand strike, all done with an open hand. Compared to, what, a punch and a hammerfirst, which are all you can do with a fist? That's like 50% more strikes with an open hand!

Most of the right in America have been rather radical (the opposite of conservative) for at least a generation now.

That's one of the signs of the alpocalypse.

Not surprising that people who benefit from the status quo would both be happier (they're benefiting) and more conservative (favoring the status quo).

Those who suffer under the status quo, on the other hand, could be expected to be both unhappy (they're suffering) and less conservative (against the status quo).

It doesn't seem at all surprising that something that makes people mentally healthier could also cause them to re-evaluate opinions that they only ever had in the first place due to mental illness.

And I don't mean that in a pejorative sense of "you're crazy therefore everything you think is wrong", but e.g. someone who is in a lot of pain, or undergoing a lot of anxiety, or depression, fear, anger, generally being buried under the weight of unpleasantness and not in a clear open mental space, could easily make decisions that seem perfectly rational in light of those experiences, but would not seem to rational from a more neutral mind.

Conversely, if people were always manic or somehow in constant elation, I could see that leading to irrational recklessness and lack of appropriate caution, and so decisions, including political decisions, that are less well-founded.

If there was a magic pill to make everybody mentally healthy, calm and clear-minded, I have no doubt that political opinions would change dramatically.

I have my ideas of what direction they would change, because of course I think my political opinions are well-founded and those to the contrary are not, but the principle in use here doesn't hinge on what those opinions are. Just that if you are mentally well, rather than mentally ill, of course you're going to think better than you otherwise would.

The point was that "alpha" wolves aren't those who "got" to breed, with the rest of the wolves in the pack the "losers" of some competition to "get to" breed. "Alpha" wolves are just the parents of the rest of the pack. The non-"alphas" are their children, not in breeding competition with them at all. When those children grow up and have children of their own, that new family group becomes a new pack, with the parents as its "alphas".

Far too many people are not using the entirety of their mental capacities.

I see this stuff for the obvious bullshit that it is, but apparently most of my family, including my parents, constantly fall for it. They're my parents so they should have mental capacities comparable to mine, but somehow they don't see through the obvious bullshit. I fear the possibility (made more plausible by the rise of Trumpers) that they represent the average American.

Want to quote some other, less biased or slanted source to answer the question?

quoth Wikipedia

How about we just cut to the chase and beat you within an inch of your life, since you're apparently a worthless piece of garbage who doesn't appreciate their fortune in life.

Can you elaborate more on what that pipeline is? Speaking as a fellow Californian long concerned with the impossibility of home-ownership.