@Heardy
I have some ideas, but since I don't have the proper education I don't really know if this would work. I'm approaching the problem on the following basis: a wealthy and democratic country with universal healthcare and "free"(people always get triggered by this word) education. You need a certain level of wealth, infrastructure and social mobility for this system to be semi-realistic.
___________________________
First of all, not everyone can/should
own property(imo). Students, people who just started working and people who have been unemployed for pretty much their entire life(for various reasons) will not be in a position where home-ownership is realistic. I'm imagining a system where roughly 20% of the adult population rents. Keep in mind that your rights as a renter will be much stronger and that you will have an option to buy later(see below).
So if up to 20% of the population rents but no one owns secondary homes and there are no vulture companies buying up property, who is going to rent out apartments/houses? The government. I can hear people screaming already, but I think this could work.
How would it work? The same way we have systems to calculate tax rates and salary levels(+ salary adjustments based on inflation) in the public sector, we could have a system to calculate what the rent and public housing prices should be. Sure, it would take a lot of manpower to manage this, but keep in mind that all the rent that is payed will go straight back to the government the same way taxes would.
So how would we get to the point where everyone owns maximum 1 house/apartment + a cabin(if they can afford it)? This would of course not happen overnight. I imagine it would take 10 years or so to make it work. But simply put: everyone who owns more than one home would have 10 years to sell their secondary property. If they have been unable to sell it on the market, they have the opportunity to sell the property directly to the government at a fair price. In order for property owners to not spend those 10 years squeezing out as much money as possible through rent, we'd have to immediately enforce a maximum allowed rent(based on property size, standard and location) with an annual increase/decrease based on inflation. This would ensure that no property owner loses money, while also protecting the renters.
There is a genuine chance that private owners wont be able to sell their property within the 10 year deadline and thus have to sell directly to the government, which in return could lead to a feckton(30% or more) of public houses/apartments. But it's important to remember that all public housing should come with a clause that allows you to buy it once you've earned enough money to qualify for a loan. So over time we would still end up with 20% of adults renting(which was my initial goal). And even if we're not, the new system would probably have a much lower rent and stronger renters' rights, so some people would probably choose not to buy even if they could.
____________________________
I realize that this might not be feasible, but I do think something
along the lines of what I've suggested could be possible for wealthy nations with a decent infrastructure, provided we find good mathematical formulas(to calculate rent and reasonable housing prices) and give it enough time, rather than kick down the doors of the bourgeois immeditately, which admittedly sounds like a lot of fun