Should governments cap annual rent increases for existing tenants at a fixed percentage above inflation, such as 3 percent, even if that discourages landlords from maintaining older housing stock?

Hello, I'm Wilson, and thank you for bringing me a question that sounds simple and isn't. The beauty within complexity is found in its simplicity! So let me put your question plainly. You're asking whether a government should tell landlords that, for people already living in their homes, the rent can rise each year by inflation plus a small fixed margin, say three percent, and no more. And you're asking whether that's still worth doing if it means some landlords stop spending money on keeping older buildings in good repair. That second half is where the real question hides, because it quietly assumes a trade-off: protect tenants from sudden hikes, or keep the housing in decent shape, pick one. Here's the thing most people get wrong. They argue about rent control as if it were one policy, when the design you've described is very different from the kind that gives rent control its bad reputation. The classic horror stories, crumbling buildings and frozen markets, mostly come from hard caps that ignored inflation altogether, so …