Where did the landlord get the starter home? What if the seller refused to sell but just rent out instead what would he do then?
You contradicted yourself. Op can't get a starter home but the starter home he would have bought is held hostage by the "smol" landlord. Pick one.
Absolutely. And you can get real estate exposure by buying REITs.
Good point but the upgradability is important to
Don't make your problems everyone else's.
You can just buy a REIT.
Imagine the contractor that works for a REIT. Should they get full rent because they broke their the same way as you? Or hourly, just like my roommate?
You get the rent because you're a landlord, not because you work hard.
If working hard on a property, instead of owning it, meant getting all of the high rents then the REITs' contractor should be collecting rents instead of the REITs but that obviously doesn't happen.
Don't defend landlording. Oppose it, you can still be one, but just oppose it.
Would you make the same if you sank all of your money in investments and work a second job as a contractor? Same story but different results?
If you had long term tenants and but they owned the property but contracted you? You would still work hard and be compensated for the work isn't that enough? If the work the justification for your rental income then why not just be a contractor instead of an owner? And better yet leave the owning part to the people who live there.
If the renter doesn't pay for maintainance who does? Are you willing to run a monthly loss of $100/month or would raise rents to cover or even sell the property?
The solution is cooperative housing and community land trusts plus social housing.
You're solution doesn't solve the thing you're trying to solve.
E.g.
There is a "mom & pop" landlord with just 10 properties. But they don't purchase anymore. Now there are 1000 such landlords. The landlords all incorporate and create a REIT that owns 10,000 homes. You have created a "megacorp" through just "mom and pop" landlords.
What is the difference?
The true answer is the abolition of landlords in favour of housing coops and community land trusts.
To prove a point to you I'll ask you a question.
What is the difference between the goal of small landlords vs REITs and "megacorps" represented by row 4 of the graph found here?:
https://www.smalllandlords.org/about-small-landlords/
The group is a small landlord group from my city.
I don't have a problem with the players necessarily, just the game.
I'm lazy so I invest because I don't want to deal with being a landlord. Anyone who chooses to be a landlord deserves no sympathy. They chose to be a landlord instead of investing. You can get easy R.E. exposure by just being R.E.I.T.s so any extra work is your problem. On top of that landlords expect extra respect for something that REITs do. It's all the same game so all should be looked down upon.
Wanting to play as a boot when the game rewards playing the boot is ok so long as you advocate against the boot. But a lot of these people glorify the boot and try to become one sooo bad and for that, all of them can have the death penalty on them.
In short, want real estate? REITs, do you want to become a boot? Invest. But most importantly of all, be a boot abolitionist. If you're a boot defender then you rightfully get criticism.
I think your saying doing something physical is better than through an app. It makes no difference. It's all the same. But I do agree more awareness needs to be had with REITs. The solution is not to go easy on landlords but rather to go hard on REITs.
Simple. Just make the board of directors be made of people who are pro nationalization then direct them to sell the company to the citizenry for pennies on the dollar.
Just like what Royal Mail did. The tory government sold it during a strike thereby selling it at a much lower value.
So as follows:
- Make the board of directors of a corporation out of people that are pro nationalization (rig shareholder elections if you need to)
- Create a crisis in the company (strike or slow down or loss of an important government contract)
- Have the hand picked board of directors sell the company to the government for pennies on the dollar
- Give the hand picked directors healthy public pensions and an Order of Canada
- Rinse and repeat
We should not be in favour of theft but in favour of "fair market value" and "market efficiencies by cutting the extra fat off of private ownership" ;)
The conservatives/liberals did it one way it's equally valid the other way.
If it's theft if done by our government then it's theft if privative investors do it to us.
Why don't we just take investor money and invest in it ourselves?
Others have already pointed out that the covid vaccine was publicly funded ergo the benefit should be publicly owned
What bike is that?
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You're just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the "I don't want to work until I die" should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.