It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die?
It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
> It’s not wealth if you are still paying off a mortgage on the rental unit. Even if you owed the rental unit outright the “it’s wealth” argument is foolish. What’s the point? Sell your only source of income and live off the money until you become homeless or die?
> It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
These are all assets that can be liquidated for something. The renters have no such assets.
The landlords are just as capable of going and getting a job as anyone. Most landlords are not employed full time simply because there isn't enough work to be done as a landlord to justify 40 hours of labor every week, at least until a substantial number of units are being rented out. The income the landlord receives is typically declared after all costs of ownership, which include any mortgages. So, the work of the landlord results in a greater share of their asset ("equity").
The jobs their tenants have likely do nothing to increase the value or share in an asset.
It’s like saying a farmer is wealthy because he owns a tractor and a plot of land. Absolutely asinine.
reply