Ottawa Resident Creator and Mod of https://lemmy.ca/c/ottawa
Reminds me of this quote from Ambrose Bierce from the Devil’s Dictionary:
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
There’s a lot of good ones in this book.
If corporations can receive pardons, then corporations should be able to receive the death penalty.
No wonder. You have a 26 day old account. Welcome to the world, babyface.
Edit: I can see why this can be seen as poor taste. Wasn’t trying to be mean. Obviously account age != actual age. Was making it in jest.
So this isn’t the Onion.
It looks like Paraguay needs a Luigi 🟢.
How’s the weather in Alabama?
I’m not asking you or anyone to give away stuff for free. I am asking you to sell land and purchase shares. The links I provided talk about investing not donating. Instead of seeking returns on land itself, seek returns on capital. This is the whole point of Capitalism. In the United States, they have a big culture of entrepreneurship and business creation. In Canada, a larger percentage of the population wish to be rent seekers instead of entrepreneurs. This then moves economic investment from expanding the economy to activity that is over reliant on home prices. This is bad for the economy.
You tell me I’m not realistic because I don’t recognize we live in a a capitalist economy. But investing in shares in capital markets and seeking returns on capital is the definition of Capitalism.
I currently own shares in publicly traded REITs, the very thing that you say should be attacked instead of you. But what really is the difference between my position and yours?
I don’t have to deal with maintenance, tenants, etc. but you do. I also have a diversity of land types from residential to commercial and multiple locations instead of overly concentrated on one property and you just concentrate on one residential property. Income generated from shares from REITs and personal rentals are taxed the same, they have the same deductions and both use leverage to purchase Real Estate.
It seems to me you wish to take away my ability for investment and protect your own solely because prioritizing individual landlords over REITs gives you an advantage over me.
I don’t have enough money to buy a rental property given today’s housing prices (because other rental investors bid up the price) so I buy REIT shares, so why attack small(er) landlords (landlords through shares)?
The only other big difference between our positions is that I recognize my own investment (REITs) are causing problems in the housing market and I choose to redirect my capital to better solutions, you are determined to say you don’t cause any problems and furthermore that you should be protected. I missed the deadline for investing in the Ottawa community land trust but am currently waiting so that I can then recall the capital I have and redeploy it but you sit and call it delusional. It is also more concentrated than my current investments so I have to look into diversifying as well.
The link to “ancient British law” was in support of the argument I made. This particular discussion has been going on since time immemorial, hence the link. At one point in the future the constitution and current laws will become “ancient Canadian law” but that doesn’t negate it’s effect. We still have the Monarchy even though it was established literally almost a millennium ago (1066). Saying it’s ancient doesn’t negate the fact it still has an effect. After all we still swear allegiance to the Monarch. And linking to it’s formation doesn’t negate the arguments made against it. Take for example our current King, King Charles III. His ancestor, King Charles I was beheaded (before the French revolution) and England established a Republic, then Charles II re-established the Monarchy. Those events still affects us to this day and the result of that period put more power into Parliament and away from absolute Monarchy. Who knows it might be fun for the history textbooks if Charles III is the end of the Monarchy once and for all :). The Founding Fathers of the United States also reference this very period and it was integral to the formation of their government. This lead to two English speaking countries side-by-side on this continent, with the current President of the United States vowing to make it one. You may not have known about it before but it still affects you. Just because people you don’t like make a certain style of argument/support linking does not mean everyone who finds the same structure useful are the same.
The only delusional thing is the housing market and the biggest scam right now is current housing prices. Do you have an actual solution to this? Or is your only solution having you be a landlord and you getting tax deductions for mortgage and maintenance while a homeowner does not get the same benefit, thus we the taxpayer are subsidizing landlords? REITs get this benefit to, but you’re opposed to them, which I agree. But also just have house prices go up and up and up, so more people rent and landowners get double benefit?
Rental units are used for extra income, so are REIT shares. Since both housing rental solutions get benefits that homeowners don’t get, it is tax paying homeowners and renters that are subsidizing the lifestyle of landlords (you), REIT share holders (me), and their descendants forever because land titles are forever. Community Land Trust shares fix this by changing the structure of the land title so that the forever becomes a set number of years instead.
You said in an earlier comparison that you are like a credit union. But as I said you cannot be like a credit union, because the actual comparison to credit unions in housing is housing co-operatives. You said housing co-operatives are delusional, do you then think credit unions are delusional?
It seems to me that you wish to protect your investments, while attacking those above (large REIT share holders) and those below (small REIT share holders and Community Land Trusts).
Are there any policies that you think that are not a scam? We are in the middle of an election and all the major parties have put plans out. So far I only see you protecting yourself, not actually solving anything. Would expanding housing supply (build homes) be OK. Would reducing supply (cut permanent and temporary immigration) be OK? Would you be OK with a market situation where supply is so high (all parties promise a construction boom), and demand is so low (the liberals and conservatives have promised to cut immigration and foreign investment in housing), and prices cheap enough (the goal of the policies to get the young adult/youth vote) that people don’t want to rent from your particular unit rendering your concentrated real estate investment useless (the result)?
Your position seems to me you need this money from renters to live your life and so are constantly talking about reality and me being delusional. Well, my investments are for retirement (which is a long way for me now) are based on reality. I think you call delusional and scams those policies which stop that extra money from reaching you to pay for what you need/want. Whereas, I call those types of investments that are not based on production but rather on mere ownership as rent seeking. Which I do partake in BTW but I am on my way to change my ways and redirect capital as I said before. What you don’t care about, is that those other people who are renters cannot create wealth, that the extra money going to you to pay your bills cannot then be used by them to further themselves. Then why should I consider your position at all? I tried making companies to sell stuff to people but I run into the wall with people not having enough money due to rent and grocery prices. Why should I consider the position of those who hold unproductive investments when I myself trying to make productive investments?
It’s very nice of you to call everything you don’t like is delusional and to say that you wish I “understand you won’t change the mind of anyone that has the unfortunate inconvenience of living in a real world.” Well I do live in the real world and see the actual effects. Maybe you should get yourself outside the delirium that current house prices are based in an sort of reality and the rent derived from those ridiculous house prices constitute anything productive.
Thank you for saying you are a landlord, that you depend on the rent that other people pay to live your life, that you depend on real estate instead of productive investments, and are unwilling to change your mind. And also you think that the solution should be to attack your competitors and protect you, so you’re safe but your competitors are not. More “small” landlords should say such things. Then you, and others like you, can be excluded from discussions about actual solutions.
Studio Ghibli style
So that’s what it’s called.
Glad to help.
For now. I’d at least put it in your will and talk to the beneficiaries of your estate about it.
I have family members who are more into the whole Real Estate “game” and would rather the property. Putting it in your will prevent any shenanigans.
The whole “society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they will never know” and all that.
You’re right about moving cities part of it. Ideally if there are enough community land trusts and housing cooperatives you won’t face such issues as the distinction between “renting” and “owning” will disappear. And your investments will be divorced from land and onto actual projects.
To start off, I disagree with your last point. Family owned returants don’t matter because I can cook my own food. However, if all the farmland or grocers are owned by other people or other families (like Weston) then yes that would apply and would be correct.
If all the land is owned by someone else and I need land to exist and live. And if the owners of land prevent me from existing and farming, and further have a legal right to jail me, and thus the only option is to work/pay them or die than that is slavery.
This is the rational for why Landlords did the Enclosure of the Commons (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)
If all the land is owned by someone else where should I go if I don’t want to pay anyone else to just exist and live on my own?
Now to your main point:
There are landlords that only own one rental but are still bad landlords. There are landlords with multiple rentals that work hard. The number of rentals do not determine if a landlord will act well or not.
Furthermore, I clearly stated that I’m against landlords not property manager.
You can be a landlord and hire a property manager.
Turn key property’s does this, look under “have a property” (https://www.turnkeypm.ca/)
This means a person who owns one rental unit and still is a landlord can do nothing themselves.
When you do this, you don’t work on the property, because you hired someone to do it for you, you just collect the rent just for ownership. This is the definition of rent seeking.
If you are a good property manager. You can sell your property management skill for income instead of owning the land. And even better, sell your property managing skills to home owners. Gardeners do this, so do maids, snow removal services, plumbers, etc. If you’re good at what you do and provide value than it should not be hard for you to sell your services to people who own their own homes.
On to your analogy:
You’re analogy to banks and credit unions is categorically and literally, from a legal perspective, wrong.
Banks are corporations. So are landlord owned rentals. Rentals can be owned by the person but if you don’t want personal liability you incorporate into a corporation.
The equivalent to credit unions in housing is housing cooperatives. Both are cooperatives. Credit unions are financial cooperatives and housing cooperatives are well housing cooperatives.
Cooperatives are distinct legal entities and are governened by different Acts from corporations.
The big difference is that a corporation is owned by investors. In the case of rental units, landlords. Whereas a cooperative is owned by the users and/or workers. In the case of housing, it is owned by the tenants, that is how housing cooperatives are described.
Ontario page about incorporating as a Cooperative and transiting between the two: https://www.ontario.ca/page/start-dissolve-and-change-co-operative-corporation
CHMC article about forming housing cooperatives: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leadership/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/co-operative-housing-guide/documents-needed-to-form-housing-co-op
If you want to support the credit union version of housing you can support housing cooperatives by supporting MPs that pass legislation and invest in them. Or you can invest in community land trusts as well.
Investment can bring, depending on the project (3-5%). However this is much less than returns on land which is the primary reason for being a landlord which is what the OP of this comment thread was referring to when they said that most of their net worth is tied to a piece of paper.
Co-operative housing federation of Canada: https://chfcanada.coop/
Community Land Trust Canada: https://www.communityland.ca/
Community Investing: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Federal Legislation bringing more funding to Housing Cooperatives: https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2024/06/federal-government-launches-new-15-billion-program-to-build-a-new-generation-of-coop-housing.html
There’s a difference between saying we’re not in a utopia and standing in the way. You can choose one or both. But being ignorant of solutions happening right now or exercising political power against this or people who want to achieve this is standing in the way.
Will be in your situation in due time.
Inheritance will give my siblings and I property.
My siblings and I have already talked about it. We’re looking to see if we can transfer it to Community Land Trusts or sell.
Here’s a link to the Canada wide association: https://www.communityland.ca/
Here’s the one specific to Ottawa: https://www.oclt.ca/
There are others in other cities.
Some (like Ottawa) don’t take individual units yet but we’ll prob sell and then invest in them or if they choose to buy individual units, sell to them.
If you can find one. Sell to a community land trust or housing co-op. You can get your capital back and the people living there can manage and own their own homes.
You can then reinvest the capital into other projects: https://tapestrycapital.ca/
Or in renewable energy: https://www.orec.ca/
Or credit union class B shares.
They try to aim for 4-5% ROI so above inflation. Unfortunately, most people want the ubsustainable returns in real estate.
Ministries are for Monarchies like the British Redcoats. Departments are for Republics like the good 'ol US of A.
White House Press Secretary.
I’m not a US citizen. I am Canadian, so unfortunately I have seen her a lot on the TV.
I know what the point you’re trying to make in response, it is an understandable one but I will respond to it later. Hopefully by the weekend.
To make sure I get the point your trying to make is: not everyone can be a doctor, not everyone can be a teacher, not everyone can be a plumber, likewise not everyone can be a landlord. In every society only a certain percentage of people can be said thing. This is what you mean when you said “It … doesn’t take reality into consideration”.
Good question. I understand where you’re coming from with that statement. I have seen ads such as: (https://bsky.app/profile/derek.bike/post/3kkwecolbwk23) and very much share your sentiment.
Short answer: The Division of Labour
Long answer (sorry in advance):
I work in tech, I can choose to work in tech all day because I am the most productive in it. Then I can hire a chef that cooks for me, a maid to clean, a gardener to garden, etc and a manager that manages the home. Each cook, maid, gardener, and manager can in turn have multiple clients. And if they work all day in the thing they are most proficient at, they can in turn hire other people to do the stuff they do not do. This style of living is usual in India, Singapore and outside “The West” more generally. You can see here that the property manager is a part of the division of labour and so “competes in the marketplace” with other property managers for that position, the same with me and all the other workers do for our respective roles in the example.
This is peak liberalism/free market dynamics. I don’t think this is sustainable without coersion. But this is what is meant by “social production” by both Smith and Marx.
Furthermore, you can choose not to hire anybody and be your own property manager which is, in my opinion, more sustainable and totally allowed.
The problem with landlords is that if all the land is owned by someone else, you do not have an option of managing your own land without “hiring” anybody else to do it so you are trapped. This also allows landlords to squeeze money out of people. And the biggest issue it allows other people to rule out your own existance. This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated by the following quote:
Land, n. A part of the earth’s surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
I hope that shows my position on the matter. I would like your take on it. As can be seen in this thread, there are those who do understand the position and instead of engaging with it, just deride it.
Edit: messed up the formatting.
Does it matter to a family that can only rent if they rent from a corporation vs individual?
Spreading out renters is not a solution.
The following math works if the all landlords own the maximum allowed.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1000, only 1‰ of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 100, only 1% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 10, only 10% of the population can be landlords.
If the maximum rentals one could own is 1, only 50% of the population can be landlords.
To go back to the beginning, if there is no maximum, only 1 person (0.0001%) of the population can be a landlord and everyone else is a renter (the whole “you will own nothing and be happy” line).
What percent of the population do you want to permit to be landlords? Mind you, not property managers, specifically landlords.
Remember 100% of the population can be a property manager because everyone can manage their own property. But the largest percentage of the population that can be landlords is 50%.
I see that you differentiate from people who happen to have extra space and want to rent it out, that I can understand. But also understand that someone can buy 1 home specifically to fuck over other people.
The problem is that some people want to own other people’s homes. Some people want to own 1000 people’s homes and others just 1 is enough. In either case it is not the number that is the problem but the desire to own other people’s homes for the sole purpose of rent seeking that is the problem.
That is what is meant by the comment about “merely own one family of serfs” is about.
And major shareholders.