A property is not stock nor is it ANY way comparable.
I personally own stock in several Canadian companies. I paid… lets say for illustration purposes… $100. That $100 goes into the markets and I get a stock certificate in some form. I hold that certificate and that’s it. It doesn’t cost me any money to hold that certificate other than the initial $100 I paid. I can sit on that stock for my whole life or sell it at any point. I don’t pay a penny more until it’s sold. Then and only then do I declare capital gains or losses. I don’t pay a yearly tax to own that stock. I don’t pay income tax on that stock. I don’t have monthly maintenance fees for that stock. A house on the other hand does cost you a substantial amount of money to maintain regardless of imagined resale value.
People say “It’s immoral to buy a house for an investment, landlords must provide hosing for renters at cost.” and the turn right around in the next breath and state “A rental property is an investment.” Pick one. You can’t have both.
Of course there’s expenses involved. My point is that the equity part is the same and does not factor into the expenses. If you want to buy a share of some $100 stock but don’t have enough money for it, then you can take out a loan for that $100. Let’s say that every month, you pay 1$ in interest and $1 in principle on each payment for a total of $2/month. Your monthly expenses for owning this stock is $1, not $2. With each payment, you get $1 with of equity, and when the whole thing is paid off, you have something that is worth $100 which you paid $200 for.
People say “It’s immoral to buy a house for an investment, landlords must provide hosing for renters at cost.” and the turn right around in the next breath and state “A rental property is an investment.” Pick one. You can’t have both.
Sounds like you’re grouping me with others that have differing opinions. Not that there would be any contradiction in anything I said even if that were my position. If you treat housing like an investment, then it mathematically behaves like any other investment. Morality does not factor into the math.
A property is not stock nor is it ANY way comparable.
I personally own stock in several Canadian companies. I paid… lets say for illustration purposes… $100. That $100 goes into the markets and I get a stock certificate in some form. I hold that certificate and that’s it. It doesn’t cost me any money to hold that certificate other than the initial $100 I paid. I can sit on that stock for my whole life or sell it at any point. I don’t pay a penny more until it’s sold. Then and only then do I declare capital gains or losses. I don’t pay a yearly tax to own that stock. I don’t pay income tax on that stock. I don’t have monthly maintenance fees for that stock. A house on the other hand does cost you a substantial amount of money to maintain regardless of imagined resale value.
People say “It’s immoral to buy a house for an investment, landlords must provide hosing for renters at cost.” and the turn right around in the next breath and state “A rental property is an investment.” Pick one. You can’t have both.
Of course there’s expenses involved. My point is that the equity part is the same and does not factor into the expenses. If you want to buy a share of some $100 stock but don’t have enough money for it, then you can take out a loan for that $100. Let’s say that every month, you pay 1$ in interest and $1 in principle on each payment for a total of $2/month. Your monthly expenses for owning this stock is $1, not $2. With each payment, you get $1 with of equity, and when the whole thing is paid off, you have something that is worth $100 which you paid $200 for.
Sounds like you’re grouping me with others that have differing opinions. Not that there would be any contradiction in anything I said even if that were my position. If you treat housing like an investment, then it mathematically behaves like any other investment. Morality does not factor into the math.