Okay so I'm going to subtweet some Discourse going on in my TL right now, with the disclaimer up front that all of this is completely hypothetical as far as my own life goes (I've never collected rent from anyone): Suppose my parents die and leave me my childhood home
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
I take your point, but in Option 3, yes you've benefitted from the accumulated wealth in the house, and benefit from those investments, but you no longer contribute to literal physical ownership of living space you don't need.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT @arthur_affect
An investment portfolio spreads your capital in hundreds of different places, and sure, you're hoarding wealth, but unless you're doing billionaire style off-shoring, you're also cycling your money away from yourself.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT
I mean, kind of, but not really? Owning stock is highly tax advantaged, if that's what you mean
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Even without taxation, your investment fund is likely to be diversified, it won't all be property, not all the property will be as garbage as the worst, and it won't all be in the same street. Significantly reduces the amount your money becomes a hoard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT
I dunno what you're saying here, are you saying investing in stock is better because you don't make as much profit from it through capital gains This is actually false, a stock market index fund makes way more money in the long run than real estate on average
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
This is kind of what I mean, this is the fallacy I'm trying to get at Owning all of one thing somehow makes me more culpable (because I'm "directly" culpable) than owning many little pieces of many things I don't think that's really defensible
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.