It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is it morally right to own more than one property?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:03 PM
I ask this question because at the moment in the area I live property is at a premium and it is virtually impossible to get onto the property ladder. Yet we private landlords whom own twenty properties or more in just single town to get rent. We also have people that own maybe one extra house and use it as a kind of pension.

Is this morally right?

It is stopping my generation and future generations from owning property as these wealthy landlords are buying everything and pushing up the prices. It feels like throwing money away when renting and a lot of us are sick of seeing these landlords take our future away.

I can understand people having two or even three homes, maye a holiday home and a bed sit if they work far away in the week but when people own twenty properties you just want to say 'give me a chance'.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:06 PM
Sure it is unless you are a slum lord who does not care and in truth are out to destroy lives through some sick sense of control over the needy.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:11 PM
There needs to be rentals on the market, how else are young adults able to leave home and be on their own.

There are also people that want to live in a house, but don't want the responsibility of repairs and upkeep, so they also need a place to rent.

Prices go up, they also go down. People need to be ready to purchase when the price is low.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:22 PM
If you don't like it, move to a city/town/village where you do like it. Like it was mentioned above, I don't think 17-18 year olds are able to buy a house straight out of high school (on their own anyways) so they do need a place to stay if they want their independence.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
reply to post by bisonpowers

What's a holiday home? I believe everyone one should only have one place to live. If they want another property than they should rent it out at reasonable prices. It really depends if the landlords are good landlords or slum lords. Slum lords should not even be allowed to purchase even one property for rental. If a landlord has a good reputation for maintianing and renting at the property at affordable rates then I say yes they can own as many as they can afford to maintain.
On the other hand if they are buying up homes and driving up the prices then they should not be allowed to purchase anymore properties. I have seen landlords go into nice older homes that needed NO work and gentrify the place. What I mean by that is the put in granite counter tops, hot tubs, microwaves, hardwood floors just charge $1200 for a place that used to rent for $450. These homes will be in poorer to middle class areas. The rich people will never rent out the place so they find a family who has poor credit or are desperate; do not do a background check ask for an outragous deposit.The family is paying 80% of their income out to rent they don't sign a lease and they can't afford the place so they have to move. The landlord takes the families deposit fixes up the place a bit and raises the rent. This is how greedy landlords work. I say a landlord needs to establish themselves first once they have a good repuation they can buy more property. There should be rules in place to protect people from these greedy lanlords and slumlords!

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
What a dumb post. If someone want to own 100 properties and rent them for as much as the market allows, thats His right. Or should We be communist and restrict everything?

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:42 PM
is this what ATS is about the poor what about me people if you want something in this life make it happen if you don't it is nobody's responsability to take care of you this whole thing about higher wages and lower prices if you work a dumb job for dumb pay and you want to be treated like a smarty then get educated or experience i have been the boss in my field for years and had someone ask why they did not have a chance to be the boss i asked him what he spent his time doing and he loved sports knew everything about who was doing what i did not wast my time on that stuff i enjoyed what i did and there was my focus so he stopped wasting time on sports and within two years became a boss look if you want to drive the bus learn how to drive the bus don't just ride the bus and expect to be treated like your the driver

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:52 PM
OP, who decides morals ???
me for you or you for me ???
or, how 'bout we each decide our own

i do not need or desire multiple properties, however, the market determines occupancy and the rates accompanying it ... if a homeowner wishes to improve the property (gentrify - your word), why should they have to ask anyone if they are adhering to some imaginary morality code?

and, if you "rent" the property, what say in the matter do you think you should have ??

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
I see nothing wrong with it morally. As another has suggested though, it is what you do with that property that can make it moral or immoral. Slum lords, for example.

But in general, I have no problem with anyone owning as much property as they want.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by bisonpowers

Is it morally right to own more than one property?

I own three pieces of property that contain, in sum, about 37 acres. On one, I have a small firing range I and my family & friends use for shooting. On another, there is a small lake and an area we use for bonfires and parties and such. On the third, I and my family live.

We came into this property because we all worked like hell for a long time to buy it. We pay taxes on it, follow a number of city & county directives to keep it within code.

Now then, tell me why I should feel guilty? This land will be passed to my kids and to theirs after that.

Try and 'occupy' my land and I will be glad to see you clapped in irons.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by redoubt

What's the point of shooting? What is it for? Yikes. If it has no house to be rented out and is being passed onto a family member or someone will build a house to live in that eventually I don't have a problem with it.
I would be concerned with the whole shooting and guns. Never understand the need for these things?

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by vesco

We should all care for the poor for they are you and me. We are all interconnected. By the way I have a Masters in psychology and working on my gradaute degree in adult education. Tell me that I am uneducated or under educated? Why wouldn't ATS care for the poor? If people don't they are just inhumane selfish who want to be a slave to the status quo.
Are you suddenly wealthy? If you are not now you never will be so get over it.
edit on 9-10-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by jondave
What a dumb post. If someone want to own 100 properties and rent them for as much as the market allows, thats His right. Or should We be communist and restrict everything?

With respect I don't believe it is a dumb question. Maybe if you look at it from a purely capitalist perspective but there are other ways of thinking - no I don't believe the whole world should be communist either but the capitalist model is failing and there are restrictions everywhere anyway, don't tell me you believe America is still the land of the free?

I think there could be checks in place that provide everyone with a fair chance, If there are 100 homes in a village is it fair or 'morally' right to buy up those homes and prevent the future generations owning their own. Couldn't the landlord that owns the homes large unfair prices to future generations while holding a monopoly on property.

It's not so easy to just move when you have a job, friends, family and ties.

edit on 9-10-2011 by bisonpowers because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by bisonpowers

You are thinking for yourself which is good. You are asking the important questions that is smart. There are people who need homes. I have noticed when people express an opinion that is not the status quo there is always going to be some resitstance. (even on ATS).
I used to think that all ATS members were against the status quo; in fact the very term consiracy theorists lends itself to alternative thinking. I commend anyone who is putting people first before profit and trying to figure out the solutions to our collasping system.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:24 PM
i owned over 20 properties before i hit 30, at which point i sold em off

why? i hate tenants!

my parents are still landlords of trump caliber,

and i envy anyone who wants to deal with whiny tenants clogged toilets, garbage,recycling, dirty sidewalk FINES galore, fires, damage,depreciation, haggling for timely payments, defaulted tenants, evictions, etc etc in exchange for paper money.

to me, the liability and burden is way to great. what i see in US is a stark dichotomy between the low percent who own, tend to own alot, and then the majority who never even think of owning and live their life out paying rent and dont care for providing some good earth for their next of kin, and thats the problem with america, and historic housing prices and predatory lending are mostly to blame, it goes back to greedy bankers. theres no way in hell a 7ft wide (!) by 30 feet deep residential townhouse lot in manhattan should cost 20million dollars or a 10 by 10 ft room called an 'apartment' on like the 50th floor somewhere should cost a few million too, but thats how it is just crazy

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by dreamseeker

Yea it just seems too many people are trapped 'inside the box', either capitalist or communist, republican or democrat etc. On this site a lot of people feel the whole world should follow the US constitution, no doubt a brilliant work in it's day but maybe a little dated.

I'm just thinking there are surely other ways, and I'm pleased you see that too.

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:40 PM
Why should those that work harder than others not be allowed to enjoy their success? Those that graduate high school, attend college, pay for their college, and then hold down responsible jobs day in and day out.
Showing up for work on a timely basis and getting along and performing their jobs correctly. There are an awful lot of people who are irresponsible and keep society unstable. Save your money up and apply for HUD or FHA housing loans. Keep impeccable credit history. Buy houses that need lots of work cheaply, fix them up in one year. Sell for a higher price, building up your networth. Do this eight to nine times (9 houses/ 9 years), then buy furniture and live your adult life. There is a rate at which the houses can be exchanged with out being overly taxed for capital gains, usually one year and the money has to be immediately reinvested. Sacrafice and hardwork, along with good choices is how it happens. Teachers, firemen and police officers get a discount on some mortgages. I think its buying the forclosed properties, I would have to look that issue up.

People who invest in rental houses have all their money invested in the properties and make little to none in profits. This is called a long, long term investment. It is a business. A humanitarian project, because often those houses were forclosed on and in very bad shape. These investors are bringing the neighbor hood up and keeping drug gangs out of the neighbor hood that like to vandalize and party in those houses. Those investors are also giving jobs to the community handmen, keeping them working and off drugs. It is a community positive thing. A realestate investor is someone who makes very little money for a very long term investment. Often those houses are very difficult to resell. Depending on the neighbor hoods and the type of realestate. These investors also pay property taxes which benefit the communities. It takes a really patient and responsible investor to do the rental houses, because the renters usually tear the houses up and the investor has to prosecute. I think that form of investing is the most diffucult long term investment out there. It is a job, it is a business like any other. I hope this clarifies your question.
edit on 9-10-2011 by frugal because: sp

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by bisonpowers

If your playing the victim card....stop.

Why can't I have good stuff too? Maybe because you didn't work hard enough and save for your needs, but rather spent on your wants.

Let's take your question a step further. Is it morally right to own two cars? Multiple gaming systems? Multiple computers, iPads, iPods and cell phones?

Why do my neighbors get to have two pets and I have none but really want one?

See where I'm going with this?

Besides ask anybody who owns multiple properties and they will tell's their job. A form of self employment that provides a service to others who cannot or do not want own property.

Life ain't fair.

edit on 9-10-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:25 PM
I keep wandering where the money comes from to save? For me that would mean giving up a weeks worth of food, gas in my car or not paying a bill. Not everyone has the luxery to have money left over or own mutliple properties. I would bet most people on ATS are lving paycheck to paycheck and do not have these luxeries either.

new topics

top topics


log in