> there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services. I get what you're saying, but it reads like sophistry. Yes,

> there is nothing inherent in the nature of being a landlord that implies offering such services. I get what you're saying, but it reads like sophistry. Yes, _technically_, a landlord, can delegate all services. In practice, there's no single "tenant" who would do anything remotely capital-intensive, like fixing a roof. They just up-and-leave. > owner-residents It's called home-ownership. It's expensive for a reason, and the fact that parts of the housing stock are for rent, and there's a middle-man, is not it. > the landlord acting as a middleman Many people do not have the wherewithal and look for a middleman. Young, seniors, people on the move, rich people who have no emotional attachment to a house, ... The fact that Blackrock owns single family homes is due to an unfortunate combination of zoning, tax-structure, job concentration, ... creating the unique conditions that makes single family homes an attractive investment. Not because there's inherently something "extractive" about landlording. (I guess, in core Adam Smith terms, there is a case, the way he frames "rent" as distinct from capital and labor, but it's a theoretical framework, and much of it still stemmed from the feudal legacy in Europe, where landlords had divine and aristocratic rights to family property. And in any case, it's not the same as "rent", the check Americans write every month, which usually has a large labor component). I find speculation much more parasitic, and it's precisely that which land tax tries to address.