3 ms·

1 home qualifies you as an invrestor? So I’m an investor? That definition is whacked it should be at least 2 homes.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
1 and 5 non-primary residence.
jodrellblank 1y ago
“I own no homes, and am buying a home” “I own one home, and am buying a house” “That makes you an investor” “No that’s whack. When I buy a third - buying while owning two - then I will be an investor” You have an off-by-one error.
- selimthegrim 1y ago
  I own no homes, and must scream.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - phil21 1y ago
    These stats are tracking folks who buy a second property intended as an investment - typically renting it out but not always. You’re not a mom and pop landlord if you’re just buying a second home to move into with intent to sell your current one.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      >You’re not a mom and pop landlord if you’re just buying a second home to move into with intent to sell your current one. That's my point. The person I'm replying to is being obtuse and sarcastically arguing that the investor criteria requires owning 3+ as an attempt to use absurdity to force people to admit that 2+ makes you an "investor" thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors".
      - jodrellblank 1y ago
        blindriver: "you must own two homes and then buying a third makes you an investor" me: "no, that would mean people who own one home to live in and one home to rent out are not investors. Owning one and investing in a second makes you an investor." You: "you are sarcastically and obtusely arguing that being an investor requires owning 3+ homes!" No, I'm not arguing that. > "thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors"" Nobody was talking about people who own two homes while moving houses. But if we were then the choice is (people who own a second house to rent are not classed as investors just in case they get confused with people moving house) which is wrong permanently and silly, vs (people who own two homes while selling their old home are classed as investors for a while) which is wrong temporarily but not too unreasonable, then I will pick the latter.

1 and 5 non-primary residence.

“I own no homes, and am buying a home” “I own one home, and am buying a house” “That makes you an investor” “No that’s whack. When I buy a third - buying while owning two - then I will be an investor” You have an off-by-one error.

selimthegrim 1y ago
I own no homes, and must scream.
potato3732842 1y ago
[flagged]
- phil21 1y ago
  These stats are tracking folks who buy a second property intended as an investment - typically renting it out but not always. You’re not a mom and pop landlord if you’re just buying a second home to move into with intent to sell your current one.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    >You’re not a mom and pop landlord if you’re just buying a second home to move into with intent to sell your current one. That's my point. The person I'm replying to is being obtuse and sarcastically arguing that the investor criteria requires owning 3+ as an attempt to use absurdity to force people to admit that 2+ makes you an "investor" thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors".
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      blindriver: "you must own two homes and then buying a third makes you an investor" me: "no, that would mean people who own one home to live in and one home to rent out are not investors. Owning one and investing in a second makes you an investor." You: "you are sarcastically and obtusely arguing that being an investor requires owning 3+ homes!" No, I'm not arguing that. > "thereby classifying the people who are simply swapping homes like you stated as "investors"" Nobody was talking about people who own two homes while moving houses. But if we were then the choice is (people who own a second house to rent are not classed as investors just in case they get confused with people moving house) which is wrong permanently and silly, vs (people who own two homes while selling their old home are classed as investors for a while) which is wrong temporarily but not too unreasonable, then I will pick the latter.