I'm not asking you or anyone to give away stuff for free. I am asking you to sell land and purchase shares. The links I provided talk about investing not donating. Instead of seeking returns on land itself, seek returns on capital. This is the whole point of Capitalism. In the United States, they have a big culture of entrepreneurship and business creation. In Canada, a larger percentage of the population wish to be rent seekers instead of entrepreneurs. This then moves economic investment from expanding the economy to activity that is over reliant on home prices. This is bad for the economy.

You tell me I'm not realistic because I don't recognize we live in a a capitalist economy. But investing in shares in capital markets and seeking returns on capital is the definition of Capitalism.

I currently own shares in publicly traded REITs, the very thing that you say should be attacked instead of you. But what really is the difference between my position and yours?

I don't have to deal with maintenance, tenants, etc. but you do. I also have a diversity of land types from residential to commercial and multiple locations instead of overly concentrated on one property and you just concentrate on one residential property. Income generated from shares from REITs and personal rentals are taxed the same, they have the same deductions and both use leverage to purchase Real Estate.

It seems to me you wish to take away my ability for investment and protect your own solely because prioritizing individual landlords over REITs gives you an advantage over me.

I don't have enough money to buy a rental property given today's housing prices (because other rental investors bid up the price) so I buy REIT shares, so why attack small(er) landlords (landlords through shares)?

The only other big difference between our positions is that I recognize my own investment (REITs) are causing problems in the housing market and I choose to redirect my capital to better solutions, you are determined to say you don't cause any problems and furthermore that you should be protected. I missed the deadline for investing in the Ottawa community land trust but am currently waiting so that I can then recall the capital I have and redeploy it but you sit and call it delusional. It is also more concentrated than my current investments so I have to look into diversifying as well.

The link to "ancient British law" was in support of the argument I made. This particular discussion has been going on since time immemorial, hence the link. At one point in the future the constitution and current laws will become "ancient Canadian law" but that doesn't negate it's effect. We still have the Monarchy even though it was established literally almost a millennium ago (1066). Saying it's ancient doesn't negate the fact it still has an effect. After all we still swear allegiance to the Monarch. And linking to it's formation doesn't negate the arguments made against it. Take for example our current King, King Charles III. His ancestor, King Charles I was beheaded (before the French revolution) and England established a Republic, then Charles II re-established the Monarchy. Those events still affects us to this day and the result of that period put more power into Parliament and away from absolute Monarchy. Who knows it might be fun for the history textbooks if Charles III is the end of the Monarchy once and for all :). The Founding Fathers of the United States also reference this very period and it was integral to the formation of their government. This lead to two English speaking countries side-by-side on this continent, with the current President of the United States vowing to make it one. You may not have known about it before but it still affects you. Just because people you don't like make a certain style of argument/support linking does not mean everyone who finds the same structure useful are the same.

The only delusional thing is the housing market and the biggest scam right now is current housing prices. Do you have an actual solution to this? Or is your only solution having you be a landlord and you getting tax deductions for mortgage and maintenance while a homeowner does not get the same benefit, thus we the taxpayer are subsidizing landlords? REITs get this benefit to, but you're opposed to them, which I agree. But also just have house prices go up and up and up, so more people rent and landowners get double benefit?

Rental units are used for extra income, so are REIT shares. Since both housing rental solutions get benefits that homeowners don't get, it is tax paying homeowners and renters that are subsidizing the lifestyle of landlords (you), REIT share holders (me), and their descendants forever because land titles are forever. Community Land Trust shares fix this by changing the structure of the land title so that the forever becomes a set number of years instead.

You said in an earlier comparison that you are like a credit union. But as I said you cannot be like a credit union, because the actual comparison to credit unions in housing is housing co-operatives. You said housing co-operatives are delusional, do you then think credit unions are delusional?

It seems to me that you wish to protect your investments, while attacking those above (large REIT share holders) and those below (small REIT share holders and Community Land Trusts).

Are there any policies that you think that are not a scam? We are in the middle of an election and all the major parties have put plans out. So far I only see you protecting yourself, not actually solving anything. Would expanding housing supply (build homes) be OK. Would reducing supply (cut permanent and temporary immigration) be OK? Would you be OK with a market situation where supply is so high (all parties promise a construction boom), and demand is so low (the liberals and conservatives have promised to cut immigration and foreign investment in housing), and prices cheap enough (the goal of the policies to get the young adult/youth vote) that people don't want to rent from your particular unit rendering your concentrated real estate investment useless (the result)?

Your position seems to me you need this money from renters to live your life and so are constantly talking about reality and me being delusional. Well, my investments are for retirement (which is a long way for me now) are based on reality. I think you call delusional and scams those policies which stop that extra money from reaching you to pay for what you need/want. Whereas, I call those types of investments that are not based on production but rather on mere ownership as rent seeking. Which I do partake in BTW but I am on my way to change my ways and redirect capital as I said before. What you don't care about, is that those other people who are renters cannot create wealth, that the extra money going to you to pay your bills cannot then be used by them to further themselves. Then why should I consider your position at all? I tried making companies to sell stuff to people but I run into the wall with people not having enough money due to rent and grocery prices. Why should I consider the position of those who hold unproductive investments when I myself trying to make productive investments?

It's very nice of you to call everything you don't like is delusional and to say that you wish I "understand you won’t change the mind of anyone that has the unfortunate inconvenience of living in a real world." Well I do live in the real world and see the actual effects. Maybe you should get yourself outside the delirium that current house prices are based in an sort of reality and the rent derived from those ridiculous house prices constitute anything productive.

Thank you for saying you are a landlord, that you depend on the rent that other people pay to live your life, that you depend on real estate instead of productive investments, and are unwilling to change your mind. And also you think that the solution should be to attack your competitors and protect you, so you're safe but your competitors are not. More "small" landlords should say such things. Then you, and others like you, can be excluded from discussions about actual solutions.