Harry Bosch
Contributor
Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.
I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.
Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live. They only exist because we accept that a person may acquire something they have no desire or need to use for themselves, purely in order to deprive others of it unless they pay a fee.My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.
If the goods and services of society were produced and distributed democratically, with the aim of meeting human wants and needs rather than siphoning money into the accounts of people who place barriers around human necessities.
Well, to be fair, you don't read many business books! Secondly, landlords provide an important service: they provide housing for people who either can't afford to buy or don't want to buy. It's not good for people to buy homes if they don't have the cash flow to afford (see 2008/09 crash). Secondly, it isn't economically smart to buy a house unless a person intends to live there for 5 years or more. Many local people today are extremely mobile, moving place to place to pursue their careers. They let landowners shoulder the up and down RE values.