No, that's not what you're trying to tell me. You've ignored the main point of my comment and are arguing from the edge.
We both agree that large companies, people with crap tons of money, and entities that have enough money or power to adversely affect the rest of us should NOT own large portions of ANY asset in our country, including real estate.
There are only two ways to approach that concept, legislatively. Either a blanket law that affects all corporations equally, or a law that distinguishes between
a $100B mega corporation, and PompeiusMagnus Real Estate, Inc.
I'm not rich. I'm not Bill Gates. If the intent of your proposed law is to prevent people like Bill Gates from buying everything up, why do I have to suffer for it?
At the same time, without the protection that a corporation or LLC provides, some moron tenant might fall down the stairs and sue me personally for everything I own, including my personal assets, which would make it almost impossible to safely be a small landlord.
Sorry, but I'm going to defend my interests, as I assume you would as well.
My friend, you are entitled to your own opinion, regardless how wrong it may be.
"Laws should be uniform for everyone".
So, you're advocating for every person to pay the same amount of taxes, regardless of income?
You're advocating for felons to have access to firearms?
You're advocating for convicted child molesters to be allowed to work in day cares after they have "paid their debt to society"?
You're advocating for people with multiple DUIs to still be able to drive?
You're advocating for drag queens to hold story hour in libraries? I mean, if anyone else can hold story hour, and if we have laws that are uniform to all, then that is what you are advocating for, right?
No, of course you're not, but this would be the result if our "laws were uniform for everyone". Try thinking deeper than the surface level you seem to be limiting yourself to, and try to envision the unintended consequences of your position.
Understandable, but very short-sighted.
I own 4 properties that I rent out. They are owned by a corporation that I set up to shield my personal assets in case one of my tenants sues me.
I think far more important is that we create a legal distinction between gigantic corporations and small, family owned businesses.
Should Bill Gates he able to purchase 25% of Americans farmland? Enough the money he makes of that purchase 50% of real estate?
Should Rockefeller be able to have owned all the trains, railroads, and then charge whatever on oil?
I guess you neglected to read my third paragraph. That’s okay, I understand reading comprehension can be hard for some people.
Are Bill Gates or Rockefeller gigantic corporations, or are they two individuals?
What constitutes as a family owned business? Less than 50 employees?
What stops those top earners of that small family owned business from splitting off into their own corp or LLC, and purchasing more homes?
There's always ways around the system. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
No, that's not what you're trying to tell me. You've ignored the main point of my comment and are arguing from the edge.
We both agree that large companies, people with crap tons of money, and entities that have enough money or power to adversely affect the rest of us should NOT own large portions of ANY asset in our country, including real estate.
There are only two ways to approach that concept, legislatively. Either a blanket law that affects all corporations equally, or a law that distinguishes between a $100B mega corporation, and PompeiusMagnus Real Estate, Inc.
I'm not rich. I'm not Bill Gates. If the intent of your proposed law is to prevent people like Bill Gates from buying everything up, why do I have to suffer for it?
At the same time, without the protection that a corporation or LLC provides, some moron tenant might fall down the stairs and sue me personally for everything I own, including my personal assets, which would make it almost impossible to safely be a small landlord.
Sorry, but I'm going to defend my interests, as I assume you would as well.
You want to take the blindfold off justice and make her use that sword on entities with more money than you. Nice.
Yep. A small business should not have the same kind of regulation as a Walmart or a McDonalds.
And having different regulations for differing sizes of businesses is HARDLY “removing the blindfold of justice”, you drama queen.
Well I disagree with you completely. Laws should be uniform for everyone. A "small" business can poison or rob you as well as a large one.
My friend, you are entitled to your own opinion, regardless how wrong it may be.
"Laws should be uniform for everyone".
So, you're advocating for every person to pay the same amount of taxes, regardless of income?
You're advocating for felons to have access to firearms?
You're advocating for convicted child molesters to be allowed to work in day cares after they have "paid their debt to society"?
You're advocating for people with multiple DUIs to still be able to drive?
You're advocating for drag queens to hold story hour in libraries? I mean, if anyone else can hold story hour, and if we have laws that are uniform to all, then that is what you are advocating for, right?
No, of course you're not, but this would be the result if our "laws were uniform for everyone". Try thinking deeper than the surface level you seem to be limiting yourself to, and try to envision the unintended consequences of your position.