7 ms·
it feels like every share of income is at its lowest except for the ultra wealthy.
by scrumbledober 3mo ago
it feels like every share of income is at its lowest except for the ultra wealthy.
- smt88 3mo agoIt’s not. There are plenty of non-wealthy people who make money from things other than their labor. Small-time landlords are an example, as would be anyone who owns a small business and draws cash from profits rather than taking a salary.
- contagiousflow 3mo ago> non-wealthy > landlord If you think these two things are compatible you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble.
- opinion-is-bad 3mo ago[flagged]
- b40d-48b2-979e 3mo agobeing born into money is not a requirement to own several houses before 30. Do tell.
- scottyah 3mo agoLive in a poor place. There are plenty of cheap houses, but you do have to leave expensive areas (shocking, I know).
- bonesss 3mo agoSo “landlord” and “commercial landlord living entirely off of passive income” are worlds apart. Buying a fixer-upper outside of town with high-school and early 20s grinding, renting out 3+ rooms to cover the mortgage for painful years, working 80 hour weeks, refinancing against that first house into another under-maintained property where you live in half while upgrading the other, ending up with a rental duplex and drastically reduced living cost, is viable by 30. Maximizing youth savings, first house programs, and primary residence rules create less punitive economics. It sucks and will let one learn why landlord is a pain in the ass job, and relies on sweat equity and modest lifestyle, wanting to commit to real estate, and non-ideal properties. Trade school or skipping college for early income and low debt make the numbers crunch easier. Investing consistently into the market in your 20s probably out performs it by 65, and a young bankers lifestyle is a joy of its own, but: owning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors.
- b40d-48b2-979e 3mo agoowning property young is achievable for electricians, security guards, and janitors. The comment wasn't about buying your first house, it was "owning several properties by the time you're 30" which a janitor of all things absolutely cannot do.
- bonesss 3mo agoRead my comment again, and think more about what was said. I addressed multiple properties before 30 as a landlord, not first time buying as an employee. Because you are not accounting for cash flow & appreciation over time you are flat wrong. A non-landlord janitor saddled with student loans losing 30%+ of income to housing versus a landlord whose housing is covered that works as a janitor from the get-go have wildly different leverage opportunities and savings potential at 20 and 5 years down the road. Committing to property ownership instead of school and maximally exploiting living at home gets the down payment, committing to property improvement instead of lifestyle is what gears the investment. That massive monthly rental savings snowballs into a down payment in the 5 year picture, the first assets improvements and cash flow support lending for the subsequent property purchase, upgrades to which support refinancing and correcting cash flow in the original property. Backed by those assets and cash flow: multi-tenant properties, incorporation, or more aggressive flipping are straight shots backed by the appreciating assets and ongoing work income. Janitors can clean on the side, work in corporate chains, work in secure facilities, make overtime, juggle multiple jobs, or snowball their hustle into a cleaning company. A landlord-janitor can be creating a crew of live-together like-minded grinders and be building business wealth in parallel to their rental business in a synergistic loop. It is very possible, I know several people who done it, and know of numerous successful businesses structured around the same. A group of immigrants in a house with a cleaning van out front can be a respectable business. Five such houses could be an early retirement. The conceptual breakdown tends to be in willingness to sacrifice, and do hard unglamorous work. “Janitors of all things” can be smart entrepreneurs who grow wealth, just like how programmers, of all things, can misunderstand basic financial calculus.
- cool_dude85 3mo agoSo, are the landlords wealthy or not wealthy? I don't get it.
- tonyedgecombe 3mo agoMost landlords are leveraged up to the hilt. They may look wealthy from the outside but a close look at the figures says otherwise.
- artisinal 3mo agoNot American here. I know a couple of people who took out a second mortgage to buy a small appartement to rent out when mortgages rates were at 1%. They probably have €300k in equity in both the primary and secondary home. And around €600 in income from the rental. I do not consider that wealthy.
- torginus 3mo agoI would describe that as having invested in an appreciating asset (like stocks), and their main income comes from the gains of the property prices as they go up in value. Moreover, they leveraged themselves via loans to acquire income even faster. These gains might be realized at any point if they're willing to pay taxes for them. Having lots of money but choosing not to spend it doesn't make you any less wealthy.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- carlosjobim 3mo agoThe original comment said "ultra wealthy".
- bigstrat2003 3mo agoYou don't have to be especially wealthy to own a second house and rent it out. That isn't poor, certainly, but I wouldn't call it wealthy either.
- smt88 3mo ago> you need to talk to more people outside of your bubble My bubble of... not-ultra-wealthy people? Are you saying I need to talk to more ultra-wealthy people? This makes no sense.
- tancop 3mo agoim going to be controversial and say no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire. anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor (but not vice versa, you can work as a robber or corporate lobbyist). from line cooks to wall street ceos to open source volunteers and stay at home moms who dont get paid but still work. landlords and executives count because management is labor too. if your income comes from a trust fund or owning properties that you dont manage thats a passive reward for doing nothing. you are not productive. you are a parasite living on the back of everyone else and expecting indefinite rewards for a fixed amount of work you or your parents did years ago.
- triceratops 3mo agoWhat if you volunteer 30-40 hours a week but pay your bills with rental income? What's your position on that?
- 93po 3mo agoWhat if you dump toxic waste into a river to make money, but volunteer 30-40 hours a week? Does it make the dumping less unethical? The point isn't about doing labor, it's about not profiting off of other's labor or rent-seeking.
- triceratops 3mo agoRent-seeking is different from being a landlord. And I mean that in a "dictionary definition" way - they are literally different concepts. And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things. I was responding to the person who said "anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor". According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income. But what if the thing someone labors at doesn't make them income, and they support themselves with investment income? They've satisfied OP's "be useful to society" dictum, so why is it so immoral for them to be a landlord.
- 93po 2mo ago
- jagged-chisel 3mo agoThe annoying/sad/infuriating thing is the ultra wealthy don’t have “income.” Technically, according to IRS rules, much of what they experience (housing, food, etc) should be classified as income. But their lawyers and accountants help them keep that looking quite low.
- smt88 3mo agoThis report is only about wages, so even if the ultra-wealthy reported their real sources of income, they wouldn’t shut up as “labor” the way this defines it.
- Schiendelman 3mo agoI used to think this - but when I talked to a tax lawyer friend and we walked through the steps they take, usually they're just deferring taxation that does end up getting paid by an entity eventually.
- toomuchtodo 3mo agoIf they donate the wealth to their own foundation to continue to hold close and control, it doesn't get taxed. If they borrow against the wealth at low interest rates until they die and the basis is stepped up ("buy, borrow, die"), it doesn't get taxed. Certainly, deferment is a component, but there are obvious examples of the very wealthy operating in a manner to avoid taxes entirely when they're able to (realizing the benefit of the wealth without having to realize a taxable event). Trust stacking is a recent fad as well, although I don't have enough data to say whether it is a material concern from a tax revenue perspective. Silicon Valley Is Obsessed with 'Trust Stacking,' and the IRS Doesn't Like It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48727963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48727963 - June 2026
- Schiendelman 3mo agoThe cases you're talking about are all delaying taxation, not eliminating it. Eventually someone has to draw that wealth - the foundation has to spend for public benefit to be eligible for 501(c)3 status, for instance.
- scottyah 3mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- contagiousflow 3mo agoSource for this statistically?
- shimman 3mo agoThere is but you have to ignore the lived reality that Americans are struggling to afford healthcare, housing, utilities, education, and food costs all while the ultra wealthy are demanding the public invests trillions into vaporware.
- gegtik 3mo agomaybe the disconnect here is the claim was about 'income' which in isolation of living conditions, perhaps continues to rise and thus by the most narrow and useless definition, the OP is incorrect
- shimman 3mo agoThings barely increasing after nearly 40+ years of being completely flat isn't the win that poster thinks it is, maybe if you're doped up on neoliberalism it sounds nice but everything else people need to survive are also increasing in costs massively.
- scottyah 3mo agohttps://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-data-for-2024-shows-the-top-10-percent-accrued-the-highest-share-of-income-since-2000/#:~:text=The%20bottom%2050%20percent%20of%20households%20also%20made%20gains%2C%20although,share%20in%20this%20time%20period. https://equitablegrowth.org/u-s-income-data-for-2024-shows-t... Bottom 50% is increasing income with the top 10%, it's the middle class that's declining in the last 5 years. This was a quick google search, so I'll ask you to provide a source that's contrary else your comment was purely rhetorical and made in bad faith.
- ux266478 3mo agoIt's not necessarily limited to the ultra wealthy, but outside of a few key areas (as someone mentions, those profiting off of the inflationary spike, those in the real estate market, etc) it is more or less the case, yes.
- carlosjobim 3mo agoNot at all. The real estate share of income is probably at its highest among a lot of people who belong to the non-labouring class, but are far from ultra wealthy. But it's nice to have a scapegoat, isn't it?
- idiotsecant 3mo agoIf you belong to the 'non-laboring class' you are by definition the ultra wealthy. It's wild how much people are willing to slide goalposts to make themselves feel better.
- scottyah 3mo agoIt hurts the definition of the words when you use ultra wealthy to refer to the top 50%...
- idiotsecant 3mo agoYou think 50% of people don't labor?
- scottyah 3mo agoWhile about 50% to 60% of the adult U.S. population are active W-2 wage earners at any given time, the percentage that relies on labor exclusively (meaning they have zero capital income or assets to fall back on) sits right around 40% to 50% of working households.
- triceratops 3mo ago> 40% to 50% of working households Not people then.
- scottyah 3mo agoAre you arguing that the other people in a household are laboring, or do you think they're counting pets?